Proposed Law in New York to Ban Sale of Domain Names to Terrorists


Cybercrime Law reports on bill A5026/S63 in the New York State Legislature which would make it a crime under New York State law to knowingly sell domain names to terrorist organizations. Cybercrime Law goes on to cite what it believes is the relevant portion of the bill:

A person is guilty of criminal sale of an internet domain name to a terrorist group when he or she knowingly sells or provides without charge an internet domain name to any organization included on the list of organizations engaged in terrorist activities or who pose a terrorist threat compiled, maintained and updated by the state office of homeland security pursuant to paragraph (t) of subdivision two of section seven hundred nine of the executive law. Criminal sale of an internet domain name to a terrorist group is a class A misdemeanor.

Cybercrime Law and Eric Goldman question the feasibility of the law, even if passed.


Domains to terrorists

I like Eric Goldman's post - and Kidmercury's here; glad to see you all convering this issue.

I don't like terrorists (one bit), so any effort to block them from creating publicity campaigns or raise funds, or communicate to the world at large, is a good and well intended effort. It's logical that NY would be on the vanguard with starting a law like this since we've been at the center of major attacks, and we are fed up with the disruption to our lives.

Certainly the law needs to be more clearly defined, but it's a starting point. I say, block any suspicious domain sales, and then go to the courts to work it out.

I hope that they push a version of this domain law through and that it doesn't die this time around.

Don't think it will do much good

knowingly sell domain names to terrorist organizations.

What are the registers going to do?

[]Please check box to accepet our T&Cs
[]Please Check box if you are a terrorist organization

And knowing is half the battle...

If GI Joe decided to go after terrorists who register domain names, I can give them a link to Wikipedia which lists several of their "secret" bases in case they look at the whois info and find that it has been faked. Check it out, Cobra's leaders, bases, and everything are listed.

Seriously though, why not just make a blanket law, that it is against the law to knowingly deal with terrorists period? Why is a six dollar domain name more important to police than a PO Box or a six dollar burger?


Just another bad law from more ?incompetent US elected ?officials.

How these morons keep getting elected and re-elected is way beyond me.


Just what is a Terrorist? Anyone you disagree with? Or do they have to be a ?Muslim to be a terrorist? Or maybe just speak a different language or look different than you?

This Terrorist thing should scare the hell out of all Americans... Not because some dirty uneducated angry third world folks are coming for us...

Americans should be scared as hell because Terrorism is being used as an excuse by our own government to take away our freedoms and give the government total control of our lives.

The war on Terrorism is really a war on American Freedoms.

The war on Terrorism is SHAM!

We have enough bad laws

I have to agree this is a garbage law.

Is there any one who still doesn't understand that these laws against "terrorists" are so badly written they can be used to control non-terrorists? I won't claim that is intentional, but past history shows it is a bad idea to write bad laws that can be used to stifle innovation, enrepreneurship, competitiveness, and which can be used to curtail freedoms.

Since they all go to the courts anyway, why not write a simple law that prohibits treason? Oh, that's right. We already have that.

I honestly do not think

I honestly do not think these laws are about terrorism.

I think they are about getting re-elected and looking like you are trying to do something, as well as reminding people that they should be scared of something and they should trust you.

These proposed laws are nothing more than thinly disguised sales letters.

Ok who's got some VC funding on tap

And lanuch the new .terror TLD

>>I think they are about

>>I think they are about getting re-elected


Define Terrorist?

According the Republicans, the Democrats are terrorists. Does this mean all liberal sites will be banned?

While everyone is against terrorism, laws like this are troublesome. Without a clear and distinct description of terrorism, you open the door for abuse. Almost any site that is critical of America can be deemed as "aiding the terrorists". I'd hate to see this used as a way of scaring registrars into not allowing controversial domain names to be acquired.

But my biggest problem is that it isn't the registrars responsibility to police these things. I'm tired of banks having to police gambling, hosts having to police adult content, and now registrars having to police terrorism.

what's next?

Congress should spend another 100 hours drafting and deliberating the "No Cheeseburgers for Terrorists Act". Anyone caught selling a cheeseburger to a terrorist (food = energy to carry out attacks) should be sent to Guantanamo, the magical little place where "Habeas corpus" is just a figment of your imagination.


>>>"...Guantanamo, the magical little place where "Habeas corpus" is just a figment of your imagination."

I got some bad news for you, the right of Habeas corpus inside the USA is just a figment of your imagination, according to the Bush ?Administration.

According to Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States in his sworn testimony to Congress, the United States Constitution does NOT grant the right of "Habeas corpus" to anyone.

Here is a youtube video and the transcript of Mr. Gonzalas's sworn testimony to Congress, dated last month (Jan 07) where Mr Gonzalas informs Congress that the US Constitution does NOT ?guarantee Habeas corpus to the citizens of the United States.


?I had a couple of people ask why does it matter if Alberto Gonzales does not believe there is Habeas Corpus in the Constitution.

The reason is simple. Mr. Gonzales as the Attorney General of the United States of America is the person responsible for defending the Constitution and enforcing it.

So if Mr. Gonzales believes there is no Habeas Corpus protection in the US Constitution... There is no Habeas Corpus protection....

I had a couple of people ask

I had a couple of people ask why does it matter if Alberto Gonzales does not believe there is Habeas Corpus in the Constitution.

And that is the scariest part.

Most interesting to me is the combination of expressions, vocals, and logical approach to the discussion between Spector and Gonzales. Gonzales looks like he's a liar and / or gaming the conversation (as if he already knew the game plan and had agreed to play), and Spector looks like he considers himself too old for the fight (or perhaps just overly cautious).

If we sufered under a tyranny, I would not want old and wise representatives. I would want bold and foolish, but principled ones.


The really 'funny' part to me is that both Gonzalas and Specter consider themselves to be 'good' Consertivative Republicans.

I think Gonzalas leans a little more toward Neo-Fascism than Specter though...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.