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

US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

theinquirer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#81

Post by adolph »

dsl wrote: post #68
ThaddeusQuay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only thing the US government has ever given up is control over the registry and DNS management. Under a MoU[1] that facility was handed over to ICANN ..." That's just a bureaucratic illusion. As we can see from recent domain seizures, the feds can take over any of these domains, unilaterally, and without any notice or due process.

Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime. Cars, boats, and houses are regularly seized from suspected drug dealers. None of these people have been deprived of due process. The due process is to go to the courts to challenge it. If you don't like either of these points, you'll need to go to the courts and have the laws changed or thrown…

Civil forfeiture law has been rapidly expanded by the war on drugs. It hasn't been part of "how America works" for very long. I'd say it is an example of "how America doesn't work" and a perversion of the fourth amendment.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#82

Post by [deleted] »

Sigi wrote: post #66
dsl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. .org is ran within the US too. So are .info, .biz, .edu, .me, .ws, and a bunch more. The problem is most of the ccTLDs are actually operated by one of three companies, all of which are based in the US.

I was checking to see if my .asia domain was safe, and found out that .info, .org, and my beloved .asia tld are operated by Afilias which, according to wikipedia, "is headquartered in Dublin". I'm prepared to believe that wikipedia is wrong, but you'll have to prove it. with references, citations, and what not :)

[deleted]

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#83

Post by nitrogen »

bendmorris wrote: post #69
clistctrl wrote: post #61

I ask this completely seriously. What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? The internet to me has become greater than just a communications network. It is a place where people connect/work/play. DNS is a natural resource, and should be regulated by all that is affected by it.

It's certainly interesting, but I don't think the internet could be considered its own sovereign entity. One major problem is that the "internet" is just an emergent property of lots of connected machines, and all of those machines have to physically exist somewhere within another sovereign entity.

In the US, various Native American tribes exist as "sovereign nations," able to set many of their own laws that contradict those of the state. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know the limits of their sovereignty, but hypothetically a similar concept could be applied to any property hosting a node of the sovereign Internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unite...

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#84

Post by marshray »

dsl wrote: post #65
wmf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem problematic that all the generic TLDs (whose value over ccTLDs is obvious) are US-controlled. Maybe the imminent explosion of new gTLDs will help.

You can make a million brands of beverage, but everyone will still grab a Coke or a Pepsi from the shelf. The new gTLD program is just a money land-grab. It's been well known within the domain industry that firing up a new TLD is one of the most profitable things you can do. Between speculators and brand protection agencies you are guaranteed a minimum of 100k+ registrations. Multiply that by $20-$30 bucks a pop.

Or in the case of gTLDs make that $185,000 per name applied-for.

In other news, ICANN is starting an "international development initiative". http://blog.cira.ca/2011/06/new-gtlds-icann-international-de...

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#85

Post by nitrogen »

codabrink wrote: post #38
dstein wrote: post #31

Then .com's should be phased out. Migrate all .com to .co.us.

.com is not a broken system, and .co.us is not as easy to type. Other than to strictly conform, I don't see any point in it.

Articles like these demonstrate that .com is a broken system.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#86

Post by marshray »

tnorthcutt wrote: post #34

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would ICE have anything to do with copyright in the first place, regardless of whether their jurisdiction claims are upheld/fair? How does copyright fall under either immigration or customs?

How does copyright fall under either immigration or customs?

The US off-shored the facilities for production of physical media, that's how. Not that CDs and DVDs were ever much of a US thing to begin with.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#87

Post by ericd »

dstein wrote: post #31

Then .com's should be phased out. Migrate all .com to .co.us.

Why? A TLD doesn't have to explicitly reference the country in which it's based. The big TLDs started in the US, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they're still under the US jurisdiction.

That said, fragmenting the internet into nationalistic TLD silos will probably have some negative consequences for the cross cultural nature of the internet, and it might help to give the non-obviously nation-based TLDs over to an international ruling body.

It's something to be weighed by the US govt. I hope they consider both sides carefully.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#88

Post by younata »

arihant wrote: post #71

I'll get downvoted for this. Argument (I don't completely agree, but someone will make it sometime)- I think it is not good for humanity to trust the jurisdiction of a country which has demonstrated tainted judgement by getting involved in nuclear weapons and given their recent involvements in the middle east. The United States is not the country whose jurisdiction should control any form of worldwide open platform.…

> getting involved in nuclear weapons

Pretty much every western country has nuclear weapons. If you're referencing the fact that the US is the only country to have dropped nuclear weapons on another country, keep in mind that it wasn't until 30 or so years later that we realized how bad nuclear weapons are.

Hell, in the 80s, at my uni, there was an experiment to see if you could use nuclear radiation to clean toilet water.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree with your other points.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#89

Post by jrockway »

adolph wrote: post #81
dsl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime. Cars, boats, and houses are regularly seized from suspected drug dealers. None of these people have been deprived of due process. The due process is to go to the courts to challenge it. If you don't like either of these points, you'll need to go to the courts and have the laws changed or thrown…

Civil forfeiture law has been rapidly expanded by the war on drugs. It hasn't been part of "how America works" for very long. I'd say it is an example of "how America doesn't work" and a perversion of the fourth amendment.

This is why I store all my vacation homes and yachts on a hidden TrueCrypt partition.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#90

Post by mattmanser »

pyre wrote: post #74
adrianN wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK here in Germany you can get in trouble for linking to illegal content. That includes linking to software like AnyDVD that cracks encryption. I think heise.de, a big German tech-news site, got in trouble over that.

I think the point of the parent post was that ICE is only focusing on people linking to 'illegal streaming sites,' but not going after 'illegal streaming sites' themselves, which seems somewhat backwards. That would be like the "War on Drugs" focusing on arresting people that point out where you can find drug dealers, but not bothering to go after actual drug dealers.

It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites?

Do you go for the seeders or do you go after the torrent search engines? One is whack a mole, one is destroy the C&C.

I know which one I'd choose.

It's more analogous to ignoring the street level criminals and going after the Don, who never get his hands dirty any more but is directing all those that do.

Edit: I'm not arguing for or against, just want to point out that there's no point going after the individual seeders.

Post reply on HN