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

81–90 of 108 posts

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

#81

Post by anonymoushn »

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 was klined for saying "ensenga" so I wasn't around to see what really happened

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

#82

Post by anonymoushn »

rasengan wrote: post #73
khm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! :-)

You did that to his channel tho lmao

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

#83

Post by ethbr0 »

stephen_g wrote: post #36
rasengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this…

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

> deprecated .mil...

Have you seen what the DoD PKI chain looks like?

https://militarycac.com/images/fed_crosscert2Sm.jpg

Good luck migrating all of that to a new TLD in the next millennium.

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

#84

Post by rasengan »

anonymoushn wrote: post #82
rasengan wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! :-)

You did that to his channel tho lmao

> I was klined for saying "ensenga" so I wasn't around to see what really happened

> You did that to his channel tho lmao

Sigh.

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

#85

Post by f0xtrot »

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?

PIRACY!!

It looks as the same as international waters.

thought it was around 40-50 miles from dry ground. but idk

edit: (hope someone vouches for you else your free game.)

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

#86

Post by vba616 »

stephen_g wrote: post #36
rasengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this…

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

No post body was provided.

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

#87

Post by rasengan »

ethbr0 wrote: post #83
stephen_g wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

> deprecated .mil... Have you seen what the DoD PKI chain looks like? https://militarycac.com/images/fed_crosscert2Sm.jpg Good luck migrating all of that to a new TLD in the next millennium.

> "SHA-1 Federal ROOT CA"

> "DoD Subordinate CAs (SHA-1)"

> "DoD ECA Root CA 2 (SHA-1)"

> "DoD Root CA 2 (SHA-1)"

> -- https://militarycac.com/images/fed_crosscert2Sm.jpg

O___O

Might be worth considering a migration sooner than later.

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

#88

Post by ramesh31 »

I honestly can't think of a better steward. Believing that independent organizations can continue to main an infrastructure that supports trillions of dollars of economic activity is absurd. And regardless of politics, the US has the most stable and trusted rule of law in the world.

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

#90

Post by shadowgovt »

rasengan wrote: post #77
shadowgovt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ah, I follow. Since the topic was Sci-Hub, I assumed you were referring to Aaron Swartz specifically; I'm aware of nobody else whom anyone has claimed has given their life to the cause of open access to partially publicly-funded research. Carry on.
Post reply on HN