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

91–100 of 108 posts

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

#91

Post by hristov »

jgarmon wrote: post #19

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 t…

I really doubt forum non conveniens can be applied here. The website allegedly broke US law on US soil. Furthermore, it seems that the plaintiff is the US government itself. It would certainly be more inconvenient (or probably even impossible) for US law enforcement to sue a canadian company in canada.

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

#92

Post by ktizo »

larrys wrote: post #90
noblethrasher wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> "Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a physical source, or more often they search or follow links." >> Where are you getting this from? See here http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/11/facebook-login

Quoting a post on daringfireball (about a story on readwriteweb) that has confused some foreigners hardly proves that "more often they search or follow links".

Dismissal of an argument by laughing at foreigners doesn't do wonders for your point either.

My observations of usage come from working in IT at a wide variety of companies, from corporates to small businesses, including doing customer support at an ISP. I also have been coding HTML since December '93, so am no novice when it comes to the habits of people online. Personally I would say that people use the location bar as rarely as possible, and usually navigate by remembering a path to something, so once they are used to finding a login page through google, they tend to go through the same process again and again rather than typing in the URL, as even though that would be much quicker, it requires more actual thought.

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

#93

Post by SquareWheel »

swombat wrote: post #83
masonhensley wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm a huge believer in fighting link-rot as much as possible, so unless the US govt seized my domain for some reason, I would make sure all swombat.com links would still work.

Assuming the site had the same structure, you could easily 301 redirects to their .at equivalent.

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

#94

Post by count »

wmf wrote: post #86
count wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'.', the DNS root zone, is considered the property of the US Dept. of Commerce, so, no. However, I could see a seizure of a domain in a different country's TLD (ccTLD to be specific) causing a diplomatic scuffle between the US and the foreign country. I can't imagine France would be thrilled with the FBI seizing 'foo.co.fr' or something.

It's generally not technically possible for the US to seize individual domains located in ccTLDs, so that's a pretty moot issue.

Sure it is. They own the root, they can return an RR marked as authoritative for any domain in the system.

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

#95

Post by wmf »

count wrote: post #94
wmf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally not technically possible for the US to seize individual domains located in ccTLDs, so that's a pretty moot issue.

Sure it is. They own the root, they can return an RR marked as authoritative for any domain in the system.

Would that work in the face of caching? If my resolver already has .se cached, for example, it wouldn't consult the root at all when looking up thepiratebay.se, right?

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

#96

Post by hef19898 »

rmc wrote: post #62
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…

Technically they were arrested by NZ police for breaking NZ law.

So Thailand would have been a better choice, at least for copyright issues (IMHO they don't have one over there).

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

#97

Post by JJKraMer »

tomp wrote: post #49
ubernostrum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I completely disagree. I guess we have different philosophical views and will never agree, but I will still try to present my point of view, for the sake of the debate. In any kind of business relationship, there are two parties involved, usually a seller and a buyer. In this case, it's the business and a costumer. If a transaction is illegal, both are equally responsible and thus liable, not just one of them (e.g. r…

just so you know prostitution isnt illegal everywhere, so here's something to think

If an US citizen pays to prostitute at overseas can US sue the prostitute for offering the service to united states citizen where it isnt illegal?(assuming states finds out about it somehow)

Because this is basically the same, a serviceprovider offers a service thats legal in the country the company and hosting is based on for customers of said country. When someone not from the said country finds out about the service and starts to use it the company is doing something illegal? Internet is global and it is nearly impossible to make a service that ISNT ILLEGAL SOMEWHERE (see china & citizenrights/laws)

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

#98

Post by waqf »

andrewflnr wrote: post #89
ec429 wrote: post #74

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 "r…

This, a thousand times over. I don't know why more people aren't saying it. We've got to build a better decentralized Internet.

Better, meaning better than Tor? Better than I2P?

I think we've got to get people to start using the decentralized internet we have.

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

#99

Post by gala8y »

verelo wrote: post #61
mvip wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we do have great chocolate in Sweden, you have most likely mixed up Sweden with Switzerland.

No one else loves "Kex Choklad"? http://swedishchocolate.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/swedi... Yeah you're right, this isn't my day...sorry to any of the Swiss or Swedes who i have offended.

Have a sip of swedish chocolate moose... You'll be back on your feet in no time.

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

#100

Post by ec429 »

waqf wrote: post #98
andrewflnr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, a thousand times over. I don't know why more people aren't saying it. We've got to build a better decentralized Internet.

Better, meaning better than Tor? Better than I2P? I think we've got to get people to start using the decentralized internet we have.

Yes: that's exactly my point (b).
Post reply on HN