Why aren't illegal sites easier to track down?

An IP address doesn't get you far

As I've written about before, an IP address only gets you so far. At best, it only gets you to a device that's connected directly to the internet. Mere mortals like you and I can't even get that far, because the information about who owns that device or where it is located is protected by the internet service provider.

In the U.S., that means that we first have to get a court order or other legal document to force the ISP to provide that information.

Even then, if that device is simply a router behind which there are many computers, the IP address alone hasn't told you which one. Through proxies, routers, and anonymization servers, it's very possible for the actual computer involved to be very well hidden. That's one of the ways that the hacker group Anonymous has remained so elusive.

But let's pretend for a moment that it's not. Agencies working at the behest of the government probably have all the legal paperwork that they need and almost certainly have ready access to all the technical details.

On top of that, my guess is that most of the larger organizations that you're thinking of don't need to hide their server locations.

Not everyone agrees with you

Organizations that are considered evil in one part of the world may not be so despised elsewhere.

What's banned or illegal in one country might not be in another - and the internet is global.

An organization that you or I might vehemently disagree with needs only to find a country or location that is friendly to (or at least tolerant of) their cause to host their technology. Having done so, they're on the internet.

Now a knee-jerk reaction would be to sanction that hosting country somehow, or cut off their internet.

Sanctioning enters into the realm of politics that I don't really want to go into very deeply, other than to say that it's never that simple. Relationships with other countries are complex and are often important to maintain, even when we might disagree with some of their beliefs and policies.

Cutting off the internet not only requires the cooperation of all of the surrounding regions that might be feeding in internet (and hence, their unanimous agreement that it should be done - not so easily accomplished), but also has the unintended side-effect of cutting off everyone, including dissidents and others who might be more sympathetic to and working for our causes.

Not everyone has the resources

Perhaps a more common problem is that sites - including the not only politically controversial, but even malware, piracy or other sites that we might more commonly come into contact with - are often hosted in countries that have limited enforcement resources or technical knowledge.

This is something that we actually see in our own country - a small local town's sheriff might not have the expertise to even deal with an internet-related issue or the budget to get help. As a result, less serious internet-related issues are simply not prioritized.

The same is true at a global scale. Less developed or more cash-strapped countries may well have internet and internet hosting of some sort, but not the expertise or resources to pursue anything but the most heinous internet-related issues. Finding out who's behind a website hosted in their country might be well out of their abilities.

Remember free speech?

While it doesn't apply globally, in the United States, we pride ourselves on this concept of free speech, perhaps best exemplified by the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That brings us back to U.S.-based hosting - just because we disagree with something that's posted on the internet doesn't mean that it can't be posted.1 Indeed, free speech means that all viewpoints, however repugnant, can be heard.

So many of the organizations that you might find offensive actually can be legally hosted right here at home.

It's not until that they actually do something illegal that stronger measures can be taken.

Now, in some cases, simply advocating illegal actions - perhaps such as a violent overthrow of the government - would itself be illegal. As a result, that's why many websites that take extreme positions and advocate illegal activity are more often hosted as I mentioned earlier; off-shore in countries that are more tolerant of their positions or less able to do anything about it.

•

1 "free speech" is often incorrectly used as an argument when posting comments. That's not how it works. The owner of a site is free to control the content of his site and that includes deleting comments and if appropriate, banning commenters. That's not a violation of free speech, but rather basic property rights. On the other hand, those who wish to share opinions that would be banned on another person's site are quite free to set up a site of their own on which they can express those views.

•

Please note: I post this article with some trepidation, as it ventures into the realm of international politics and I know many people have strong opinions on the topic. I absolutely invite comments, but require that you keep them respectful. As site owner, I will exercise my rights to delete abusive comments and/or even disable commenting entirely if it becomes unmanageable.