ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Slaw.ca

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Research

: Slaw.ca

Uk Internet Registrars Get Authority to Block Sites for Alleged Criminal Activity

By John Gregory

ADVERTISEMENTS

According to a piece on Out-Law.Com, Nominet, the UK domain administrator, is allowing domain registrars for dot.uk domains to shut down web sites if there are credible allegations of criminal activity on those sites.

This is not supposed to happen with allegations of civil wrongs, such as copyright infringement (though if infringement is an offence under the Copyright Act, does that count as criminal?).

Registrars are cautioned not to lock someone out of their domain on the allegation of a commercial or personal rival . . .

Apparently this policy has been developed in association with the police. Nominet itself closed down 1200 sites in December for illegal activity, but now wants to delegate at least the authority for those decisions. (It is interesting that among the ‘crimes’ listed to justify this direct closing was failing to supply goods to consumers who had ordered them. (Would that not be a civil rather that criminal problem, or would it depend on the intent of the non-supplier?)

No word in the article about remedies for those who see their web sites blocked though they are not engaging in criminal activity — or even for those who are but who would have preferred due process of law to judging and execution by a domain registrar. If Nominet or the registrar were not liable (would they be? should they be?), the person who alleged the criminal activity might be — or would that be an occasion of qualified privilege?

Canadian experience has been that taking down some web sites often sideswipe others — so blocking a server will affect all sites on the server. Maybe targeting the domain names would avoid that unpleasantness (not that anyone ever apologized to the folks whose sites were sideswiped, so far as I know).

Name owners will have 90 days to resolve the ?investigation lock? or they will lose their names.

So: is this a good idea to fight cybercrime? Should CIRA do the same for Canadian registrars? Would the Charter of rights enter into it at all, or would it be entirely a private action outside the scope of the Charter?

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on January 26, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0031 secs (from cache 10/31/26 06:59:48)