Intentionally or not this is an excellent way to force the "distributed control" issues of the Internet. It is only a matter of time before other countries (non-US) demand greater say in the control of the policies. This should be an interesting issue and relevant to all users of the Net in the long run.
US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
141–150 of 159 posts
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#142Earlier 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…
Too late to edit, replying to save myself from the HN army...
Just because I explained how it works, dosen't mean I agree with the policy. US asset seizure and forfeiture laws suck. They are an abuse of the "war on drugs" powers in the same way that wholesale wiretapping is an abuse of the "war on terror" powers.
Stop downvoting me like I had something to do with the creation of this system!
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#143Suddenly I am happy only the .org was available for my new project. I am wondering though: Couldn't the US make similar claims on .org and .us (and .edu, .biz?) domains?
I think this is typical U.S. spoilt brat mentality. We need a new internet :).
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#144England, 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…
I worry that brussels and the UN are both just as bad as the US government, only a number of years behind them. The UN doesn't throw its weight around violating people's rights in large part because it doesn't have the power to do so. I think the entire DNS system needs to be out of the hands of government bodies of any type, preferably relying on a cooperative, distributed solution, like the internet itself (theoret…
>I think the entire DNS system needs to be out of the hands of government bodies of any type, preferably relying on a cooperative, distributed solution, like the internet itself (theoretically) does/can.
There was a small project a while back at the start of the domain seizures where a few people tried to develop a .p2p domain that relied on, you guessed it, peer to peer distribution of DNS records, effectively making it impossible to seize domains. I don't really know where it went, but considering I've never heard of them again I'd say the project's dead.
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to assume you're not in the 15-25 set, by even claiming there's wide commonality between people 15 and 25 years old. 18-25, perhaps. The first major difference is that people approaching 25 have a great deal more money than people at 15. All that aside, I for one notice a huge predilection in my peers (of the 19-22 set)to buy into services such as hulu and netxflix, and to look there first for their media.…
I'm 24, and yes, there is a wide commonality in this group of people. 15 is usually around the age that kids start getting proficient enough with their computer that they can figure out how to bootleg movies. 25 is about the time that they mature out of it. >The first major difference is that people approaching 25 have a great deal more money than people at 15. Do they? Most of the people that I know around that age…
>15 is usually around the age that kids start getting proficient enough with their computer that they can figure out how to bootleg movies. 25 is about the time that they mature out of it.
Asserting that pirating is a question of maturity first and foremost is a very daring thing to do, to say the least.
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#146Centralised DNS = bad. That's the issue.
It is a billion times better than decentralized DNS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file#History
if anyone is interested, i wrote a script to improve that a little. obviously it's no replacement for dns, but it makes it easier to share the data - it treats your hosts file as a database that can be both dumped to a file and updated from various sources, including web pages. https://github.com/ghettonet/GhettoNet
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#147Earlier 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…
This is a circular argument. "Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime." If you don't have to prove there was a crime then how can you claim that the assets were used in the crime? This would mean the government/police could seize assets with nothing more than finger pointing. I'm ignorant of the law here, but I thought you were innocen…
That's how it works, now. There is no burden of proof.
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#148FYI, .com/net/org have always belonged to the United States. In the same way that .ca belongs to Canada, com/net/org/us belong to the US. Think of them as the sponsoring organization that originally created them. 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 with the understanding that they would select US base…
The .COM domain has always been international in nature, not a country domain restricted to the US. See the extract of RFC 1591 below. Or have I missed something?
It is fairly clear that .US is for US companies, .COM is international commercial, and the .GOV and .MIL domains are restricted to the US.
RFC 1591 (March 1994) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
"Each of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of organizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country. ... These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic domains and the US country domain follow.
Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two are restricted to use by entities in the United States.
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. ...
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. ...
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. ...
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. ...
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
Example country code Domain:
US - As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for the registration of all kinds of entities in the United States on the basis of political geography, ..."
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#149Suddenly I am happy only the .org was available for my new project. I am wondering though: Couldn't the US make similar claims on .org and .us (and .edu, .biz?) domains?
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.
Isn't .me a Montenegro's TLD and belongs under its laws?
Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that brussels and the UN are both just as bad as the US government, only a number of years behind them. The UN doesn't throw its weight around violating people's rights in large part because it doesn't have the power to do so. I think the entire DNS system needs to be out of the hands of government bodies of any type, preferably relying on a cooperative, distributed solution, like the internet itself (theoret…
>I think the entire DNS system needs to be out of the hands of government bodies of any type, preferably relying on a cooperative, distributed solution, like the internet itself (theoretically) does/can. There was a small project a while back at the start of the domain seizures where a few people tried to develop a .p2p domain that relied on, you guessed it, peer to peer distribution of DNS records, effectively makin…
From http://dot-p2p.org/
> We currently believe the best way to create a stable environment for TLDs is to enact a central authority. We know this will cause much argument within the community, but we have made the decision that we believe will be best for the continued development of this project.
That, being against the whole point of it, probably killed it.