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

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

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

#71

Post by burgerbrain »

screwt wrote: post #42
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'd say it's more like, having a betting shop in Canada, but the only entrance is via an underground tunnel whose entrance is in the US. The US have said "the only use of this tunnel is to disobey US law, and so we're closing down the tunnel." That analogy leaves me with a few questions: (1) is a "tunnel to Canada" a good analogy for "a .com domain hosted in Canada"? (2) Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under…

"having a betting shop in Canada, but the only entrance is via an underground tunnel whose entrance is in the US."

Did Bodog only allow US residents to use their website? That seems highly unusual.

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

#72

Post by onemoreact »

paulhauggis wrote: post #64
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #41

If the UN were an organization with meaning, the US should be getting slapped for stuff like this. As an American citizen, I am revolted at what my government has become (I still think it is a pretty good country, but that is changing, too). The constant rhetoric of groups like the Tea Party around "what the founding fathers wanted" is a response to things like the Fourth Amendment being completely ignored. It is unf…

You are angry at the republicans in the US, yet in general, the left wants more government control over our lives.

Both sides of the Left-Right debate want more control.

Gay marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every right to control your personal relationships. A few Republicans also want to ban abortion, which is again a ridiculousness intrusive government control. Let alone tapping every form of communication, tightening immigration restrictions, increasing law enforcement funding etc. Even the idea we can dictate what other country's do inside their brooders suggests a level of control that's unreasonable.

PS: I would love to vote for Ron Paul, but everyone else just seems to pay lip service to the idea of smaller government without intending to do so.

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

#73

Post by dangrossman »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #37

Well, looks like Verisign should move to another country for the sake of their client's clients... Sweden perhaps?

Verisign only controls the .COM registry because the US Department of Commerce gives them the contract. It's not their property otherwise. If the DoC doesn't like how Verisign is handling it, they won't renew the contract and will have a different company manage it.

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

#74

Post by ec429 »

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: _the US cannot be trusted with stewardship of the global Internet_.

Wired suggests that some want to move this stewardship to the UN. This is not a solution.

A still more decentralised approach is needed; if the Internet is to truly "treat censorship as damage, and route around it", no core Internet protocol can afford to have any kind of "root server", "switch board" or "root certification authority".

There are plenty of good hackers here, perhaps more importantly there are people here who can build communities; rather than trying to invent the "next facebook", I hope you will divert some of your attention to making a pervasively distributed Internet both (a) technically feasible and (b) desired by the Man In The Street.

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

#75

Post by ktizo »

paulhauggis wrote: post #64
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #41

If the UN were an organization with meaning, the US should be getting slapped for stuff like this. As an American citizen, I am revolted at what my government has become (I still think it is a pretty good country, but that is changing, too). The constant rhetoric of groups like the Tea Party around "what the founding fathers wanted" is a response to things like the Fourth Amendment being completely ignored. It is unf…

You are angry at the republicans in the US, yet in general, the left wants more government control over our lives.

By global standards, the US government doesn't have a left wing. In most places in the world the Democrats would be considered slightly right of center free-market capitalists.

[edit] For example, in the US the Democrats publicly say they want healthcare to be affordable, in the UK the Conservatives are the right-wing party and publicly say they want to keep healthcare free and available to everyone based on need, not the ability to pay.

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

#76

Post by SoftwareMaven »

paulhauggis wrote: post #64
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #41

If the UN were an organization with meaning, the US should be getting slapped for stuff like this. As an American citizen, I am revolted at what my government has become (I still think it is a pretty good country, but that is changing, too). The constant rhetoric of groups like the Tea Party around "what the founding fathers wanted" is a response to things like the Fourth Amendment being completely ignored. It is unf…

You are angry at the republicans in the US, yet in general, the left wants more government control over our lives.

I'm sick of both "sides". I'm tired of people getting caught up in " is destroying are government, but is the solution to all our problems", when both parties are raping our rights. If I was a bit more tin-foil oriented, I could imagine a conspiracy that intentionally puts party members at odds to distract from the real power grab going on. I'm not convinced it isn't just human tribalism at work, though.

"My chief can beat up your chief."

(And if you really believe one side wants more control than the other, regardless of side, you've bought it, hook, line and sinker. The question isn't about control, anymore. It's about how to express that control.)

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

#77

Post by cobrausn »

nsns wrote: post #54
huggyface wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing rhetorical about their question. You are solving the possible US domain confiscation problem by substituting a possible Swedish domain confiscation problem.

Do keep in mind that the U.S. isn't just "another country", it is the center of most big entertainment businesses, and its government is highly, perhaps uniquely, influenced by corporate agendas.

It also has some of the strongest support for free speech in the world, which have held up remarkably well considering the amount of money and vested interest that has tried to get around them. Not fool-proof, obviously, but it is something worth considering when thinking about these issues.

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

#79

Post by masonhensley »

swombat wrote: post #68

Well, I finally caved in and purchased swomb.at. Seems like the US govt is determined to destroy the value of dot-com domains. I'm sure thousands of domain squatters are crying their eyes out right now!

So, if you moved to swomb.at, would you just redirect swombat.com to it? Is that a way people can have the best of both worlds?

1- you own the .com domain for branding, people understand it etc

2- your site isn't actually a .com

Would SEO be hurt by doing something like this?

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

#80

Post by ohgodthecat »

masonhensley wrote: post #79
swombat wrote: post #68

Well, I finally caved in and purchased swomb.at. Seems like the US govt is determined to destroy the value of dot-com domains. I'm sure thousands of domain squatters are crying their eyes out right now!

So, if you moved to swomb.at, would you just redirect swombat.com to it? Is that a way people can have the best of both worlds? 1- you own the .com domain for branding, people understand it etc 2- your site isn't actually a .com Would SEO be hurt by doing something like this?

SEO shouldn't be hurt (unless of course you are running the same site at both swomb.at and swombat.com), however with that said you won't get the seo boost that .com gives.

Another thought: swomb.at could be considered worse than say swombat.at as it is using the TLD to complete the word but I may be completely wrong in that case.

Post reply on HN