A domain isn't property that anyone has to respect. I trust my domain resolver to point me at reasonable IP addresses. Not to criminals, people trying to entice criminals, or people trying to extort corporations. I appreciate the fact that the third is likely redundant with the first in most places.
I am entirely on board with just killing this domain out from under him.
Think of a different website: maybe goggle.com (no idea what's on this domain), seems like a reasonable typo.
Would you be bothered if your computer or network was sending emails to whoever "goggle" is, not "google"? Should goggle be penalized for receiving things you freely sent to them?
The problem is more you're sending data you don't mean to than that someone owns the place you're sending it.
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It's predictable, therefore tedious, therefore off topic here. It also leads to a lot of low quality posting and generally turns people nasty.
Yes. The responsibility of the state is to select and enforce ownership. If you get ahold of the wrong kind of gun after the right year, whoops the state will take that too. Patent invalidation. There goes that property. Eminent domain, copyright expiration, the list goes on. The hyperbole about slippery slope isnt as compelling as the practical needs.
But this only hurts M$FT and their customers. This isn't a new highway or magical Soviet killing invention. Government level entities have zero business getting involved.
As if we don't already "steal people's property" for the public good, i.e. taxes. Your bizarre appeal to a slippery slope into Soviet Ukraine is very comical.
PS: and as we all know, there is no poverty in capitalist states :)
You can't steal property that doesn't exist. A domain isn't property in any standard sense of the word, or at least the properties that makes it valuable aren't.
Besides which, what you're talking about is known as "eminent domain" and is already a real thing for real property.
Edit: Actually in this case "civil forfeiture" (for the crime of extortion) would probably be a better analogy.
> A domain isn't property in any standard sense of the word
I'm not sure what you think the "standard sense of the word" is, but "property" in any sense is already a fiction: it only exists because we humans agree to all act as if it does. We make such agreements because it's the only way to prevent incessant conflict over scarce resources. This applies to domain names as much as it does to houses, cars, etc.
> what you're talking about is known as "eminent domain" and is already a real thing for real property.
And is abused by governments quite often. For example, see Kelo v. New London.
> Actually in this case "civil forfeiture" (for the crime of extortion) would probably be a better analogy.
"Property" has a standard sense, as in a legal sense... domains derive value from an informal understanding that DNS providers respect them, which has nothing to do with their standing as property in the legal sense if they even qualify (I'm not sure, but I don't think they would).
No argument from me that governments do abuse eminent domain and civil forfeiture... that doesn't mean they are never good ideas. This is one of those cases that they are.
> "Property" has a standard sense, as in a legal sense...
That makes it clearer where you are coming from. Then the answer is that it depends a lot on the jurisdiction, on who the parties are, and other things. There does not appear to be settled law either way. However...
> No argument from me that governments do abuse eminent domain and civil forfeiture... that doesn't mean they are never good ideas. This is one of those cases that they are.
Eminent domain and civil forfeiture both assume that the things being seized are property. If domain names are just service contracts, you're talking about things like injunctions to prevent performance of the contract, which are different beasts legally.
Domain names get regularly treated like property in legal disputes, and enough judges doing that creates a certain precedent regardless of the contracts involved.
You would be an extortionist if you told Hess that they better pay you money for that oil on your land (that they don't even want), or you're going to auction it off to terrorists who you happen to know will use that oil to create aerosol bomb's and blow them up.
That would be a really good way to go to jail for a really long time in fact.
> O’Connor said he hopes Microsoft Corp. will buy it, but fears they won’t and instead it will get snatched up by someone working with organized cybercriminals or state-funded hacking groups bent on undermining the interests of Western corporations.
I think I'm well covered... and no, it isn't, not if you know the person who is going to buy it is going to use it criminally.
A person can be reasonably confident that their immediate sale of an item is going to go to someone who will use it responsibly... while still worrying about its disposition five or ten years down the line. (Microsoft has already let this problem sit for 26 years, after all.) That still doesn't mean the person has any particular legal or moral responsibility to monitor their original customer indefinitely just because there's a future risk.
You've been commenting dramatic responses all over this thread like this guy has personally done you harm in the past. What gives?
Your arguments aren't rational they're emotional and sensationalist and they seem to have no actual proof.
You've taken the article as definitive proof that this man, whose done nothing with the domain for over 20 years out of concern for the general public, to be some sort of extortionist or criminal sympathizer. What's your angle here?
A domain name is exclusive use of a region in internet name-space. Land is exclusive use of a region in 2d plane-space on earth. What you can do productively with them is up to you to figure out.
Hope you're happy when the government confiscates your patent for that new widget.
Yeah, but generally you want infrastructure to work but also don't want anything taken away from yourself, so you have to balance stealing from others with self-interest. It's a matter of whether eminent domain is encouraged or not.
I am entirely on board with just killing this domain out from under him.