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

101–108 of 108 posts

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

#101

Post by DarylZero »

salawat wrote: post #59
jedberg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company. Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.

...Only because we (software engineers, developers, etc...) have completely failed in managing to make our field more communicable to users, and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field. I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory ma…

Products created for the purpose of lock-in can't invite user participation because the first thing user-participants would do is remediate lock-in.

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

#102

Post by DarylZero »

walrus01 wrote: post #97
jiveturkey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, that's generous. more like 1x10-12, if that .001% would be absolutely enormous, and the actual start of a thing. the design and use case of it looks laughable to me. however, it does spark the imagination.

yeah that was overly charitable, reality would be more like 0.00000001% of client devices. considering we now have several billion internet using cellphones and people globally.

Not that it's going to do any better but more relevant figure is the percentage of routers... those client devices just accept configuration from the upstream network.

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

#103

Post by moralestapia »

kube-system wrote: post #96
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 .…

Minor tangentially related quibble: copyright law and trademark law are entirely separate. The rules by which they work are different.

Thank you, you are absolutely right!

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

#104

Post by blooalien »

salawat wrote: post #59
jedberg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company. Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.

...Only because we (software engineers, developers, etc...) have completely failed in managing to make our field more communicable to users, and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field. I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory ma…

> … "and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field."

I've thought much this same thing myself for ages now.

Not just "complicating the hell out of things" either. Complicating the hell out of things that should be simple ( or at least should be simplified, or automated, or something ). I see a lot of tedious activities in modern computing that appear to exist purely for the sake of the tedium time-wastery factor.

The flip-side of the same coin is the over-simplifying or "dumbing down" of some things that really should stay "complicated" (and hidden behind an "expert mode" toggle) to the point of allowing willfully uneducated morons to repeatedly "shoot themselves in the foot" and justify blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their error.

That sort of "computers should be an appliance like a toaster" mentality has contributed to a culture which seems convinced they should be able to magically jump from zero to "Hacker-Man" with no effort or learning required, the very same day they decide to "learn" programming.

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

#105

Post by blooalien »

Old article, but still relevant in that it should be seen as a reminder of the sorts of political and corporate Internet "fuckery" that we should all always be on the lookout for.

Something something … "forget history" … "doomed to repeat past mistakes" ~ Someone Famous

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

#106

Post by gnulinux »

torstenvl wrote: post #24
gnulinux wrote: post #22

Can someone explain me why ICE has the power to enforce intellectual property laws on the internet? What does this have to do with immigration enforcement? Can ICE enforce other seemingly irrelevant laws? E.g. can ICE bust e.g. drug users, prostitution etc?

Foreign entities engaging in exchanges with the U.S. market via U.S. TLDs implicate U.S. customs enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has jurisdiction over customs enforcement.

I guess I still have no idea how come this falls into customs (what is being imported exported here? The domain?), but I can accept it as a fact.

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

#107

Post by vba616 »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #99
908B64B197 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then also, I really think all .gov, .mil and .edu and the other US-only TLDs should be phased out (they could just become redirects to .gov.us, .mil.us etc.). Having those TLDs as US-only just smacks of American exceptionalism If other countries don't like it... why connect and use an American network? Why not build their own (and foot the research bill!).

The internet isn't a box stored somewhere in America, it's the collection of computers connected together with wires. They can change protocols, but that would just lead to a fractured ecosystem fir the benefit of no one, American or otherwise.

The tlds aren't the collection of computers, either, are they?

Does Anguilla have the right to control .ai, or do people who want to use it to reference AI have a right to use it?

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

#108

Post by 908B64B197 »

vba616 wrote: post #107
GreenWatermelon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet isn't a box stored somewhere in America, it's the collection of computers connected together with wires. They can change protocols, but that would just lead to a fractured ecosystem fir the benefit of no one, American or otherwise.

The tlds aren't the collection of computers, either, are they? Does Anguilla have the right to control .ai, or do people who want to use it to reference AI have a right to use it?

That's another issue.

Domains like .io, .ly and .tv are also used for vanity URL. That was not something originally expected with these.

Post reply on HN