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

US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#61

Post by rasengan »

shadowgovt wrote: post #55
rasengan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.

> people have given their life for this cause I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). Is there someone else you're referring to that I haven't heard of?

> I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease).

You have described someone as having a weakness and committed suicide where others didn't. For you to know what was going on in whoever you speak of's mind is interesting to me to say the least.

That said, I don't know anyone like that; so I wasn't referring to the same person as you probably.

Sorry!

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#62

Post by salawat »

easrng wrote: post #10
drubio wrote: post #7

In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.

Handshake is awful. Because they decided to allow anyone to register a TLD there's no way to determine if a name needs to be resolved with handshake other than trying to resolve it.

See, this is an interesting problem.

Seems like you might be caught on the infinite abstraction escalator though, as who will manage the DNSNS (Domain Name Service NameSpaces) servers, and who'll take the onus for making the standard selector or display for the user to decide which lookup to consider canon for the request? This would actually be a pretty exciting development.

This would greatly complicate domain squatting (or maybe intensify/arms race it), and add a layer of resilience in the form of building up the interfaces required for users to maintain their own private DNS namespaces. This would conclusively shut the door in terms of centralized seizability of domains, since the user would in effect be empowered to be their own registrar.

You could even keep the traditional stuff seizable I guess. However, you'd be able to ask the fellow down the street if he still had the old DNS entry for x.y.z

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#63

Post by judge2020 »

rasengan wrote: post #54
CameronNemo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Andrew Lee did drive away all of the communities that were on freenode.

Depends on if you look at it based on a narrative that the former-staff wanted people to hear, or if you base it on the truth [1][2]. Specifically, this person states that I was in a position to "abuse my power" at freenode, such would mean that the statements he and others made in the past saying I had nothing to do with freenode until I "came in with lawyers" untrue, no? It's probably not worth spending cycles to r…

I imagine less people left because of the "cries" and more because of the _actual_ hostile channel takeovers?[0][1]

Not even mentioning the blocking of IRCCloud users [2] and not handling GDPR requests, despite servers and users in the EU [3].

0: https://www.devever.net/~hl/freenode_abuse

1: https://redd.it/nyp855

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358

3: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1407790283308240897/photo/1

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#64

Post by Ajedi32 »

easrng wrote: post #10
drubio wrote: post #7

In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.

Handshake is awful. Because they decided to allow anyone to register a TLD there's no way to determine if a name needs to be resolved with handshake other than trying to resolve it.

Yeah, IMO they should have gone the Tor route and registered `.hs` or something with ICANN and then made all Handshake domains a subdomain of that. That'd have made it way easier for software to support Handshake without breaking compatibility with traditional DNS roots.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#65

Post by shadowgovt »

rasengan wrote: post #61
shadowgovt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people have given their life for this cause I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). Is there someone else you're referring to that I haven't heard of?

> I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). You have described someone as having a weakness and committed suicide where others didn't. For you to know what was…

Who were you referring to?

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#66

Post by biglost »

f0xtrot wrote: post #42

They always have, the internet originated from U.S. defense, (was that not domain name allocation)? residing physicaly with-in a country never mattered. they still consider it ownership. wasen't this why russia/ussr didn't adhear to US ip's on their local lan? is this not the same as FAA wanting all the control, including foreign airspace and the space whithin your ceiling? you physically do not have control over som…

About that, I don’t know why nor how but, does starlink needs authorization for all the countries their satellites fly by or only the usa? Is it becasuse the satellites are too “up” in the sky in ot her countries?

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#67

Post by rasengan »

judge2020 wrote: post #63
rasengan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on if you look at it based on a narrative that the former-staff wanted people to hear, or if you base it on the truth [1][2]. Specifically, this person states that I was in a position to "abuse my power" at freenode, such would mean that the statements he and others made in the past saying I had nothing to do with freenode until I "came in with lawyers" untrue, no? It's probably not worth spending cycles to r…

I imagine less people left because of the "cries" and more because of the _actual_ hostile channel takeovers?[0][1] Not even mentioning the blocking of IRCCloud users [2] and not handling GDPR requests, despite servers and users in the EU [3]. 0: https://www.devever.net/~hl/freenode_abuse 1: https://redd.it/nyp855 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358 3: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1407790283308240897…

Again, the narrative one wishes to hear, but, to be clear:

[0] No different from Microsoft taking control of a repository that many relied upon.

[1] There was an active spam attack going on. [x1]

[2] IRC cloud deceptively labeled freenode a malicious network. Seemed fair to ban them since they were collecting rent from users that were using the network. Probably better than a libel lawsuit that we were recommended to file.

[3] freenode isn't subject to GDPR. Jurisdiction is an interesting topic given the scope of this thread by the way!

To be clear, I don't appreciate the perpetuation of the false narrative -- once it started to become death threats, the safety of my family elevated this to a much higher level of concern and obviously things are being investigated. As has been the same position of mine from the beginning, I continue to protect freenode and have always seeked [x2] to give ownership and control of it to the community [x3].

[x1] https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/88549ec34ee32d01629354e...

[x2] https://old.freenode.net/static/files/on-freenode.pdf

[x3] https://freenode.net/n/freenode/80/freenode-belongs-to-you

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#68

Post by judge2020 »

rasengan wrote: post #67
judge2020 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine less people left because of the "cries" and more because of the _actual_ hostile channel takeovers?[0][1] Not even mentioning the blocking of IRCCloud users [2] and not handling GDPR requests, despite servers and users in the EU [3]. 0: https://www.devever.net/~hl/freenode_abuse 1: https://redd.it/nyp855 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358 3: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1407790283308240897…

Again, the narrative one wishes to hear, but, to be clear: [0] No different from Microsoft taking control of a repository that many relied upon. [1] There was an active spam attack going on. [x1] [2] IRC cloud deceptively labeled freenode a malicious network. Seemed fair to ban them since they were collecting rent from users that were using the network. Probably better than a libel lawsuit that we were recommended to…

As I said, these are reasons that people left, not a telling of a specific narrative on whether or not you did things correctly.

As for GDPR, Jurisdiction is indeed an interesting topic, one that is less defined by laws and more gunboat diplomacy[0] - the US and EU understand this, but perhaps not Freenode Limited.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#69

Post by khm »

rasengan wrote: post #54
CameronNemo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Andrew Lee did drive away all of the communities that were on freenode.

Depends on if you look at it based on a narrative that the former-staff wanted people to hear, or if you base it on the truth [1][2]. Specifically, this person states that I was in a position to "abuse my power" at freenode, such would mean that the statements he and others made in the past saying I had nothing to do with freenode until I "came in with lawyers" untrue, no? It's probably not worth spending cycles to r…

I look at it from the narrative that I ran a decades-old channel on Freenode, and your scripts deopped me, removed my control of the channel, and opped some rando who had never even been there before. I have no stake in any of the other posturing from either side: I had a channel with a couple hundred users, and then I did not. We had no choice but to move to another ircnet (not one operated by people dumb enough to get their network snatched from under them, either).

Handshake is yet another cryptocoin grift entirely reliant on the assumption that it will never be important enough to attack. Its anti-government-control claims are equivalent to a high-school student in Tulsa bragging that Mike Tyson is afraid to fight him -- it's not that anyone is convinced Handshake is unassailable, it's just that nobody cares.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#70

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

passerby1 wrote: post #58
moralestapia wrote: post #56

I always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light. It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it. What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .…

I'm not a us citizen. But as far as I see, money talks in courts. So if one cannot afford a good lawyer, or at least does not have a valuable domain to defend using a borrowed money, that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that money mostly matters in tipping the scales of a difficult case (e.g. Google v. Oracle) or in pursuing a case despite low stakes or a fundamentally weak legal position. Someone with a strong, high-stakes case can typically get a lawyer to take it on contingency.
Post reply on HN