WTF?!? VeriSign Demands Power To Kill “Abusive” Websites

CGTech

Has No Life - Lives on TB
VeriSign Demands Power To Kill “Abusive” Websites

Manager of all .com internet addresses seeks authority to terminate domains on government order without legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The global authority over all .com domain names, VeriSign, is demanding the power to terminate websites deemed “abusive” when ordered to by government without a court order or any kind of oversight whatsoever.


“The company said today it wants to be able to enforce the “denial, cancellation or transfer of any registration” in any of a laundry list of scenarios where a domain is deemed to be “abusive,” reports the UK Register.

Not only is VeriSign seeking the power to kill websites when ordered to by governments, but also by “quasi-governmental agencies,” which could extend as far as lobbying organizations and special interests.

VeriSign has asked the domain name industry overseer ICANN to grant it the power to kill a .com or .net domain in order to comply with “applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements,” and believes the authority should be global to allow the company to shut down websites “without a court order” if any government agency merely requests it do so.“The company has already helped law enforcement agencies in the US, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, seize domains that were allegedly being used to sell counterfeit goods or facilitate online piracy, when the agency first obtained a court order,” states the report.

Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security has already seized website domains merely for linking to copyrighted material, despite the fact that such material isn’t even hosted on the website itself. DHS has also worked with VeriSign to terminate websites already deemed legal by courts in other countries.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation slammed the DHS website seizures as “Blunt instruments that cause unacceptable collateral damage to free speech rights.”

“ICE’s domain name seizures, including this one, are occurring without meaningful court oversight, with no chance for the targets to defend themselves before their websites are taken down and a highly cumbersome process for challenge afterwards,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “The government should stop these seizures until they comply with the law.”

Now VeriSign wants to seize even more draconian powers so it can work with governments to shut down “abusive” websites on a whim without any legal due process whatsoever.

This represents a massive threat to the last refuge of true free speech, the Internet, and follows in the footsteps of the Obama administration’s efforts to create an Internet kill switch under the guise of cybersecurity.

As we have documented, lawmakers like Senator Joe Lieberman have teamed up with DHS officials to push draconian legislation in an effort to mimic the Communist Chinese system of policing the Internet. During a CNN appearance last year, Lieberman said the goal was to empower the U.S. government with an Internet kill switch.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns.

Lieberman has already acted to shut down websites without a court order or any form of oversight when Amazon axed Wikileaks from its servers after being pressured to do so by Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee.

If Verisign is granted these sweeping new powers, governments all over the world, from the United Kingdom, to the U.S. to oppressive regimes in the third world, will have access to a feeding frenzy of web censorship which they could easily abuse to silence free speech and oversee political cover-ups.

*********************

http://www.infowars.com/verisign-demands-power-to-kill-abusive-websites/
 
If Verisign is granted these sweeping new powers, governments all over the world, from the United Kingdom, to the U.S. to oppressive regimes in the third world, will have access to a feeding frenzy of web censorship which they could easily abuse to silence free speech and oversee political cover-ups.

That should play right into the hands of 0bama and his BFF Valerie Jarrett.
 

LMonty911

Deceased
to be able to do anything without a court order is nothing less than censorship and first amendment violation.

how realistic is a black market purveyor of web addresses? in most real life issues, when there is censorship or restriction a way is found around it. i fully admit to being ignorant how the technical aspects work, but somehow i imagine a way will be found....is that even possible?
 

OddOne

< Yes, I do look like that.
VeriSign has no legitimate claims to anything outside of their issuance of SSL certificates for secure connections (e.g., secure web pages). As a SSL CA, they have every right to revoke certificates issued to "rogue" websites but beyond that they have zero authority.

VeriSign is not the only CA out there, but they are arguably the largest. Simplest solution I can think of would be to starve 'em by leasing SSL certs from their competitors. (Comodo's cheaper anyway. :D )
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Even if they ARE the keeper of the .com domain keys, the STILL need to be DEMANDING a court order.


And as far as First Amendment issues, not germain to this discussion since we're dealing with ALL private entities.

Just like here, Dennis has NO 1 Am responsibilities. He can QUITE LEGALLY shut down ANY discussion he wants to at any time....
 

LMonty911

Deceased
ND I just dont see the comparison. a website owners relationship with verisign et al AFAIK is to pay for the registration of a domain name, and no other relationship exists or is implied unless so created by contract, right? verisign et al have NO involvement in or responsibility for the content created by said domain name purchaser. so mt statement about 1st amendment rights is that if they have no rules responsibility etc for content, BUT PULL OR REVOKE DOMAINS BECAUSE SAID CONTENT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THEM, than that does sound like a 1st amendment issue to me since it is censorship.

a poster on a website enters a relationship with the website, and by joining agrees to certain rules/standards. the owners/mods etc have every right to censor based on that.

to me thats two very different situations, but i freely admit i am no expert.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
You don't understand.

1st Am is a CONGRESS thing....

Not a private entity.

Censorship by other than Congressional law or Exec branch regs isn't a 1 AM issue.

Networks have censored for ages, wholly legally.
 
Top