85 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
85 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

UK domain name registrar shuts down 1200 sites

by CliveG
73 replies
The UK's domain name registrar has today shut down 1,200 websites on the instruction of the Metropolitan Police's Central e-Crime Unit.

See Latest News for more information.
#1200 #domain #registrar #shuts #sites
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    So a local police force has the authority to shut down a domain URL that is licensed by an international organization?

    I know the UK is screwed up, but dayumm.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1454890].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard A.Cox
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      So a local police force has the authority to shut down a domain URL that is licensed by an international organization?

      I know the UK is screwed up, but dayumm.


      Yes, unthinkable of us daft Brits to go after those poor impoverished criminals like that
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1454911].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      So a local police force has the authority to shut down a domain URL that is licensed by an international organization?

      I know the UK is screwed up, but dayumm.
      That's an odd response. Surely closing down scammers and crooks is a good thing? If that's screwed up, I hope they keep screwing!

      Martin
      Signature
      Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455024].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe118
        Originally Posted by Martin.Avis View Post

        That's an odd response. Surely closing down scammers and crooks is a good thing? If that's screwed up, I hope they keep screwing!

        Martin
        Thats a very odd response. Where is due process in this sequence of events?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455914].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Thomas
          Originally Posted by Joe118 View Post

          Thats a very odd response. Where is due process in this sequence of events?
          Due process simply means that the State treats individuals in accordance with the law of the land.

          When you purchase a .UK domain, you agree that the contract of purchase is made under British law, regardless of where you are from (and you also agree that you aren't purchasing an item of property anyway). If the (British) owner of the domain registry cancels your domain because they were informed by the (British) police unit responsible for the detection of electronic crime against British citizens, that it is not in compliance with British law, then you have been treated in accordance with the law of the land (Britain) you agreed to be bound by when you purchased the domain in the first place.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bev Clement
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      So a local police force has the authority to shut down a domain URL that is licensed by an international organization?

      I know the UK is screwed up, but dayumm.
      If you saw it was all .co.uk domain names

      A local police force, you really know nothing about The Met and their e-crime unit. They work with the FBI and other major police around the world.
      Signature
      Your Own Product Created By Top Ghostwriters
      WSO - Diet Niche - Massive PLR Package Run Your Own Diet Membership Site
      15 Health PLR Books...Price Starts At $10
      Writing Course For Higher Pay Days
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455025].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      So a local police force has the authority to shut down a domain URL that is licensed by an international organization?

      I know the UK is screwed up, but dayumm.
      Nominet is a UK organization.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kenneth L
    I am glad to see the crackdown. I am fed up of the small minority on the Internet who ruin it for the majority of us who want to provide honest value to our customers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1454999].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    I'm simply commenting on their apparent authority to cause a registrar of an internationally controlled body (ICANN) to yank a site at the domain level.

    Going after a local hosting company, etc... I can see based on jurisdiction.

    But messing with a domain is much bigger stuff.

    That's my overall point.

    I don't sympathize with the criminals in the least.I don't have any love for them and I am glad to see them shut down.

    But I am dubious of any such effort by a localized law enforcement agency to terminate internet access at the domain level without due process.

    In the US we have this presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.

    What if a particular individual happened to host a blog that was critical of the local law enforcement for some reason - and the blogger ended up on the receiving end of a false charge of criminal behavior and his income terminated at the root domain level (meaning he can't even move his established brand outside of the jurisdiction of the rogue law enforcement until things got sorted out).

    Even though it's being used as toilet paper more and more, I am still thankful of our due process and the Bill of Rights here in the US.

    Bev, they're local to the UK and certainly suboordinate in authority to a global body.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455339].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      I'm simply commenting on their apparent authority to cause a registrar of an internationally controlled body (ICANN) to yank a site at the domain level.
      They instructed NOMINET to take down .co.uk domains, not ICANN. NOMINET is the controller of UK domains. The jurisdiction was local.

      But I am dubious of any such effort by a localized law enforcement agency to terminate internet access at the domain level without due process.
      Therein lies the problem. The domains were owned and operated by Far East criminals, but were there to scam and steal from British citizens. Due process, if even possible in this case, would simply have resulted in a protracted international wrangle that was unlikely to solve anything.

      I'm sure that if your countrymen were being scammed by thieves you be very glad the FTA stepped in to stop it. Oh wait - they are doing just that right now. And we keep being told that it doesn't matter if you live and operate outside of US territory, they can still get you.

      In the US we have this presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.
      Really? Tell that to Frank Kern! And in a lot of cases, Homeland Security has nailed that particular coffin shut recently.

      What if a particular individual happened to host a blog that was critical of the local law enforcement for some reason - and the blogger ended up on the receiving end of a false charge of criminal behavior and his income terminated at the root domain level (meaning he can't even move his established brand outside of the jurisdiction of the rogue law enforcement until things got sorted out).
      The trouble with what ifs is that while you are pondering what might happen, the criminals are sticking their hands in your pockets.

      Martin
      Signature
      Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455429].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bev Clement
    Again, did you read it was only sites using the .co.uk

    Metropolitan Police Service - Homepage read it on their website

    Local might mean something different in the UK to the US. They are the major police force in the UK. Local means the local branch of the police. The Met are not just local as in London, they cover far more.

    Depends on who the global body is, as to whether they are subordinate or not.

    So, a person in the States is under investigation for a suspected crime like fraud, money laundering, why do your police freeze their bank accounts, before they stand before a jury? Isn't that judging a person before they are found guilty or it is OK because it's in the US?

    I really think if you understood what you call a localized police force in the UK which is totally different from the US, and see what and why they have done it, you might understand it better.

    If you read the report you would see it was organized crime not some blogger who didn't like the Met.
    Signature
    Your Own Product Created By Top Ghostwriters
    WSO - Diet Niche - Massive PLR Package Run Your Own Diet Membership Site
    15 Health PLR Books...Price Starts At $10
    Writing Course For Higher Pay Days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr. Enthusiastic
    From the article, it looks like these sites are under investigation - not only no convictions, but also not even any charges brought. Also looks like an administrative choice by the police, without the courts reviewing them. No warrant, no court order.

    Isn't this a violation of due process, without any judicial review or opportunity of appeal, trial or rules of evidence? The kind of thing that the common law legal tradition is supposed to prevent, because of the massive potential for abuses?

    The point is not whether shutting down these domains would have been found reasonable, if checks and balances and had been been applied. The point is that there apparently was nothing beyond the police saying, "Jump for us, just because we said so," and the registrar saying, "how high please Sirs?"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455419].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    So basically, "We think these guys are scammers... nay, we have powerful evidence that they are scammers. So rather than provide due process to preserve rights of potentially innocent people, we'll forego due process because it's too.... complicated."

    This is a big difference of perspective because we have this thing called the Bill of Rights. Our cultural differences, and our orientation in perspective is certainly distanced by the foundation in worldview.

    In the US, the right of the individual to due process is paramount. The US view is that generally, it's better to have 10 criminals to go free than convict a single innocent man. We insure ourselves and pay higher fees for things because fraud is an accepted cost of doing business.

    @Bev, my view of localized law enforcement is municipal police, or a county sheriff. Even in very large cities and counties - even entire state police forces, do not have the authority to simply order such things of civil entities. It requires a warrant from a judge - and even then would be a search warrant. Revoking private property like a website or a domain would likely result in a reversal of conviction on appeal.

    In America, we understand that the .GOV is inherently screwed up, and becomes too powerful if left to its own devices. Our inalienable individual rights were simply pre-existing and not granted by the government or even the people, but enumerated in the founding documents of this nation.

    Government is inherently flawed and not to be trusted to preserve the rights of an individual.

    I think it goes back to some guys who threw a rowdy party in the Boston Harbor in protest of another guy with a funny hat named George.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455574].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Michael,

      It's virtually impossible for any of us to say whether this is a good or a bad thing, as we only have two articles to read.

      For example -

      From this one -

      Intelligence showed that the vast majority of the sites were registered from Asia, despite their UK domain names, mostly using false or misleading details.
      I don't know the exact rules, but I was under the impression that -

      a) you needed to live in/have a business based in - the country in question, regarding a country specific domain TLD (EG .co.uk)

      b) you must not put misleading/incorrect contact details on any domain

      ...and as far as I know, these alone are enough for you to lose your domain, if discovered.

      Plus -

      which purported to sell designer items - including Ugg Australia Boots, ghd hair straighteners, and jewellery from Tiffany & Co and Links of London. Innocent shoppers were duped into making what appeared to be bargain purchases, but received either nothing at all or counterfeit products.
      Sounds like the designer brands might be putting pressure on them to act as well.

      Victims also ran the potential risk of the criminals stealing their identity for misuse elsewhere. The websites are thought to have generated millions of pounds for the gangs which could then be used to fund other illicit activity.
      That second sentence suggests that this has been going on/known about, for some time. Therefore, one would assume that they were getting all of their legalities in place in order to shut them down - for all we know, it could have taken years for them to arrange this, all the while the sites are fraudulently trading.

      Consumer Direct, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and manufacturers also helped to identify the fraudulent web sites.
      This would suggest that there are quite a lot of members of the public making claims about these sites, in order to have all of that lot involved, and as mentioned above, the manufacturers were also on the case. I imagine selling counterfeit goods activates certain laws, as it's damaging a legitimate business. And if they have sent these counterfeit goods out and they have been proven to be counterfeit, that would appear to be something resembling 'proof' of illegal activity.

      My point - we don't know everything. I would assume that they have got all of their 'ducks in a row' before acting to close them down. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would imagine if there are 1000s of people presenting evidence that they have been ripped off, and the perpetrators are untraceable, after certain processes have taken place, there would be laws in place that allow the PCeU to take this action.

      For all we know, after trying to contact the vendors and failing, the police may have had to go to court to gain a ruling in order that they could act in this way - we just don't know.

      If there weren't any laws in place to allow this kind of action, it would be impossible to stop it, with the exception of going after their payment processor. And if that is also abroad....
      Signature


      Roger Davis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455610].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mr. Enthusiastic
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        For all we know, after trying to contact the vendors and failing, the police may have had to go to court to gain a ruling in order that they could act in this way - we just don't know.
        If that is the case, it's really sloppy journalism, and it's also a huge missed positive publicity opportunity for the government to not announce all the agencies involved. In the U.S. there would probably have been an enormous press conference with the police, FBI, judge, registrar company CEO, etc. describing how they infiltrated the ring and how they are confident that trials will end the scam ring.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455672].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Mr. E,

          If that is the case, it's really sloppy journalism
          Possibly, but the two articles we have are from the police website and also nominet - so they're not really 'journalists.'

          it's also a huge missed positive publicity opportunity for the government to not announce all the agencies involved. In the U.S. there would probably have been an enormous press conference with the police, FBI, judge, registrar company CEO, etc. describing how they infiltrated the ring and how they are confident that trials will end the scam ring.
          Possibly, but on the police website they have announced who was involved. And who knows, as I hinted at above, perhaps this was a really messy, drawn out operation due to the complicated legal process required.

          Perhaps they did nothing for years because their hands were tied up in paperwork and beaurocracy, and in the meantime people were getting scammed and cloned.

          We don't know. I'm sure if there was a way for the gov to get some good publicity they would have taken it, without a shadow of a doubt.

          The websites are thought to have generated millions of pounds for the gangs
          They may have got them closed down, but perhaps they don't want to make a song and dance about it while also informing other foreign gangs that the total penalty for operating this scam is 'eventually getting your sites shut down.'
          Signature


          Roger Davis
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455701].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mr. Enthusiastic
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            Hi Mr. E,

            Possibly, but the two articles we have are from the police website and also nominet - so they're not really 'journalists.'
            I apologize for a rush to judgment about that, I thought the references were to news reports.

            I agree that there may have been a good cause for stealth during the investigation. I'm just surprised by the apparent ability of private property to be confiscated without a court order, on the basis of only an accusation. If that's not what actually happened I'll be interested to learn more about the story.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455990].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Thomas
      Even though the MPS (better known as Scotland Yard to many Americans) is primarily responsible for the policing of the Greater London area, it is also tasked by the British Government with certain national-level policing functions in the UK, including the intelligence-led disruption of e-crime targeted at the British public by organised crime and terrorist groups, and, in that capacity, has instructed the (British, not international) owner of the .UK registry, to revoke registrations of British domains in order to comply with the (British) laws under which that registry operates.

      Where's the problem in that? :confused:

      And what (Michael and Mr. Enthusiastic), does it have to do with how super-duper fantastic everything is in the US, where everybody is equal before the law (even if they're accused of being terrorists), innocent people never get wrongly convicted of anything, and the adminstration of justice doesn't depend on how deep your pockets are? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455912].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mr. Enthusiastic
        Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

        ... (British, British, British) ...
        Where's the problem in that? :confused:

        And what (Michael and Mr. Enthusiastic), does it have to do with how super-duper fantastic everything is in the US, where everybody is equal before the law (even if they're accused of being terrorists), innocent people never get wrongly convicted of anything, and the adminstration of justice doesn't depend on how deep your pockets are? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
        Isn't this a report that private property was seized and destroyed based on an allegation? Without due process of any kind of judicial review or appeal process? If that's what happened, it does seem to me to be a problem according to both UK and US values of limited government.

        I've not claimed that the US system is perfect, and I'm no flag-waving jingoist either. I like most of what the written U.S. Constitution has to say. I respect that most Brits seem to like their system. In both cases, the question for every generation is whether those in power are living up to the guidelines that are supposed to prevent even accidental abuses of power. So I'd appreciate if we could discuss this particular incident according to its facts. Caricatures and straw men don't help us find truth or wisdom.

        Obviously any system involving people will have flaws, because people make mistakes. That's not a good reason to abandon moral principles when they seem to not be expedient. Maybe the current administration, in any land, is totally upstanding. If they are, they should follow the rules and not create a precedent that could lead to subversion of justice.

        I want to learn more about what process, if any, the London Metro Police had to go through before forcing many people to lose their domain names. Sure, they might have been scary scammers. They might also have included some innocent people, or people naively misled into a scam. We don't know all of that yet, do we?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456019].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Thomas
          Originally Posted by Mr. Enthusiastic View Post

          Isn't this a report that private property was seized and destroyed based on an allegation? Without due process of any kind of judicial review or appeal process?
          No, your contract of purchase is not for an item of property. A .UK domain isn't property (is any domain, I wonder?) and (according to the contract) has no "owner". What you purchase is essentially (some amount of) control over an entry in a database, but that control can be revoked if you don't comply with the terms and conditions you agreed to at the time of purchase (such as not using it in contravention of British law).

          Btw, you can be sure there's lots to this story that hasn't been disclosed to the public. Scotland Yard wouldn't have simply phoned up Nominet and said, "Hey, shut down these sites right away!", to which Nominet replied, "Sure, no problem!". At the very least, I'd imagine there were many long hours of discussion between the Police and Nominet's legal people before the instruction to shut them down was actually carried out.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456056].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi Mr. E,

            I respect that most Brits seem to like their system
            I didn't allude to that one, and I think you might also be assuming that other replies are from Brits, when they're possibly not.

            From my (Brit) perspective, even as a webmaster, I'm not overly concerned about this situation. I'm more concerned about a myriad of other much greater abuses of power and policing disasters that are currently happening here. :rolleyes: This is nothing in comparison...

            police fail

            police scam £8m

            undemocratic abuse of power

            :rolleyes:
            Signature


            Roger Davis
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author doctfeelgood
    The reason that the met closed those sites down was because of Fraud. They were operating in Asia not Uk even though they had .co.uk in their domain names. Many people have been scammed by buying designer clothes etc. Good on the Met its about time they stop these scammers. But i'd like to know how they got their money cos we all know payment gateways are'nt that easy to get these days?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1455982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    Well Roger, you certainly shed some more light on the circumstance. The article certainly leaves a lot of holes in the story, particularly to non-UK folks that aren't familiar with UK-specific TLDs, etc.

    I agree that the terms of the regionalized registrar leave the scammers open to revocation of their domain under the UK political subdivision.



    @Thomas... I didn't say everything was super-duper fantastic in the USA. But as screwy as the government is here as well, we still have a better orientation on the rights of the individual by virtue of design. That's one of the unique attributes to the US - rights aren't "granted" by the government or even the people by vote. They are pre-existing, granted by God, the creator, the grand architect of the universe, whomever, and cannot be relinquished, traded, sold, or revoked.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      @Thomas... I didn't say everything was super-duper fantastic in the USA. But as screwy as the government is here as well, we still have a better orientation on the rights of the individual by virtue of design. That's one of the unique attributes to the US - rights aren't "granted" by the government or even the people by vote. They are pre-existing, granted by God, the creator, the grand architect of the universe, whomever, and cannot be relinquished, traded, sold, or revoked.
      ahh...that is the case with all democratic Countries...

      No one knows what procedures went in place to remove these domains from the UK Registrar but these people will have the opportunity to plead their case in a UK court if they don't agree. They might have already been given that opportunity. I highly doubt the cops just called the helpline and asked for this.co.uk and that.co.uk to be removed.

      Lots of ridiculous assumptions from a news report that could be total rot.
      Signature

      - Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
      - You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
      - Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns
      Connect with me on LinkedIn
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456673].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bev Clement
    and we know Godaddy never closed down people's domain without a court order
    Signature
    Your Own Product Created By Top Ghostwriters
    WSO - Diet Niche - Massive PLR Package Run Your Own Diet Membership Site
    15 Health PLR Books...Price Starts At $10
    Writing Course For Higher Pay Days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456041].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr. Enthusiastic
    Thanks for clarifying, Roger.

    My goal should have been to refocus the conversation on the facts of the case here.

    I also don't see yet whether there's a lesson for UK and worldwide marketers to be wary of potential seizure of their domain names. I'd already seen some horror stories that GoDaddy has a history of shutting down domain names from complaints without any investigation, making some people suggest NameCheap as a better option. That was without the police being involved, just some individual who complained directly to GoDaddy.

    I'll check back in a day to see if there's an update on the actual news. Until then, it looks like what we'll have here will be political opinions that don't change anyone's minds. I can get that just as well outside of the marketing niche. I can't learn as much about online marketing anywhere else, so I'm off to the business threads.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456149].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Mr. Enthusiastic,

      Until then, it looks like what we'll have here will be political opinions that don't change anyone's minds. I can get that just as well outside of the marketing niche. I can't learn as much about online marketing anywhere else, so I'm off to the business threads.
      I hope we didn't dampen your enthusiasm
      Signature


      Roger Davis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456221].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author theimdude
        Friend this is victory for consumers. Read the article as it seems it has been an investigations for a while and all parties is involved.

        Also you are suppose to be a citizen of the UK to own a .co.uk I own 2 and don't live in the UK so I suppose I am a criminal aren't I.............edit I gave them to a dude in the UK but he hasn't fetched them as yet.

        This operation was instigated by the PCeU to target the criminal misuse of the UK domain name system, with the objective of preventing harm to British citizens and making it safer to trade online.
        The PCeU worked in partnership with Nominet - the body responsible for UK domain name registrations and one of the world's largest internet registries, managing over eight million domain names. As a result the PCeU has deregistered 1,219 website domain names - taking them down at the registry level to prevent re-registration.



        That is victory in the area of internet scams so lets be happy rather than debate what is right or wrong on what the authorities did.
        Signature
        Do you want 30 back-links in my PRIVATE BLOG network for ONLY $20 ???
        [LIMITED ACCESS + FREE ARTICLE INCLUDED OR YOUR OWN]

        CLICK HERE NOW
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TelegramSam
    Get rid of scammers and con artists for sure.

    But how long will it be before some innocent company is closed down?

    Perhaps for making "politically incorrect" statements, or anti establishment comments.

    What with Sky High taxes, CCTV, DNA database, Phone Tapping, Email Watching et al, it sure ain't the quaint Old England it used to be.

    Sam
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456243].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timpears
    Well I am all for shutting down illegal activity. But I saw nothing in the story that indicated that the people behind these sites had been convicted of any crime. I may be wrong, as there was not much information in that story. But the sites were shut down in an investigation. Isn't that handing down the sentence before the trial?
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456485].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
    Hi Tim,

    websites run by organised criminal networks which purported to sell designer items - including Ugg Australia Boots, ghd hair straighteners, and jewellery from Tiffany & Co and Links of London. Innocent shoppers were duped into making what appeared to be bargain purchases, but received either nothing at all or counterfeit products.
    Quote from here.

    Sending nothing, or counterfeit goods, particularly when sold as genuine, is against the law. If 1000s of people complain, providing transaction details and the goods, and then they find -

    Intelligence showed that the vast majority of the sites were registered from Asia, despite their UK domain names, mostly using false or misleading details. That made it almost impossible for victims to complain about poor quality, counterfeited items or goods not received. It also makes it difficult for Trading Standards or other law enforcement agencies to take action.
    ...meaning they can't even contact the webmasters - surely that's enough to be able to carry out the actions they did?

    If not, what is? How could you stop a crime being committed when the individuals committing it are uncontactable and in a country where they can't be contacted/served/indicted etc? The only way to stop it and protect the public was used.

    Plus, they agreed a contract when they purchased the domains which states that if they use false contact info the domain can be taken off them.

    But I said all of this above.

    Isn't that handing down the sentence before the trial?
    No. They haven't been sentenced. They haven't been handed a punishment because it is impossible to because of where they live.

    They have simply been stopped from trading on the domains that they were using.

    I'm all for individual freedom, particularly freedom from gov overstepping the mark. But most people here aren't even bothering to put a coherent argument together, or checking simple facts like the authors of the articles.

    A question for all of you saying 'they haven't been convicted of any crimes' -

    If I go into a bank with a gun and threaten to shoot people if I don't get the money - do I have to be 'convicted of a crime' before anyone is allowed to stop me from committing further crime?

    Do the police have to hold a quick court session at the scene of the *alleged* crime, examine the evidence, find me guilty and convict me, before they can stop me from pulling the trigger?
    Signature


    Roger Davis
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456575].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timpears
    @ExRat - I am not a lawyer, so I don't really know. It was also done in the UK and while I am British, I have spent most of my life in the USA and am not familiar enough with UK law to know. These people probably deserve what happened to them. But there is something about it that just bothers me. It is simply that they were not convicted of any crime, as best as I can tell.

    No matter what crime I am accused of, I have the opportunity to present my case in court before sentence is passed on me. I see nothing in the story that indicated that this was the case. The persons were accused and then sentenced without a trial. That is just not how justice is supposed to happen, the way I am accustomed to.

    Don't get me wrong, I am no bleeding heart liberal. My thought process is exactly opposit to that. But the story I read said nothing about any court orders for the companies to cease operations based on any hearings. Maybe there were some, but the story did not go into that. So there is much that I don't know, but based on what I do know, I would not have enough information to warrent this action. Even though I think it is probably deserved.
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456624].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Tim,

      No matter what crime I am accused of, I have the opportunity to present my case in court before sentence is passed on me.
      Can you understand the subtle difference between these two scenarios -

      a) being prevented from trading

      b) being sent to prison

      Hint - b) is a sentence/conviction, a) is not.

      The police are allowed (and encouraged) to stop crimes from being committed, by using the powers bestowed upon them, within the rules that are provided for them. Being prevented from continuing to commit crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime and sentenced for it.

      It shouldn't need a lawyer to understand that.
      Signature


      Roger Davis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456643].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timpears
    I don't like defending criminals, but I would hope that if I am ever in a situation similar to this, that I get the presumption of innocence before the penalty is handed down. I just don't see that there is any presumption of innocence here, both by you and the police. I am sure there is more to it that i don't know about, which would tend to influence my thinking on this. There was much that must have been omitted from the story that I read. I believe that there must have been some kind of hearing and court order for the police to have done this. But none of that was mentioned. So without that information, I can't justify taking someone's business away from them without a trial.

    I don't see how your "a) being prevented from trading", is not a penalty. It may not be a prison term, but then a lot of penalties handed down by the court don't end up with people going to jail. It is still a penalty, loss of income. Very similar to getting a fine, it costs money. And while it is probably well deserved, I can't see that it was done ethnically. I have to believe that it conforms to law in the UK, and also that there was more court documents that I am not privy to that justifies this. All I am saying is that based on what I know, it seems like they jumped the gun.
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456734].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
    Hi Tim,

    I would hope that if I am ever in a situation similar to this, that I get the presumption of innocence before the penalty is handed down. I just don't see that there is any presumption of innocence here, both by you and the police.
    Signature


    Roger Davis
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author greenovni
    The funny thing is that they are not helping the people. They are helping the companies that have complained about their trademarks.

    This is not about criminals making money, this is about trademarks.

    This is a very nasty precedence!

    Let's say that I am an internet marketer and that I had family within whatever police network is now trampling on due process. All I would have to do is ask my family member to "clear google" out of this whole list of bad, eastern descent, criminal domains.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456885].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
      Banned
      Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

      The funny thing is that they are not helping the people. They are helping the companies that have complained about their trademarks.

      This is not about criminals making money, this is about trademarks.

      This is a very nasty precedence!
      "As part of Operation Papworth, the PCeU this week targeted websites run by organised criminal networks which purported to sell designer items - including Ugg Australia Boots, ghd hair straighteners, and jewellery from Tiffany & Co and Links of London. Innocent shoppers were duped into making what appeared to be bargain purchases, but received either nothing at all or counterfeit products. Victims also ran the potential risk of the criminals stealing their identity for misuse elsewhere. The websites are thought to have generated millions of pounds for the gangs which could then be used to fund other illicit activity."


      Were Companies mentioned??


      At the end of the day, Nominet's T&C were violated - and as such they have a right to do what they did?? Or am I reading a different story?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456899].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author greenovni
        Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

        "As part of Operation Papworth, the PCeU this week targeted websites run by organised criminal networks which purported to sell designer items - including Ugg Australia Boots, ghd hair straighteners, and jewellery from Tiffany & Co and Links of London. Innocent shoppers were duped into making what appeared to be bargain purchases, but received either nothing at all or counterfeit products. Victims also ran the potential risk of the criminals stealing their identity for misuse elsewhere. The websites are thought to have generated millions of pounds for the gangs which could then be used to fund other illicit activity."


        Were Companies mentioned??


        At the end of the day, Nominet's T&C were violated - and as such they have a right to do what they did?? Or am I reading a different story?

        & here we go!

        Yes, they are protecting the companies, not the people.

        All that story spoke about was about counterfeit items which equals trademark infringement.

        If the websites generated "millions of pounds" then why not go and freeze the bank accounts of the "bad" guys, put them in prison, cancel their merchant account etc.

        All they did was take their domain so no one could find them online.

        What is to stop them from pulling out 16 pounds to buy another domain name? What is to stop them from buying 100s of domain names if the only "slap on the wrist" is that your domain name is going to be taken away?

        This is all about the companies - not the people!

        Sh*t! - They should also take Ebay.co.uk as that website too is full of counterfeit items!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    I don't see it as being screwed up at all. I'd be furious if the police had evidence that I'd been ripped off and those responsible were simply permitted to do it to others because trial and conviction weren't possible, and I'd be really outraged if I were one of those others and ended up being ripped off because known fraudsters had been allowed to continue their practices.

    It makes such sense to me that I'm surprised it happened at all. I'm used to seeing much more crackpot methods of policing of this country.
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Greenovni,

      From the Police article -

      Intelligence showed that the vast majority of the sites were registered from Asia, despite their UK domain names, mostly using false or misleading details.
      From Nominet -

      16 We may cancel or put the domain name into a special status by notifying you if:

      16.1 we receive independent proof that you have provided significantly inaccurate, not correct, unreliable or false contact details (including names), failed to keep your contact details up to date, or failed to give us those details at all;

      16.2 you have broken any part of condition 7 or 8;

      ..............insert.............

      7.2 any identity and contact information you (either yourself or through your agent) send us must be correct;

      7.4 by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;

      7.5 you are entitled to register the domain name;

      ............../insert................

      [snip]

      16.4 you have broken any of the conditions (including the rules, DRS policy and DRS procedure) and (in the case of a matter which it is possible to put right and which is not covered by condition 6.3, 16.1 to 16.3 or 17) you do not put it right within 30 days of us notifying you.
      Is that still not clear?

      Yes, they are protecting the companies, not the people.
      No, they're protecting the companies AND the people.
      Signature


      Roger Davis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456944].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author greenovni
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi Greenovni,

        From the Police article -



        From Nominet -



        Is that still not clear?
        Due process my friend, due process. The problem is that due process is not given. What is there to stop them from taking YOUR domains is someone screams "counterfit" about your affiliate websites?

        If what you wrote above is the case, then they should take eBay.co.uk which is registered to an American company and full of counterfit items.

        I live in Orlando, Florida. Have a company registered in the UK, have an UK domain name for that company etc. Does that make me a criminal because I live in the US with a few tiny assets in the UK?

        If that was the case, then 100s of HUGE corporations would not be able to do business with the UK.

        The UK is a police state. With the highest concentration of law enforcement cameras per capita than anywhere in the world.

        You guys should not let the .Gov roll over your rights like that.

        If the 1.500 websites in questions were run by criminal gangs, why are there no arrests? No frozen bank accounts? No canceled merchant accounts?

        The answer is because this is done to protect companies, not the people.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456970].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Greenovni,

          The problem is that due process is not given. What is there to stop them from taking YOUR domains is someone screams "counterfit" about your affiliate websites?
          Because they would contact me via my accurate contact details and we would discuss it from there. If my details were inaccurate, and therefore I failed to respond in the agreed (contracted) time, then they would take a different action, the one they took in this instance based on the breaking of the contract via my false contact details.

          Due process has absolutely nothing to do with it, whatever it means.

          If what you wrote above is the case, then they should take eBay.co.uk which is registered to an American company and full of counterfit items.
          As far as I know, the VERO companies are applying heavy pressure on eBay about the counterfeit problems - in fact, I believe that certain companies were successful (handbag manufacturers) a year or so ago in getting their trademark products banned from being sold on there.

          I live in Orlando, Florida. Have a company registered in the UK, have an UK domain name for that company etc. Does that make me a criminal because I live in the US with a few tiny assets in the UK?
          No. What does that have to do with this discussion?

          If the 1.500 websites in questions were run by criminal gangs, why are there no arrests? No frozen bank accounts? No canceled merchant accounts?
          They're in the Far East.

          The answer is because this is done to protect companies, not the people.
          It's been done to protect both.
          Signature


          Roger Davis
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457030].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
          Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

          Due process my friend, due process. The problem is that due process is not given. What is there to stop them from taking YOUR domains is someone screams "counterfit" about your affiliate websites?
          They would have investigated the matter before acting on a random complaint lol.

          Crooks were posing as poms selling illegal fake items. The removed the British domain name because of it. They aren't removing affiliate sites. This has no affect on IM at all. It is telling criminals that they won't be using UK sites to sell their wares.
          Signature

          - Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
          - You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
          - Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns
          Connect with me on LinkedIn
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457036].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
    Banned
    If the websites generated "millions of pounds" then why not go and freeze the bank accounts of the "bad" guys, put them in prison, cancel their merchant account etc.
    This is an ongoing investigation - and without court proceedings, some of the above is not possible. Wait and see future developments.

    The first step in the proceedings was to protect the people and shut down the rogue sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1456950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
    Banned
    Greenonvi

    You seem to be fixated with Companies & Counterfeit -

    However:

    "This operation was instigated by the PCeU to target the criminal misuse of the UK domain name system, with the objective of preventing harm to British citizens and making it safer to trade online."

    As far as I'm concerned - anyone who wants to do that has my blessing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457026].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author greenovni
      Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

      Greenonvi

      You seem to be fixated with Companies & Counterfeit -

      However:

      "This operation was instigated by the PCeU to target the criminal misuse of the UK domain name system, with the objective of preventing harm to British citizens and making it safer to trade online."

      As far as I'm concerned - anyone who wants to do that has my blessing.
      No, I'm fixated with the .gov doing things without due process. How do we know that they were "criminals"? Because the .gov said so?

      Specially the UK .gov that does things like this?

      Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

      Police arresting people just for the DNA | International | Reuters

      Here are some other scary stuff going on in our online world.

      BREAKING: Leaked UK government plan to create "Pirate Finder General" with power to appoint militias, create laws - Boing Boing

      State to 'spy' on every phone call, email and web search - Telegraph

      EFF sues feds for info on social-network surveillance | InSecurity Complex - CNET News

      And like those stories, there are hundreds!

      Now, If the people / organizations that had their domain names taken by the .gov were in fact stealing from the people, FRY them!

      But with due process...

      The scariest thing you will ever hear in your life is "We're from the .Gov and we're here to help"
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457064].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Thomas
        Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

        The scariest thing you will ever hear in your life is "We're from the .Gov and we're here to help"
        When I worked for government, people were often delighted to meet me. If they were scared of me, they sure hid it well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457194].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author greenovni
          Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

          Scammer?? - My goodness - I think you need to take a step back, please?

          Are your contact details correctly logged with the Registrar? Have you avoided being contacted by your Registrar? Have you done anything to con the British Public out of money by either not delivering goods or delivering shoddy goods? Have you been investigated by the Metropolitan Police e-Crime Unit, Nominet, Consumer Direct, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading or any manufacturer??

          Answer the above questions correctly - and you will be like the 8,000,000 (or whatever) other legitimate website owners who have a .co.uk domain name.

          Thanks for the discussion - I must go now - its 1.45 am and way past my bed-time.
          You got me my friend. I do not scam people so I guess the police has a lot of proof againts the 1,500 websites and if in fact they were scamming, glad to see them go.

          Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

          When I worked for government, people were often delighted to meet me in the course of my duties. If they were scared of me, they sure hid it well.
          You must have been from the welfare office
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457203].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Thomas
            Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

            You must have been from the welfare office
            Haha. I kinda knew you were going to say that...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
    Banned
    Just to bring a bit of British Humour in here (it needs it I think!!) - from The Guardian blog on the subject, one commenter wrote:-

    "Did they name it "Operation Papworth" because the goods weren't worth pap?"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StevenK
    It sounds to me like a bunch of scum bags are out of business.

    Keep up the good work UK!
    Signature
    Website Promotion Tools
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457062].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bev Clement
    As the case is under investigation, we don't know what has happened.

    We don't know the police didn't go to the courts to get warrants, unlike the US we don't always get every single detail.

    It is only the domains, and we don't know how many people they belonged to. It could have been 1 person or a 1,000.

    If a person is investigated for fraud, their accounts are frozen before the trial, and that happens in the US.

    How many domains are lost daily when Godaddy take them down, are they given a fair trial, are they told in advance what crime they might have done, why can they do it when the police who know more about the case than us?

    I know Godaddy are in the US so it makes it OK.
    Signature
    Your Own Product Created By Top Ghostwriters
    WSO - Diet Niche - Massive PLR Package Run Your Own Diet Membership Site
    15 Health PLR Books...Price Starts At $10
    Writing Course For Higher Pay Days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

    The UK is a police state. With the highest concentration of law enforcement cameras per capita than anywhere in the world.
    That may be so, but in the experience of someone who lives in the UK, our police have far too much to do in the way of pointless paperwork to get much actual policing done. It's also likely that the UK has the highest concentration of law enforcement cameras without any film in them per capita than anywhere in the world. Unless they're placed in a position where they can extract a fine from someone doing five miles over the speed limit.

    At least on this occasion they can be said to have got something useful done, and they have my support on this one.
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457070].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author greenovni
      Originally Posted by Diana Lane View Post

      That may be so, but in the experience of someone who lives in the UK, our police have far too much to do in the way of pointless paperwork to get much actual policing done. It's also likely that the UK has the highest concentration of law enforcement cameras without any film in them per capita than anywhere in the world. Unless they're placed in a position where they can extract a fine from someone doing five miles over the speed limit.

      At least on this occasion they can be said to have got something useful done, and they have my support on this one.
      Hi Diana! How are you?

      The problem that I am having is due process. You don't break a "criminal ring" just by pulling their domain name. Of that, I am sure of.

      I can almost smell it from this side of the pond that websites that have made "millions of pounds" have more than 1 domain name and can easily ran again.

      I am not mad because the "bad" guy's domain names were taken. I am mad because you and I can be next at the .govs whim.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457082].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
        Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

        Hi Diana! How are you?

        The problem that I am having is due process. You don't break a "criminal ring" just by pulling their domain name. Of that, I am sure of.

        I can almost smell it from this side of the pond that websites that have made "millions of pounds" have more than 1 domain name and can easily ran again.

        I am not mad because the "bad" guy's domain names were taken. I am mad because you and I can be next at the .govs whim.
        The thing is, we can and will at least enter a dialogue with anyone who wants to accuse us of fraudulent activity. Sure, the bad guys can just start up again, but it's like anything else. There are a lot of drink drivers who are out there tonight who are repeat offenders, but that does not mean that it was wrong to take their licences away the first time.

        It's taking me forever to get my typing finger to string much together tonight and I'll probably go offline soon, but I'm fine, thanks, and hope you are too.
        Signature

        Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457117].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author greenovni
          Originally Posted by Diana Lane View Post

          The thing is, we can and will at least enter a dialogue with anyone who wants to accuse us of fraudulent activity. Sure, the bad guys can just start up again, but it's like anything else. There are a lot of drink drivers who are out there tonight who are repeat offenders, but that does not mean that it was wrong to take their licences away the first time.

          It's taking me forever to get my typing finger to string much together tonight and I'll probably go offline soon, but I'm fine, thanks, and hope you are too.

          Yeah, I am pretty good on this side of the pond.

          I might just be a little mad because the news here showed a guy that just spent 2 years in prison for owing child support.... for children that he proved not to be his with DNA tests years ago, yet the .Gov put him in prison for "failure to pay child support / contempt of court".
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457133].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
    Banned
    What on Earth have any of those links got to do with websites being shut down because Terms and Conditions were breached?

    Stick to the plot, please?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457075].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author greenovni
      Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

      What on Earth have any of those links got to do with websites being shut down because Terms and Conditions were breached?

      Stick to the plot, please?

      Bunch of links given about the .gov intrusion into your online life as well as mine
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457083].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
        Banned
        Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

        Bunch of links given about the .gov intrusion into your online life as well as mine
        OK - but in this case?? Are they relative??
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457093].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author greenovni
          Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

          OK - but in this case?? Are they relative??
          The online ones are relevant. These people are making laws on the fly and your rights as well as mine are being violated left and right.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457103].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
            Banned
            Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

            The online ones are relevant. These people are making laws on the fly and your rights as well as mine are being violated left and right.
            Sorry - what "laws on the fly" - a contract was breached.

            My rights have never been violated - I haven't breached T&C of a domain name Registrar and, as has been said before, this is an ongoing investigation. Your "due process" will no doubt be covered in that when any further action is taken.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457123].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author greenovni
              Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

              Sorry - what "laws on the fly" - a contract was breached.

              My rights have never been violated - I haven't breached T&C of a domain name Registrar and, as has been said before, this is an ongoing investigation. Your "due process" will no doubt be covered in that when any further action is taken.
              Laws on the fly

              A source close to the British Labour Government has just given me reliable information about the most radical copyright proposal I've ever seen.

              Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament. These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).

              What that means is that an unelected official would have the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright. Mandelson elaborates on this, giving three reasons for his proposal:

              1. The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements (for example, he could create jail terms for file-sharing, or create a "three-strikes" plan that costs entire families their internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

              2. The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to "confer rights" for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)

              3. The Secretary of State would get the power to "impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement" (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright "militias" can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

              Mandelson is also gunning for sites like YouSendIt and other services that allow you to easily transfer large files back and forth privately (I use YouSendIt to send podcasts back and forth to my sound-editor during production). Like Viacom, he's hoping to force them to turn off any feature that allows users to keep their uploads private, since privacy flags can be used to keep infringing files out of sight of copyright enforcers.

              This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.

              This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.

              More to follow, I'm sure, once Open Rights Group and other activist organizations get working on this. In the meantime, tell every Briton you know. If we can't stop this, it's beginning of the end for the net in Britain.
              Source: BREAKING: Leaked UK government plan to create "Pirate Finder General" with power to appoint militias, create laws - Boing Boing
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457142].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bev Clement
    The US is more of a Police State, even more than China.

    Only in the US, have we been asked for our telephone number or zipcode when we shop. Even in the supermarket we had to give both, even though we didn't have a zipcode.

    Why does the supermarket need my telephone number or zipcode when I buy a couple of food items and pay cash for them. We are talking less than $30 here.

    They know exactly where everybody shops and what they buy even when they pay cash.
    Signature
    Your Own Product Created By Top Ghostwriters
    WSO - Diet Niche - Massive PLR Package Run Your Own Diet Membership Site
    15 Health PLR Books...Price Starts At $10
    Writing Course For Higher Pay Days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457085].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author greenovni
      Originally Posted by Bev Clement View Post

      The US is more of a Police State, even more than China.

      Only in the US, have we been asked for our telephone number or zipcode when we shop. Even in the supermarket we had to give both, even though we didn't have a zipcode.

      Why does the supermarket need my telephone number or zipcode when I buy a couple of food items and pay cash for them. We are talking less than $30 here.

      They know exactly where everybody shops and what they buy even when they pay cash.
      They sure are!

      I am just a big fan of due process guys. Glad the bad people were taken down
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nwracks
    Why cant the international registrars be compliant with local organizations? I also agree with the move, but would like to see some policing on future events.
    Signature

    Jeff Grant
    I am giving away 5 free listings
    http://bit.ly/42QNN9
    Use code 38798

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457100].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davezan
      Originally Posted by nwracks View Post

      Why cant the international registrars be compliant with local organizations?
      That depends what you want an international registrar to be "compliant" with,
      and what "local organization" to "comply" with as well. If you're based in, say,
      Canada with a Nazi-related web site with Go Daddy, then a person in Germany
      filed a court order and served it on GD, should they obey it?

      Things like this aren't necessarily simple to understand, especially when we're
      talking legalities here. Various countries have various laws, some of which are
      thought absurd by some folks in other places.

      While this might be outrageous to some, would you be shocked...shocked...to
      know it's happened to a few .coms with a U.S. registrar or so?

      US.gov disappears European-owned Cuba websites ? The Register

      Company accused of abetting Hezbollah

      I doubt any company would want to risk itself over a...what? $9? $10 a year
      registration over someone who's possibly violating any law within jurisdiction?
      What more a country code domain registry like Nominet over this?

      At any rate, someone had to make a tough choice.
      Signature

      David

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1458537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Thomas
    Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

    Due process my friend, due process. The problem is that due process is not given.
    To quote (myself) from above:

    Due process simply means that the State treats individuals in accordance with the law of the land.

    In this case, the people who registered those domains (they're not "owners" of the domain, btw) were treated in accordance with British law (the "law of the land"), under which they agreed to be bound when they registered the domain in the first place.

    I'm no fan of unwarranted State power but, seriously, not everything done by the State is designed to stomp on the little guy, or is part of some secret agenda to deprive the people of X,Y, and Z. Damn, sometimes I think Americans are just too bloody paranoid for their own good.

    Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

    The UK is a police state.
    I know the Irish aren't exactly known for their love of the British State and, having worked for the Irish government in a capacity related to Northern Ireland, I know exactly what happens when State power is abused and agents of the State run amok, but, I think, to label the United Kingdom a police state on the basis of this, or the fact that they love their little cameras, or, indeed, any of the stuff you mention above is just soooo far off the mark, I don't know where to begin with it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457116].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
    Banned
    Greenovni

    I'm sorry but that last cut and paste "Laws on the Fly" proposal has made me very sleepy. And it's still nothing to do with the case in point.

    Knowing that something has been done to target illegal websites will make me sleep a lot easier tonight. It will save my wife, son, daughters and grand-daughters from losing their hard-earned money to people who register a UK domain name from outside the Country and therefore cannot be traced.

    I hope you sleep well too.

    All the best.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457157].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author greenovni
      Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

      Greenovni

      I'm sorry but that last cut and paste "Laws on the Fly" proposal has made me very sleepy. And it's still nothing to do with the case in point.

      Knowing that something has been done to target illegal websites will make me sleep a lot easier tonight. It will save my wife, son, daughters and grand-daughters from losing their hard-earned money to people who register a UK domain name from outside the Country and therefore cannot be traced.

      I hope you sleep well too.

      All the best.
      And that is exactly the problem, I too have a .co.uk domain name and I happen to live in the US. Does that make me a scammer? No it does not. I have my domain name so when I grow, I can branch out and do business with UK people.

      pjCheviot, That is the beauty of the warrior forum, while we can have different points of view, we can have a grown up discussion and remain Warriors

      Have a great night my friend.

      Greenovni
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457165].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
        Banned
        Originally Posted by greenovni View Post

        And that is exactly the problem, I too have a .co.uk domain name and I happen to live in the US. Does that make me a scammer? Nope it does not. I have my domain name so when I grow, I can branch out and do business with UK people.
        Scammer?? - My goodness - I think you need to take a step back, please?

        Are your contact details correctly logged with the Registrar? Have you avoided being contacted by your Registrar? Have you done anything to con the British Public out of money by either not delivering goods or delivering shoddy goods? Have you been investigated by the Metropolitan Police e-Crime Unit, Nominet, Consumer Direct, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading or any manufacturer??

        Answer the above questions correctly - and you will be like the 8,000,000 (or whatever) other legitimate website owners who have a .co.uk domain name.

        Thanks for the discussion - I must go now - its 1.45 am and way past my bed-time.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1457187].message }}

Trending Topics