DHS takes more websites down

[225for70]

The department of Homeland security has went after sites that allow users to watch sports games for free over the internet..However, users still have to see adverts in exchange for watching the game..

http://atdhe.net/

How is this related to homeland security? I don't get it

f you're a sports fan of any type, then it's likely that you've become familiar with a cryptically-named, poorly designed site called ATDHE that lists video streams of nearly any and every sporting event on TV. It was totally awesome and totally legally questionable. And now, it's totally taken down by Homeland Security.

Of course, the story of ATDHE's takedown and subsequent re-emergence is another example of the resilience of information online and the amusing game of Whac-A-Mole that is illegal information on the Internet.

A word from our sponsor:

The Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University offers programs that combine the enduring skills and values of journalism with new techniques and knowledge that are essential to thrive in a digital world.
Ad powered by BTBuckets
TechDirt's Mike Masnick wrote about a spate of domain name seizures over Thanksgiving Weekend last November much like today's. According to CrunchGear's Nicholas Deleon, ATDHE isn't alone, with rojadirecta.org suffering a similar fate.

As we saw with WikiLeaks, however, when people want something on the Internet to stay on the Internet badly enough, it's only a matter of moments before a mirror pops up in another location. One tweet illustrated the situation, saying "RIP atdhe.net while celebrating the birth of atdhe.me."

The first tweets mentioning the disappearance of ATDHE started at around noon pacific. By two in the afternoon, tweets began mentioning ATDHE.me, the replacement site. In much the same way, the ATDHE Twitter account also quickly tweeted out the IP address to use until the site went back online under a different name.

Another site taken down today first tweeted at 2:12 that it was down. At 2:17, it tweeted again to say that it could be found at an alternate domain name. As I said: Whac-A-Mole.

What makes the whole thing even more interesting is that ATDHE.net didn't host any illegal content. It was a list of links to homemade video streams on sites like Justin.tv. As we saw with content takedowns on Twitter last April, however, direct hosting of content may not be necessary to remove something - just linking may be enough. With ATDHE, streams consisted of someone literally pointing a camera on a tripod at their television and streaming that. Where does the illegality come into play here and is seizing the domain name the answer?

There's one thing for sure, it's surely the ineffective answer on the part of the authorities, but I bet sports fans won't be complaining.

Update: TorrentFreak has a list of sites taken down in similar manner today. The article points out similar questions regarding the legality of not only the content, but the takedown:

Similar to BitTorrent sites, Rojadirecta doesn't host any copyrighted material. Instead, it indexes HTTP links to sports streams that can already be found on the Internet, and also carries links to .torrent files which are hosted on other sites.
The site is owned by a Spanish company that pays its taxes and has been declared to operate legally in Spain. In addition, the site is not hosted in the US either. The only connection to the US is that the .org domain is maintained by a US company.

This indirect connection to the US makes the seizure a dubious action, according to Rojadirecta's owner. "In our opinion the US authorities are completely despising the Spanish justice system and sovereignty," Seoane told TorrentFreak.

[Kazan]

Isn't it great, these unelected entities, just running wild with little to no congressional over sight

[Soul Crusher]

Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
TorrentFreak ^ | 2/3/2011 | Ernesto



Following on from news of the third phase of ‘piracy’ and counterfeit related domain seizures in 7 months, US Senator Ron Wyden has asked the director of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to clarify some of the most pressing questions. If the domain seizures are to continue, the Obama administration has to be more open about the need for them and the process involved, he argues.

Earlier this week we broke the news that US authorities had started a third round of domain seizures. This time, it turned out that the actions were aimed at sports streaming sites. In total, 10 domain names belonging to 6 websites were handed over to the authorities.

As with previous seizures, the actions of the authorities were met with disbelief by the sites’ owners and their millions of visitors. The owner of Rojadirecta, one of the affected sites, questioned the legitimacy of the seizure since his site has twice been declared legal in Spain. In addition, many further questions were raised.

Today, we learned a little bit more about the justifications for the “Super Bowl Crackdown” after we obtained the affidavit that ICE agent Daniel Brazier sent to the US District Court. However, the request for a seizure warrant is very generic and leaves many questions unanswered.

Luckily, we’re not the only ones who want to find out more about the lack of due process and the need for domain seizures that comply with the DMCA. US Senator Ron Wyden asks the same questions.

In a letter addressed to ICE director John Morton he voiced his concerns, stating that the seizures are “alarmingly unprecedented” and that they could “stifle constitutionally protected speech.” In addition, Senator Wyden asks the following.

— 1. How does ICE and DoJ measure the effectiveness of Operation In our Sites and domain seizures more broadly — how does the government measure the benefits and costs of seizing domain names?

2. Of the nearly 100 domain names seized by the Obama Administration over the last 9 months, how many prosecutions were initiated, how many indictments obtained, and how were the operators of these domain names provided due process?

3. What is the process for selecting a domain name for seizure and, specifically, what criteria are used?

a. Does the Administration make any distinction between domain names that are operated overseas and those that are operated in the U.S.

b. Does the Administration consider whether a domain name operated overseas is in compliance with the domestic law from which the domain name is operated?

c. What standard does the Administration use to ensure that domains are not seized that also facilitate legitimate speech?

d. What standards does ICE use to ensure that it does not seize the domain names of websites the legal status of which could be subject to legitimate debate in a U.S. court of law; how does ICE ensure that seizures target on the true “bad actors?”

4. Does the Administration believe that hyperlinks to domain names that offer downloadable infringing content represent a distribution of infringing content, or do they represent speech?

5. Does the Administration believe that websites that facilitate discussion about where to find infringing content on the Internet represents speech or the distribution of infringed content? What if the discussion on these websites includes hyperlinks to websites that offer downloadable, infringing content?

6. What standard does DoJ expect foreign countries to use when determining whether to seize a domain name controlled in the U.S. for copyright infringement?

7. Did DoJ and ICE take into account the legality of Rojadirecta.org before it seized its domain name? If so, did DoJ and ICE consult with the Department of State or the United States Trade Representative before seizing this site in order to consider how doing so is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and commercial objectives

8. In an affidavit written by Special Agent Andrew Reynolds, he uses his ability to download four specific songs on the domain name dajaz1.com as justification for seizure of this domain name. According to press accounts, the songs in question were legally provided to the operator of the domain name for the purpose of distribution. Please explain the Administration’s justification for continued seizure of this domain name and its rationale for not providing this domain name operator, and others, due process.

9. Can you please provide to me a list of all the domain names seized by the Obama Administration since January of 2009 and provide the basis for their seizure?

10. Do ICE and DoJ keep a record of who meets with federal law enforcement about particular domain names? If not, would you consider keeping such a record and making it publicly available, to ensure transparency in government and that Operation in our Sites is not used to create competitive advantages in the marketplace?

[Emmortal]

Good luck getting any answers from those guys, they can do whatever the fuck they want.  Thank you Patriot Act.

[225for70]

Well the people in India over throwing the government is a good sign...It looks like the only thing us americans can do before we turn over the rest of our freedoms...

[225for70]

Boom... a new website is now up again at a different location

 a\t\d\h\e\n\e\t.tv

[Dos Equis]

They seized this one:  http://www.channelsurfing.net/  That was a great site. 

Anyone know the new one?