3 ms·

Yes. There was an example on Hacker News of someone whose blog hosted by .in was shut down/seized because some freelance-style security project that detects mal

Yes. There was an example on Hacker News of someone whose blog hosted by .in was shut down/seized because some freelance-style security project that detects malicious sites or botnets or something claimed it was evil. No notification or due process. I can't recall enough of the details to provide a link, but the individual posted on HN asking for help getting his site back, and eventually did. But what stuck out at me is that the (1) accuser was some kind of NGO (2) the site was directly taken down by the registrar (it may have been above the registrar) (3) there was no due process involved.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
That's really screwed up. Do you have more details? More examples?
- jcrites 6y ago
  With the help of Algolia's HN search, I was able to find the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671579 Apparently an organization called Shadowserver (a nonprofit security organization) claimed that the blog was part of the control system for a botnet, and the domain was transferred out of the registrant's control with no due process. They got it back, but the fact that such a thing is even possible in the first place was infuriating to me. I don't know if this is a decision that the .in TLD makes, to place trust in groups like Shadowserver (one could argue it's India's TLD and their country gets to run it how they want) but I hope to god that these kinds of "no due process" seizures are not possible with other TLDs like .com. and .dev. Domain names ought to be property, and like any other property should be protected against arbitrary seizure by courts of law. I understand it's important to fight cybercrime and botnets and the like but there's got to be a solution that involves due process.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    Thanks for the details. > Domain names ought to be property, and like any other property should be protected against arbitrary seizure by courts of law. I completely agree. Some group saying the domain is associated with malware shouldn't be enough to cause it to be seized. They should have to actually prove it in court.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

That's really screwed up. Do you have more details? More examples?

jcrites 6y ago
With the help of Algolia's HN search, I was able to find the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671579 Apparently an organization called Shadowserver (a nonprofit security organization) claimed that the blog was part of the control system for a botnet, and the domain was transferred out of the registrant's control with no due process. They got it back, but the fact that such a thing is even possible in the first place was infuriating to me. I don't know if this is a decision that the .in TLD makes, to place trust in groups like Shadowserver (one could argue it's India's TLD and their country gets to run it how they want) but I hope to god that these kinds of "no due process" seizures are not possible with other TLDs like .com. and .dev. Domain names ought to be property, and like any other property should be protected against arbitrary seizure by courts of law. I understand it's important to fight cybercrime and botnets and the like but there's got to be a solution that involves due process.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Thanks for the details. > Domain names ought to be property, and like any other property should be protected against arbitrary seizure by courts of law. I completely agree. Some group saying the domain is associated with malware shouldn't be enough to cause it to be seized. They should have to actually prove it in court.