London plod plonks, er, pull request on EasyDNS Hosting outfit EasyDNS has gone public with a takedown request issued not by a court, but from the City of London Police. The domain being targeted by the plods is Torrentpond.com, which is registered in Singapore and whose address, 91.213.8.186, is in a block belonging to Hosting Solutions in the Commonwealth of Dominica. …
Mark is damned good people. Proud to share a country with the man. There's a reason I've used his DNS services for over 15 years and I'm not about to stop now. Not only is he absolutely a stand up kind of guy, EasyDNS proactive nameservers make them a leader in DNS innovation. I'd not have thought that there could actually be innovation in DNS...but the man has the patents to prove it.
All 'round, good bloke, good company, great service...and he's Canadian! What more could you ask?
Looking (thank you, CoL Police) unless I am missing something, it doesn't even appear to be a torrent site. Not only does it not host material, it doesn't even host .torrent files for torrents of the material.
It appears to be a site that enables you to search a selection of torrent sites, one at a time, with the same search. Google / Bing / any other general search engine does more than this: they will give you results from more than one site at the same time.
"I wonder how much cash the CoL police have taken from the copyright cartels for the Police Benevolent Fund ?"
more likely future career plans of inspector and sgt. Plod, as "...having left the police, joined XCorp as an intelectual property consultant, in our legal services team"
Who the hell are the "Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU)" on page http://83.138.166.114/
Copyright infringement is a civil crime.
Is there a Police Neighbourhood Disputes Over Hedges Crime Unity (PNDOHC)...
Police Extrenuous Notification Interruption of (dns) Service team? (PENIS)
I think the police need to get this in hand...
Have to look at this more closely, but how can anyone do this? We really need accountable government. Accountable to us, that is.
When a democratic government decides to raise taxes or wage war or write child safety laws, it is essentially saying to an enormous jury, "This is our theory of how the world works, and this is our proposal for dealing with it. If our theory makes sense to you, vote for us in the next election. If it doesn't, throw us out." The ability of citizens to scrutinize the theories insisted on by their government is their only protection against abuse of power and, ultimately, against tyranny. If ordinary citizens can't coolly and rationally evaluate a prosecutor's summation in a criminal trial, they won't have a chance at calling to task a deceitful government. And all governments are deceitful--they're deceitful because it's easier than being honest. Most of the time, it's no more sinister than that.”
― Sebastian Junger, A Death in Belmont
Sometimes, though, a cigar is just a cigar.
Well, I looked.
I hate to give them what they want, but the London Police want EasyDNS to illegally redirect that domain name to a landing page for the people they actually represent. Look for yourself. Disgusting:
http://http://83.138.166.114/
As Mark Jeftovic explains, this is well down the slippery slope. Whoever is responsible inside of that London Police operation should be severely reprimanded and if it is coming from the top, they should resign.
No doubt this is a result of the appalling illiteracy of the people we have left in charge of our governments. They are no doubt sincere, but that does not excuse them. They are trying to shut down a chunk of the infrastructure people are using for communication. What that communication might be is none of their business unless they have genuine, *legitimately obtained* probable cause sufficient to satisfy the courts. Hint: If they did, they would be presenting a warrant instead of an unfriendly Email. Even if they *did* have probable cause that people in a certain area code are using their telephones for criminal purposes, they do not have any right to shut down the telephone system.
My hat is off to Mark Jeftovic. Hopefully, others who understand this will contact the London Police to let them know they should get back to their actual jobs instead of toadying up to Entertainment Industry lawyers.
Simple explanation - the police is corrupt. Those who bribed them are all listed on that page - BPI, FACT, IFPI etc.
If there is any unbent plod left in the country they should go get the warrants and raid these racketeering cartels, seize records, seal premises and do a proper investigation.
OpenDNS's own terms and conditions say that they will cease your account under certain circumstances, and one of those circumstances is that you are involved in Copyright Infringement. Mark Jeftovic appears to be getting on his high horse because he has been politely asked to investigate whether or not their own terms and conditions are being violated.
Re: "because he has been politely asked to investigate"
Yeah. It is not his job to spy on and narc out his customers. He has plainly stated the terms and that is the end of his responsibility. He is providing a *pipeline* into the communications network and *so are his customers*. If the police have *probable cause* then they can go after the ones *allegedly* infringing copyright.
Criminals use the phone system, the electric grid, the highways. Are we to start shutting all of this down and illegally searching people because we suspect wrong doing?
The perps ultimately behind all of this in the United States have already locked up 2 million of their own citizens, many of them for victimless crimes and many entirely innocent. Meantime, the real criminals are accepting awards:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/usa-food-biotechnology-idUSL2N0EV1CT20130619
Here's a nice quote from that article:
Van Montagu said he hoped "that this recognition will pave the way for Europe to embrace the benefits of this technology, an essential condition for global acceptance of transgenic plants."
Most of the main players in our society are corrupt beyond redemption. Meantime, the police forces that should be protecting us from them are going after women and children for accessing information they have been forbidden to look at.
"Whoever is responsible inside of that London Police operation should be severely reprimanded and if it is coming from the top, they should resign.
No doubt this is a result of the appalling illiteracy of the people we have left in charge of our governments. They are no doubt sincere, but that does not excuse them. They are trying to shut down a chunk of the infrastructure people are using for communication. "
You're able to tell the difference between the Police doing something, and the government doing something, aren't you?
Because you don't appear to be able to.
Re: Because you don't appear to be able to.
Sorry. I am from Canada. The police forces here are paid out of our taxes as another part of the bureaucratic machinery of government. They enforce the laws our government have enacted on our behalf.
Putting what you say together with the fact that the London Police are advertising for the Entertainment Industry, I guess *they* must work for the Entertainment Industry directly. That explains a lot.
"Re: Because you don't appear to be able to.
Sorry. I am from Canada. The police forces here are paid out of our taxes as another part of the bureaucratic machinery of government. They enforce the laws our government have enacted on our behalf
.
Putting what you say together with the fact that the London Police are advertising for the Entertainment Industry, I guess *they* must work for the Entertainment Industry directly. That explains a lot."
Right. Pretty sure I didn't say anything about the police advertising for the entertainment industry, afraid you're imagining things.
The police are not being directly instructed by government to send these letters. If you believe that to be the case, please provide any substantive evidence you have to support that belief. No? Stop making shit up then.
Re: Pretty sure I didn't say anything about the police advertising for the entertainment industry, afraid you're imagining things.
I linked to their advertising page in an earlier comment. Perhaps you should review the rest of the conversation going on here. They have a page that directly encourages visitors to go to their sponsors and they have made a 'request' backed by thinly veiled threats that rather than resolving DNS to the legitimate domain, they instead direct it to that page.
Re: The police are not being directly instructed by government to send these letters. If you believe that to be the case, please provide any substantive evidence you have to support that belief.
As I said, in my country (a part of all this, in fact), the police get their funding from the public purse and they are explicitly charged with the enforcement of the laws passed by our legislatures. From what I can tell, a similar thing applies just about everywhere. Certainly, the force in question here gets their funding from the public purse. Are you suggesting that the CoL Police are *not* charged with enforcing laws passed by the Commons in the UK?
Re: No? Stop making shit up then.
You will get no traction using that strawman argument here. Somebody is making something up here, but it is not me.
"As I said, in my country (a part of all this, in fact), the police get their funding from the public purse and they are explicitly charged with the enforcement of the laws passed by our legislatures. From what I can tell, a similar thing applies just about everywhere. Certainly, the force in question here gets their funding from the public purse. Are you suggesting that the CoL Police are *not* charged with enforcing laws passed by the Commons in the UK?"
No, what I'm saying is the Police were not instructed by the government to send that letter to that ISP.
Of course the police enforce the laws of the land. Of course they're paid for from the public purse. This is not at all the same thing as "the government directly controls the police, and tells them what to do operationally". That just isn't happening.
If that were true, how could the police investigate government officials breaking the law? They absolutely have to be separate from government, to be able to do their job properly.
If you're asserting that the government instructed, influenced, or in some way caused the police to send out that letter to that ISP (the story we're commenting on), provide any kind of evidence that backs that up. Saying The police are "paid for from the public purse", therefore the Government "is trying to shut down a chunk of the infrastructure people are using for communication" - that's a complete non-sequitur. It's gibberish.
Actually, they do.
These are the City of London police, not the regular metropolitan London police, aka 'The Met.' They work for the Corporation of London, which in turn essentially represents industry. Primarily the financial services industry, but with influence from others, including media.
In the UK (as in other countries) the state is divided into legislature (Parliament), executive (government and other state machinery), and judiciary (courts etc). The police function is part of the executive, which can be seen in the police being under the Home Office. There is a greater or lesser degree of control of the police by the government depending on time, administration, and issue. That makes the commenter claiming "nonsense" to be wrong. The only real question is to how much the City of London police have been guided to the actions they have taken by someone in government.
" The only real question is to how much the City of London police have been guided to the actions they have taken by someone in government."
Fuck's sake people.
Have you any evidence AT ALL that this action was guided by anybody in government?
Anything AT ALL to support that assertion? Anything? AT ALL?
London (UK) has two police forces. The Metropolitan Police (The Met) that is responsible for most of London and the City of London Police (CoLP) which is an older and separate force that is responsible for the ancient 'square mile' centre of London. I'm wondering which police force it is.
The CoLP have close contacts with wealthy and infuential organisations that have headquarters and offices in the centre of London and have specialist fraud and economic crime units that work closely with major organisations.
If it is the CoLP, I'm sure they would not be influenced by any large dinners or invitations to international conferences from entertainment industry executives. Throughout their history, the CoLP have never been associated with corruption or dubious practices. The Met have a similar history of absolute probity, as everybody knows.
The CoLP have close contacts with wealthy and infuential organisations that have headquarters and offices in the centre of London and have specialist fraud and economic crime units that work closely with major organisations.
Yep - close contacts with the likes of Phorm.
CoL police officers were wined and dined by Phorm during the time that they were supposed to be investigating them and decided to drop the investigation before ever actually formally interviewing anybody from the company. Although perhaps it's useful to know this - if the public ever need something to be investigated properly it would seem that a nice meal somewhere is enough to get the desired outcome.
'Cosy' doesn't even begin to describe it when it comes to the relationships they have with businesses.
This would be one of the very singular occasions in which I would like to see the table being turned on the perps( the police). This must be completely illegal..
We appear to be seeing more and more examples of how the "police state" has become a reality. Funny though, it doesn't seem to matter which party is elected , the police issues always remain inthe background. Politicians seem to be very wary of touching this holy ground.
I can easilly imagine that the Police High Commisioner, or whatever he is called, is a 33 degree macon... could there be a connection.....
If you actually read the City of London police letter, it doesn't pretend that it's a legally enforceable takedown demand. It's saying that it believes the complained of IP is being used for copyright infringement, and requesting EasyDNS to review it against their own Ts&Cs with a view to removing it. The implied ICAAN threat is perhaps a bit OTT, but overall this really doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. EasyDNS is entirely at liberty to ignore it and wait and see if the police get a court order.
Yes, but why are the police writing this letter? Surely whoever's IP is being infringed should be writing the letter... or getting their lawyer to do it?
As someone who runs a small business and has on occasion had to deal with IP infringements, I can testify that without any doubt, if I took the matters to the police, they would not give a toss. I'd either have to do it myself, or pay a lawyer to do it.
This has the overwhelming stench of junkets, brown envelopes, expensive dinners and 'fact finding' visits to exotic locations. The police's job is not to act as hired muscle for the music industry.
There are a dangerous number of process shortcuts in that police demand that should not be tolerated.
The document makes it clear that there are only suspicions of a crime. I'm sure ICANN gets lots of angry troll mail and that they are adept at dismissing them. The proper first step would be to ask EasyDNS to validate the ownership record. If EasyDNS claims it's legit, get a court order to investigate the owner. Should the ownership record prove to be false or point to an entity not entirely responsible for the domain, terminating the domain takes no more effort than filling out an online form and providing the evidence.
I've been using EasyDNS ever since my first domain registration and apart from the initial configuration and paying the bills I've really had no other need to contact them so I had to check this and yes they are based in Canada.
So basically, although it goes against the grain of any UK police force, be very nice and show the rogue site is doing something detrimental to the structure of the internet and not just hosting content their friends don't like or get a Canadian court order.
For those who didn't read the doco, the police asked:
"
We request that you review your processes to see if you provide a service for the identifieddomain(s). If so, we would ask you to review the terms and conditions on the basis of whichthat service is provided and withdraw or suspend the service if you are satisfied that theterms and conditions have been breached"
I did read the document, I did see this, but it was wrapped in a lot of very thinly veiled threats.
All they needed to say was that they were investigating the site and believed it breached EasyDNS's T&Cs and would they review it to see if they agreed.
There was no reason at all for any of the other stuff at this point, if ever.
It's all very akin to someone asking you if you'd thought about taking out house insurance while striking matches and saying "It would be a real shame if there was a fire and you lost all of this".
There are a few other key paragraphs which do make the document seem very threatening. Personally I think this is because of excessive copypasta and no proofreading rather than an actual intent to intimidate, but that's what proofreading is for.
Examples include:
We have identified the following domain(s) that we say are facilitating online crime.
Replacing say with "suspect" or even "believe" would be a big improvement.
PIPCU has criminal and civil powers in UK law to seize money, belongings and any property in
connection with these offences.
This one makes it pretty clear that if EasyDNS don't comply, the police will take their stuff and keep it for as long as they can. Again, I don't think they mean to come across as threatening, but rewording this stuff could do a lot in getting people to cooperate instead of putting them on the defensive.
I find this very disturbing. I'm glad easydns have made it public, I shall be speaking to my MP about this.
The police are behaving as if they are the judge, jury, and executioner. This is unacceptable.
Once proved in a court of law, then a court order should be issued.
even then.. there are a thousand proxy browsers they won't care.
Let's face it, they are just trying it on. In my opinion, the police do a fair amount of this kind of thing. When the legal threshold is a bit too high for what they want, a non-binding letter may serve the trick. A bit naughty, given you are asking someone to breach data protection by changing stuff willy-nilly.
I am sure someone thought "oh, well, it's worth a try". I just wonder how many times this has happened and the provider has just rolled over.
I was part of a Nominet "forum" on the "suspension of domains involved in illegal activity" as Nominet were looking to develop policy on the issue. The process lasted well over a year with many meetings discussing what Nominet should do. Civil society wanted Nominet to insist on court orders with the exception where there was a risk of significant harm in the short term (in other words would people be at risk of fraud or identity theft over the weekend when a judge is not available to issue an order) but the police and industry wanted to carry on just having stuff shutdown on request.
The police have literally forced Nominet to suspend thousands of domains without a court order - they threaten Nominet with charges under Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) leaving Nominet with the decision of either having to pay significantly high legal fees defending the charges or simply shutting down the domains - up until the point of the policy discussion, they always chose to shut down the domains. I am yet to receive any information since the discussions ended illustrating that Nominet have changed this policy. The discussions ended at a stalemate between civil society and the police.
The police state that because Nominet receive fees for domains, they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that domain is used for "illegal" purposes - the entire premise is a stretch at best, we had some top legal people on the group who completely disagreed with the police's position since Nominet receive their fees before the domain is used to commit any illegal activity.
This has been going on for years, I am glad a registrar finally had the balls to stand up to them.
The police and security services are very good at: (i) lobbying for new powers that they insist will only ever be used in very specific and limited circumstances, and then (ii) being extremely creative in applying such new powers to as wide a set of circumtances as possible, to the point of testing the credulity of even the dullest of politicians and regulators. Never mind the circumstances in which they covertly break the law due to the lack of adequate oversight (plenty of coverage of this kind of thing here and in the Guardian recently re. the Snowden revelations).
This action by PIPCU (and elaborated in the post above) is an excellent example as are the well-documented misuses of RIPA and our extensive "anti-terror" legistlation. What makes it all the more worrying are the most recent revelations about the NSA & GCHQ subverting TOR and covertly compromising net users simply because they seek to protect thier privacy on-line.
It's always interesting how the letter of the law, the bit that matters, always seems a bit over done, but we're assured that the spirit will be remembered.
Like declaring all Icelandic entities (companies) terrorists and seizing their assets.
Anti-terror and money laundering laws give even low level LEOs pretty much all the details of your life. I'm still fascinated at how there's these insanely powerful tools that they never role out. Maybe I should become a financial cop, until they bribe, er, hire me off.
"The police state that because Nominet receive fees for domains, they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that domain is used for "illegal" purposes"
That's not a defensible position in a court of law - Nominet should have stumped up the cash for lawyers or started a fund.
I mean, if I use my car in a ram-raid, and my the insurance company is making money from me using that car 'they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that car is used for "illegal" purposes
@Sir Runcible Spoon:
"I mean, if I use my car in a ram-raid, and my the insurance company is making money from me using that car 'they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that car is used for "illegal" purposes"
Oooh! I know this one! Also the money the DMV (or whatever appropriate motor vehicle authority applies) receives for registering the vehicle is also tainted. As is then whatever percentage of the salary or other compensation the clerk received for processing the application. And when the clerk spends that money, not only the money but the goods received are also tainted. Then the store uses that money to buy stock, or pay its employees...
Once money is tainted, it is contaminated for all eternity. It cannot be used again but must be destroyed. Oh wait, the destruction would mean the component molecules will eventually be used to make something else and contaminate that. Even if you throw it into the sun, the resulting burst of sunlight will be tainted as well... we must make a place to store all contaminated money and goods where it cannot be retrieved, re-used or in any way re-enter any cycle of life or manufacture.
Ridiculous? Of course. But at what point does this chain go from reasonable to ridiculous? Right at the start, or just wherever the authorities find it convenient for the buck to stop?
"The police have literally forced Nominet to suspend thousands of domains without a court order - they threaten Nominet with charges under Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) leaving Nominet with the decision of either having to pay significantly high legal fees defending the charges or simply shutting down the domains"
There is an easy way to deal with this.
Every time that the police issue a demand for take down with PoCA threats, without having followed the required legal process, that are subsequently shown as wrong, issue a claim in the small claims court against the >>police officers<< involved (for less than £10k), for loss of business and damage to reputation. If officer plod turns up in court with a police force funded lawyer, remind the judge that public sector bodies are not legally allowed to fund defences against individual members of the body.
After you do this a few times, see how careful the police get at following the exact letter of the law (i.e. get a court order, then ask for take down)
What a load of cobblers.
Who would expect a police force to approach a library and say 'We believe Mrs Bloggs has borrowed a book but is in breach of your terms and conditions. We will shut down the library if you don't do something about it."?
1) Terms and conditions are for the company and it's customers
2) Breaches of terms and conditions are not enforcable by the Police.
3) Why are the Police driving it and not either the host or the customer?
4) Threats should not be part of UK policing.
Fundamentally it appears that they (the police or someone associated with the police) are seeking to shut down a potentially legitimate domain using clandestine methods and not the law. This is neither appropriate nor, I would suggest, legal in this country.
"The police state that because Nominet receive fees for domains, they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that domain is used for "illegal" purposes...."
I wish Police had taken a similar line with BT when they were profiting nicely from dialler programs which were infecting computers in the days of dial-up.
Today, people are still being ripped off on both landlines and mobiles (cellphones) by illegal conduct that also profits the provider -- which gets off without penalty and usually keeps their share of the loot.
Apparently, City of London Police has set up a new unit, called PIPCU (I'm not joking), which started their activity on 13 September 2013 with great fanfare with an arrest of a couple of blokes in Birmingham (WTF?) on suspicion of selling imported counterfeit DVD box-sets after they've been grassed on by FACT. That PIPCU is a joint venture between CoLP and the IPO and is funded by the latter.
Because the terms were fairly standard for 1998. Times change, in 1998 copyright infringement was overwhelmingly pursued via the court system. Now, it appears all the big IP industries can be bothered to do is lobby Govt and promote Civil infringement as Criminal law breaking, in the process they have lost my civility.
Since when did the City of London, occupying a shave over a single square mile, suddenly gain jurisdiction over a Canadian firm supplying perfectly legal and increasingly necessary services to clients well outside of their boundaries? What is the legal principle here? Can we ask to have *them* shut down for directly abusing their network connection? We know who they are and can show that they are actually doing the things we allege.
Why are we bound to honor this improper and sinister over-reach of a corrupt police force on behalf of their cronies? We would not honor a request like that from North Korea. Likely there would be a diplomatic furor if they tried something so entirely beyond their authority.
I think many of us have an idea of the wildly disproportionate influence that particular place (CoL) has, but they are getting pretty cheeky about it. The bad guys are starting to work entirely in the open now.
Stuff like this, that is clearly unlawful under any reasonable legal regime, should be punished accordingly, without a statue of limitations, if we ever actually gain back control of our governments.
I don't know who these people purport to represent, but for the record, they don't represent me or any of my friends, family or colleagues.
"Since when did the City of London, occupying a shave over a single square mile, suddenly gain jurisdiction over a Canadian firm supplying perfectly legal and increasingly necessary services to clients well outside of their boundaries?"
I dunno, why don't we get our head of state to take it up with their head of state.
Perhaps instead of simply complaining, people might actually do something to take back their countries from the slimeballs that currently run them!
No matter where we are, I'm quite certain that we did not give them the permission to lie, cheat, steal and rape our rights as citizens.
Worldwide 1776 needs to happen NOW before Worldwide 1984 becomes permanent!
As its not protectively marked and isn't commercial in confidence and he hasn't signed a NDA I suspect there is sod all they can do about this... and the police telling people not to "leak" things is a bit sodding rich - the Met Police leak like a sieve with a lot of extra holes drilled in it, and CoLP will be no better.
Innocent until proven guilty, it’s only been in use for the last 800 years, what part of the clearly defined legal process did the “jumped up little Hitler” in the CoL plod miss on his basic training?
The job of the police is to (1) investigate and (2) enforce the law, two different jobs at different stages of the legal process, It is the job of the courts to act as the judiciary. i.e. possible crime detected, evidence taken to court, law enforcement action authorised by independent judge, police assist court enforcement when needed.
If any member of the police force thinks that they are allowed to act also as judge and jury, they should be thrown out for having some seriously dangerous delusions, and are therefore mentally unfit for the job.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
