I don't have time to respond in detail, but glad to see people thinking.

There is a third problem:  Attacking the DNS (by LEOs) not only creates
collateral damage; it's rarely effective.  Approving an ineffective
action may look good on TV, but it does not stop the crime.  The
internet community can't just sit back and complain; the LEOs, judiciary
(and legislators) need solutions and education.  It's not their fault
that they use the only tool that they know about (and have legal
precedent for).  The community (technical and political) needs to engage.

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed. 

On 08-Jul-14 12:49, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Timothe Litt's comments "hit the nail on the head" with his first
> sentence in which he writes:
>
> On 08/07/2014 12:02 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> If you read the comments, you'll note that they didn't even get the
>> 'take-over' right.
>
> Forget for a moment the contentious issue of whether or not this was
> the right way to attach the problem. Clearly it was not. BUT, and this
> is a very big but, when the  case for "doing something quick" is
> typically put before the judicial system, the judicial system only has
> (hopefully it has) the capacity to determine if the "something", both
> grounds and proposed solution, are warranted under the law. What the
> judicial system does not have is the capacity to assess the ability of
> the petitioner (police?, MicroSoft?, who is legit here?) to do the
> something correctly, with the intended effect, and without unintended
> collateral damage.
>
> This is not a small problem. It is a big problem. Suppose the police
> thought there was an illegal marijuana "grow op" in your neighborhood,
> based on electricity load data, and the courts gave them permission to
> selectively turn off the power to every abnormal user. They may
> interrupt the grow op, but they may also turn off medical devices and
> the like.
>
> There are two big problems here. The first it what should be subject
> to judicial authorization. The second is what criteria (or
> credentials) are used to determine who has the proper capacity to act.
> In a criminal case if the courts give permission to search a premises
> they don't give that permission to the postal deliver person, or the
> lawn care company, it goes to the police.
>
>  There are two problems here.  
>
> Sam L.
>