[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

Don Blumenthal dblumenthal at pir.org
Fri Feb 21 17:43:33 UTC 2014


I think it’s fair to say that the general US principle is to tailor
remedies as narrowly as possible, so as to address harms adequately and
not overreach, and also avoid collateral damage.  To be honest, it doesn’t
always work out that way. However, I believe that it is the norm and, in
the case of Internet related matters, problems generally arise because of
ignorance of how the system works rather than any intent.

I can’t say that the principle is what has limited the methods that law
enforcement has used in Internet cases. I have never heard discussions of
remedies involving a root server. The fact is that law enforcement, again
in my experience, will look for the simplest and most effective way to get
the job done.  When it comes to removing problematic content from the
Internet, remedies aimed at DNS registration, DNS servers, or hosting
platforms fit that description. The latter two methods in particular give
law enforcement agencies another advantage. It is easy to include
provisions for redirections in the court orders, so that calls to a
specific host result in a banner that gives credit to an agency.

What I have written here is an overview. I can always go into more detail.
 I don’t know if root operators have discussed “what ifs” with respect to
possible law enforcement actions.



On 2/21/14, 5:35 AM, "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:

>Is there a general principle in the US that a court should make an order
>as specific to the LE target as possible? Is that what keeps this in the
>box you describe?
>LE action is not an issue that is specific to the US. Any root server
>located around the world  could potentially be subjected to some kind of
>local LE action.  Any Root Server falling out of sync is going to impact
>the entire Root Server Network if the aim is to keep domain names unique
>and resolvable over the whole Internet.
>Have the Root Server operators discussed such a scenario and come to
>some practice guidance on managing this type of event?
>Thanks for the intervention. I think it is useful to show that the US is
>not the problem here but is an essential component of any lasting
>Don Blumenthal wrote:
>> Assuming that ICE refers to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
>> domain-related court orders that it has obtained from judges generally
>> contain redirects at the name server level. Neither they nor any other
>> that I¹m aware of ³uses the root² in enforcement actions. Even the well
>> renowned US SOPA legislation that went nowhere wouldn¹t have provided
>> authority. I¹m happy to provide more details based on my experience in
>> Internet LE and the private side.
>> If I¹m wrong about what ICE means, ignore this message.
>> Don 
>> On 2/18/14, 7:12 PM, "Jefsey" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>> At 00:36 19/02/2014, Phil Corwin wrote:
>>>> I have no firm personal view as to whether DOC/NTIA could lawfully
>>>> proceed as you suggest it might in 2015 in the absence of
>>>> authorizing legislation. However, as a political matter, that
>>>> Executive department and subsidiary agency might well wish to have
>>>> the cover of some type of Congressional backing before taking such a
>>>> step given the potential consequences.
>>> Hi! Phil,
>>> Might be interesting to dig into the way ICE uses the root to "close"
>>> some domain names. And what is the legislation or jurisprudence if
>>> any to use ORSN to access them.
>>> jfc 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list