Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable • Hacker News Board

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#11

Post by ubernostrum » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:08 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #8

Roboprog wrote: post #5

It's hard to tell from the article if this was jack-booted thuggery, or if some kind of due process was followed to shut down an organization causing actual harm. Anybody?

Does it matter? What the company was doing is legal in Canada, where the company was based (if I understand the article correctly). Unless if by "causing harm" you mean "not paying enough tax to the US", then I fail to see how this website was causing any harm...

As I've said again and again and again and again and again:

If you are engaging in what is undeniably a business relationship (money/goods/services/written agreements/etc.) with people who are in a country, then it doesn't matter where you are; you can quite easily end up subject to the laws of that country. This is not a new idea. This is not a scary idea.

bodog got their domain seized because they thought they could engage in that sort of relationship with US customers despite offering services which were illegal in the US. This is downright mundane, and the amount of ignorant hyperbolic OMG FASCIST IMPERIALIST JACKBOOTED THUGS TRAMPLING ALL OVER ME hysteria it's generated frankly disgusts me.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#12

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:10 PM UTC

Roboprog wrote: post #5

It's hard to tell from the article if this was jack-booted thuggery, or if some kind of due process was followed to shut down an organization causing actual harm. Anybody?

> an organization causing actual harm

Sports betting. It probably does cause actual harm to some, but that's debatable. And should all occasionally harmful things (like say, guns and vodka) be outlawed? Liquor stores and betting shops in poor neighbourhoods: are they harmful? Should they be outlawed?

What this company does is legal many places, though not in the USA. Were some of the people who chose to use the site located in the USA? Yes. Is the site merely a front for enabling US citizens to break their country's law? Harder to say what the percentages of users are.

This seems similar to closing down a betting shop located in Canada, on the grounds that a lot of the patrons had crossed the border to go there and break US law.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#13

Post by raganwald » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:10 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #9

hef19898 wrote: post #2

Interessting. If I put it in the context with megaupload, it basically means that .com is under the iron grip of us law (or any other copyright-y what ever law in the world) and if that doesn't work out you can arrest german citizens living in NZ operating a website owned by a company in Hong Kong for aleagly breaking us law. Wow, that explains why the web is speaking english. How do I miss the time of the treestruct…

In the long run this is actually really bad for content owners. Content owners, in their effort to protect their business model, has actually given the government the tools to shut them down if their content is found to be "undesirable". Just because the government likes you today doesn't mean it will tomorrow.

Just because the government likes you today doesn't mean it will tomorrow.

Of all people, I would expect Hollyood executives to be particularly sensitive to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#14

Post by raganwald » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:12 PM UTC

itmag wrote: post #10

raganwald wrote: post #7

I recently registered a new domain name for a side project, http://recursiveuniver.se . Catchy domain names like this are a little passé, but I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely.

So you trust the Swedish government?

If you have a thought to share, do so with my blessing. A one-liner rhetorical question like this works fairly well in conversation but not as well in a threaded forum where people are looking for a more compact expression of ideas.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#15

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:12 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #9

hef19898 wrote: post #2

Interessting. If I put it in the context with megaupload, it basically means that .com is under the iron grip of us law (or any other copyright-y what ever law in the world) and if that doesn't work out you can arrest german citizens living in NZ operating a website owned by a company in Hong Kong for aleagly breaking us law. Wow, that explains why the web is speaking english. How do I miss the time of the treestruct…

In the long run this is actually really bad for content owners. Content owners, in their effort to protect their business model, has actually given the government the tools to shut them down if their content is found to be "undesirable". Just because the government likes you today doesn't mean it will tomorrow.

Sounds like co-domination. If the content lobby controls government that controls the content lobby... No matter who decides what is undesireable it is a dangerous road to take. Where do you draw the line? Streaming sports events? Sharing 50 Cent songs? Protests against legislations? Child pronography? Law makers in democratic countries should be really carefull about the direction they take in these post-SOPA days. The tools they are thinking about to control online piracy are really dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. "Undesireable" was a welcome excuse already to often. Let's hope artist, and managers, remember the past when possibilities of censorship where actually used.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#16

Post by shareme » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:13 PM UTC

What people fail to realize is that US DOJ paved the way for other countries who do not want free internet to do what the DOJ does..ie India can demand that any *.in domain has to follow Indian law and take down any posts that disparage its leaders, etc..

Its really a very bad long term move on DOJ's part and especially undercuts the US State department efforts

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#17

Post by verelo » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:14 PM UTC

itmag wrote: post #10

raganwald wrote: post #7

I recently registered a new domain name for a side project, http://recursiveuniver.se . Catchy domain names like this are a little passé, but I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely.

So you trust the Swedish government?

By comparison i would...also they do make great chocolate? Whats not to like...

I've registered a few .it's (Italy) and still maintain a bunch of .com.au's. I dont know, the internet is starting to scare me...maybe avoiding .com isnt a terrible idea, but i have no idea how the others would behave. Likely they wouldn't be much better...

I feel like we're in the 60's of the Internet and soon 'the man' is going to come down on us all and we'll have to get real jobs and stop smoking our virtual weed.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#18

Post by huggyface » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:15 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #7

I recently registered a new domain name for a side project, http://recursiveuniver.se . Catchy domain names like this are a little passé, but I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely.

To second the comment that itmag made, you are simply replacing one country with another. Recall the debacles that happened among the cute .ly TLDs when Libya decided that Islamic law applied to sites like vb.ly.

http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-b...

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#19

Post by jgarmon » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:15 PM UTC

There's a legal principle call Forum Non Conveniens that is supposed to remedy this, though I don't know if anyone has challenged these seizures on those grounds. Basically, a legal matter is supposed to be tried in the most relevant and appropriate jurisdiction. For example, you sue a corporation in the state where it violated civil law, rather than state where it's headquartered. I shouldn't have to fly to Dallas to sue Pizza Hut if my local franchise poisoned me.

That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.

There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.

That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US Government doesn't see it that way.

Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

#20

Post by raganwald » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 3:16 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #11

tomp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? What the company was doing is legal in Canada, where the company was based (if I understand the article correctly). Unless if by "causing harm" you mean "not paying enough tax to the US", then I fail to see how this website was causing any harm...

As I've said again and again and again and again and again: If you are engaging in what is undeniably a business relationship (money/goods/services/written agreements/etc.) with people who are in a country, then it doesn't matter where you are; you can quite easily end up subject to the laws of that country. This is not a new idea. This is not a scary idea. bodog got their domain seized because they thought they coul…

Down, tiger!

I don’t think anyone is arguing that you ought to be able to break US laws when dealing with US customers. The question here is what sort of process is used to seize these domains. Notice how you alleged something about Bodog? Are these allegations proven in court? Was some kind of open hearing made? Did Bodog have a chance to respond to the allegations before their domain was seized?

I don’t speak for anyone except me, but I think it’s quite reasonable to (a) Agree with you that when dealing with US customers you ought to comply with US laws, while simultaneously (b) Asking tough questions about how the US government chooses to “enforce” its laws.