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

121–130 of 159 posts

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

#121

Post by bendmorris »

nitrogen wrote: post #83
bendmorris wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Reservations in the US are a special class of enclave, which means a sovereign nation that physically exists inside another country. Other examples include Lesotho (contained within South Africa) or Vatican City (contained within Italy). What doesn't exist, and what I have a hard time imagining, is this sort of "distributed enclave" that's been suggested - an entity that exists in multiple places, each of which is within a different sovereign entity. It seems like a flimsy arrangement. Who's to stop any one country from taking over "internet territory" within their borders?

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

#122

Post by baltcode »

_delirium wrote: post #118
baltcode wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless, in certain cases one law overrules another even thought the two are completely separate. Case in point: https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139484910828&topi... Note: I am not concerned with immigration, but de-facto denial of basic rights and discrimination on the basis of nationality in cases where those rights are basic human rights, and not privileges granted by the state.

This particular linked case appears inextricably tied up with immigration, though. The person in question isn't alleging that he's being denied rights in any manner other than via the fact that he isn't allowed to legally live in the US. That's a bit different from the question of whether non-citizens caught up in the U.S. legal system (in either a criminal or civil case) have the same rights during the proceedings a…

The state should enforce visitation and joint custody rights. Whether it is by giving the foreigner a right to stay in the US, or by enabling and enforcing the travel of the child is up to the US government. I think that will be fair enough for those foreigners who are citizens of another country. It is slightly more complicated for refugees or stateless people, but it still should be on similar lines. Anything less is a travesty of human rights and justice.

Japan gets a lot of flak for their policies on this issue, but it should be dealt with in all countries and for all people, including illegal immigrants, deported people or unpopular groups because while the state or people can choose to deport someone, they shouldn't ever be able to steal your kids. The post I linked to seemed to be using it as an immigration issue. That is not what I am arguing though.

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

#123

Post by noarchy »

novumordo wrote: post #39
nkassis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's the issue in Canada which has Netflix but the selection is so attrocious it's not even funny. All this because for Netflix it's a pain in the ass to have to negotiate for the same content in all the jurisdictions and that media conglomerates don't trust canadians due to our perceived soft copyright laws. Give me a brake. I saw a report the other day on lower CD sales for local Quebec music. The whole time…

>Yeah that's the issue in Canada which has Netflix but the selection is so attrocious it's not even funny. All this because for Netflix it's a pain in the ass to have to negotiate for the same content in all the jurisdictions and that media conglomerates don't trust canadians due to our perceived soft copyright laws. Consider that Rogers and Bell don't want to make it easy for anyone to steal their market share. I do…

You can pay for a VPN and get Hulu (and Pandora, and whatever else you're not "allowed" to use) in Canada. It's crazy that this is the kind of thing we have to do in order to circumvent the silly IP/location restrictions that exist today.

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

#128

Post by burgerbrain »

Silhouette wrote: post #49

England, February 2014: In other news, the Internet Service Providers' Association announced today that no major English ISP now relies on Verisign, the US company formerly responsible for administering major domains such as .com and .net worldwide. This follows a ruling at the European Court last year that Verisign's actions in blocking the domain of German business Musikjetzt GmbH constituted an unlawful restraint…

A man can dream....

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

#129

Post by vacri »

"By definition, almost all copyright infringement and trademark violation is transnational."

By definition? By definition!?

If that's the case, then as long as the bulk of pirates are in the same country as the copyright owner, then by definition, no violation has occurred.

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

#130

Post by ynniv »

Locke1689 wrote: post #106
clistctrl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the entity was a p2p program that was miraculously internationally recognized? The hard part to me convincing governments to give up power.

Ok it seems that more than a few people have had similar misconceptions, so I'm going to try to clear this up. The idea that the internet is a p2p network is a pernicious falsehood. The only real way that the Internet is a p2p network is in inter-AS routing. You are not part of the p2p Internet, your neighbor is not part of the p2p Internet, and your company is probably not part of the p2p Internet--you're just leasi…

This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have.

I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do?

A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream.

I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol.

Post reply on HN