PDA

View Full Version : Breaking news about domains....


Mike AI
09-03-2003, 08:13 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5071133.html

Net criminal arrested in domain deceit


By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 3, 2003, 5:15 PM PT


Notorious Internet criminal John Zuccarini was arrested Wednesday by federal law enforcement officers for allegedly creating misleading domain names to deceive children and direct them to pornographic Web sites.
Zuccarini's arrest marks the first to be made under the Truth in Domain Names Act. He was previously convicted of numerous Internet crimes. The act, which took effect in April, prohibits people from creating misleading domain names as a means to deceive children into viewing content that's harmful to minors, or tricking adults into clicking on obscene Web sites.

"Zuccarini has been notorious for years, so to think he would finally get busted for this is kind of like seeing the end of the line for (computer hackers Kevin) Mitnick or (Kevin) Poulson," said Eric Goldman, an assistant professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee.



The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, James Comey, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service arrested Zuccarini on charges of creating at least 3,000 misleading domain names, such as dinseyland.com, that would result in Internet users accessing advertising Web sites. These Web sites, some of which were pornographic, would pay Zuccarini a total of as much as $1 million a year for bringing viewers to their sites, federal prosecutors said.

Also, once users were at the Web sites, they could not exit the page by clicking on the "close" button at the bottom of the computer screen, prosecutors said. Instead, the "close" button would open up other Web pages--a move known as "mouse trapping."

"The defendant is accused of taking advantage of children's common mistakes, and using that to profit by leading them by the hand into the seediest and most repugnant corners of cyberspace. His alleged actions are not clever but criminal," Comey said in a statement.

Zuccarini has been convicted on similar allegations before, prior to the passing of the Truth in Domain Names Act.

Last year, a federal court ordered Zuccarini to stop deluging Internet users with porn and gambling pop-up ads when they mistyped a Web address. And in 2001, the Federal Trade Commission sued Zuccarini on similar charges. The courts ordered him to give back $1.8 million in "ill-gotten gains" and prohibited him from participating in Internet advertising affiliate programs.

Zuccarini, if convicted of violating the Truth in Domain Names Act, could face up to four years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

But despite Zuccarini's past run-ins with federal prosecutors, Goldman and other Internet law experts say his conviction under the new act could run into trouble, based on free-speech claims.

"I think millions of Internet surfers may cheer at the thought of Zuccarini receiving some rough justice. However, the idea of putting someone in jail based on their choice of domain names should make us all concerned. I could see some First Amendment problems with this prosecution, because fundamentally it criminalizes Internet speech, and the courts have not been kind to Congress' attempts to do that in the past."

Doug Isenberg, editor and publisher of GigaLaw.com and an Atlanta attorney who specializes in Internet law, agreed.

"The law itself is a bit unclear about using a misleading domain name," Isenberg said. "While Zuccarini allegedly engaged in misleading activities, it's not clear what a misleading domain name is...and a law that is vague is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. I would not be surprised if he challenges the law as vague and, therefore, unconstitutional."

And anytime a new law is challenged in the courts for the first time, it gives an indication of the breadth or limits of the law itself, Isenberg said.

He added: "Depending on how this arrest plays out, it will ultimately tell us about the strength, or weakness, in the Truth in Domain Names act."

Mike AI
09-03-2003, 08:14 PM
More on this....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apt...20Trick%20Names (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Internet%20Trick%20Names)

confucy
09-03-2003, 11:52 PM
Mike,

"this is kind of like seeing the end of the line for (computer hackers Kevin) Mitnick or (Kevin) Poulson,"

It's Poulsen, with an (e)! I'm not sure what this writer means by the sentence above. Kevin Poulsen was a creative hacker. He found a way to win a new Porsche by playing with the phonelines of an L.A. radio station. He had a sense of humor. He served five years like Mitnick at a Northern Calif prison along with some time at Metropolitan Detention Center in L.A. where Mitnick served most of his years in prison

Poulsen got his start after he left prison by taking a job as a writer/reporter for ZDNet. He put Mitnick on the map by writing about him. Poulsen works for securityfocus.com, and is a very good writer, which Mitnick will never be. You can trust Poulsen. You can't trust Mitnick. When Poulsen tells you he has written something, you can believe him. Poulsen writes about internet security. Mitnick *talks* about security, because that is all he can do....talk talk talk in his nasal voice which breaks and squeaks like a little kid. Mitnick is ripping off the public. I read his book. He didn't write it...his ghost writer did. Mitnick is sneaky and paranoid. Poulsen is open, and as far as I know...honest. Poulsen would fit-in at Oprano. Mitnick would be evasive.

Hope you don't mind, Mike, that I am getting my dose of therapy every time I see a post about Mitnick or hackers. I can't think of one hacker who has gotten as much undeserved attention as Mitnick.

It doesn't make any sense mentioning Mitnick and Poulsen in this story. John Zuccarini is a mousetrapper, a trickster who draws people with phony banner ads, a violator of the new law regarding sending internet users to pornsites by using misspelled domain names and redirecting non-porn sites to porn locations. The only connecton I see between Zuccarini and Mitnick is that Zuccarini had a domain name called KevinSpacy.com which was a misspelled name of the actor, Kevin Spacey, and Spacey had talks with Mitnick this year about putting together a movie. Other than that, I see no connection between this crook and the two hackers.

What is that game? Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? Another Kevin!

I hope they put Zuccarini away for a long time. :yowsa:

slavdogg
09-04-2003, 12:00 AM
the law was created for one real purpose to bust this Zuccini dude

sextoyking
09-04-2003, 12:09 AM
I am sure there will be a court challenge to this law.

I understand why they made the law, but I do think it can censor some free speech.

I think it will be overturned.

Wizzo
09-04-2003, 12:30 AM
Zuccarini had to of known they were coming for his ass! If the FTC ever does to me what they did to him, I'm surely not going to keep doing the same stuff AND stick around the US for the REAL Feds to come get me... It amazes me sometimes how people can be sooo stupid...

It reminds me of those guys that are always on those Discovery Channel Cop shows, where the cops execute a search warrant and take a person's car, clothes, murder weapon, or something... Knowing full well that the cops have some evidence and for some reason think they are going to get picked up later and stick around...only to spend their life in jail... Whether you did it or not, get the hell out of Dodge, at least make some effort to get away...

:huh:

slavdogg
09-04-2003, 12:43 AM
from his one time lawyer

Zuccarini is not only nuts - he's stupid, too. He had been living in the Bahamas for awhile, but for some unknown reason decided to come to South Florida and was arrested here. Couldn't have happened to a loonier guy!

confucy
09-04-2003, 12:33 PM
If in fact, Zuccarini's attorney said those things about his client, then the attorney is an even bigger scumbag than Zuccarini.

Zuccarini deserves to be punished along with all the virus sending crackers, the email spamming bastards, and the thieves who enter your computer using spy software like dameware.

I have mixed feelings about .xxx domain names. What about websites that feature art which shows the naked body in paintings, statues, and photography? Will these people be forced to change their domain names to a .sex or.xxx name?

Meni
09-04-2003, 12:40 PM
Jay from CEN emailed me
my www.britnyspears.com was shown on TV down in FL
I had
click here for britney spears official site
then 18 plus warnings
and a clean TrueCelebs banner with her on it
no pop ups on my page, no back buttom manipulation
i applied for amazon aff account
I may just sell her posters, books, dvds, cds, whatever I can

Mike AI
09-04-2003, 05:39 PM
More details, this guy is pretty interesting....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32669.html

World's most notorious cybersquatter arrested
By Kieren McCarthy
Posted: 04/09/2003 at 20:31 GMT


The world's most notorious cybersquatter, John Zuccarini, has been arrested in Florida and will be prosecuted under new legislation aimed at protecting children online.

Zuccarini, who has made millions every year since the early days of the Internet by registering lucrative domains, was arrested by Feds just after dawn in his motel room.

The authorities believe he may have living there for months but the arrest is a coup for the agents who have been looking for Zuccarini since April. It will also put a smile on the face of the government and FTC who have both been trying to shut him down for several years.

The other great advantage for the US government is that the first usage of a controversial new act passed earlier this year will concern someone who has flagrantly disregarded the law for years.

John Zuccarini is without a doubt the biggest cybersquatter on the Internet. He was one of the very first people to register companies' and famous people's name and then use it to either extort money out of people or profit by pointing them at other sites that pay him a small fee for every referral.

But as time has gone on and new laws have been introduced, Zuccarini has been forced to adapt. It was no longer possible to buy a domain with the sole purpose of selling it to a company with the same name at a healthy profit. So he kept the domains himself and either redirected them for a fee or took money for pop-up ads. Often both.

When it became increasingly difficult to register domains of actual companies or people, he immediately leapt into so-called "typo-squatting" - where a domain is chosen that is almost identical to a well-known site but with letters transposed or missing. Again, heading to that site saw a multitude of ads pop up. Due to increasing social unacceptance of the practice, the ads tended to be for gambling or porn sites.

Once the US government introduced another set of laws aimed at stopping and fining people like Zuccarini (in fact, it could be argued that the laws were written specifically for Zuccarini), the gambling industry dropped out, leaving just the adult industry to fund Zuccarini's investment in thousands of domains.

And he's done well. Making between 10 and 25 cents per ad or referral, Zuccarini has been making around $1 million a year from his domains. And the huge sums of money have meant that he continues to do it despite numerous lost cases and fines.

He has been through the ICANN domain arbitration system 97 times involving several hundred domain names. He has lost virtually every one. He has been sued 63 times and has lost 53 and counting.

Fellow cybersquatter, Jeff Burgar, is noted for his courage in fighting the system, arguing his case admirably and exposing the shady goings-on behind the scenes that give companies and famous people ownership of domains without real justification.

John Zuccarini has however been the archetypal cybersquatter - utterly without justification other than to make as much money as possible by deceiving people. He never bothers to defend his domains but simply moves on to the next site.

The Feds have been pulling their hair out trying to stop him. It has a dedicated webpage to the man and took the unusual step of releasing a press release expressly stating it was going after him.

In October 2000, a government-brought case fined him $500,000 plus $30,000 in lawyers' fees. In June 2001, it did the same again. He was fined $50,000 plus $40,000 in lawyers' fees. But still he continued. In May 2002, it really went for him. He was fined an incredible $1.9 million and a court order was placed against him that banned him from redirecting people on the Internet or opening up new Web windows without getting their permission. He was also ordered to open his books to the FTC.

As no doubt one Fed said to another recently: "I don't think he's got the message." And so when a new bill called the PROTECT Act, known commonly as the "Amber Alert" Act, went through with a little-noticed addition called "Truth in Domain Names", time was finally up for John Zuccarini.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act was passed by the House of Representatives in April this year by 400 to 25 and then approved in the Senate by 98 to 0. The president signed it.

The "truth in domain names" provision makes it illegal to use a "misleading domain name" in order to deceive someone into viewing obscenity or a child into viewing "material that is harmful to minors". The terms are tough - up to two years in jail for an adult and up to four years if the domain is intended to attract kids. The person can also be fined up to $250,000.

The problem is that the Act is on some very shaky territory. What is a "misleading" domain? Who decides what is "obscene"? What constitutes "harmful to minors"? The vast majority of pop-up ads and front pages of porn sites are relatively clean. To see something obscene, you need to click through to a different page - but can someone really be held responsible for another's actions?

What about many of the sites that Zuccarini has linked to that have a prominent warning saying "If you are under 18, do not enter"? Of course kids do enter, but can you hold someone else responsible for that? If you can, it sets a very nasty precedent - suddenly someone else can be held responsible for you do. That way, madness lies. And of course there is the eternal First Amendment defence in the US.

Another part of the Act is also shaky - it extends to definition of child porn to including images that are "indistinguishable from" kids in sexual positions, even if no kids are involved. Everyone agrees that child porn is repulsive but there is a strong whiff of thought police here that is almost certain to be questioned in court.

In fact, the US Supreme Court overturned an almost identical clause in the Child Pornography and Prevention Act of 1996, which tried to expand child pornography to include images that "appear to be" kids.

The Supreme Court decided that it was unlawful as it "prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". For example, Romeo and Juliet, Lolita and recent hit American Beauty would all be banned.

But with Zuccarini the lawmakers have the perfect test case that will at least give the new PROTEST Act one prosecution. He will be completely without remorse and yes it is hard to justify setting up domain names almost identical to Disneyland or Britney Spears with the full knowledge that they will link to porn sites.

Zuccarini is no friend to the authorities, no friend to kids, and no friend to those who are fighting against corporate and governmental interests to keep the Internet as democratic as possible. ®

slavdogg
09-04-2003, 06:16 PM
Meni, i was the 1st one to tell you that
2 years ago


confucy, learn to read