Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI press release[1] says that they've shut down all the sites' bank accounts too, so you're unlikely to be able to pull your money out. I selfishly hope they go after everybody with money on any of those sites, because it might generate more outrage than just the domain name seizures. [1]: http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2011/manhattan-u.s...
> The FBI press release[1] says that they've shut down all the sites' bank accounts too, so you're unlikely to be able to pull your money out. Sure, but we can at least take a screenshot of our accounts for the purposes of a class-action lawsuit later, either against the site or the government, itself.
FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
391–400 of 402 posts
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#392Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#393How exactly am I supposed to live in a system like this? I understand I can't have a perfect legal system, but the amount of effort required to challenge these ridiculous seizures seems very difficult. There are so many unconstitutional laws that need to be fixed. We need a second supreme court.
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#394http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/383473/white_house_r...
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#395Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does, especially over money laundering. In this case though it's likely fought pretty strongly since it's possible that what they did weren't offences in their home countries.
Were you not paying attention the other day when the New Zealand govt passed US style copyright laws using "emergency powers"? Just because you're in NZ, AU, Can, Ireland or $Taxhaven, doesn't mean you're 'safe' from US interference. The tail does not wag the dog. And it's a bloody big dog. Arguably the only place safe from gross US interference is the EU, but mainly because as the world's largest government-by-commi…
Most countries are trying to unify copyright laws (good or bad). There is no international consensus on online gambling, though.
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#397Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. You don't have to "route around" this currently, just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. Nobody wants to do this, though, as it would destroy the fabric of the internet as we know it or something. But a simpler method would just incur more government push back in an arms race around censorship. Do what the chinese [citizens] do: go c…
This is actually an interesting idea to me. Forgive me for not being very knowledgeable about the DNS, so if somebody could correct me, I would appreciate it. What happens if people start selectively paying attention to the ICANN root servers? For instance, my computer is set to use google's DNS. What happens if the DNS admins at google decide that they're going to just ignore the update from ICANN? And what happens…
Potential legal issues aside, what you end up with is a New Internet. Of course routes all remain the same, but nobody refers to addresses or routes: they use host names. Thus you run a huge risk of networked applications just not working, which would affect everything from entertainment to commerce to government services and god knows what else (what if medical devices in hospitals needed to retrieve a firmware upgrade and couldn't connect to the right host?).
In practice there would be no technical hurdle to do this. It's simple to just configure your domain name server to include some records, leave out some records and change others. Some people do this if their ISP redirects failed lookups to some advertising-laden homepage, for example. But on a large scale, the modification of the naming system to one's personal tastes has broad-reaching negative consequences related to availability of hosts and the functional and legal consequences therein. On a personal scale (modifying only your own name server results), you get to connect to your poker site again. I prefer the latter solution. If operating systems just started including a simple GUI to modify their personal domain name caches we probably wouldn't need an alternate dns root.
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#399Reagan 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…
This post really highlights the needs for collapsible threads. I'd be very interested in discussing more about asset forfeiture at large, but it's ridiculous to have to wade through all the Liberty Dollar bullshit in order to do that.
I quote: "Here is an EXCELLENT alternative where it is COMPLETELY LEGAL for USA players to play and win lots of real money and prizes, and never lose any money."
You may want to consider http://www.clubwpt.com/?cmpgn_id=6242&bnr_id=110 As stated at FTC: "Use Club WPT Bonus Code PLAYFREE, No deposit needed. No Risk Play System. COMPLETELY LEGAL! " With the above link I provided, you cannot lose money, and only win money. No limit on how much you can win, but maximum you can lose is something like $0.49 per day (yes, I said 49 cents), which is what your full membership daily cost would be.
So, as you can see, or the point being, there is another model out there.
Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names
#400Reagan 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…
This post really highlights the needs for collapsible threads. I'd be very interested in discussing more about asset forfeiture at large, but it's ridiculous to have to wade through all the Liberty Dollar bullshit in order to do that.