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

31–40 of 108 posts

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

#31

Post by mmaunder »

I see a distributed hosting model with encrypted peer-routed traffic in our future. It would include peer to peer DNS and country neutral hosting. By that I mean redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions.

Without the ability to take servers offline and to firewall traffic based on source/destination, what is an overreaching government to do?

This reminds me of the Laffer curve of taxation vs tax revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

As government interference with the free Internet reaches a critical level, their enforcement and intelligence gathering ability will begin to decrease.

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

#32

Post by Shivetya »

huggyface wrote: post #21
raganwald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

or having the Swedes cave into US demands.

While we have this issue with the US declaring it can seize .com domains I prefer the setup rather than turning it over to the UN where it make it near impossible to not have a domain subject to anyone's whim.

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

#33

Post by mtrimpe »

By the way, the bodog.com domain performs quite well.

A quick performance scan show it can comfortably handle 50 concurrent requests with a 5.5MB throughput.

I'm very curious what kind of numbers longer tests on higher bandwidth connections would generate.

http://pastebin.com/FPfjTiJS

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

#34

Post by ktizo »

larrys wrote: post #24
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.

"I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely." Why? Sounds like cutting your nose to spite your face. If you had a store to open and all the customers were on "K" street would you not go there because "K" street had a .0001 chance of crime vs. a street with .000000001 chance of crime. Is there rationality in your decision (for your particular purpose) or are you just protesting against what you see as a potential slipper…

.com is only valuable because it is a default that is perceived to be valuable, so it could loose value really quickly if it becomes perceived as a risky place to do business, much in the same way as a currency can fall like a stone if it loses trust.

Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a physical source, or more often they search or follow links. Which TLD is used in the domain doesn't really affect this process very much, except in situations of 'passing off'. So perhaps it is a good idea to register the .com, but just not do anything with it.

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

#35

Post by anamax »

shareme wrote: post #16

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

> ie India can demand that any .in domain has to follow Indian law and take down any posts that disparage its leaders, etc..

Why is it unreasonable for a .in domain to follow Indian law? Isn't that the whole point of country-specific domains?

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

#36

Post by ghurlman »

iwwr wrote: post #3

Credit card transactions are also by design bound to the US. A transaction going from France to Germany, legal in both places, may still need to be routed through the US and hence controllable. And when all that fails, the US can pull on their extradition treaties to get governments to hand over anyone else.

Is this just a result of Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, etc. being American companies? Are there no non-American credit card conglomerates out there?

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

#38

Post by SoftwareMaven »

mmaunder wrote: post #31

I see a distributed hosting model with encrypted peer-routed traffic in our future. It would include peer to peer DNS and country neutral hosting. By that I mean redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions. Without the ability to take servers offline and to firewall traffic based on source/destination, what is an overreaching government to do? This reminds me of the Laffer curve of taxation vs tax revenue. http://en.…

Isn't that pretty close to Tor (ironically developed by the US government)?

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

#39

Post by pavelkaroukin »

seizing .com is like a censor. while I do not believe in efficiency of censoring, I agree every society have right to do it. But it should not affect other societies. So correct measure would be direct all US-based ISP block access to bodog.com, not steal IP from canadian company.

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

#40

Post by pavelkaroukin »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #38
mmaunder wrote: post #31

I see a distributed hosting model with encrypted peer-routed traffic in our future. It would include peer to peer DNS and country neutral hosting. By that I mean redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions. Without the ability to take servers offline and to firewall traffic based on source/destination, what is an overreaching government to do? This reminds me of the Laffer curve of taxation vs tax revenue. http://en.…

Isn't that pretty close to Tor (ironically developed by the US government)?

if we are talking about P2P DNS only, it is more like "namecoin". Tor do not have anything like DNS. You can have local directory, but it is more like /etc/hosts
Post reply on HN