Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

forumserver.twoplustwo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 402 posts

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#161

Post by JoachimSchipper »

eropple wrote: post #97
dstein wrote: post #37

Has a bureau of the US federal government just claimed ultimate authority over the internet's domain name system? If this is the case, then obviously we have a very serious problem on our hands. This threatens the way the internet works at the infrastructure level. Clearly the US needs to be stripped of their root DNS server privileges.

Stop hyperventilating, they did nothing of the sort. .com is based in the United States, and (whether or not you agree with the US's stance on online gambling, I don't) they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction and is assisting these companies in committing acts that are illegal in the United States. If they seize a .co.uk, then there's something to be worried about, but a…

The line is less clear than you suggest: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141645-s... (summary: Spanish site links to, but does not mirror, copyrighted material; Spanish courts finally say it's legal; DHS still seizes it).

In the above case, (almost) no crimes were committed by anyone in an area the US has jurisdiction over; fulltiltpoker.com, at least, could be said to be actively recruiting Americans.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#162

Post by Locke1689 »

jotr99 wrote: post #142
Symmetry wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law he cites rather explicitly said "in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design" are all covered. Metal coins of original design are still illegal to manufacture (though I'd agree they shouldn't be).

Interesting, as I have a number of Chuck E. Cheese tokens that appear to fit this description. Why don't we ever hear about FBI raids of kids' pizza / video game parlors?

Probably because they are only meant for use inside Chuck E. Cheese stores.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#163

Post by ryanc »

nika wrote: post #151
ryanc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law refers to race discrimination and isn't relevant to your argument. Key part with lots of sub clauses removed for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, willfully subjects any person in any State to the deprivation of any rights, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; "

No, you're rewriting it by omitting the relevant clause. The race discrimination is one of the clauses that can invoke it, not the only one. Let me quote it with line breaks for readability: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities…

If you pay attention to the commas the structure of the law is:

If you do A OR B based on C

A: Deprivation of rights B: Different punishments

where C is on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race

I removed B to make it more readable in my initial comment because you were only talking about A.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#164

Post by dstein »

eropple wrote: post #97
dstein wrote: post #37

Has a bureau of the US federal government just claimed ultimate authority over the internet's domain name system? If this is the case, then obviously we have a very serious problem on our hands. This threatens the way the internet works at the infrastructure level. Clearly the US needs to be stripped of their root DNS server privileges.

Stop hyperventilating, they did nothing of the sort. .com is based in the United States, and (whether or not you agree with the US's stance on online gambling, I don't) they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction and is assisting these companies in committing acts that are illegal in the United States. If they seize a .co.uk, then there's something to be worried about, but a…

  they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction
That's circular logic. A .com domain name is only in the US's jurisdiction because they granted themselves this authority and have refused to give it up.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#166

Post by bmelton »

jbooth wrote: post #145
bmelton wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it is you who is wrong. Wikipedia's first sentence on 'currency' is this: In economics, currency refers to physical objects generally accepted as a medium of exchange. I don't claim to have the requisite knowledge on the argument at hand, so I won't speak to that, but it appears that the assertions you're arguing as fact are incorrect.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, in what courtroom does a 1-sentence wikipedia definition of "currency" followed by some blogger exposition constitute what is and is not creating an alternative currency? This is simple -- you're not allowed to compete with the US gov't when it comes to providing the currency of the land. There are a lot of good reasons for this, and some mediocre reasons to oppose it, but at the end…

I agree that there's a different between Liberty Dollars and casino chips, but I've also been known to keep casino chips as souvenirs as well, so I guess they're similar in that regard.

I personally equate the Liberty Dollars to comic books or baseball cards, in that they're collectible items. Being silver, they should appreciate over time, but I would not confuse them with currency myself. I can see how others might make that mistake, but I don't see it as a fault of the company any more than I would accuse the folks who Chuck-E-Cheese of counterfeiting by creating 'game tokens'.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#167

Post by jhamburger »

seiji wrote: post #10
redorb wrote: post #4

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.

I was really hoping there was a banner{1-6}.jpg

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#168

Post by davepeck »

ericb wrote: post #85
eftpotrm wrote: post #50

While I'm not at all surprised to see this happening, I'm still astonished that the USA continues to try to stamp out gambling through legislation. I remember growing up being astonished at the number of references on USA TV shows to illegal gambling; I've never once come across it in the UK. I love cricket, but there's been a persistent series of match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations for years, almost exclusively…

The casino lobby would prefer that online gambling didn't exist. Therefore, since these online companies are not in the US and have no lobbyist money in play, they have no standing. Voter preference, individual rights, domain name sanctity, jurisdiction, shortsightedness with regard to keeping control of TLD's, futility of the fight, all have no bearing when uncontested lobby money wants something, and doubly so when…

It's not quite true that these companies have no lobbying presence in the USA. The Poker Players Alliance operates out of Washington DC and represents all of the companies indicted today.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#169

Post by elliottcarlson »

nika wrote: post #152
elliottcarlson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the intentions... are you a farmer bartering your crops for another farmers meat; or are you knowingly circumventing laws. This is similar to the way Pachinko parlors work in Japan and Taiwan - you collect a ball from the machine when you win, and with a certain amount of balls you can receive various token prizes. This prize can then be redeemed around the corner at a different location for cash. Cash was…

There is no law prohibiting private currency. Disney Dollars: http://www.disneydollars.net/ BerkShares: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070... . Buy Local—With Town Currency Dollar alternatives, such as BerkShares in Massachusetts, are shoring up local economies by keeping money in the community Microsoft Points: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/MicrosoftPoints Pittsboro Plenty: http://www.demo…

You are right - as long as the nomination is exchangeable for U.S. currency and all transactions are taxed accordingly.

But on the note of the parent:

> Where does one draw the line between bartering with chips and paying with chips?

It's not bartering when you are trying to get around things intentionally.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#170

Post by Locke1689 »

smokeyj wrote: post #132
samfoo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the world is a complicated place where a single (short) document is unlikely to fairly represent anything other than guiding principles. Having guiding principles is hugely important and valuable, just as giving people the leeway to make judgement calls on those principles is. Justice shouldn't be black and white.

If constitutionality can't be deduced by the constitution, then what deduces it? The opinion of some judges? If our fate is in the hands of a few judges (it is), doesn't this void our "democratic principles"? I can't help but feel our understanding of government isn't much more than catch phrases and sentiment. Patriotism, we the people, one nation under god, the greater good, public servants, all total bs. If we cri…

Your rant is misguided and childish. The law is dynamic because it must be applied in areas where no prior written text has a straightforward conclusion.

A simple example is wiretapping laws. Because of historical stare decisis interpretations of the Constitution, it is ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to wiretap a citizen without a court order. Nowhere in the Constitution is this protection written -- it required the application of the spirit of the document to the 20th century by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, we don't need to bicker about this because you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land. Since the Constitution is correct by definition (according to you) and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation, the Supreme Court is also correct by definition.

Post reply on HN