
Man sentenced to prison after assault of domain name owner who refused to sell - pionerkotik
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndia/pr/social-media-influencer-sentenced-14-years-federal-prison-after-plotting-hijack
======
tyingq
People do get very emotionally involved with domain names. I bought an expired
domain some time ago for something like $200. The previous owner had
apparently not intended for it to expire. I didn't know that until he
contacted me.

I was sympathetic, so I told him what I paid, and offered to sell it back for
$200 + $100 for my effort to start over, migrate stuff, etc.

I got a tirade of cursing and accusations back for my trouble.

~~~
saiya-jin
Wow, some people are quite something, acting like whole universe revolves
around them. I guess I would respond (in rather forced) polite manner that you
are disappointed by his reaction, that he should take steps to have more
control of his emotions for his own good, that because of his insults you are
hereby stopping any other communication with him, unless he offers 100x more
as compensation for his hurtful actions.

We all can do our little to teach a-holes of this world a lesson or two in
good manners. Nothing crazy or vengeful, but something they can and should
take as a lesson to become better human beings. Or suffer, their choice. Even
most broken people usually understand that kind of basic logic.

~~~
tyingq
It's petty, but I didn't respond. I just extended the registration to 10 years
:)

~~~
cgriswald
How sure are you it wasn't an attempted scam? For some reason scammers seem to
get really abusive like that.

Totally a tangent, but I was once at a time share presentation (I was a stupid
kid and they got me in with some free cash or something) and they wanted about
$30K for this timeshare which definitely wasn't worth $30K. Hell, the house I
was living in ALL the weeks of a year was only about $100K. When I was like,
"I can't afford that" they started talking to me about how this $30K timeshare
was a great investment. I responded like, "If I had $30K to invest, there are
better things to invest in that don't cost me hundreds per year in management
fees." The guy brought over his boss who screamed in my face, basically
telling me I'm too stupid to invest $30K and I'm wasting his time. I looked
around, and _everyone_ was looking at him. I thought to myself, "Dude, you
just nuked every possible sale in this room for a sale that was never going to
happen."

~~~
tyingq
No, he was the previous registrant. Same email.

------
ransom1538
I wanted a specific domain name of a deceased loved one. I approached the
domain parker and asked what they wanted for it. He wanted 200k and escrow. I
offered $50. He took my $50.

~~~
loftyal
.com domains really need to be more expensive. If the price was $100 or $200 a
year, that would significantly decrease the amount of squatting.

~~~
skissane
Ideally, you'd pay more for a domain you weren't actively using than one you
were. That way, squatters pay extra but real users aren't disadvantaged.

Of course, determining whether a domain is really in use or not is hard, and
whatever criteria are adopted, squatters will try to game them.

~~~
franga2000
Determining that is not hard at all. Is there a big buy button and a million
ads on the front page? Then it's not being used. Done.

But of course, ICANN and registars make way too much money from these people
to do anything about it. Isn't capitalism just wonderful?

~~~
skissane
> Determining that is not hard at all. Is there a big buy button and a million
> ads on the front page? Then it's not being used. Done.

It is easy to detect the egregious cases like you describe.

But, not all cases are so egregious. I might have no website on the domain,
yet still be using it for email. Or, I might be hosting some sort of intranet
on the domain and all the public can see is a login page, with no idea of what
content lies beyond it. Or, I might not be using the domain at all, and just
waiting for someone to contact me with an offer to buy it. I might even hook
it up with email that I never really use (but which redirects to my actual
email), and a login page with nothing behind it, in order to make it look like
I am really using it. How to distinguish these cases?

------
stilley2
I'm curious how he thought he would get away with it. If the plan was
successful, he'd control the domain name, which seems like pretty damning
evidence.

~~~
goldcd
If he'd survived. If say he'd been killed after the transfer, I'm not sure
Police would have checked to see if the victim had made any domain name
transfers prior to the home invasion.

~~~
Nextgrid
Would you (or anyone with even half a brain) risk a murder conviction on the
basis of "I'm not sure police would check"? Especially considering there
wouldn't have been any obvious motive for the killing which would make them
investigate further.

Not to mention, owning the domain is a permanent record, so even if they don't
check it immediately, the evidence can always resurface years later.

~~~
throwawaymath
Rationality is already on holiday when you decide to steal a domain name at
gunpoint.

~~~
ryanlol
And _this_ domain name in particular...

------
ddelt
Jesus. I’m really impressed that the person who legitimately owned the domain
was able to regain control of the gun and stop the attacker.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The guy was not bright. Someone orders you at gunpoint to transfer your domain
name... you do it. Less risk of dying and the ICANN dispute resolution is
going to be really straightforward.

~~~
Invictus0
The article says he was pistol whipped multiple times even though he was
complying with the gunman. He saw an opportunity and took it, and it's totally
unfair to criticize his actions in such a high pressure situation from the
comfort of your keyboard.

~~~
52-6F-62
I've never faced a gun, so take my words with a grain of salt here: I thought
the old ...advice... was if the attacker has a gun, you charge—if they
attacker has a knife, you run. I'm sure that carries some qualifiers,
though...

It's a pretty wild story for being about a website domain name.

~~~
kls
I have been fired on twice (I live in FL it comes with the territory of being
a Florida Man)

TLDR; in a 10ftx10ft room I want a knife.

Yes a gun is not a reactionary weapon you have to pull the trigger, it takes
time to process that the victim has now moved to being the attacker and
usually if you are within arms reach it is too late for the original attacker
to react and pull off the shot before he has lost at least total control of
the gun. This is why cops maintain distance when they have someone at
gunpoint.

Conversely a knife is a reactionary weapon if you jump at me and I flinch you
get cut. Not a whole lot of ways to disarm a knife unless the attacker is
actively attacking with it, thus exposing his arm.

This is why 9 times out of 10 in a fight between a person with a gun and a
person with a knife, at striking distance, the person with the gun will fair
far worse than the person with the knife. The person with the gun has to
reorient and shoot again, the person with the knife just has to flail. Knife
also leave more damaging wounds when used as a penetrating weapon and have
more chance of hitting vitals or an artery.

Here is a great training video of how effective a knife is against someone
armed with a gun:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbnSTW7Ar44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbnSTW7Ar44)

------
Balanceinfinity
In answer to the obvious question: How did he think he would get away with
this? What was his end game? The only answers are (1) people don't commit
crimes unless they think they will get away with it - everyone in prison had a
plan for avoiding prosecution, and (2) There are some really really stupid
people in the world who simply can't see or project beyond one or two steps.
This may be because of drug use or environmental conditions (lead paint), or
because they just aren't super bright. The world is safer with him in prison.

~~~
Jamwinner
I know plenty of people who have been to jail and or prison. Most said they
gave zero thought to concequences. Be it rage, addiction, or opprotunity, the
usual impetus for the crime that gets caught is usually ill-considered at
best. Not expecting to get caught is very distinct from expecting not to get
caught.

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
that is very interesting: it explains a lot.

------
olalonde
This is so mind boggling and sad... It was over a pretty average domain name
(doitforstate.com) and there's no way those guys would have gotten away with
it even if the victim had been silenced.

~~~
pcurve
The problem is the tactic he used.

"A man who enlisted his cousin to break into a Cedar Rapids man’s home and
order him at gunpoint to transfer an Internet domain"

If this was just phising attack from phone and keyboard it would be slap on
wrist

------
CivBase
I was attending Iowa State Universiry when the "Do it for State" thing kicked
off. I never looked it up myself, but I heard the occasional reference to it
around campus so it must have been somewhat popular.

A relative of mine who works as an administrator at ISU also complained about
it at the time. It's not a great thing to have associated with your school,
although there isn't much they could do about it.

I thought it was a one-off thing. Now I'm just glad I never needed to
associate with that guy.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
OHH! It’s “sports”. Here I was wondering what doitforstate meant.

------
RaceWon
Registering a .com with a simple additional word such as "doitforstatedudes"
and then spamming Google would have gotten him to page 1. Black hat SEO works.

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
I was under the impression that blackhat SEO only worked 5 or more years ago.
Aren't those days completely gone?

~~~
toxican
Blackhat SEO methods from 5+ years ago may not work anymore, but it's a
cat/mouse game, so there are certainly modern methods that work like a charm
until Google catches up again.

It's like adblocking. 5+ years ago it was generally enough to target HTML
elements with an ID of "advertising-wrapper" or something obvious like that.
But ad networks and the sites that implement them got smart and started using
generic or randomized IDs so that would work. Then the new method was blocking
known advertising domains. Now some of them are starting to serve ads from the
same domain you access the site through.

------
izzydata
I appreciate the change of the title and using the word "man" instead of
"influencer".

~~~
tomp
I think "influencer" gives more context and is less "implied" sexist, in
addition to being in the original title.

~~~
izzydata
Maybe, but any term besides influencer feels better as it doesn't give this
thug some kind of credit for being a pseudo celebrity. Call him an internet
vlogger if you must.

------
cobbzilla
What an idiot. If he had money, he should have just paid some lawyers.
Trademark the phrase “Do It For State” then strong-arm control of the domain
via an IP infringement claim.

~~~
basseq
Per another article[1], Dayo (the owner of the domain name) _also_ filed and
received a trademark for "Do It For State".

[1] [https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-the-hit-
man-6c...](https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-the-hit-
man-6c3905efd3c3)

~~~
cobbzilla
It’s sad but with enough money, a good legal team could almost certainly win
it back. Most likely when the holder realized a modest payout was cheaper than
their own legal fees to defend it.

------
Pigo
Why didn't he just buy doitforstate.christmas?

------
KingMachiavelli
Funny, I bet doitforstat.es is available. (well maybe not now)

------
dang
Related article: [https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-the-hit-
man-6c...](https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-the-hit-
man-6c3905efd3c3)

via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751920](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751920)

------
appwiz
Long version of this story - [https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-
the-hit-man-6c...](https://onezero.medium.com/the-influencer-and-the-hit-
man-6c3905efd3c3)

------
captainredbeard
The thought of dying after a DNS transfer is plausible.

------
noeltock
I thought some NLG app created this headline, but it's real life.

------
C1sc0cat
Why wasn't "Polo" done for conspiracy to murder

~~~
defen
Probably because they wouldn't have been able to prove intent to murder? If
the victim had actually been killed, "Polo" probably would have been charged
under the felony murder rule.

------
kristofferR
What a weird angle.

Most people reading the title are going to think this is about some computer
tomfoolery, not violence.

~~~
criddell
Yeah, I don't think it was the plotting that got him 14 years, it was:

> Hopkins put the firearm against the victim’s head and ordered him to follow
> the directions on the demand note. Hopkins then pistol whipped the victim
> several times in the head.

~~~
traderjane
No, Hopkins got 20 years. "Polo" got 14. It should've been the other way
around because Polo was the one who exercised leadership in the crime.

------
pootpucker
This is why you should pay for WhoIsGuard.

------
faissaloo
The title of this article really doesn't at all explain the contents.

------
ThinkBeat
That seems unusually harsh.

A lot of violent rapes get less of a sentence.

~~~
Digit-Al
I thought the same until I read the article. The headline is pretty crap tbh.
It wasn't a normal domain hijacking, he sent in an armed accomplice who
pointed his gun at the victims head and threatened to kill him if he didn't
transfer it. The victim was injured during a struggle and the accomplice was
shot dead.

~~~
yardie
The accomplice is not dead. He has a 20 year sentence.

~~~
theandrewbailey
That info is not mentioned in this article, merely that he was shot multiple
times in the chest, then is never mentioned again.

~~~
yardie
I think they switched articles. It was there when I read it the first time.
It's not the same article when I go back to the link. Something definitely
changed.

