VPC Didn't Pay their bill??

[Darryl Howland]

If this is true, it's even more hilarious!
---------------------------------------------

In article <394fa34d.492974850@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >This morning, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) learned that its Online
> >Resource Center web site, www.vpc.org, was completely erased by a
pro-gun hacker who replaced the site with one featuring a bomb,
skull and crossbones, obscenities, and links to pro-gun web sites,

Actually, it appears that what they did was stone-cold legal.

They didn't break into the web site. What happened was that apparently the dingbats at vpc.org didn't renew their domain name. domain names are purchased for two years at a time. If they don't re-up,
someone else can grab the name.

A look at the who is command shows this:

Registrant:
Violence Policy Center (VPC3-DOM)
2000 P Street, NW #200
Washington, DC 20036
US

Domain Name: VPC.ORG

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing
Contact: Torian, Ted (TTW180) violencpolicycentre1@YAHOO.COM
Violance Policy Center
xxxx S. Shore Bulevard
Los Angeles , CA 60632
(213)xxx-xxxx(FAX) (213)xxx-xxxx

Record last updated on 16-Jun-2000.
Record expires on 13-Nov-2000.
Record created on 12-Nov-1996.
Database last updated on 21-Jun-2000 03:01:55 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.NETFIRMS.COM 216.32.198.6
NS2.NETFIRMS.COM 216.32.198.7


In short, it looks like Ted Torian bought the vpc.org domain name, lock stock and barrel, because the people at the violence policy center didn't pay their bills on time. No break-in. Sugarmann was going off half-cocked; nothing erased, no laws violated.
Just a clever guy entering a credit card number on a web page and coughing up $70.

*******************************************

This is more than a little amusing.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

It's far less than amusing, in as much as if what Torian did in "hacking" the site was legal, (And I doubt that the erasure of all those files was legal!) then the VPC's restoration of the site is ILLEGAL.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

 

[G35MN]

I'm not buying it.
If what you say is true that they own the domain name for two years then the dates don't jive.

Look at when it was last updated and when it expires.
Record last updated on 16-Jun-2000.
Record expires on 13-Nov-2000.
Record created on 12-Nov-1996.
Database last updated on 21-Jun-2000 03:01:55 EDT.

June 16th to November 13th 2000 is not 2 years.

Dosen't look like it has changed owners.

 

[Mute]

If you ask me, those jackals at VPC did this themselves hoping to make gunowners look bad. "See. See what kind of people these gunowners are?"

Maybe their "normal" site wasn't getting the publicity they wanted.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Could be, Mute...I haven't seen where the Fed's have caught the patsy...er...uh... I mean the perpetrator yet.

They certainly are capable of such trecherous deceit.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website

 

[Hal]

Domain names are *owned* for 1 year. The initial fee is $70.00 for the first 2 years, then $35.00 per year after that, renewable each year on or before the due date. We, ,,,ah,,,ummm,,,ahem...ahh,,forgot to send in our yearly fee back in March of this year where I work ( muttering something about the shoemakers kids going barefoot ) and when our ISP switched carriers, we dropped our domain name 24 hours later. The fiels on the VPC website are still there, as all the domain owner *owns* is really a name associated with the IP address. What you saw wasn't the front door to the site, just a page put out on the web. The *real* vpc.org site was/is still there, and 100% intact, but you can't, or could'nt get to it until the name and IP address were correctly linked. Whomever did this did break a few laws since they apperantly :
A) Either got to the Network Solutions DNS server to change the billing, contact and host information.( the hosts are the 2 at the bottom of the page).

OR

B) Falsified information about billing, contact and host information to Internic(the internet people that hand out the names) by paying for this years fees before the due date. If they would have waited until after November,,,,,well you can always wish.


There is however a C) option here. If the person responsible for the hijack, placed false or misleading information on a DNS server that THEY owned, and put it directly on the internet, then no laws were broken. Truth is, there is nothing against the law, and there is no law, Federal, State, Local or International that says you can't place a DNS server directly on the internet, and distribute IP addresses that are *bogus*. In short, YOU too can be www.microsoft.com if you want. Granted, you will only be that for a short time until pressure is put on the higher links in the food chain, but as of right now, it isn't against any law. The deal is, every ISP and middle carrier buys their time from only a handfull of main trunk line carriers, AT&T, UUNET, Sprint etc. That handful of main carriers will disconnect any and all lower carriers for any impropriety. VPC is whining about the loss of e-mail, and there they have a point, although it's a moot one. E-mail isn't covered by any laws at all. None, zip, zero, ziltch. It's treated the same way a radio or TV signal is, it's a broadcast for all to pick up. I for one am for some form of privacy where e-mail is concerned, and agree (barf-THAT HURTS TO SAY) with VPC on this. Theft of e-mail should be treated as theft. As far as the domain name, tough ****s. You play on an international level of anarchy and you have to expect a few rough spots. The real strength of the internet is it's structured chaos. Think of it as trying to smash quicksilver with a hammer.

 

[JimR]

RAE

I must disagree wholeheartedly about email privacy, if you are implying we need governmental regulation in this area. If you must have privacy, use a connection-oriented protocol (as opposed to connectionless, like SMTP), and encrypt your traffic.

Otherwise, realize that you're sending postcards.

 

[Hal]

Jim,
Peace bro. You sound like a fellow 'puter geek
I see the whole e-mail thing as being an area were we better put some ground rules in place, before they are put there for us. I look at the 2nd amendment, and wonder if it had been written by an everyday gun owner, concerned not only about arming the public against government abuse, but also defineing the individual's right to meet aggression in the same light.
Electronic data transfer is quite unique, given that it uses every concievable form of media, and quite often several different topologies going from point "A" to point "Z". Even if an upper level protocol, such as a UDP, or any of the several OSI transport level and above protocols are used, there is no guarantee that at some point a directed multicast network protocol will foreward the transmission from one network to another.
It like the age old truth vs lie debate. The truth has to be 100% true to be the truth, but even a tiny bit of false can make the truth a lie. All you need to prove a conncetion oriented protocol to be connectionless, is one bit of header information to do so. Right now, there are no safeguards in place to prevent that. If on it's way to your mail server, the frames go inter-hub using a multicast proprietary protocol, it can taint the entire message.

OBTW, I also use the post card analogy, along with equating e-mail with sticky notes. *sigh* Sometimes people even get the point, but man it's tough to convice them.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited June 24, 2000).]

 

[Jeff Thomas]

There are services available that track the availability of domain names. When they become available, an email is sent to you with that notice.

If this is how it went down, then bravo for Ted! Too much is being made of this otherwise - making gun owners look bad? Truly, friends, have we no juevos? This is war, and the anti-self defense gun bigots should know at every turn that we'll resist their efforts.

I think such harassment is great. And, we'll see more and more civil disobedience over the next few years as well, as more anti-self defense firearms laws are proposed / passed. These are all natural and logical steps one takes to preserve liberty, and they certainly are better than violence or complacency.

Regards from AZ

 

[jimpeel]

Question:

If this guy did this legally, why is the site back to what it was in the first place?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.