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

71–80 of 108 posts

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

#71

Post by anchpop »

biglost wrote: post #66
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?

Many states have the capability to shoot down the satellites if they violate local rules, but AFAIK whether they would actually be willing to do that is unknown.

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

#72

Post by rasengan »

judge2020 wrote: post #68
rasengan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think attorneys who specialize in this know better than you?

Sorry for the delay in response as well, you kept changing this comment to try to sway the narrative a certain way, so I had to wait until you finished your edits to make sure my reply would make sense.

Edit: In the spirit of editing comments, any continuance of this which is completely off topic is malicious at best. Best of luck to you.

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

#73

Post by rasengan »

khm wrote: post #69
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 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…

That's unfortunate about your channel - I really do wish the former staff didn't stage a hostile take over and begin their attack on freenode. It's really unfortunate, and I'm sorry for that.

As for your comment on Handshake, you sound a lot like the opponents we used to face in the early days of crypto and the cypherpunk movement. That means we're getting somewhere! :-)

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

#74

Post by black-tusk »

biglost wrote: post #66
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?

I imagine orbits are a thing seen not as deliberate as say, flying a U-2 plane over other airspace. Terrestial jurisdiction would be a very trying thing to enforce for space vehicles

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by lixtra »

Spivak wrote: post #23
rasengan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you got that title from. The actual title is: "US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction" which is virtually the same as the title of the HN thread. The literal first sentence is: "THE US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) wants to take down web sites that use the .com and .net top level domains (TLD) regardless of whether their servers are based in the US."

I’m agreeing with you? I’m saying that the HN title “claims jurisdiction over all sites even if outside the US” is way more sensational than the US gov’t telling a US based registrar to remove entries pointing to sites hosted outside the US.

> than the US gov’t telling a US based registrar to remove entries pointing to sites hosted outside the US.

But this title does not capture the impact of the fact.

Every RCE exploit is just the ability to change a few bytes on your computer.

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

#77

Post by rasengan »

shadowgovt wrote: post #65
rasengan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Every single man and woman who has given their life to ensure that knowledge was available to all and not in the hands of a select few.

There are too many to count and far too many to name.

Who were you referring to?

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

#78

Post by judge2020 »

rasengan wrote: post #72
judge2020 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think attorneys who specialize in this know better than you? Sorry for the delay in response as well, you kept changing this comment to try to sway the narrative a certain way, so I had to wait until you finished your edits to make sure my reply would make sense. Edit: In the spirit of editing comments, any continuance of this which is completely off topic is malicious at best. Best of luck to you.

No post body was provided.

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

#79

Post by wmf »

biglost wrote: post #66
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?

This is probably covered by the Outer Space Treaty, but in short, no. Satellites overfly many countries and if they needed permission from every country we'd have no satellites.

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

#80

Post by rasengan »

judge2020 wrote: post #78
rasengan wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think attorneys who specialize in this know better than you? Sorry for the delay in response as well, you kept changing this comment to try to sway the narrative a certain way, so I had to wait until you finished your edits to make sure my reply would make sense. Edit: In the spirit of editing comments, any continuance of this which is completely off topic is malicious at best. Best of luck to you.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN