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

41–50 of 108 posts

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

#41

Post by SoftwareMaven »

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 unfortunate so much of that anger gets focused in ultimately useless directions with the Democratic witch hunting. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force was started by the Reagan administration.

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

#42

Post by screwt »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #12
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…

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 US jurisdiction? (I think this is the case, but shouldn't be).

The problem arises because, unfortunately, .com domains are based under US jurisdiction. Given that, there's an option for US-local lawmakers to apply for a takedown.

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

#43

Post by SoftwareMaven »

pavelkaroukin wrote: post #39

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.

But the US population won't stand for that kind of "great firewall", and the Federal police forces must be showns to be doing something, so you end up with this.

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

#44

Post by timbre »

ghurlman wrote: post #36
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?

If it is just a result of the credit card companies being American, JCB is a fairly widespread non-American (Japanese) alternative.

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

#45

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

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…

> Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction?

it may be a historical fact, but it's not a general perception. The internet is global, and I (and probably many people) read ".co.uk" as "A UK-based business", for example. And ".com" reads as "a business on the net". ".com" has prestige as a top-level domain, even for companies that don't do much business in the USA. it says "worldwide" - like the internet.

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

#46

Post by larrys »

ktizo wrote: post #34
larrys wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"so it could loose value really quickly if it becomes perceived as a risky place to do business"

How in touch are you with everyday users of .com domains?

Do you think the majority of the individuals and businesses in this country or in foreign countries are doing things that will make them fear loosing their domains because the US might seize their domain? (These are people that in many cases support racial profiling.)

They won't. I've been dealing with these people since 1995. They don't care.

They use passwords like "football". Then don't read FAQ's.

"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?

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

#47

Post by scottdw2 »

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…

The US constitution also grants a right to a jury trial in "all suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars".

All US judicial authority derives from the constitution. Given a controversy under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, a trial cannot be denied the agreeved party unless:

1. There is no controversy

2. There is a stipulation in the constitution, or the jurisdictional laws passed by congress, that says federal jurisdiction doesn't exist.

3. There is a valid treaty which specifies a different process

4. The case was already tried.

5. Neither party is subject to the laws of the US.

Absent those conditions the US courts would have to take the case.

Forum selection conventions must still conform to the constitution.

If you wanted to change this you would need to convince Congress to pass a law changing enforcement of copyright.

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

#48

Post by pavelkaroukin »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #43
pavelkaroukin wrote: post #39

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.

But the US population won't stand for that kind of "great firewall", and the Federal police forces must be showns to be doing something, so you end up with this.

But why US population stands censoring in form of seizing domain then? I think you overestimate "US population". It is not a walmart censored, it is some gambling website.

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

#49

Post by tomp »

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…

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. rape is not a business relationship, so the victim cannot be blamed, but prostitution is (as long as it's not forced), so the prostitute is breaking the law as well).

If the US makes some business relationships illegal, when one of the parties is in the US, it should go after that one party, not after the other one. E.g. copying DVDs is illegal in the US, but legal in most of Europe. Should I be punished for offering the service of making backup copies of DVDs for EVERYONE, or should the US punish the US customer that was using a service that is illegal?

In a way, what the US did is disrespect and ignorance of Canadian national sovereignty. Canada seems to be OK with that, but I hope that other countries won't be...

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

#50

Post by tomp »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #37

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

Think again. As seen in the ThePirateBay debacle, Sweden is practically in the US jurisdiction, as far as online crimes are concerned...
Post reply on HN