ICANN Refuses to Accredit Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Due to His ‘Background’
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
Ironically, this was a better proof of transparency than what most "problematic" people would subject themselves to. If any vanilla oligarch wanted to be in those circles, he would just pay some squeaky-clean individual to be his stooge, and then make it known, after registration, who the real power is. Sunde could have configured himself as a freelance consultant to his friends, and he would not have appeared on any radar. This would have made his business work, but it would not have advanced the perennial conversation about ICANN's original sins, which have become more and more untolerable with the years.
ICANN were pretty stupid to just veto his admission. That's not how you deal with institutional critics. They could have simply brought him in, then informally and formally vetoed anything he wanted to do. They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario. Or they could have given him something, enough to behold him, so he'd have an incentive to stay in the tent and piss outside rather than the other way around.
This attitude proved Sunde is fundamentally right on the subject matter, like him or not as a person.
But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason.
Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.
Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so.
One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)
People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
Also https://njal.la/blog/we-dont-have-enemies/ - another reason to dislike him.
A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.
The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists).
Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them.
You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated.
Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?)
BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden.
Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.
Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.
Thanks for this one. I could always use more comically vulgar metaphors.
Who are some people who tried to "blow things up from inside"?
This sounds like it would make for an interesting HN discussion.
I vaguely recall a CEO they had who, after leaving, asked to see the books and was stymied.
Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.
Comically, this is what the riaa did with making claims against Sunde based on US laws and applying them to Sweden.
I think ICANN is a US corporation, but if they are impacting a Swedish company I’m sure there’s some local law that can be used.
It used to have a connection to the US department of commerce but that ended years ago.
But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.
Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.
If they were still a threat to society after 5 years or whatever, then they shouldn’t’ve been sentenced to just 5 years. And with innocent people being convicted, the bar to get it fixed is very high because (in some states), you have to not only prove you’re innocence, but that the prosecution messed up (such as withholding evidence). And don’t forget about prosecutorial immunity!
And if it is fixed, how do you answer that question? Yes, you were convicted, but it’s not on your record because you proved your innocence. Yes? No? Answer yes, and you’re denied. Answer no, and when they find out about it, you’re fired, and can only hope your bosses will fight for you and win.
It’s sad really.
I’m not saying you can’t keep a close eye on them. I’m sure a manager would be doing that. What I’m saying is: in America, society has decided that you’re worthless if you go to prison. We try so hard to keep people from reintegrating into the real world, it’s no wonder our recidivism rate is so high.
Presumably if they were let out of prison it's been decided that they are not longer a risk or have paid their debt to society.
So no, convicted murderers should not be prevented from being a cashier, nor any other job they qualify for. At any rate, the best way to steer someone back into crime is to take away their ability to have a job. How else are they supposed to survive?
application denied, due to criminal contacts- as in they investigated my familial references and found an extended family member with unsavoury past.
summary- no hire due to the conduct of a person other than yourself
>“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”
Note the use of "was" here.
> I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.
This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".
Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.
Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.
(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)
Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.
DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.
And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.
It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).
1. Opened a new tab.
2. Pressed the n key.
3. Pressed enter.
Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?
You don't see the problem because you are the problem.
So no Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc?
However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.
On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.
Deplatforming?
It's the height of arrogance that they didn't even feel the need to come up with any better excuse, just this. And of course:
> ICANN will also keep the registration fee
But if you do it based on an unsubstantiated semi-incoherent one-sided account, I think we can safely say you don't care about the truth of the matter.
So, people or groups are immune from criticism as long as they refuse to speak on the issue? I guess that's one stance to take.
They're continually coming up with new rip-offs to get people or organizations to apply for and then keep the astronomical fee after rejecting the application. Registrars, TLD owners...
Oh yeah, the "unlimited" TLD scam was one of the most offensive. They made it look like they were finally going to do the right thing and get rid of canned TLDs... but nope.
ICANN should be abolished. What should replace it? I don't know.
ICANN seems to have a representative multi-government structure that is robust against any particular government having unreasonable influence. If a few Sundes get crushed in the gears so be it.
The US tech giants are beholden to themselves and control a scary fraction of the internet's infrastructure. They are starting to flex their muscles in regard to what should and should not appear on the internet. As far as political threats go, that is where they will materialise. Or in governments copying China's strategy for engaging with technology.
Battles can be fought on multiple fronts if necessary.
This isn't the first corruption coming from ICANN.
I don't know how much guidance we can take from the original drafters on the novel problems of the modern era.
For one thing those corps main duty is to make money. If they engage in morality setting instead they should have their business license revoked.
I doubt that every individual connected to these organizations have a spot free reputation, so ICANN is really putting themselves in a weird position by singling out Sunde.
He's an active member of a political party named after his criminal enterprise.
You may think he's morally right, but he broke the law and as far as I know never repented his choice.
For related reasons, if you're convicted of creating malware and continue to loudly and publicly defend the principle of creating malware after your release, it's not cruel and unusual punishment if tech companies won't give partner certifications to your software consultancy
Criteria used by ICANN are unaccountable, capricious and prone to abuse of power
The argument is about due process.
> After the first final review of our application, ICANN made a background check of everyone involved in the application (we're a team). My first contacts with ICANN I've been very open with who I am - I mentioned they should google me. My background is.. let's say different. [...]
> After the background check I get a reply that I've "checked the wrong boxes" on parts of the application. There's some boxes saying: (paraphrasing) "have anyone in the team being convicted of fraud or similar in the past 10 years".
> Noone in the team has been convicted of that. Nor murder, manslaughter, theft, breaking & entering, or anything else. I was involved in a case of aiding with copyright infringement from 2005-2006. That's 15+ years ago. And not fraud or similar. [...]
> However, @ICANN is of another opinion. After spending over half a year to review the application (with a bi-weekly email stating that the delay is normal, nothing to be concerned about), they decided to deny the application since "the wrong box was ticked".
What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"
Someone needs to tell the ICANN what year it is.
Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.
To be honest, the next thing he writes (being actively wanted by interpol) does sound a bit fishy, I can see why that would make a bureaucrat on the other end of the line a bit less happy to comply. Imagine someone calls up your org and you find she (or he) is wanted in multiple countries, well, I can sort of see the point there, regardless of whether it's just in this particular case.
(First tweet starting at https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950233382273031 )
One of the craziest things about the internet to me is that everyone treats their experience of “the internet” as THE experience of “THE internet” like it’s one singular conception that we all enjoy. But, the internet is huge and diverse and full of distinct niches such that no two “internets” (as conceived of as an individual’s experience of it) are almost ever close to the same. The idea that surely the good people at ICANN would know this guy (I certainly didn’t) is so striking to me as derivative of this.
I’ve also heard of Pinterest for example but barely know the product and definitely don’t know the founders.
What’s more, you’re committing the same perspective but just at a slightly different scale. What I said originally about fractured internet experiences is also totally true if you restrict to American users! Plenty of American users of the internet are highly frequently so but don’t pirate, for example!
He's not famous for hamster dance. He's famous for a multi year battle over over the legal structure of the Internet, which is ICANN's wheelhouse.
Also, they seemed to agree that it wasn't fraud or similar.
Also also, Sunde isn't wanted by Interpol nor was he during the application process. He was wanted in 2012, prior to his prison stint.
> Many of the people working at ICANN are lawyers. ICANN is a very IP heavy organisation (domains are trademark territory) which means a lot of people has previously worked in other IP organisations such as movie and music studios. They're all located in Los Angeles, a small world.
That's not to get into whether the application should have been denied or blah blah blah, just want to throw out that shifting from when the conviction was to when the raid happened is somewhat disingenuous.
The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.
This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.
Accountability must be open.
Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.
https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...
"First they came for the nazis, and I defended them because I am a staunch supporter of free speech.
Then the nazis exterminated me and my entire family, just like they had always promised they would.
The end."
It's also unclear what 'underground' means here. Most communication (and particularly political organizing) happens over the Internet, and people regularly gain access to ideologically-bent forums. Was Parler 'underground'? Is a closed Facebook group 'underground'? At first glance, it seems that such groups being 'underground' is actually what we want to happen. More caution to conceal their activities and spread of information would limit the number of people getting into such a movement.
If the ideas are out in the open, we have to accept that there will be points at which rhetoric wins out over 'ideas', and that even if the marketplace of ideas produces correct results in the long run, we're still left dealing with incorrect results in the short run. Maybe that's a reasonable judgement for a libertarian point of view, but it's equally reasonable and understandable that someone may not want to make that concession at all.
This isn't the goal of such laws; the goal is to hobble the spread and reach of those ideas, not to change individual peoples' minds. It's forward-looking, not present-looking. It is also a show of the state's policy towards a particular ideology, and it carries the state's discursive authority with it. In a similar way, the point of laws against child pornography isn't to change the mind of the child pornographer, it's to slow and aim to stop the spread of the material, while attaching the state's authority to the idea that child abuse and its recording and distribution is wrong.
As a counterexample, it's documented that segregation laws had two effects; the first is keeping blacks and whites separate, the second is the authority of the law, as crafted by the sovereign body of the country, enshrined the inferiority of blacks, which reflected in the attitudes of whites and the psychology of blacks at the time. Something being legally enshrined has a very similar effect to how taxes discourage the goods they are levied on in the marketplace.
1) https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/13646149211163443...
> “And so, I established in 1919 a programme and tendency that was a conscious slap in the face of the democratic-pacifist world. [We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions.
> Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.
> Neither was done. The times were such that our adversaries were no longer capable of accomplishing our annihilation, nor did they have the nerve. Arguably, they furthermore lacked the understanding to assume a wholly appropriate attitude. Instead, they began to tyrannise our young movement by bourgeois means, and, by doing so, they assisted the process of natural selection in a very fortunate manner. From there on, it was only a question of time until the leadership of the nation would fall to our hardened human material.
This isn't the claim; the claim is more moderate: Nazis gaining political power, and not necessarily inevitably doing so. Nazis are only an example here; you can substitute any 'wrong' idea to see the analogies, from climate change denial to anti-vaxx to flat earth theories. Further, political power is only the end goal. I think most people would agree that a society where a large percentage of the population consists of (Nazis/anti-vaxxers/climate deniers) who don't vote in themselves would have negative discursive effects socially or politically on those who do vote. The state has power, but it does not have absolute power, and that's a good thing.
For many, some more balancing between the ideals of speech autonomy and democratic equality is strongly justified - see some regulation in Europe for example.
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#DemCitPor
Like we want to know who is planning to blow up someo building. Why wouldnt we want to know?
But the pirate bay co-founder Anakata says in this interview below that he defends the rights of pedos to have a website about their views (i think he clarifies at he doesnt allow pedo material but only a webiste about their "political" views), and that he is fighting for that right. To have their views in the open. So my question is, do you "progre" also agree with Anakata that aside Neonazis the Pedo politicians should also have their say in public view? And if you believe yes they should, can you elaborate why?
What if Steve is Bob's conpetitor and conveniently accused Bob of being a Nazi?
Suppose Bob is a nazi but hasn't commited any crimes, how far can we go, what else can we deny, can we refuse them a website? A mobile phone connection? electricity and running water? School for his child?
Really?
'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'
At least, it will be honest.
PS. Variations may include: "...if we don't like you OR we don't like anyone you like...".
Here's an example:
> We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Service at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or discontinuing certain features of the Service) without notice to you. We will have no liability whatsoever on account of any change to the Service or any suspension or termination of your access to or use of the Service
The right is reserved, no need to give any reason.
I spoke with Vint Cerf when he was the head of ICANN about GoDaddy's abusive policies that blocked customers from transferring domains, they went years without doing anything about that as well.
Peter Sunde is not the problem.
Whether a rival private corporation or a distributed federation, competition is the only option if one doesn't trust a government to take the responsibility over.
And, given the arrival of ENS, IPFS, etc., probably not of any enormous consequence either.
Centralized services in the vein of ICANN are clearly on the way out.
A. The person's past actions
B. The intent behind those actions
C. What they say now about those past actions
?
He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet.
Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
It would not just be unreasonable, for a rehabbed offender, but also stupid. The people who know the ins and outs of systems are the ones best placed to suggest improvements to the status quo. I wouldn't think this necessary to be explained on Hacker News, but here we are.
This is the core of my question C -- Is it reasonable to judge someone's current trustworthiness by what they say about their past actions?
You’re essentially saying, “I have a different system of logic from the common one, and I want my system of logic to be considered the right one. So I’ll just treat it as ‘irrelevant’ as a baseless gainsaying rebuttal to anyone else’s line of thinking.” How very whiny.
As my original reply mentioned, if you control basic, necessary infrastructure your consideration of such things must be clear and strictly held. Those are the guidelines ICANN should follow, they set limits and must follow them.
Why would this be an area to discuss what guidelines other kinds of businesses should follow? It's an odd choice in my opinion, and my only advice to such businesses is "do as you wish."
And please stop the unnecessary insults. The only thing I have accused you of is mudslinging, and I don't feel there's any reason to call me "whiny" and "entitled" for possibly poorly wording my point.
Because what guidelines to consider and why, in comparison with what ICANN considered, is highly relevant to the thread.
Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.
Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.
Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.
Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.
Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer.
I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.
Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same?
Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them?
You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both
Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.
If there is no moral clause, and all other criteria are met, then I question the legitimacy of the declining. If there is a moral clause, then I'd like to know on what grounds.
I dont think I've ever seen such a contrived strawman
That sums the present conversation I think.
It's an unfortunate waste of registrant fees in expensive legal consulting, it's a waste of people's time, and it demonstrates the power that IP holds within the ICANN community.