Nominet creates public debate over criminal website take-down

[DorsetBoy]

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/1282891/nominet-creates-public-debate-over-criminal-website-take-down

Nominet, the .uk domain name registry, has said that it will have a public debate over whether it should be responsible for cutting off access to websites suspected of involvement in criminal activi


The move comes after the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) requested in November that Nominet was given the formal power to shut down websites. Currently, the registry is under no obligation to do so, although it will listen to requests from law enforcement agencies and act accordingly.

Current practice has Nominet expecting the domain registrar taking action first and action at the registry level only being required for urgent incidents or if the registrar failed to comply. SOCA wants to see Nominet respond faster to requests and act directly.

[Rik]

What's to debate? It should simply be a case of SOCA getting an injunction requiring the site to be shut down. It shouldn't happen without a judge believing that there's sufficient evidence to take the action.

[pctech]

I agree with Rik about the injunction but the power to make sites inaccessible should sit at the registry level because when all is said and done the registrar is acting as an agent of the registry and while ideally it should be down to the registrar to delete the record, some maybe better at this than others.

[zappaDPJ]

I think we have to be very careful here.

Nominet, the .uk domain name registry, has said that it will have a public debate over whether it should be responsible for cutting off access to websites suspected of involvement in criminal activi[ty]

If the term 'suspected of involvement' is part and parcel of that debate then as a member of the public I'd say no, definitely not. There must at the very least be a court order and even then it's not so clear cut. Whistle-blowing websites, websites containing plagiarised content, websites offering software that breaches the EULA of another vendor's product might all be shut down. That's probably half of the world wide web gone dark.

I have no problem with domain registrars being given responsibility for enforcement but they should never be allow to make the judgement. Further more, those that are should have clearly defined boundaries to work within. It's all to easy to remove a freedom but it's nigh on impossible to restore it.

[Rik]

I agree with you, Zap, which is why I'd want to see a court injunction granted before any action be taken. Like terrorism, it's a fine line between protecting and oppressing people.

[pctech]

I think it has to sit at registry level as there's no real incentive for registrars to do anything, particularly if the name server records are pointing elsewhere.

[pctech]

I do also wonder where this would leave Wikileaks and the company that houses its source servers, Bahnhof.

[Rik]

Being pursued by every Government going.

[cavillas]

Why are Goverments, who want freedom of speech, in such a hurry to close deny it when things get too hot for them?  Seems like double standards soemwhere, but that is American Democracy at work.

[armadillo]

I agree with zappaDPJ that "suspected of involvement" is not good enough. Shutting down should, as Rik says, be as a result of a court injunction. But the court must have clear guidelines as to the nature of proof. A court should issue an injunction if the site has been proven to carry out activities which contravene UK law. I suggest that a suitable proof would be a successful conviction of one or more persons for breaking the law by downloading or accessing illegal content from the website.

There are very few categories of material which at present render an individual who downloads them liable to successful prosecution. Only websites proven to host such material should be liable to a court injunction and then only after a successful prosecution of individuals. I see no valid reason for any exceptions, even for terrorist websites. The police would need to get their act together to bring a successful prosecution against anyone downloading terrorist material before the website could be shut down.

So I think some debate is required. It is too easy for the government to give a court sweeping powers just because it is convenient to be able to shut down sites that are uncomfortable for the government.   

[esh]

"Suspected" is the most horrid weasel word ever. It effectively means "at will".

So yeah, totally agree with zappa/Rik.