51–60 of 402 posts
For those that are skeptical, check the nameservers: http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=po... http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=fu... http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=ub... All of the domains point to nameservers at cirfu.net, which appears to be the FBI's Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit ( http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Cyber_Initiative_and_Resource_F…
What's more terrifying
For those that are skeptical, check the nameservers: http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=po... http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=fu... http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&host=ub... All of the domains point to nameservers at cirfu.net, which appears to be the FBI's Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit ( http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Cyber_Initiative_and_Resource_F…
WHOA, that's really big news for the poker industry. These are all very large, very big businesses (talking billions of dollars) in the US. Can anyone confirm if their poker clients are still functioning properly?
Weren't they all banned in the US a few years ago? Illegal even for banks to process transactions to them.
The US gets to seize assets anywhere in the world if they have some connection to an alleged US crime?
http://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/fulltiltpoker.com Shows the propagation is underway.
Beautiful: WARNING I'm surprised they don't have text and audio for ADA compliance.
Viewing Google cache, I noticed ub.com about us page: All financial transactions are processed by Hoop & Javelin Holdings Ltd., Vincenti Buildings, Suite 522, 14/19 Strait Street, VLT1432 Valletta, Malta, owner of this website. Can the FBI seize the domain because it's a .com TLD? Or, because transactions were occurring in the States?
However, in this case it is a little bit unclear: The "ub.com" domain itself has been registered with an UK based registrar, but the nameservers point to a US company (UltraDNS). Still, from the evidence available it seems that the US directly tampered with the data at the registry (VeriSign):
* According to the UK registrar's WHOIS information the responsible nameserver for the domain is at UltraDNS.
* UltraDNS seems to return the 'correct' results.
* When asking the .com nameservers for the ub.com nameservers, they return two nameservers at cirfu.net.
* cirfu.net leads to the web page with the seizure information.
So yes, it seems that the FBI can indeed size any .com domain, even though it has been registered with a registrar outside of the US. If I'd be a company not based in the US now would be the time where I'd think about migrating to another TLD - I guess for online gamling sites even .ly domains would be a better bet than .com.
Wow this is huge. I used to play online poker for a living, I had a decent chunk of cash locked up for almost a year when they came down on online poker previously (UIGEA) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE_Port_Act#Internet_gambling... It's worth noting that these are NOT American companies. It doesn't look like anyone (players) has had their assests seized; but this is bad news for a lot of people. It also appears p…
The real issue here is the seizure of domain names. US citizens who gamble online know full well that they're breaking the law and are subject to lose assets. The domain seizures are very troubling, though. Edit: There seems to be some dispute over where it's a crime to "participate" in different US states, but for the purposes of the "customer assests seized", the transaction is illegal, so it's to be expected that…
If they did, smart professional players like Durrr and Ivey wouldn't keep multi-million dollar bankrolls online that are subject to loss at any time.
That's just common sense.
Online gambling is legal almost everywhere - how does the FBI have the ability to do this?
Reagan is the one who signed "asset forfeiture" into law. I remember at the time reading newspaper articles claiming this was "just going to be used to keep drugs off the streets" and how "law enforcement are outgunned and now can defend themselves against drug dealers". It was obvious to me then that this was a violation of due process. Also, it is not authorized by the constitution, and thus every act of seizure un…
Are you referring to the Liberty Dollar? I remember being very interested in this (and in alternative currencies) a few years back but was put off by a video promoted on their official website which showed someone successfully passing a Liberty Dollar at a drive-through to an employee who asked, "what's this?", and was told that it was "a new dollar coin." At that point, they had unclean hands in my mind. The basis f…
They were very careful because passing it off as if it were government money would be a crime. Despite not doing this, they have been lied about to the point that even you are misremembering.
There are many reasons to decide to not be involved with the liberty dollar-- not the least of which is the indoctrination that "money" must come from the government, something I had to overcome myself. But the claim that they were pretending it was government money is not one of them.
The entire point of NORFED-- the National Organization for the Repeal of the FEDeral reserve-- was that government money was not as good as silver rounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I find this ridiculous, it's quite different from the Liberty Dollar case which you mentioned losing $20 in. In the US it is clearly illegal to begin running your own currency and has been for a long time. The fact that NotHaus went as far as putting the word Dollar on it was just the icing on the cake.
Visa is a currency. So are travellers checks and regular old checking checks and coupons. All of these are also denominated in dollars. If you were to take some time and study the actual laws, and also check out the legal opinions, from members of boards of federal reserve branches, as well as the secret service and lawyers that were obtained before the Liberty Dollar project was started you'd recognize just how absu…
If you were to take some time to study the laws--or high school economics--or the cardholder agreement you sign when you apply for a Visa card--you'd know this is incorrect.
I bet you have "research" that tells you that credit cards are currency or something, contrary to very basic legal and economic interpretations of the word. One of the signs you're dealing with a nut is that the knowledge he thinks he has allows him to accept or reject facts as he so chooses.