Slashdot Mirror


US Shuts Down Canadian Gambling Site With Verisign's Help

First time accepted submitter ausrob writes "Domain seizures are nothing new, but this particular case is interesting. The Department of Homeland Security has seized a domain name registered outside of the U.S., by individuals who are not American citizens, and who registered with a Canadian registrar. From the article: 'The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet).'"

354 comments

  1. GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

    Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

    Also, first.

    1. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by ddtracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, and they say "terrorists" hate "our freedom"...

    2. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...it's like casino royale, except with pizza and underwear instead of caviar and tuxedos...

    3. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by tgd · · Score: 1

      At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

      Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

      Also, first.

      DHS is the parent organization over all the US federal law enforcement agencies, so any federal crime is handled by the DHS.

    4. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you RTFA, you'll see why. This was done by ICE, because it involved a movement of money across US borders and abroad that violated customs regulations by violating the laws of one of the states the money originated in.

      The scary thing here is that this move is actually an attack on the Internet itself -- it is an attack on a global, borderless network. If every website is forced to follow the laws of every country whose citizens might connect to that website, or in other words the laws of every country in the entire world, it will be impossible to run a website. What will happen is an increase in the number of website that refuse to provide service to people from certain countries, and eventually an Internet that is fractured and divided into regulatory domains and whatnot. Not that people in the government have a problem with that; from TFA:

      Many of the harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation

      It is not hard to guess what these people want to do to the Internet.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Really? That's funny, here I was thinking that these guys were not part of DHS (thank God):

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATFE

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So if I set up a website and someone in a US state spends money on it then it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of that state? No matter where it's hosted? Wow - that's an insane level of power grab.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    7. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They do. No argument there, but the real shame is how easy it is for them to manipulate our leaders into destroying those very freedoms for them. Again, "...the terrorists win."

    8. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Welcome to the new, not-free, not-open Internet. To your left, you will see China trying to attack your servers as part of an effort to spy on Chinese opposition movements and to download your trade secrets; to your right, you see the US trying to apply its laws to other countries by seizing domain names and promoting national firewalls.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by ddtracy · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to argue with you, but your self-importance and naivite is astounding. I do not think they bother about "our freedoms" that we have and live with ourself. Only when we try to force "our freedoms" and value system upon them in their own countries and cultures they will fight back and criticize, just like we are criticizing them. The screaming and burning flag matches are childish and should not end up with war. But it is obvious that we get way more upset when some backward oil rich kingdom thinks we suck than when some backward canadian holed up in some mountain hole. Everyone says their country is better and that the others are backwards and losers.

    10. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems like a full court press on the Internet lately. Too much freedom of information to suit the powers that be I guess. Agree with or not, the censorship of Occupy Wall Street should have a chilling effect on anyone breathing "free air". Note how this kicked into high gear after OWS and the fact we have probably the most polarized elections in recent history coming.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    11. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      In case it isn't clear to you by now, the "war on terror" is just an excuse to attack the few remaining holdouts from the massive economic clusterfuck that is the privately-owned, centrally monopolized Federal Reserve money-printin'-and-brown-people-bombin' system. For his "axis of evil" countries to attack, Bush picked a few mid-sized, ideologically pure (yet otherwise disparate) alternatives to his preferred globalist technocratic inflation-targeting consumptionist wage-slavery -- Stalinist socialism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Juche.

      The other one on the list, and the one they can't mention openly for obvious reasons, is individualist libertarianism, which the globalist neo-cons, who control both Republicans and Democrats, have been quietly preparing to move against. Part of this preparation has been a concerted effort to wage "war on the internet" by seizing control of key infrastructure, demonizing privacy and encryption, putting legal precedents in place to centrally manage the free flow of information, and propping up "hacker" boogey-men as a new terror threat. Another (vital) part of this preparation is the demonization of de-centralized financial centers such as precious metals trading, alternative currencies and small-scale gaming.

      But it's wrong to assume they are even remotely against gambling. In fact, gambling is central to the casino gulag state model, which replaces free markets, capitalism and true economic progress with a mad rush towards resource depletion and endless make-work in the name of equal-opportunity servitude. Neo-cons own and operate plenty of major casinos. Hell, look at Wall St. -- it's the worlds biggest gambling operation, and it's state-subsidized. What they're against, of course, is competition.

      As for DHS, it was obviously created as a new police state bureaucracy in order to shuffle around the cronies, and to stifle growing internal dissent with new blood and new funding. They're probably involved only because they are currently the top layer in the pyramid cake of corruption, and no other agency would stoop to the ridiculous level of waging economic warfare on Canadians of all things.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    12. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gambling is a common way to launder money. Other than that, I got nothin'.

    13. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by eltaco · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    14. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny
      So the DHS plan makes sense:
      1. Terrorists attack America because they hate it.
      2. If they don't hate you, they won't attack you.
      3. They hate you because of your freedoms.
      4. If you remove your freedoms, they won't hate you.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11!
      At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

      DHS wouldn't care if that were the case. The only reason bodog.com got taken down (not a gambling site btw) got taken down is because US citizens can gamble there. That does not comply with US casino business plans...

    16. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by dcollins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, when I first saw the web circa 1994 or something I actually mumbled to myself, "Wow, this is just too cool; they totally can't allow this to continue". If anything, I'm a bit surprised it remained free & open for almost 20 years.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    17. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by lexsird · · Score: 1

      How can I forget those very old days of Dial Up AOL and a $189 dollar bill for using it with wild abandon. AOL should be like a giant fat tick filled with money STILL from those days. We should roll them around like a giant beach ball and see if any money falls out. We can roll out a few crop circles while we are at it for giggles.

      Btw, how do you spell S.O.S. in alien?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    18. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This kind of abuse would be why the rest of the world is demanding that internet control be transferred to an INTERNATIONAL organization like the UN and ITU. WE'RE TIRED OF US JACKBOOTING ALL OVER OUR LAWS AND PROCEDURES.

      In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers. But there are CHANNELS for taking the sites down through CANADIAN law, and that was circumvented and ignored for the sake of American convenience.

      Again.

      Fuck the United States of Lobbyists.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    19. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, nice try at a stab at us ... but you missed the context - "they" are our own DHS, who claim they fuck us out of our freedoms to protect them. but good try - maybe give reading comprehension a go before trying to act high and mighty next time.

    20. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "terrorist", I'll assume you mean Exxon, Monsanto, Sony...

    21. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by BLKMGK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry but I disagree. The site should NOT have been taken down simply because a citizen decided to break the law and use the site if indeed they weren't supposed to. The site itself shouldn't have to police users to the extent that implies, suppose some state or country somewhere had a law that stated gambling could only occur on Sundays - would they be expected to follow that too?

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    22. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Informative

      Err, no. Vib.ly was shut down by the Libyan Government for violating it's local laws.

      Bodog was advertising itself in the US, in fact, it was hard to drive down I-15 in Vegas with out seeing a dozen tasteless bodog billboards. They were doing this intentionally to skirt federal online gambling laws.

      To those who don't see a problem with unregulated gaming, read up on the history of organized crime and gambling. The Nevada Gaming Commission exists for a goddamned reason.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    23. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They don't have to follow the laws of every country whose citizens might connect to that website. That specific country has no control over DNS; at most, they can block access to that website for their citizens. You only have to follow the U.S. laws because only the U.S. has control over DNS and can disable your website.

    24. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to the Nazi States of Amerika ... New World Order indeed... grab your guns and start shooting, my friends, fast.

    25. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by HopefulIntern · · Score: 2

      The quickest and best way for us non-USians to protect ourselves is simply to disallow all connections coming from the US to our websites.

    26. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we have probably the most polarized elections in recent history coming.

      No we don't. We have a corporatist versus a corporatist. If there were going to be a polarized election, we'd actually have to have candidates with, you know, different policies.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    27. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers.

      So what? I can shop from Amazon.com instead of Amazon.ca ... I've bought stuff from Japan and Europe over the internet as well. If I buy something illegal, my government can charge me, but charging the vendor with breaking Canadian laws would be absurd.

      So why does the fact that Americans don't want their citizens gambling place any legal obligations on a company not operating in the US?

      But there are CHANNELS for taking the sites down through CANADIAN law

      The site it perfectly legal according to Canadian law. So why on Earth do you believe there would be a way for it to be shut down by using Canadian law?

      This is a case of someone saying "waaah, you didn't stop our citizens from doing something we didn't want them to".

      Should it be possible for, say, Iran to shut down a US web site because it didn't prevent Iranian citizens from accessing something it deems illegal? Of course not, because Iran are the "bad guys".

      If you don't see this as the US applying their laws to external entities, you're missing the entire point. Because the business was operating legally within Canada. If the Americans want to be sure their citizens can't access sites on the rest of the internet ... well, then I suggest implementing the Great American Firewall, and give up the pretense that you're in favor of freedom. It's not up to other countries to implement your laws.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Informative

      Jeez, don't just post a link - quote the article.

      On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[53][54] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages to rid the Ummah from all forms of oppression:

      1) Derka derka US.

      2) Derka derka civil liberties.

      3) Derka derka collapse of US economy.

      4) Derka destroy themselves they will, derka derr.

      5) Derka derka MUHAMMAD JIHAAAAD!

    29. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      As true patriot, I shall rob bank so that I can stay in glorious American gulag. Is like resort town and makes me feel safe!

    30. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you lot would be a thousand times worse - you'd shred the internet into something incomprehensible.
      What you need to do, instead of clamoring for control of the internet, is to tell your governments to grow a spine and stand up to the US - tell them that taking down one of your websites is an act of war and will be treated as such with appropriate responses. (Attack on foreign soil/web presence)

      Pretty simple really. Use the system as it is - don't break it further.

    31. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      You really think it's a good idea to let the UN have control of it? This was just talked about on Slashdot yesterday.

      Look, as bad as the US might be, the UN will be far, far worse. We will have Qaddafi 2.0 (whoever that may be) using the UN to track down dissenters. We will have China using deep packet inspection in order to "maintain security" when they'll really be stealing as much data as they can get their hands on. Think of the worst thing a country would do if it had sole control of the Internet, and then they will ALL do that.

      What we really need is a truly neutral nation that can host it without fear of them doing something stupid. The US is no longer that place.

    32. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by tqk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

      "Mr. President, I have an idea. How's about we just piss off the whole world to the point that they come and invade us, instead of us invading them? We can't afford to keep on offshoring war. We should bring that market home to the USA mainland. Just think what that would do for your poll ratings if the whole world was against us. The Sheeple would love you for it."

      "Brillant [sic]!"

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To those who don't see a problem with unregulated gaming, read up on the history of organized crime and gambling. The Nevada Gaming Commission exists for a goddamned reason.

      Which is why it makes so much sense to refuse to regulate them.

    34. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      If Canada had the oil the middle east does maybe that thinking would be different. It's not all middle easterners that hate the west. Some embrace it, the same with Islam. A true religion should teach tolerance no matter what, otherwise it's just a perversion of what everyone should know to be true, not that there is a god, not that theirs is right, but just to respect people in general, if for no other reason than they are your neighbor, if that's not enough then because we share the same planet.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    35. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by AGMW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The quickest and best way for us non-USians to protect ourselves is simply to disallow all connections coming from the US to our websites.

      Possibly that might be the sensible thing to do, 'cos next time you land in the US you could find yourself arrested, but as other posters have said, it's not OUR fault the US has stupid laws and it's certainly not up to us to police them.

      If I have a non-US gambling website and someone from the US wants to come spend their $$$'s then I say good luck to 'em 'cos it's none of my business where you are as long as what we're doing is legal where I am! It's the US citizen that's broken the law, not the website.

      Really getting fed up with the US continually forgetting they're just ONE COUNTRY amongst many. You want to make online gambling illegal - go right ahead! Make Intelligent Design part of the science curriculum ... fill ya boots! Legislate Pi = 3 ... whatever! Just don't think you can bully the rest of the World into doing it too!

      ... and Rest Of The World: Wake UP and grow a pair! Tell the US to take a hike!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    36. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone says their country is better and that the others are backwards and losers.

      I agree.
      Although if you are a member of a country where large numbers of people take to the streets and people must die because a book got accidentally burnt or a picture of your prophet was drawn. Then I would say that your country has some growing up to do.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    37. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they just hate fat stupid Americans?

      What about fat smart Americans? What about skinny stupid Americans? What about skinny smart Americans? What about average average Americans?
       
      Moron.

    38. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by anagama · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it would work, but what we truly need is a DNS system that is hosted by NO country. One that is beyond the control of countries all together. It would plainly need to be distributed and unreliant on a central master list -- maybe a P2P type system. The really hard part though, would be maintaining integrity of the results so spam/spoof sites don't take over while having no central authority to ensure that doesn't happen.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    39. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      I cannot agree or have written this post any better.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    40. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by windcask · · Score: 1

      Try looking at Canada on a map sometime. Canada is the second largest producer of oil in the world, only next to Saudi Arabia.

      http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

    41. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by anagama · · Score: 1

      You're totally right, but it goes beyond corporatist v corporatist. It's also going to be neocon v neocon.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    42. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      in this day and age, there is not one single trule neutral nation left. if you think so, lets discuss it, but the powerful US's influence reaches where the sun don't shine..

      sad but true. if the US wants you, no matter where you are or what you are doing, they can get at you. its the horror that we were taught, as kids, about the 'evil commies'. but its all true and it proves that with massive power comes massive corruption.

      I don't think there was anything inherent in the US but that they did have massive power and no human and stay clean with that much power at their disposal. no checks and balances, either, that's the other failure. without a feedback system, many open-loop architectures simply 'run away'. we're seeing that now, with a lack of any negative feedback (using a non-car analogy, if I may).

      simplying transferring power to some other entity without any checks/balances would not achieve a single positive thing.

      and I do hate to say this, but: as bad as it is now, anyone else would just fuck it up worse. there, I said it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    43. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Here in the EU all cash taken in and winnings are recorded against your ID. It is not hard to make gambling hard for money laundering.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    44. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Really? You think your leaders are "forced" by the terrorists and then take your freedoms?

      Have you ever considered that maybe those leaders will seize any opportunity they can to create fear so that it allows them to effectively seize more power (by taking away your freedoms, amongst other things) ?

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    45. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Your feel-good nonsense makes no sense. Why should a 'true' religion teach tolerance? It's actually more internally consistant to preach intolerance: If you accept any religion as true, then by implication all others must be false, and why would a believer tolerate the lies of another faith? Espicially if, as both Christianity and Islam claim, nonbelievers are damned to hell. If you accept that, then tolerance itsself becomes an evil act - condemning others to eternal torment because you are too cowardly to fight the liars on earth.

    46. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who read this article and immediately started humming "Blame Canada"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/

    47. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Are you for fucking real?

      Seriously you want to pretend like nothing wrong has EVER happened in the past with regards to gaming?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    48. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the US government should not be taking down foreign websites. But handing the control over to the UN is 500 steps in the WRONG direction.

      Instead of the US government taking down websites they don't like, you would have Iran, China, North Korea, and every other dictatorship taking down foreign websites they don't like. Oh, and the US too.

    49. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I disagree with GP's wishy-washy true religion" bla bla, not every religion preaches that everyone else is wrong. It's mostly the semitic religions that are obsessed with what others think, and even address the non-believers much, because they're the ones that try to be the one size fits all for everyone.

      In many cases, especially among older "pagan" religions, it's some form of hybridized deity worship and ancestor veneration, where their gods are seen as a sort of spiritual ancestor to the tribe, it's implicitly presumed that different groups of people have different sucxh entities they venerate, and left at that, one set is seen as no more or less legitimate to its associated group than another is to its associated group, where a general set of guidelines for a given way of life is handed down to a given group of people.

      I don't presume, say Hinduism, for example seeks to force Hinduism on other peoples, as it isn't relevant to the way of life of non Hindi peoples. There's more to religion that just the judeo-christian religions.

    50. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Your feel-good nonsense makes no sense. Why should a 'true' religion teach tolerance? It's actually more internally consistant to preach intolerance: If you accept any religion as true, then by implication all others must be false, and why would a believer tolerate the lies of another faith? Espicially if, as both Christianity and Islam claim, nonbelievers are damned to hell. If you accept that, then tolerance itsself becomes an evil act - condemning others to eternal torment because you are too cowardly to fight the liars on earth.

      I am tolerating you right now. I tolerate your ignorance of what "tolerance" means. It does not mean that you accept other beliefs as "true". You are confusing tolerance with pluralism. You cannot be tolerant and pluralistic towards religions at the same time just as you cannot be tolerant and intolerant of other religions at the same time. Think of tolerance as being in the middle of a spectrum with intolerance on one end and pluralism at the other. To tolerate, you have to believe that what you follow is the truth and other paths are either completely false or corrupted.

      I cannot believe what people are being taught these days. Open up a dictionary and take a look. You really don't seem to get christianity at all. Many christians believe that everyone deserves to go to hell but that those who accept Christ as their saviour will be saved. The premise is that you cannot buy yourself into heaven or earn it through good deeds. The only path is through surrender and accepting it as a gift. What holds people back is their ego and their pride. Many people are not willing to admit that they are just as petty and cruel as their fellow men and women whether they just think evil thoughts or carry them out.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    51. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      One more thing, christianity has the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged". That basically means that we are supposed to tolerate others in society with wrong headed ideas and allow god to judge them. I'm here to judge you because I will leave that up to god but I will try to clear up your misconceptions as best as I can.

      PS. Can you please stop lumping christianity in with Islam? Christians do not believe in suicide let alone suicide bombing or killing of innocents. We also do not believe it is ok to lie to people and stoning people to death would be wrong because Jesus stopped people from being stoned. When he did that, he was basically implying that they accusers were just as guilty so they had no right to judge.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    52. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers

      I don't agree. The transactions occurred in Canada, and should be bound by Canadian law. American tourists are not restricted to obeying American laws when overseas (I drank liquor as an eighteen year old in Russian and Finnish bars). The only "transaction" of money in the US was the ACH request from the Canadian bank to the American bank, authorized by the American Citizen, same as using a credit card for a meal in Toronto. I believe a good case can be made that the citizen did not, indeed break a law that was constitutional.

      Beyond that, by seizing property that was not in the US, and did not belong to US citizens, the US has engaged in imperial overreach and endangered everyone in the world, by encouraging every other government to do the same. When the US government gave up ownership of the internet, such action stopped being legitimate.

    53. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by spidercoz · · Score: 2

      Christians do not believe in suicide let alone suicide bombing or killing of innocents.

      Really? That memo must not have gotten around then. Or are you implying all the doctors that have been killed by "pro-lifers" were deserving of it? How about the years and years of bombings committed by the IRA? How about the Crusades? Christians have never had a problem killing people with whom they disagree. In fact, Christians have been some of the LEAST Christ-like people I've ever known.

      We also do not believe it is ok to lie to people...

      BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Then why are they so good at it?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    54. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, only that organized crime took control of gambling the minute it became largely illegal and heavily regulated; just like alcohol, and drugs.

      Nobody can regulate individual morality. Europe should know this, they tried it for a millennium and failed.

      Eventually, it becomes a slippery slope, where the government must control what you read, see and learn, as well as what you do, to "protect you".

      That's the best argument there is to legalize gambling, prostitution and get the government out of the alcohol business.

    55. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Ha ha. No.

      Nevada legalized gambling in 1931. The Nevada Gaming Commission didn't come into being until 1959 after the Mormons cleaned house.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    56. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Many people are not willing to admit that they are just as petty and cruel as their fellow men and women whether they just think evil thoughts or carry them out.

      Very true. And those most guilty of this that I have seen have been self-deluded Christians who think anything they do is forgiven because they have "accepted Christ." Trying to actually be a good person never seems to play into it. And don't get me started on egos. I've never seen a more egotistical person than someone who thinks God is on his side.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    57. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by spidercoz · · Score: 0

      They call the Middle East the "Cradle of Civilization." Is it really so surprising then that the people who live there act like children?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    58. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by camperdave · · Score: 2

      They do. No argument there, but the real shame is how easy it is for them to manipulate our leaders into destroying those very freedoms for them. Again, "...the terrorists win."

      No they do not. They hate you because you are destroying their countries, bombing their children, raping their women, and doing unspeakable horrors to their livestock. They hate you because you are using them as pawns in your bid for global domination. If it was about freedom, well, there are lots of closer, less well armed, freedom loving countries on the planet.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    59. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, really. The fact that there have been many who haven't followed Christian teachings in no way implicates the messages that they are intended to send. Yes, there have been many failures, and since I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, I won't feel so bad about casting this first stone at your implications.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    60. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by ducman · · Score: 1

      Don't kid yourselves. Since Capone, there's only been one crime in the US: hiding money from the government. The bodog takedown had nothing to go with gambling. It was money laundering, and the US federal govt. doesn't let anybody get away from paying their taxes. The case law is actually very clear on gambling: if you have any winnings from illegal gambling, you must report them to the IRS and pay taxes, and that tax report will not be used to prosecute you.

      As long as big businesses give lots of money to the Federal govt, they'll be allowed to do whatever they want, and will be bailed out if they run into trouble.

      --
      "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
    61. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is quite ridicules. I do not believe anyone hates anyone else "because of their freedoms". On the contrary, they hate you because of the lack-of-freedoms that you impose on them.

      Think about it. Who supports dictators in Saudi Arabia? Who is their military? Where does Al Qaida originate and *when*?

      This is not exactly rocket science here. You have muslim extremists and fanatics in Nigeria, but they are not exactly chanting "Death to Amerika!". They have their holy war inside Nigeria.

      The notion that someone hates you "because of your freedoms" is the same as when some nerd at school says "the bullies hate me because they are jealous of my smarts". Please! The "nutty" Ron Paul has more rational and truthful foreign policy regarding Middle East than everyone in the US administrations since probably before WWII. But then again, maybe people can't handle the truth.

    62. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a more egotistical person than someone who thinks God is on his side.

      I agree, but I've also never seen anyone less egotistical than other people who think God is on their side. It greatly depends on how much one actually understands their religion and practices it.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    63. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Christians *today* don't believe those things - but go back a few centuries and you can find plenty of people being executed for violating accepted religious rules and teachings, and a whole series of crusades launched by Christian rulers against Islam (They still dispute who attacked first). Christianity isn't inherently peaceful and tolerant - that is just the form in fashion right now. Maybe in a few more centuries Islam will undergo a peaceful revolution and Christianity will be taken over by theocratic factions, and they can change places.

    64. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland, maybe?
      Not totally sure, but probably better than US/UK/China

    65. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Are you saying America is "grown up" because when a book or picture is banned, people can't really do anything, and most people say "good, I didn't like the content of the book/picture anyway"?

    66. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      If Canada had the oil the middle east does

      Apparently it has more.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    67. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well, we are the source for all illegal movies on the internet, because we don't shoot people filming movies shown in cinemas.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    68. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by bware · · Score: 2

      They thought they were following Christian teachings; just not the ones that you follow.

    69. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting America = The World.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    70. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Wow, that strategy is actually genius...

    71. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

      The U.S. (well, Britain too) has a history of treating Canada as its bitch, but enough is enough. Act of War/terrorism/imperialism, choose your word, this certainly qualifies.

    72. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by grantspassalan · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, people's computer do not use a domain name directly, but the domain name gets associated with an IP address, which then responds with the requested information. How is this similar and dissimilar from a telephone book, which associates people's names with a phone number. With computer storage being rather cheap these days, couldn't everybody's computer contain a substantial subset of Internet associations, which would only be updated at the user's consent or command? Messing with the DNS system, is like changing the telephone book from the phone company. If I have my own phonebook, then the people I called frequently can still be reached, unless the phone company also changes the phone numbers.

      If someone has a given domain bookmarked, and that bookmark also contains the associated IP address, then would the antics of the US government be limited to those people that had never visited that particular domain before? Regular users with their own DNS file, would not be affected. How big would such a file have to be, for the average user? Am I getting something wrong here?

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    73. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.
      I do not recall saying that. Maybe that is just something you added into my comment in your head so you could feel better?
      Not sure. I do not think that burning books is good. Especially if it is done as a form of censorship. I was pointing out that even with the extremists in the Christian religions. When a picture of a crucifix with Christ on it was shown as art in a jar of urine no one died.
      People were offended. People spoke out against it. People talked and argued about if it was in fact art of just a little punk saying fuck you to religion. People got angry. No one Died. No one called for the killing of all artists. No mobs came out and destroyed neighborhoods.
      Think about that.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    74. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by lgw · · Score: 1

      You forgot to tell me to vote for Ron Paul! Wasn't that the entire point of that rant?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    75. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      That's actually why it's so polarized. They keep ratcheting up the hyperbole and partisan rancor in order to disguise the fact that there really is no difference in core policies. It's like identical twins talking loudly about how they totally have different haircuts.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    76. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by tjbp · · Score: 1

      "They" is a variable, not a constant.

    77. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      And yet, after September 11, many Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and who knows who else were attacked, killed, threatened in their homes. We aren't even smart enough to seek vengeance against the right people. If you think America is 'grown up' because no one gets killed when someone drops a cross in a vat of urine, you don't know a thing about America. Do you really believe that all Muslims approve of suicide bombings? Do you really believe all Muslims think people not of their faith must be destroyed? I have bad news for you, if that were true, we'd all already be dead.

      The grown up countries, and grown up people, realize that there are extremists in any group or religion, that there will always be those that justify whatever actions they take as being the right ones, religiously speaking, and that find them perfectly moral. In fact, it's awfully rare to find a man who doesn't think every action he takes is justified by something, whether he's right or not.

    78. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read The Looming Tower (referenced from the Wikipedia article; I know if it because it was assigned reading in a course I took on Middle Eastern politics) for more information on Al-Qaeda's motivations. It was never about hurting America; it was always about getting America to piss off their countrymen enough that everyone would want America to leave them alone.

    79. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Ive been thinking this for a while. It well might be time to start thinking about some sort of DNS MK II that cant just be siezed by the americans to abuse the internet with. Fix the fucking .com policies that have left 99% of it squatted with linkfarm assholes, and embed some sort of distributed trust concept into it.

      And bloody replace the SSL cert system too.

      The whole system needs a rethink right now. As it stands our free internet of the 1990s and early 2000s is captive to govts and corporations and thats not good.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    80. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Never said they were all in favor of it.
      How many Muslims were dragged out of their houses and killed in the US after the 9-11 attacks?
      I just want to get the actual facts behind the FUD you just threw out there.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    81. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers"

      So practically the entire porn industry should be shut down as I am sure people from Arab countries (where it is illegal) use those sites.

    82. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dainsanefh · · Score: 1

      We need sports gambling to be legalized. History suggested that attendance goes up with betting is involved. Call your local congressman and support betting in futbol.

      --
      Twitter: @dainsanefh
    83. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by raedeon · · Score: 0, Troll

      There are no skinny americans of any kind

    84. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dainsanefh · · Score: 1

      In Japan, possession of child pornography is legal, and yakuza groups such as Yamaguchi-gumi are legal corporations. To fight organized crime the first step is to legalize it.

      --
      Twitter: @dainsanefh
    85. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Striikerr · · Score: 1

      If Canada had the oil the middle east does maybe that thinking would be different. It's not all middle easterners that hate the west. Some embrace it, the same with Islam. A true religion should teach tolerance no matter what, otherwise it's just a perversion of what everyone should know to be true, not that there is a god, not that theirs is right, but just to respect people in general, if for no other reason than they are your neighbor, if that's not enough then because we share the same planet.

      Uh, did you know that Canada is the USA's largest source of foreign oil? In fact twenty-one percent of the oil imported to the United States in June of 2009 came from Canada, making Canada the largest single-country source of foreign oil for the United States. America even imports more oil from Canada than it does all Persian Gulf countries combined; nations from the Persian Gulf region supplied just 13 percent of America's oil in June of 2009 [source: Energy Information Administration].

    86. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 2

      Don't know about much in the USA, may be because of the white racism and religious nuts. But I can speak of one case where deregulation actually reduces crime.

      There is a pier not far from where I used to live in northern part of Hong Kong. Every Saturday morning that pier has long lines, with people waiting to ride the hydrofoil to Macau, a gambling town about 90km west of Hong Kong. Before Macau was returned to China (from the Portuguese) in 1999, the gambling industry was controlled by only one company named STDM, and the family behind it has Triad connections. Gun crimes are common place around the turn of the century. Getting a new gambling business open was impossible due to government clout with STDM.

      Since China took over Macau they deregulated the industry by opening up the licensing process and provide incentives for investors to open up resorts and casinos in Macau. A bunch of U.S. company are taking advantage of it, including household names such as Las Vegas Sands, Wynn Resorts and MGM. Murder and gang-related criem dropped significantly since the 21st century begins. Annual double-digit job and GDP growth are being credited to the deregulation of the gambling industry.

    87. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by shugah · · Score: 1

      Las Vegas is in Nevada. Gambling and advertising gambling is legal in Nevada.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    88. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by simtel · · Score: 1

      [Tangent started] There could be a variety of reasons for tolerance in a 'true' religion. 1) if their God had demanded that everyone be allowed to make their own choice; 2) A religion that says simply the act of faith is necessary, wherever that is placed; 3) A religion that holds ALL religions to be false, and thus not matter at all. [/tangent]

      tldr; Truth in a religion has nothing to do with how tolerant it is.

    89. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      One more thing, christianity has the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged". That basically means that we are supposed to tolerate others in society with wrong headed ideas and allow god to judge them. I'm here to judge you because I will leave that up to god but I will try to clear up your misconceptions as best as I can.

      Jesus changed his mind on that at some point: Matthew 10:34ff

      10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
      10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
      10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

      Also in Luke 12:51ff

      12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
      12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
      12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

      Typical self-righteous moralizing S.O.B. The type of person you have to bring to the restaurant twice - once to eat, and once to apologize. No wonder he looks so much like that other cult leader, RMS. And has anyone ever noticed that nobody has ever seen the two of them at the same time? Sort of like Superman and Clark Kent ... and it's doubtful either one of them ever got laid much ... leastwise with another human - though Jesus liked "his sheep" and RMS likes a parrot .... both of them spent their time wandering around preaching to their followers - and they both have weird dietary rules.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    90. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      and a whole series of crusades launched by Christian rulers against Islam (They still dispute who attacked first)

      I thought both sides had the motto "Kill everyone and let $DIETY sort it out." The flip side of "You're either with us or against us."

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    91. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 1

      I give it two years before we invade Canada.

      --
      Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
    92. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      If Christianity isn't inherently peaceful and tolerant... then maybe it's not really Christianity.

    93. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Can you please stop lumping christianity in with Islam? Christians do not believe in suicide let alone suicide bombing or killing of innocents.

      Muslims probably don't either, it's just some of them interpret their religion that way, just like plenty of Christians have committed suicide and killed innocent people. You can say any kind of doctrine is intended to send particular message, others will often disagree, it is completely open to interpretation so using religion as a basis to justify anything is fundamentally flawed.

    94. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by causality · · Score: 1

      They thought they were following Christian teachings; just not the ones that you follow.

      Funny thing about that: if you actually read the words of Christ, you won't find anywhere a justification to lie, murder, etc. In fact you'll find just the opposite. Jesus wouldn't even let Peter defend Him against the guards who came to arrest Him (going to far as to heal the wound Peter made with his sword and then rebuke Peter).

      I mean ... you can worship Satan and call yourself "a Christian", that doesn't make it true. It's not "just the ones you follow" as though there were multiple versions, some of which urge believers to kill abortion doctors and what-not. There are no such versions. The people who do that are simply wrong, no matter what veil they choose to hide behind.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    95. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Canada needs to go burn down another White House.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    96. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by anagama · · Score: 1

      .nrk

      say it out loud "en-ar-kay"

      Have a decentralized, p2p, ownerless system that runs beside DNS, perhaps by using distributed host files or something.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    97. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Your post is too funny. What makes you think that Islam believes in suicide, suicide bombings, or killing of innocents? You're showing exactly the same ignorance that you're complaining about. Classic cosmic joke.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    98. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      Also; The guys in Contact.

    99. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by zzyzyx · · Score: 1

      Everyone says their country is better and that the others are backwards and losers.

      I agree.
      Although I think our country is better and the others are backwards and losers.

      FTFY.

    100. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Advertising online gambling is still illegal in Nevada.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    101. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Macau is in the PRC. It is most certainly regulated.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    102. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You regulate things because they have or at least have a clear danger of doing things wrong. So how does saying things should be regulated possibly mean the same thing as saying they've never done anything wrong?

      So which part of that my short sentence said nothing wrong had ever happened? Be specific please since you seem just to be making it up.

    103. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Wow. I never thought about it like that.
      I guess murdering people over stupid shit in large mobs is just an alternative type of society. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Just different. Thank you for fixing me.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    104. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I see you're not a Christian, and probably not an adherent to Islam, either.

      And in neither religion are you damned to hell for not believing, you are damned by your own sins. If you live without sin you go to heaven in both. However, only one man has ever led a sin-free life that I've ever heard of.

      Christianity offers you a loophole out of the hell you caused for yourself.

      In Christianity, tolerance is MANDATED. All are sinners. As Jesus himself said, "judge not." That's tolerance. It isn't up to me to keep you from blaspheming or screwing somebody else's wife.

    105. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Really? That memo must not have gotten around then. Or are you implying all the doctors that have been killed by "pro-lifers" were deserving of it?

      "Beware wolves in sheep's clothing." Just because somebody goes to church and claims to be a Christian doesn't make him one. In fact, that's this month's sermons at my church, "the practical athiest," the person who claims to be Christian but doesn't follow Christ's teachings.

    106. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Christianity isn't inherently peaceful and tolerant - that is just the form in fashion right now.

      With the exception of "I bring not peace, but a sword" which doesn't mean what it sounds like in its greater context, give me one chapter and verse (and in context) that says to be intolerant and violent.

      And it has to come from the NEW testament. It overrode the old testament and brought a new covenant. There are still far too many who think it's OK to stone adulterers.

    107. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Why just the new testament? The great thing about Christianity is that you can pick and choose so easily. Ignore the bits of the OT you don't like, but accept those you do. Or have you never seen an anti-gay preacher quoting Leviticus, or a creationist quoting Genesis? Just because most denominations don't consider the OT binding law doesn't mean that believers won't take it into consideration.

    108. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But the violent and intolerant believers would simply turn it around: They would condemn the peaceful and tolerant Christians as a heretical perversion of the true faith, a softness that invites doubt and corruption.

    109. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      War back then was simpler. You didn't have to worry about civilian casualties or public relations so much.

    110. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      He wasn't talking about physical violence, but discord. I'm having the same type of disagreement with my daughter that he was referring to. And you left out the most relevant part, which was that one should love God more than their children or parents.

    111. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Oh please...troll a bit less.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    112. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      War back then was simpler. You didn't have to worry about civilian casualties or public relations so much.

      I think you didn't get the memo. Nowadays civilian casualties are a PR bonus, a lever to use to try to blackmail your opponents. "If you attack us back you will cause enormous civilian loss of life." "If you interfere with us slaughtering our citizens, you will only cause even greater casualties."

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    113. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with saying they hate your for your beliefs. They do not. They hate you for your federally sponsored corporate greed which allows Enron, Shell and all the corps who make deals with dictators, take the wealth of that nation, and actually make so very few wealthy beyond dreams, and the rest of the population poor.

      When you have wealth, you own the army and the police.

      That is why Americans are despised in these countries.American use of Christian religion that does not practice charity in the lands being raped is a supporting factor.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    114. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Research 'long arm statutes'; this is not new or unique to the internet.

    115. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why not just ignore DNS entirely and simply use the IP address? How many people actually type pepsi.com into the address bar? Nobody does, they google "pepsi".

    116. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      So taking NO action when your belief system is defiled is the grown up thing to do?

    117. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      It's not my job to make you respect my belief system. It is also not anyone else's job to make me respect theirs.
      Someday I am sure you will have enough confidence in your own belief system that you also do not feel the need to make other people respect your beliefs.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    118. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Most of the old testament is very much needed; there is much wisdom there to be gathered. What isn't relevant is the directives God gave the Jews, mostly Duteronomy and Leviticus.

      The gay-hating preacher doesn't realise that his sins are no worse than mine or yours or a homosexual's, and that the sin has been paid for in blood. He also forgets the passage "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself."

      And you have to remember that there are many wolves in sheep's clothing, and many of them stand behind pulpits.

    119. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point entirely. What I said was, quite plainly, we weren't even targeting the right people. I don't know how many Muslims were dragged from their homes and killed, but I know at least 7 Sikhs were assaulted, a number of Hindus, and anyone of middle eastern descent.

      A good many of those incidents were listed in the New York City Commission on Civil Rights report dated summer of 2003. A Ball State study released in September 2003, using FBI uniform crime reporting software data, found a 1600% increase in hate crimes directed to those thought to be of Muslim extraction. CNN reported on Sept. 16, 2001 that more than 300 reports of hate crimes had been received by the Council on American-Muslim Relations, ranging from being spit on to being physically assaulted at their homes or businesses.

      Need me to go on? I can do this all day. Of course you could have too, it was pretty easy to look up after all, but its way easier to just act like I don't know what I'm talking about because it doesn't agree with your worldview.

    120. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Hate crimes is a wide brush here in the US.
      I am pretty sure that this wide of a brush includes saying mean things.
      I think it was you that missed the point. The problem is a culture that when offended in any way responds with murder.
      I know you want to be all politically correct and state that in reality all cultures are equal. They are not though. Some cultures are not only different but inherently BAD. I know it hurts to hear ignorant people tell you that some cultures are worse than others. I feel for you. I really do. The point is that cultures that rise up en mass and call for the murder of a person because they drew a cartoon, or behead people because they are angry at a government are fucking backwards and bad.
      I know that "most" Muslims are not running around murdering people because their feelers got hurt. I am here to tell you though that if they want to be taken as a mature culture (actions, not age) they need to seriously pair down the number of fucktards that do. It is way too high.
      When 90% of Muslims crack down and lock up the .02% of fucktards in their culture while the other 9.98% do nothing then I will welcome them. Till then they need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up till the grownups are done talking.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    121. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by noh8rz2 · · Score: 0

      A Ball State study released in September 2003

      ok now i know you're trolling. ball state! right next to university of pussy! troll harder troll.

    122. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      No, I think you missed the point. The point is, all cultures have fringe elements. All cultures have those that justify their actions, no matter what they are. We have people killing abortion providers because they think God wants them to. The real difference between radical Islam and radical Christianity is usually desperation. The harder people get pushed, the more desperate they get, and the more radicalized they become.

      Maybe you need a history lesson. Do you know who taught Osama bin Laden to kill people? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't other Muslims. It was the United States. He was a useful tool, and even a friend, when he was committing terrorist acts and ambush attacks against the Russians in Afghanistan. He was promised a good deal, promises then broken when he was no longer of use to us, and no longer politically viable to keep around. Betrayal almost never ends with everyone going about their merry way.

      The same people who orchestrate these attacks, the same people who finance them, and make them possible, are often doing so with our training, and our money. We still pour millions of dollars into Afghanistan, which is becoming even more radicalized every day. We patronize the Saudis, Pakistan, and several other countries we know provide safe harbor for terrorists. So I'll ask you, why is it ok for us to use terrorists, fund and train them, and turn them loose on others, but then complain, and call them immature, if they turn on us?

      Another thing, since Islamic culture has been around for nearly 15 HUNDRED years longer than American culture has, why on earth do you think WE are the mature ones? Because we only kill people when they are really bad? Because we can say with a straight face that there were only 15 instances of 'collateral damage' when we popped a missile into a building to kill a suspected terrorist? Maybe you can explain to me the difference, to the people on the ground, between a suicide bomber and a missile attack, both of which kill innocent bystanders?

      Nice avoidance of the evidence too, by the way. You ignore the talk of killings, beatings, being assaulted, spit on, and several other things, only to divert attention by saying 'hate crimes covers a lot of ground'? Did you look at any of those reports? I'm guessing not, since I didn't spoon feed you the links. Try taking a look at the NYC report, and see what it says. Never mind, I know you won't. It might interrupt your fantasy world.

    123. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the guy who provided actual evidence, and added something to the conversation, is the troll. You are absolutely correct. Just like you were in the last thread you still keep replying to, with witty things like "You are a jackass". To those who claim we are the 'mature' culture, I provide as my evidence to the contrary noh8rz2.

    124. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Is there a difference?
      Really?
      One side tries extremely hard to minimize collateral damage. The other puts their base of operations in residential areas.
      One side goes after those who are killing their citizens. The other side kidnaps innocents off the streets and beheads them.
      One side goes after and punishes their own criminal extremists that murder people. The other side is never quite able to catch them but feels that they are not representative of the views of the masses and make sure to not judge them by the extremists on their side.

      It really is easy. If here in the US 5000 white people walked down main street and started killing and raping Mexicans what do you think would happen? How fast do you think it would happen? What would the world say? What would the country do after?
      If in Afghanistan 5000 Taliban walked into a town and started killing and raping Christians what do you think would happen?

      Your cover does not hold up. Just because a culture or a person is older does not make it more mature. Maturity is earned. Until such a time as Women can drive without being murdered for it, or openly state they are gay without being murdered for it, until such a time comes when a Muslim can stand on the street corner in Tehran and speak out against the wrongs he believes his culture is doing without being Murdered for it then I say they are not mature.

      You can disagree if you want. You can think that it is we who are the truly evil murderers. You can even shout it from a bullhorn at a park on a Saturday morning.
      You have that freedom. Until you realize that the greatness of this country is that you can disagree with its policies openly and without fear and that this is why we have a more mature culture thatn those who can not then you too should sit down and allow the adults to converse.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    125. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by noh8rz2 · · Score: 1

      Please leave me alone! Stop stalking me across threads, throwing the same invective at me! Can't we have normal insightful conversations on slashdot any more?

    126. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      It isn't about making others respect my belief system - it is about the fact that I am unable to practice my belief system, read what I feel I should read, etc. because the material has been banned/burned/the authors arrested/etc. ...

      Also,
      First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...

    127. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      Sure, and one day I will be able to converse, and even disagree, with the policies of my government without ending up on a terrorist watch list, cataloged by the Echelon system, or any number of other things. I mean, we have that freedom, right? It isn't like anyone just passed a law allowing indefinite detention without trial or anything. It isn't like we have the death penalty, or have anyone running for office that wants to force us to follow their religious beliefs....

      Maturity is earned, but earned through demonstrating you have it. We haven't done that yet. There are still many parts of this country where it isn't safe to have dusky skin. There are many parts of this country where admitting to being gay gets you dragged behind a truck til you are dead. Do you know what the murder rate is in the United States? I do, cause I looked it up. 5,000 a year. 28,700 rapes, 133,000 robberies, 263,000 aggravated assaults. You see, there ARE a whole bunch of people being killed, raped, assaulted in our 'mature' society, and what happens to the perpetrators is not much, usually. The conviction rate for murder in the US is around 20%. Of course none of these statistics count the people killed by the death penalty, official government sanction, or by just plain being disappeared.

      The truth of it is, we like to think we are better than everyone else, while we spend billions killing people to make sure the oil keeps flowing, and a pittance to reduce the rate of infant mortality. A culture is 'mature' when it works well for everyone, and we are nowhere near that.

    128. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      Sure we can. If you would actually contribute to them, instead of throwing out fun stuff like "you are a jackass". As for 'stalking' you across threads, I think if anyone interested would look up, they would find that you replied to ME, not the other way around. But hey, don't let facts get in your way.

    129. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by noh8rz2 · · Score: 0
      ATTN: SLASHDOT MODERATORS

      Please flag this account for abuse and inspect the account holder's conduct against TOS and applicable Internet regulations. FYI his IP address is 216.34.181.45.

    130. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by noh8rz2 · · Score: 1

      tl;dr.

    131. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 0

      Well gosh there, genius, that isn't even the same IP as you posted for me in the other thread. You would think you could at least lie consistently.

      Dear sSlashdot moderators, please flag this account as a troll, possibly in need of remedial schooling.

    132. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      I think you meant tmbw;cr, don't you? Too many big words, couldn't read?

    133. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Who does this Muslim culture work for. Everyone.
      I mean come on they have had 1500 years.
      Are you stating that a terrorist watch list is equivalent to a beheading. Not that I think that everything the US government does is great. If you read my posting history you will see that I have serious problems with the US government.
      It does not however mean that I would post crap like you just did. What is the conviction rate of those that behead innocents on camera? Do you thing that everyone is trying real hard and just failing? Do you think that in the US the cops secretly like murders and just do not want to find people?
      Is this what you believe or are you just spewing shit forth in the hopes it will make you sound educated?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    134. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ho snap! the bitch is back!

      why did you post that?

    135. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      No, see, unlike some, I don't just 'spew shit'. I know what I'm talking about, or I don't talk. You should try it sometime. Your comments lumping all Muslims into this giant pot of evil bastards is not only offensive to them, but to most thinking people. Your average Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, or anything else is no more evil, warped, or depraved than anyone else, including Americans and Christians. There are those who fully support the bombing of abortion clinics, because they justify it as ridding the world of evil, even if it kills innocents. There are those who believe suicide bombing is justified because they are fighting for their beliefs. The vast majority of EITHER religion do not follow those beliefs, nor do they support them. Saying that all Muslims are suicide bombers, would become suicide bombers, or even support suicide bombers is not only wrong, it is downright ignorant, and probably willfully so. You know little about what they believe because you've been told what to believe, and like a good little sheep, you took it to heart. You never thought to analyze the situation, talk to any Muslims, read up about their actual beliefs, or anything else. If you had, you would know that roughly 95% of Muslims decry suicide bombings, and terrorist acts, and are perfectly peace loving people. Much like Christians though, many can be led to hate by people in authority, who presume to speak for God/Allah, but actually don't. Fred Phelps and the Westborough baptist folks come to mind, and are only half a step from outright violence themselves. I haven't seen any Christian groups out fighting them, very few even pay attention or care what they do. Does that make Americans or Christians "evil" and supportive of bad behavior? Or are they like most people, just trying to live their lives, and in no position to really do anything about it? When was the last time you went out trying to capture a serial killer? An abortion clinic bomber? Timothy McVeigh? I suspect you never have, and probably never even bothered to denounce those acts to anyone. By your own definition then, you are as evil as those who committed those crimes, because you personally didn't do anything to fight them.

    136. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by madmark1 · · Score: 1

      Because he lost an argument with me on another thread, and now amuses himself by posting after me on others, listing a fake IP address for me, and asking the moderators to make me stop posting because it offends him or something.

      In other words, because he's a troll.

    137. Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      That 95% number is awesome. I also believe it is probably even higher than that.
      But the percentage of those who while not believing in terrorism would actually turn in the terrorists is much, much lower.
      You can tell. There is a difference.
      How many people are currently getting killed "In the name of Christ"?
      How many Christian suicide bombings?
      How many Christian wars are going on now? In the last few hundred years?
      Look. No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists. Or even most.
      I am saying that as a culture they need to step up and get some control over their own. They are seriously failing here.
      When you are failing this badly at what most other culture are able to pull off people will start to wonder not if you are against it or not, but how against it are you?
      I think that the vast majority of Muslims are against terrorists, but think that we have it coming and are not willing to risk much to put a stop to it.
      If they were willing to risk more to end it we would see the numbers of crazy fuckers and the damage they do on that side come down to what it is on the other side. Until that happens then I feel about Muslims the same way I feel about cops.
      That is this.
      "Cop and Muslims. I understand that the vast majority of you are good. Though until you clean house, fuck you all."

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  2. United Nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why we should move the control over the internet infrastructure to UN. United States is, once again, abusing their privileges. Even China acts nicely and only censors within their border. US does everywhere and for other nationals. In my opinion, US is much worse than China in terms of censoring.

    1. Re:United Nations by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes give control to the UN so that you can suffer the censorship and control of ALL countries instead of just the US. You'll get the same pro-culture-theft and US-interest bullshit, PLUS you won't be able to post pics of Allah, download whatever kind of porn Britain's latest serial killer happened to be into, or talk about Tiananmen Square.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:United Nations by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, instead of the United States deciding who gets free speech who doesn't, we'll let Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc... decide?

      The solution isn't "different" control... the solution is "no control"

    3. Re:United Nations by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      s/Allah/Mohammed/g (although I imagine if they don't like pics of Mohammed, they won't like pics of Allah either...)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:United Nations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      ...because the ITU would have some kind of a problem dividing the Internet into national networks, connected by checkpoints that ensure compliance with national laws, and compel nations to pass laws making it illegal to use the Internet to communicate with people in countries whose governments object to such communication (that last one is one of ITU's rules about amateur radio).

      The Internet needs less regulation, and more user control. We need to deploy more P2P systems, more cryptography, more wireless links and mesh networks, and so forth.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:United Nations by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm at work but look up "female ejaculation" on Wikipedia and search for "legal" on-page and it should point you in the right direction.

      Also, remember that porn featuring women with small breasts is considered child porn in Australia.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:United Nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be clear, China does not "act nicely"; it censors everything within its power to censor. Right now this happens to stop more or less at its borders, give it more scope and it will gladly use it. The US is obviously abusing its power, but the only thing stopping China from the same is the lack of power to abuse.

    7. Re:United Nations by Whibla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)

      What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.

      I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...

    8. Re:United Nations by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      It's not all countries. North Korea wouldn't have enough power by itself to vote a censorship of the Internet. It would need a majority of countries to agree. I prefer that to a single country (in that case the US) being able to censor at will.

    9. Re:United Nations by lexsird · · Score: 2

      No, it' just needs to be completely left alone by governments. They need to take care of the pipes, but what goes through it, is none of their concern. I can remember when the Internet declared it's Independence and told governments to keep their hands off of it, or that there would be a price to pay. It was a citizenship in a different realm, outside of the BS that we have built over the years, and it was to be the new hope of the information age.

      What a dream. This cookie jar has a lot of hands in it now, and it's proving to be yet another yoke about our necks instead of freeing us of crusty old paradigms. I keep thinking of the movie Space Balls and Dark Helmet saying "Evil wins because Good is dumb." I feel like we the people are the dumb ones for some reason anymore.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    10. Re:United Nations by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      You mean that we'll see the same sort of international authoritarian control that we've seen grip the telephone networks as a result of ITU control?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:United Nations by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      If international gridlock should ensue, then why did ACTA so heavily favor US media interests over Russia's fine hosting services and China's quality replica goods?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:United Nations by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh please those are hardly comparable. The POTS system is a useless old relic compared to the Internet and never had anywhere near the capabilities.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:United Nations by berashith · · Score: 2

      this biggest problem that I have with sex on TV is losing balance and falling onto the floor. Things are even worse now with the flat panels.

    14. Re:United Nations by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Guess what?

      I TRUST them more than the US government and it's blatant pandering to lobbyists.

      They may have "missions", but at least they're understandable socially driven missions, not blatant selling out to the highest bidder.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    15. Re:United Nations by tao · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ACTA isn't a treaty that has its origin in the UN (or any other forum where there's more than one party with veto). The ACTA is a trade "agreement" dictated by the US. It's pretty much a case of "If you want to be able to trade with us, you better sign this, or we'll impose tariffs on you". If you check out who the signatory nations are, you'll notice that Russia, China, etc. aren't part of the agreement. Why? Because the US doesn't have enough leverage on them.

    16. Re:United Nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the UN controlled the Internet, Saudi Arabia would be in charge of pornography regulation, Burma would be in charge of political discourse regulation, and the United States would still be in charge of gambling and copyright regulation.

    17. Re:United Nations by spam4rakesh · · Score: 1

      I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)

      What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.

      I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...

      Mod the above comment up. Sometimes its important to become a dictator and face the criticism for the sake of removing bureaucracy and making progress and reforms and sometimes we need to remove the dictator and create a bureaucratic system so that views of one dont interfere with the way of living of others. In this case the choice to shutdown was justified but the way wasn't. and more often then not, its this highhanded approach that I see being followed.

    18. Re:United Nations by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 4, Informative

      making it illegal to use the Internet to communicate with people in countries whose governments object to such communication (that last one is one of ITU's rules about amateur radio).

      Holy crap, my friend who's into HAM radio big time was talking to me about this just yesterday. It blows my mind that it's against US law to use amateur radio to talk to someone in another country if that country doesn't want me talking to him. How bizarre, I thought. And here you're telling me it's related to the buffoons at ITU? Slashdot just gave me a rather valuable lesson (also yesterday) on them in the UN story.

      We need to deploy more P2P systems, more cryptography, more wireless links and mesh networks, and so forth.

      Here you've touched on the exact reason why I was talking to my HAM friend yesterday to begin with. He burst that bubble real quick: in the US, it's also illegal to use encryption over amateur radio.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    19. Re:United Nations by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Porn laws are very inconsistent across nations. Even within the EU. In some cases anything that depicts someone as underage is illegal, in others it only matters if the actor is really under age. In others it matters if they look underage. Then there is the fact that the legal ages differ a bit as well.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    20. Re:United Nations by Fulminata · · Score: 2

      The UN as a whole does not work the same way that the UN Security Council does. Veto power only works on decisions of the Security Council. Decisions of the ITU would not be subject to veto should they gain power over the internet.

    21. Re:United Nations by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      The UN is, unfortunately, headquartered in the USA. We need to transfer control to somewhere in a neutral country, like Switzerland.

    22. Re:United Nations by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Look, the UN will still shut down any site the US asks it to. Additionally, they'll also shut down any site that China, Mozambique, Iran, or Syria asks it to.

      I do want to get DNS outside of US control, but handing it over to the UN is NOT the solution.

    23. Re:United Nations by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Also, remember that porn featuring women with small breasts is considered child porn in Australia.

      On the other hand, who would want to look at porn containing images of women with small breasts? Just sayin'...

      --
      That is all.
    24. Re:United Nations by Pento · · Score: 1

      Also, remember that porn featuring women with small breasts is considered child porn in Australia.

      No it isn't, stop repeating every stupid thing you saw on Reddit.

      Porn where women are depicted as being under-age is simply refused classification. There is a vast difference.

    25. Re:United Nations by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      We should give it to Switzerland, they're don't care for US bullying..

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    26. Re:United Nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, no. That was a comment by some politician that it should be illegal in a "save the children" sense. I think it might've been a governor general of one of the states.

      However, in Australia it IS illegal to look at cartoon/drawn under age acts (e.g. some convicted pedo got charged for Simpson porn). It's also illegal for an Australian to go to another control and have sex with someone underage even if it's legal in that country (a law which I support, although it seems like it'd be very difficult to enforce).

    27. Re:United Nations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      it's also illegal to use encryption over amateur radio.

      More importantly, it is illegal to conduct business over amateur radio, so you could not even visit Amazon. However, there is no law against setting up a long range 802.11a/b/g/n link, and there is 802.11y, so when I say "wireless links" I am really thinking of that sort of thing. You can get beefy wifi antennas and set up point to point links; it takes some work but it is not too hard.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  3. USA, USA, USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So glad we're not letting those slimy UN people take control over the DNS system, look at the awesome job we are doing!

  4. My homeland feels much more secure now! by mykos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks, DHS! I have long been worried that terrorists could gamble online and somehow infringe my safety and freedom.

    1. Re:My homeland feels much more secure now! by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Obligatory addition: ...for the children!

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:My homeland feels much more secure now! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Obligatory addition: ...for the children!

      What? Terrorists are gambling for children on the internets? Man, there oughta be a law...

      --
      That is all.
  5. Re:Gambling taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OK, we've got it. He broke your heart.

  6. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    US federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet).'"

    Yeah because Canadian, Australian and UK, etc lawmakers are just so clueful and evenhanded. Seriously, can we cut out this nonsense anti-American bullshit?

    1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, the moment America's clueless lawmakers stop trying to push their cluelessness on the rest of the world.

    2. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keep insulting the USA and I promise, I will write to my senator to ask that Canada be invaded next.

    3. Re:lol by lexsird · · Score: 4, Funny

      Send him a check and I'm sure it will happen.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep threatening Canada and God will smite you.

    5. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe that will work out better this time ? You tried that once before.

      You know, when the Canucks burnt your White House to the ground after handing your asses to you on a platter.

    6. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm American and as of late I hate our damn country for its recent internet bs. Also, you should'n make blind threats.

    7. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time it happened, America was driven back and White House was burnt down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
      Please try again, you can keep Celine Dion. ;)

    8. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that will work out better this time ? You tried that once before.

      You know, when the Canucks burnt your White House to the ground after handing your asses to you on a platter.

      To be fair, it was mostly American Irish who wanted to conquer Canada so they could trade it for Ireland. But surprise, surprise, they ran out of liquor before crossing the border so didn't fight too well.

    9. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and we'll burn down your fucking white house again tosser.

    10. Re:lol by shugah · · Score: 1

      How'd that work out for y'all last time? 1812?

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    11. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have weapons of moose destruction !!. ...waits for RCMP on behalf of DHS to tap me on the shoulder :/

    12. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please invade in the summer ... we don't want you to disturb us during hockey season.

  7. Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't new... even Slashdot has covered stories like these before.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/04/1439246/us-uk-targeting-piracy-websites-outside-their-borders

    The summary can say not-American for a billion things, at the end of the day the domain TLD was com, over which the U.S. firmly asserts jurisdiction as the companies that run them are all U.S.-based.

    Besides fighting 'The (U.S.) Man', people would do well to realize this and register somewhere a bit more friendly (in addition to any .com, .net, .org, etc.). In the case of this Canadian business, perhaps .ca? Oh wait, they did. And that ( bodog.com ) in turn redirects to a .co.uk .

    1. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      haha - I meant, bodog.ca .. redirects.. to.. yes.
      ( This, of course, being the reason people want a .com domain. Oh iro.. wait, where's Alanis? Have to verify proper usage... )

    2. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if US firms run those domains and so they're under US jurisdiction, the fact is .com, .net and .org have long been recognised as the domains for international organisations as opposed to organisations content with a single specific nationality or set of nationalities, and so if the US can't be trusted to maintain them for that purpose then it's time the US handed them over to somewhere like the UN where they genuinely can be managed to a standard they're intended for.

      You're right that this isn't new, but it only serves to reaffirm the urgency that the US must give up control of these international domains. With it's escalating seizures now affecting legitimate international businesses enough is enough.

    3. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that the US won't give up control of those domains, so perhaps it is in the best interests of international organizations to move to different TLDs.

    4. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by automandc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is scary here is the cooperation of Verisign. In this case, Verisign maintains the registry for .com. But Verisign also still operates the 0 Root servers under contract to the Dept. of Commerce. So, if they wanted to (or were ordered to by the U.S. Govt) they could "technically" take out an entire TLD, including a ccTLD like .ru or .cn.

      "Technically" is in quotes because the realities of the root servers would make it easy for the rest of the world to tell the U.S. to go screw at that point, and stop syncing the dozens of root servers that are distributed around the world off of the Verisign "corrupted" servers. However, it would be the end of the canonical DNS system as we know it.

      AFAIK, the engineers at Verisign who handle root server issues try very very hard to stay out of any type of corporate shenanigans, but at the end of the day Verisign operates those servers, and Verisign is a U.S. Company, on U.S. soil, with executives who are very much subject to the immediate coercion of the U.S. Government.

      --
      I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    5. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will never be given up voluntarily. A more likely scenario is a splintered internet. It's not like you can't set up your own domain service, many already exist.

    6. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by rioki · · Score: 1

      Oh yea, don't forget, is is a US company that must obey US law. If they have a court order saying to seize all *.ru domains, they must comply with it or be forced out of business. Sure it will have a detrimental effect on diplomatic relations, but it is technically possible. The good news is though that (hopefully) courts will recognize that other than com, net, org, edu, gov and us are they don't have jurisdiction.

    7. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains, although registration of domains under them has never been restricted. When you create something, you get to make certain choices, and the US government funded DARPA Internet development came up with those domains.

      You want your own national domain, then co.countrycode, and similar seem to be popular choices. If you want the UN to control DNS - let them administer a *.un hierarchy.

      Having said that, I have two points to make - first, no web site was shut down, this was just a removal of DNS entries. Second, I believe that this, although ordered by a US court, is in violation of the US Constitution's free speech protections. A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, they are supposed to be for international organisations, but in reality ".com" has always been shorthand for ".co.us". That's not the way it's supposed to be, but in practice that's pretty much the way it is. How many ".us" sites do you know? Compare with ".co.uk", ".be", ".fr",... Americans just take .com because the other countries on the internet don't matter anyway.

    9. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by ausrob · · Score: 1

      "over which the U.S. firmly asserts jurisdiction as the companies that run them are all U.S.-based." That's blatantly untrue. Not all *registrars* for .com extensions are US based or in any way affiliated with the US! While we're at it, ICANN is supposed to be the body holding jurisdiction over domains, not the US Government (in theory; in practice obviously it's a different ball game). Also, in this particular case the funds involved were outside the US, as were the businesses involved and the registrar used to register the domain. Lastly, consider how this even came about. Do individual states (Maryland in this case) get to trigger seizure of international assets now? What mandates the US this power, other than they maintained top level domains in the early days? Can France start grabbing .com domains too? Where does this end?

    10. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should get rid of domain names completely. I for one don't want to have to remember 74.125.45.100 is google, but maybe it would stop this stupid shit from happening?

    11. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no.. those domains have always been US domains. They've also long been domains that don't care where in the world the hosting servers are located. Avoiding US jurisdiction is as simple as registering in a . domain. Go. Do. Stop imagining that a domain is "international" merely because non-US registrants are there. US Real estate held by foreign businesses are not suddenly foreign soil. US domains aren't different with respect to jurisdiction.

    12. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.

      I thought the constitutional protection of freedom of speech only applied to corporations? Wow, learn something new every day.

    13. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Xest · · Score: 1

      "No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains"

      I suggest you update your knowledge on the subject. It used to be true, but it hasn't been for some time.

      You're perhaps confusing the fact that the US still manages registration of them, but that doesn't change the fact that the formal definition of them is now as domains for international organisations.

      You're absolutely right about national firms using the country code domains, that's precisely why .us exists because that is the US' tld.

    14. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by grantspassalan · · Score: 1

      Could you not simply have a file on your own computer that looks up Google.com to be 74.125.45.100 or whatever other addresses correspond to this name?. Could this not be done to every place on the Internet you have bookmarked? The computer would 1st look in your file, and if it did not find an entry there, then it would have to go out onto the net and possibly come up with the wrong answer, because the US government or some other entity had put the wrong answer there. All the places I usually go to on the Internet are in my bookmarks. Why could the IP address not be there also? Would that not also speed up surfing, since my computer should be able to look up addresses much faster in a file, than on some distant server on the Internet.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    15. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many solutions that would work for us the computer elite. The biggest issue is not having a central repository of domains. This needs a p2p solution like others have suggested before me.

    16. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains

      RFC 1591:

      Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two are restricted to use by entities in the United States.

            World Wide Generic Domains:

            COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
                        companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
                        concern about the administrative load and system performance if
                        the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is
                        being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
                        commercial registrations in the subdomains.

            NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network
                        providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the
                        administrative computers, and the network node computers. The
                        customers of the network provider would have domain names of
                        their own (not in the NET TLD).

            ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
                        organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
                        government organizations may fit here.

    17. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by msauve · · Score: 2
      Your quote is a red herring. RFC 1591 is not a normative reference, as it freely admits: "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

      It's clear that there have been international organizations under those TLDs for a long time, and that makes sense, since they existed prior to the CC ones. As I already said, registration under those TLDs has never been restricted to only US organizations. 1591 is just informing of that practical reality. That in no way implies that those TLDs somehow "belong" to the international community.

      The OP was arguing that the US should give up control of those TLDs, and that's where he's wrong. The same reference you cite makes it clear that those TLDs are under control of a US entity:

      Second level domains in COM, EDU, ORG, NET, and GOV are registered by the Internet Registry at the InterNIC.

      BTW, InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

      So, anyone who has registered under one of those TLDs knew exactly what they were getting into with regard to them being under US control, and subject to US law.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      "No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains"
      I suggest you update your knowledge on the subject. It used to be true, but it hasn't been for some time.

      I'd like a citation for that because according to TFA

      The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of US federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet).

      it's not the case.
      I don't know but are country codes like .ca .uk .au etc controlled by DNS entries in the US?

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    19. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Xest · · Score: 1

      Your whole argument is based on the fallacy that because the domains are under the US, they therefore should remain under the US. This is a circular argument and nonsensical, your argument is meaningless.

      The fact is the domains are recognised as international in nature, and whilst they are indeed managed by the US currently this is the fundamental problem - they are international domains managed by the US, when they should instead be international domains, managed by the international community.

      If you wish to argue the domains should not be international in nature, that's fair enough, but as officially as can be, they're recognised as international domains.

      If you contrast them to .edu and .mil which are widely recognised as formal US tlds then you'll notice the fundamental difference with .net, .com, and .org that clearly place them as international domains.

      Face it, your argument is weak and based merely on some patriotic view or whatever, you don't want the US to lose them because you believe the US is the best country to control them - that's a fair argument if it's what you believe, but stop trying to pretend they're not international domains based on some arbitrary technicality that only you recognise as some defining technicality that makes them not in fact international domains, it's fucking ridiculous. I'd wager even the US government would admit they're international domains, with the only point of contention being who controls them.

    20. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Xest · · Score: 1

      Nothing you pasted contradicts anything I've said, your quote merely reiterates that the US administers them and has recently decided to start applying it's laws to them, this doesn't inherently mean they're not international domains though. Rather than repaste the same thing, see shutdown -p's comment here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2700853&cid=39213127

      You can also see the IANA's official list:

      http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/

      Note how .com, .net and .org are listed as generic tlds, whilst others such as .gov and .mil which are US tlds are sponsored?

      All IANA's documentation also refers to them as international and as I've said elsewhere, even the US government would likely accept they're international, the only dispute is about who administers them.

    21. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by msauve · · Score: 1

      You would obviously be happier using a network developed by an international organization. Feel free to move to using a X.233 (CLNP) based network if you don't like how IP has developed.

      The latter demonstrates the problem with letting international bodies handle technical matters - you get "design by committee" where the results try to be all things to all people, and are never very good for anyone.

      There's a reason IP, which was developed by a relatively small group of individuals, ended up being universally successful, while the whole ISO X.* hierarchy has ended up being used only for specialized applications.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    22. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Xest · · Score: 1

      Where did I criticise IP? You seem to be going off on quite a tangent there to dodge the key point here.

      The point is the US is no longer a trustworthy guardian of DNS because it is abusing it's position to push it's ethnocentric worldview on the rest of the world and it's crippling legitimate foreign businesses.

      Look at an alternative scenario, imagine China had responsibility for administering international domains, what would your thoughts be if China one day decided to seize google.com or apple.com? Would you be content for international domains to continue to be administered by China?

      There was an argument before that the US should retain the role of administering these domains because it was a trustworthy protector, but the US has now crushed that argument because it's no longer trustworthy. There is hence no longer really a good reason for the US to retain sole responsibility for administering international domains. As others have said, China may be bad but at least it only censors in it's own border, the US in contrast is trying to force it's censorship on everyone else which is much much worse.

      For what it's worth your argument about international bodies handling technical matters also has plenty of counterexamples, the very existence of the ITU and the fact it's done such a good seamless job over the years demonstrates that. An agreement that the net is managed like international post and telephony - i.e. in a depoliticised, hands-off way, which is likely to be how it would happen, because you'd never get political agreement from the various opposing factions for anything else would be far superior to the current status quo. The plans for custom tlds for anyone who has the money is not technically sound as it destroys the whole hierarchial structure of DNS, so the idea that ICANN is currently somehow more technically competent is also false.

    23. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IETF much? IETF has never been an international regulatory body. They're just the geniuses that ensure the internet actually functions. What comes from the IETF isn't a law, but if you don't do what it says, your stuff doesn't work. The tyranny of engineering.

      As soon as legislators, lawyers, and bureaucrats convince themselves that their edicts trump physical realities as articulated by engineers, they will incrementally degrade the internet until the internet loses all value. Because the internet is actually implemented by a coalition of the willing, in rough consensus with working code, as the motivation is progressively sucked out of the system by the leaches, those who were once willing will shrug and walk away.

    24. Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains

      RFC 1591:

      Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two are restricted to use by entities in the United States.

      Well, that's a 1994 RFC, and one that doesn't seem to be honored very well.

      For instance, not just anyone can register an ORG domain - you have to meet certain requirements (typically non-commercial, but it's not very well enforced). Wikipedia does have some good info on it.

      Or for instance, Groklaw does not meet the definition you provided; but it has a NET domain registered.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  8. Er by dissonant03 · · Score: 1

    "Whatcha doin' over there eh? Don'tcha know aboot our border?"

  9. Verisign is evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verisign is evil? Who would have thought!!

    It's impossible that an organisation that controls practically all of both DNS and SSL, that charges up to $1000 for a certificate would ever abuse that power! Well, except everyone who ever had a clue: http://www.webdesignsnow.com/news/091703a.html

  10. The Time Has Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years, a few people have been screaming for domain registration/DNS to be handled by an international body like the U.N. While the risk with the present system seemed obvious, the U.S. had not performed any action to establish distrust. This made me feel ambivalent towards any action and opposed to the U.N.

    I remain opposed to the U.N. running the internet! But, the time has come for a distributed P2P like registrar/DNS system. The internet needs to be ungovernable.

    1. Re:The Time Has Come by hawleyg · · Score: 2

      Ungovernable = Pure chaos = Too risky for business

      --
      Cheers, Glen
    2. Re:The Time Has Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ungovernable = massively decentralised with no need for central infrastructure =/= too risky for business

      FTFY

    3. Re:The Time Has Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFY doesn't apply until you explain how to implement a non-centrally managed system of unique identifiers pointing to IP addresses without risk that the system is manipulated / corrupted at a whim.

  11. So next, all porn sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was a Maryland law, which makes it illegal to run a gambling site anywhere in the world that the guy was convicted of, the US is enforcing with this domain.

    So if one of those religious US nut-job states (you know the kind that think the world was created 5000 years ago by Adam and Eve, Santorum voters) decides that pornography is a crime, even if the sex took place in Japan, then likewise, the US will prosecute those Japanese and will shut down their websites.

    I think the USA can't be trusted with the Internet.

    1. Re:So next, all porn sites by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Well, let's think about this. You're picking on the far right, but the left has had control for over three years. This incident occurred on their watch, and in a very (by most measures) liberal state. So, let's get one thing straight...there are plenty of idiots on both sides, and maybe you shouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  12. The U.S. should have a gambling site. by StoutFiles · · Score: 1

    With all net profits used to help cut down taxes. If people want to gamble, at least make sure their money is going back into their country instead of out of the country.

    1. Re:The U.S. should have a gambling site. by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      It has several, here is an example.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:The U.S. should have a gambling site. by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      They do. It's called Wall Street. All the profits are siphoned out of the country into pointless foreign wars and offshore banks. In fact, that's where all of your taxes go too for that matter, so it's exactly what you ask for.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  13. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok. Can someone suggest an out-of-the-U.S. registrar that provides a relatively safe harbor?

  14. Are there ANY non-country domains not US controlld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there ANY non-country domains that are NOT controlled by the US?
    sure registering a ".ca" is cute, but doesn't really say "world class"... even Tuvalu's ".tv" is kinda lame.
    I guess ".co.uk" has a certain niceness about it, but looks too much like ".cock"

    are there ANY top-level domains that are like ".com" but not controlled by the US???

  15. Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

  16. Not just .com, .net, .org. Add .tv and .cc by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    Or any TLD that's managed by a US company. Verisign manages .tv and .cc.

    http://www.firstrowsports.tv/

    They moved to http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

  17. Piracy - the real kind by mauriceh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the old days of commerce by ships, they labelled this kind of behaviour as "Piracy on the high seas"

    The punishment was generally hanging, I understand.

    --
    Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
  18. Bovada by travdaddy · · Score: 2

    Bodog.com saw this coming from a mile away and switched their domain name to Bovada.lv in November 2011. Bodog.com was just a redirect site when it was seized and Bovada.lv is still up and running.

    No telling how long it will take the US to get to Bovada.lv, but I wouldn't feel safe playing there. I think they had been trying to do something about Bodog for 5 years!

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    1. Re:Bovada by PhillC · · Score: 2
      Wonder why they chose a Latvian domain name. Seems a bit random.

      Anyway, I think this has to be about more than just a bookmaker using a .com domain name. They were probably actively targetting US customers, which may have been the issue.

      There are loads of bookmakers with .com domain names, that are still quite happily trading (none of these are linked as I'm just making the point)

      williamhill.com
      ladbrokes.com
      bet365.com
      betvictor.com
      boylesports.com
      paddpower.com
      betfair.com
      etc

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    2. Re:Bovada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .LV because it sounds like Las Vegas

  19. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    I think that's all part of the problem. Most likely, they were serving US customers. They probably made no attempt to turn away customers from other jurisdictions where the website may not have been legal. To operate within the law, they should probably do like all the media sites (like Hulu and Netflix) and assure that all payments are done on credit cards within countries that have legalized online gambling, and that traffic is coming from proper IPs. sure there are ways around this stuff but if they were making an effort to block US traffic, I'm sure they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  20. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

    And Eastern, Western, and Northern neighbors too.

  21. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by liamevo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    erm, no it's not it was intended for commercial entities world wide. You have .us to use.

  22. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is being done on purpose. Maybe the USA is making things bad enough that the UN should step in and take over the Internet. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/29/1840252/eric-schmidt-un-treaty-a-disaster-for-the-internet

  23. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

    You mean in the same way as US firms with US customers use .us?

  24. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by hawleyg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could you cite your source that .com is only for US? I've certainly never perceived that way.

    --
    Cheers, Glen
  25. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well then, by your logic, american companies should use .us .com is the de facto standard top domain for pretty much any website in the world. As an open TLD it doesn't have any restrictions even though it was originally inteded for for-profit organizations

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  26. It's all a problem by jgreco · · Score: 1

    It's not just .com and .net. Once the US Government decides that ICANN itself is in the US, what happens when they want to revoke "bodog.ca"?

    1. Re:It's all a problem by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      Nothing. The .ca servers are not in US control. I suppose the US could exert political pressure, but that's it.

  27. Federal law? So what. by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country,"

    Newsflash - a company registered outside the US and not doing business in the US is not bound by ANY type of US law, federal or otherwise. Perhaps someone should remind the US authorities that they don't run the world just yet.

    They probably only did this because they think canada is a soft touch. I'd like to see them try it with a chinese or russian company.

    1. Re:Federal law? So what. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Newsflash - a company registered outside the US and not doing business in the US is not bound by ANY type of US law, federal or otherwise. Perhaps someone should remind the US authorities that they don't run the world just yet.

      Apparently if it's .com, .biz, .net, and a bunch of other common TLDs they do.

      It does highlight a little hypocrisy, because when other countries mess with the internet the US is the first to say the internet should be free so it can foster the things they believe in.

      Just don't have a gambling site.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Federal law? So what. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps someone should remind the US authorities that they don't run the world just yet.

      Canadian government is that someone.

      Canada should formally protest, accuse the US of engaging in piracy, and whatever else is true.

      If canadians don't demand respect... then they don't get it. Of course, even if they demand it, they may not get it. But at least they'd have put up a fight. That would get them my respect at least, for what it's worth.

  28. All your base are belong to USA by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sovereignty, who's got it anymore? It seems Canada sold us theirs at a garage sale.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:All your base are belong to USA by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The US is just pissed off because we(Canada) are selling our oil to China now.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:All your base are belong to USA by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Ha! Everyone else whores out to China, why not you guys as well? We keep talking about our amazing, best in the world system all the while China crushes us economically. The irony, huh? A Communistic country adapts and uses capitalistic tactics to achieve world domination. I would venture to say that tapping their vast labor pool and undercutting our prices, while we do NOTHING to protect our people kind of sums it up.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    3. Re:All your base are belong to USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling rope from the trunk of Joe Stallin's Cadillac

  29. Seizer warrant is slightly confusing by sohmc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A source link in TFA goes to the actual warrant. The way it reads, a Maryland detective in addition to a DHS task force "officer", have a warrant to retrieve property, in this case "the Internet domain name bodog.com".

    I haven't read my TOS when I registered my domain, but I believe that the domains belong to me and don't belong to the registrar. The warrant makes it sound like the domain belongs to Verisign. I am not a lawyer and I'm probably reading this incorrectly.

    I have many questions regarding this, namely WTF is a local detective involved in this case. What was his role? Was there some sort of crime in Maryland (specifically Anne Arundel County) that started this investigation?

    --
    We don't live in Shouldland.
    1. Re:Seizer warrant is slightly confusing by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, somebody lost all their money, realized they were stupid and reported it to the local police.

    2. Re:Seizer warrant is slightly confusing by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      From what it looks like in the Warrant here is what happened:

      1) Undercover agents with ICE and IRS working in Maryland, placed winning bets on this gambling site
      2) Upon winning, agents requested proceeds by Check or Wire. The addresses where funds were sent are to Maryland
      3) Gambling is illegal in Maryland
      4) 18 USC 1955
      "(1) “illegal gambling business” means a gambling business which—
      (i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;" (source : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1955)

      Because of 1-4, the gambling site violated 18 USC 1955. So the domain gets seized.

    3. Re:Seizer warrant is slightly confusing by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      "Was there some sort of crime in Maryland (specifically Anne Arundel County) that started this investigation?'

      Yes. At least, allegedly. The crime in question is the paying out of gambling winnings to Maryland residents, which is a crime under U.S. law.

  30. quick! , samsung is targeting us all by Torvac · · Score: 1

    evil anti us/apple www.samsung.com

  31. IP caching history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If all they have taken is the DNS record, the website is still there at the IP address it always has been.

    If browsers / DNS servers were configured differently they would cache the different values and present some interface to allow users to go to the old one when they are presented with a takedown page. Or warn the user that the IP address has changed, and that the new one might be an imposter, showing the old page as well as the new page to allow you to choose.

  32. It is interesting how U.S. corporations and govern by ddtracy · · Score: 1

    It is interesting how U.S. corporations and government is doing all it can to destroy their market for business and influx of money for the sake of shortsighted economical benefits. They are setting up themselves and their corporations to be strong armed by other jurisdictions who will use this as an excuse to protect their markets and businesses. And what about scaring off foreign investors all ccTLDs that are under U.S. companies are going now to be avoided. The U.S. brand is dying slowly because of stupidity and greed. Welcome to the 21st century.

  33. Welcome to the Wild West by cardpuncher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The issue of Internet jurisdiction really ought to have been sorted out by now. At present it's shoot first and ask questions later.

    It's hard to make a case for any online business if the mere fact of its availability outside the country in which it is domiciled can render it (and its staff) potentially liable for criminal, privacy, libel, patent and other legal processes in countries where it may not even know it has customers - or indeed can have its service disrupted by actions against upstream providers with whom it has no contractual relationship. The Internet is as precarious as the Pony Express.

    The US, in particular, seems particularly resistant to international discussion on any aspect of the Internet - witness the bizarre conspiracy theories spouting forth from FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell which prompted the wonderful headline in the New American "Obama Quiet as UN & Dictators Push to Control Internet" [http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10953-obama-quiet-as-un-a-dictators-push-to-control-internet].

    Unfortunately, if there isn't some progress on the subject of jurisdiction we're going to have a series of discrete regional networks (US, Europe, China, ...) and a distributed Great Firewall of Protectionism.

    In the meantime, if you're looking for a new business idea, I'd suggest whittling might be fairly safe, provided you produce no rectangles with rounded corners.

    1. Re:Welcome to the Wild West by ducman · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Whittling requires knives, and only terrorists would have such dangerous weapons.

      --
      "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
  34. Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with governments trying to shut down everything good these days? Can't they just leave us live?

  35. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    What's the problem with targeting other countries?
    You think international web sites such as slashdot target only a single country in particular? Do you think slashdot would change its content if it was not allowed in say, North Korea? Of course not. Why would it be any different for the US? It's still just one country out of about 200.
    It it fine to run an international web site as .com and not having to pander to stupid domestic laws of a few countries. If they were specifically targeting US customers, they would use .us anyway isn't it?

  36. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    The people who want to gamble are going to to do it. This is just going to push legit gambling sites out of business and make it easier for fraudsters to run off with peoples money. Credit cards are a crappy solution because they make everything more expensive, just like a tax, except the money goes somewhere else.

  37. Re:It is interesting how U.S. corporations and gov by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The manufacturing sector has been hounded out of the US and now it is the turn of the most vigorous replacement industries (those based on the internet).

    The reason the internet has been such a phenomenal success, with the most amazing record of growth ever, is that up to now the government has, perhaps unwittingly, kept its hands off. But there is nothing that the government can't improve, and they are going to improve the hell out of the internet.

    I know I am picking on the USA. Up to now freedom has been greatest there, and Americans have reaped the benefits. Now Americans have the most to lose. Like gun and abortion rights, this is going to be a never-ending battle against the forces of darkness.

    Support the EFF!

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  38. No you blithering idiot by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the UN was in control, NOTHING would get censored because NOBODY could agree on it. Just like there is no resolution against Syria because China and the USSR doesn't want it. The US could veto ANY UN censorship attempt, so could the UK and a host of other nations.

    Now the US has total control and the US has shown to be far worse at it then the countries you list, none of them have tried to censor outside their own borders.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:No you blithering idiot by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, what would happen is that everyone would agree to the lowest common denominator of censorship: censor everything everywhere.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:No you blithering idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The security council would in no way control this which is the reason for the deadlock on Syria.

    3. Re:No you blithering idiot by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, vetoes only count for Security Council resolutions; "The Internet" would be controlled by some minor UN sub-organization, not the Security Council.

    4. Re:No you blithering idiot by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Now the US has total control and the US has shown to be far worse at it then the countries you list, none of them have tried to censor outside their own borders.

      lol dude, you are hilarious. none of them CAN censor outside their own borders because they do not control any important services outside of their borders. if they did, they would... and they would be FAR more aggressive about it than the USA. not trying to excuse what happened here. it is absolutely terrible and a disgrace to America as a whole.

      In short, the story we are commenting on is not enough to convince me to hand control to the UN (unless I could be absolutely certain that it would end up remaining neutral through cumulative inaction).

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:No you blithering idiot by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just like there is no resolution against Syria because China and the USSR doesn't want it.

      There's no country named "USSR", unless I missed some recent developments.

  39. Cyber-bullying or Cyber-criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was done without the consent of the Canadian government (can't read TFA until after work) then this likely violates international law and could be construed as an act of war. With the united states military talking about hacking US sites being an act of war, what is going to happen when a foreign country fights back? Will we go to war against Canada because of political stupidity and corporate greed?

  40. U.*. by dcollins · · Score: 1

    I guess we're going to get Internet-screwed by the U.*. one way or the other.

    (Either U.S. or U.N.)

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:U.*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only advantage to being screwed by the U.N. is there is so much bureaucracy that they can't ever get anything done.

    2. Re:U.*. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I guess we're going to get Internet-screwed by the U.*. one way or the other.

      (Either U.S. or U.N.)

      Would you be willing to give UK a try?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  41. legalities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you host the domain name in Ontario Canada
    It is considered property due to a recent ruling by the Ontario supreme court , one might argue that this site is legal in Canada and might get A similar judgement as long as it was hosted in canada.

    NOW all we have to do is start a class action lawsuit and then take a trade suit to the WTO and get sanctions against the usa.
    The last time this happened an entire nation was allowed free patents and copyrights when the USA lost.

    DO not kid yourselves here...THIS IS GONNA NOW START GETTING REALLY UGLY.

    1. Re:legalities by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The last time this happened an entire nation was allowed free patents and copyrights when the USA lost.

      [citation needed] Please, I'm not sarcastic, just interested.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  42. Keep it up and Antigua with just get more free IP by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
  43. why don't these sites just use their ip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean if you're running an illegal site you might as well just have people link directly to your sites ip. sure, it's a little awkward but less awkward than getting your dns switched to one of those tacky "HACKED BY FBI" signs the feds like to put up.

  44. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HERE is where the usa is going stupid
    recent supreme court ruling said domain names if hosted in canada are property....
    THAT means the US GOVT JUST ILLEGALLY STOLE SOMEOENS PROPERTY.
    GUESS what this could mean....if they start doing it a lot.
    trade sanction at the WTO, it happened once where an entire nationin south america was allowed to freely violate all Intellectual property of the usa.

    IMAGINE THAT the usa wants to gvie canada a gift THANK YOU AMERICA KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.

    1. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      recent supreme court ruling said domain names if hosted in canada are property....
      THAT means the US GOVT JUST ILLEGALLY STOLE SOMEOENS PROPERTY.

      The fact is that the Canadian government should have shut it down long ago - online gambling that is not sanctioned by one of the government-run provincial monopolies is just as illegal in Canada as the US.

      So, quit yer whinin', eh?

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    2. Re:WRONG by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      The US govt has proven they can take your property whenever they want. It's called eminent domain here. Sure it violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But hey you can't fight the massive beast my govt has become. It's a sad day in the United States.

    3. Re:WRONG by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      recent supreme court ruling said domain names if hosted in canada are property.... THAT means the US GOVT JUST ILLEGALLY STOLE SOMEOENS PROPERTY.

      The fact is that the Canadian government should have shut it down long ago - online gambling that is not sanctioned by one of the government-run provincial monopolies is just as illegal in Canada as the US.

      So, quit yer whinin', eh?

      So what? The US should not be allowed to interfere in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation. If it was illegal in Canada, then pressure the Canadians to do something about it. Team America are not actually the World Police, sorry to burst your bubble there.

    4. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      International treaties say otherwise. The US is allowed to get a warrant for illegal activity taking place with US citizens who are currently in the US, even when the server is outside the US. The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.

      Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?

      Working within existing treaties is not "interfering in the legal procedures of a sovereign nation."

      So again, "Quit yer winin' eh?" Or the US might be tempted to send Celine Dion packing (bad enough they ruined Tim Hortons).

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    5. Re:WRONG by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Or are you going to argue that if you stand on one side of the border and shoot someone on the other side, the other justice system on the side cannot demand that you be extradited and tried for shooting them?

      I'm not convinced your analogy is a good one here. The company did not *do* anything *to* a US citizen, they simply offered a service that a US citizen chose to break the law in order to use. Maybe a different analogy? How about 'a Chinese citizen breaks the law by using a VPN to view articles about the Tiananmen Square massacres on a computer hosted in the US. Chinese government sends goons overseas to shut down the server'. I doubt the US would stand up to this sort of thing, do you?

      The external party (bodog.com) doesn't enjoy immunity from breaking US law, any more than a server in the US would enjoy immunity for breaking a Canadian law that is also recognized in the US.

      Could you show me evidence for this? I'm sure there are plenty of governments unfriendly to the US who would be very happy to hear that they can start shutting down US sites because they break their laws. Lets start big. I'll start a nice protest movement in Germany to get US sites belonging to Neo-Nazis and Holocaust-Deniers shut down. What's that? Freedom of Speech? Nah, sorry, doesn't work like that in Germany.

    6. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      Your counter-example is flawed. There is nothing illegal about viewing videos of Tiananmen Square in the US. However, both Canada and the US have laws against unlicensed gambling operations.

      Bodog does not hold a permit from any Canadian province or American state. Therefore, there is no problem with Canada honouring an American warrant, same as the US will honour Canadian warrants for stuff that is a crime in both countries.

      If you want other examples, look at the fines google had to pay for knowingly carrying online pharmaceutical ads targeted at the US from Canadian operators - it's illegal in both countries to sell drugs online, but but operators tried to create a jurisdictional problem. It ultimately failed, and cost them half a billion dollars in fines. And don't think that you can sell kiddie porn to Americans from a Canadian server, or vice versa. You'll get nailed either way.

      Stop paying for your car in Canada, drive to the US thinking it won't be repossessed? Wrong - happens all the time. And plenty of individual states have bilateral agreement with individual canadian provinces for things like demerits, speeding fines, license suspensions, etc. And look at all the arrests in Canada for telemarketing fraud directed at US customers. Fraud is a crime in both countries.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    7. Re:WRONG by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      A little research shows that Bodog is operating legally under Canadian law. So the issue is that they did not have a license to offer gambling in Maryland? Should they be expected to get gambling licenses for *everywhere in the world* then? That's clearly impractical, so the only solution is that they somehow block people based on their IP address? Maybe every website should start accepting only whitelisted IP addresses lest they fall foul of the laws in some backwater hole that noone has ever heard of? I don't see that ending well.

      My question is: why should it be an internet companies responsibility to police its users?

    8. Re:WRONG by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      My suspicion is that eventually the US will become a sort of internet backwater, with most internet companies blocking US users rather than having to go through the legal minefield. It's already happening with content-hosting sites after the US went after MegaUpload. Considering the tech industry is vital to the US economy, this is probably not a good thing.

    9. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, web sites are not "The Internet" - and overall, I suspect that if web sites were to disappear tomorrow, it would be a net improvement. The web is just too commercialized.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    10. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      Similar to US bounty hunters coming to Canada and illegally abducting people back to the states. Happened in the days of the slave trade and is still happening. The US only gives a shit about another countries laws if they can benefit, Otherwise it's do whatever you want.

    11. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      No, it's not the same - but if you insist on making invalid comparisons dating back to the slave trade, I'll throw in "It's the same as Canadians going down to Philadelphia for KKK-organized 'coon shoots' less than 100 years ago." Both comparisons are equally stupid.

      This was a gambling site that was operating illegally in both countries. The US seized the domain - good for them. Legal gambling is already too big a social problem.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    12. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part about "still happening"?

    13. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      I agree that gambling is a big social problem. I don't think that it justifies an illegal act to shut it down though. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

    14. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      Shutting down the site was legal - both according to Canadian law and to American law. Bodog was offering illegal gambling to both Canadians and Americans. Your argument would be akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar because it knowingly allows under-age drinking.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    15. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      Shutting down the site would be legal if done by Canadians, in Canada. What happened was more like anonymous shutting down a site. An unauthorized police force policing another country. Doesn't matter how bad the offender is, when one country's government starts policing another country's citizens, that's a very very bad thing.

      My argument is akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar, because it's not in our country"

    16. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1
      No - that's what we have treaties for. If something is illegal in both countries, either country can take action on their own soil. The domain might be owned by a Canadian, but the registrar is in the US.

      Same as if you registered a car in the US and drove it to Canada and let the plates expire. The Canuck cops will pull you off the road, even though it's not even registered in Canada.

      Or if a .ca domain was being used for illegal stuff out of the US - Canada can simply get a court order demanding that CIRA pull the .ca registration. (Yes, in Kanuckistan, we still mostly respect the rule of law, despite the crap Harper's gang is pulling, so you'd actually have to get a court order).

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    17. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      As I understand the original story, there was no court order in Canada. It was an action from a US State taking out a domain registered and operating in Canada.
      That's what I object to.

      From the original article.

      But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland simply issued a federal warrant was issued in the State of Maryland[1] to .com operator Verisign, (who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for .com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the domain to the takedown page.
      But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact, Maryland state law) as been imposed on a .com domain operating outside the USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about when we commented on SOPA. Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be asserted over all domains registered under .com, .net, org, .biz and maybe .info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US).

    18. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1
      So what? The site was violating both Canadian and American law (or are you continuing to ignore that fact because it torpedoes your arguments?)

      It would be no different, to use a car analogy, to the Canadian cops seizing an American car in Canada because they didn't renew their American license plates - except that the cops wouldn't even need a warrant.

      Don't like it? Then don't break the law.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    19. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      That's a horrible analogy. It's more like a sheriff from Virgina County, driving up to Canada, hooking a car up to a tow truck and towing it back to the states.
      Can't you see how that's wrong?
      Yes the car was speeding,had a taillight broken and was transporting illegal substances. Yes that's illegal in both countries, No that doesn't give the US sheriff the right to enforce US and Canadian Laws outside of his state.
      We are separate COUNTRIES.

    20. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1
      Actually, if you don't pay for your car in the US and move to Canada, it's perfectly legal for an American to go to Canada and seize your car (or hire a Canadian to do it and ship it back). They don't even need a court order - just the paperwork from the lender - so it's a great analogy. No cops, nothing ... just hook it up to the tow-truck and drive off.

      So try again - you're losing.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    21. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      You can't change someone's analogy and then tell them it's wrong. That's just plain stupid.
      You try again.

    22. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1
      You're the one who changed the analogy and then tried to say it was stupid. Look in the mirror.

      Besides, your arguments are going against the current laws and treaties of both countries - so stop being such a jerk already. If you don't like those treaties, go buy yourself a Sealand and declare yourself an independent country.

      Really - all you're doing is showing the same mental blocks that freetards have - "my way is better because I say so and I can't hear you!!!" Whaaahmbulance alert ...

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    23. Re:WRONG by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      You seem to be getting upset. Maybe we should stop before you hurt yourself :)

      I said you're analogy was horrible, and gave a better one.
      You then changed my analogy said that it was mine, and complimented it, and said I was losing. (I didn't realize it was a contest)
      I called you on it, and now you give the Whaaahmbulance alert? Who isn't listening to who?

      My original post, which sparked this discussion, was that at one time, bounty hunters would come to Canada and illegally abduct black runaways back to the states. I also pointed out that this was still happening today, although not for the slave trade, but still by bounty hunters. This is still illegal. The article was about the Virgina State affecting a Canadian enterprise. THIS WAS ONLY A STATE, NOT EVEN FEDERAL. Wether the enterrprise was legal or not is beside the point. In both countries we are still innocent until proven guilty, and in both countries there is due process, that involves BOTH COUNTRIES WHEN CROSSING THE BORDER. In this case, the due process was circumvented. There is NO treaty allowing the take down of a Canadian site by another country, and I hope to god there never will be. If you know of such a treaty please let me know what it's called.

    24. Re:WRONG by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1
      So now you're resorting to lies ...

      In this case, the due process was circumvented.

      Either you don't know what due process means (in which case your lie is just from your stupidity), or you're intentionally lying.

      The sites were shut down pursuant to a federal court order - that's due process at work - they had to go through the courts, not just grab it. The owner has been indicted - see - more due process - he's not just thrown in Gitmo for the next 10 years without first an indictment being handed down. He has all the protections of the legal system available, same as any other person charged with a crime - due process again. If he doesn't like it, he's free to ask a court to overturn the judgement - more due process.

      Just because you do something outside the country doesn't mean that it "doesn't count." Both Canada and the US, for example, require you to report and pay tax on ALL earnings, no matter where in the world they have been earned - even if you spend it there and never bring it back home. Both countries also have treaties with each other, and other countries, to avoid "double taxation". So, why should the US be able to tax your earnings outside the country? After all, according to you argument, it's money earned outside the US, and if it's not brought back home, "how dare" they tax it?

      Due process in this case simply means that the government follows the rules (the "due process") of applying the law, and that the person affected can also, via the same rules ("the due process") contest their actions.

      Enough is enough - you've had more than ample opportunity to try to show why this is illegal - and yet every step of the way, the law (due process) was followed.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  45. bodog.ca is still working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like all the US government seized is the .com domain name. They didn't shut down the website.

  46. Re:It is interesting how U.S. corporations and gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run a small company, we manufacture medical devices. No clue if our devices are legal in the US and don't care to find out...
    But I wonder, if it turns out that our devices are not legal for use on patients in the US, would the US block our .com domain. I find all of this very interesting to say the least. Like other posters, I have never perceived the .com domain to be uniquely for US companies. Sadly, there is no alternative that Joe Sixpack is familiar enough with.

  47. It has nothing to do with terrorism by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

    bodog was operating contrary to both Canadian AND American law.

    So, while in Canada, domain names are considered property, don't break Canadian law and expect the Canadian government to protect you when the Americans say "hey, we're going to do what you should have been doing yourself."

    This is like that stupid guy who wrote stuff against the Koran, then fled to another sharia-law muslim country for asylum. Or the crackhead who went to the cops to complain that they got only half a rock from their dealer.

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  48. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

    .com is the de facto standard top domain for pretty much any website in the world

    The Facts

    Country-Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLD) are two-letter domains established for countries
    Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) are three-letter (or more) domains that operate directly under policies established by ICANN processes for the global Internet community
    Sponsored Top-Level Domains (sTLD) are proposed and sponsored by private agencies or organizations

    U.S Jurisdiction

    The U.S government has jurisdictional control over the ccTLD of its country and territories [ .us .gu .vi ]
    Being the sponsor of the following sTLD's, the U.S Government also has jurisdictional control over [ .mil .edu .gov ]
    Generic Top-Level Domains like [ .com .net ] by spirit belong to the global community and are under the control of ICAAN, however, ICAAN incorporated in the U.S and falls under U.S Jurisdiction. The highly controversial [ .xxx ] sTLD is also sponsored by a U.S company and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S government.
    There are many other TLD's I have not listed here that are also under U.S government jurisdiction either directly or indirectly (i.e. through organizations incorporated within U.S borders)

    Conclusion

    .com belongs to the global internet community but U.S legislation may be forced upon adopters at the U.S governments whim.

    sources: as listed by parent
    --
    I'm too cool for a sig

    --
    [Rent This Space]
  49. Time to start moving everything off of *.com by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    From here:

    Today's sysadmin todo list:

    0. Get corporate membership with EFF.

    1. Identify all applications with user-generated content.

    2. Move all associated domains to a non-US based registrar.

    3. Migrate DNS, web serving and other critical services to non-US based servers.

    4. Migrate yourself to a non-US controlled country.

    I'm sorry for US sites and users. Your government is hell-bent on turning the internet into a read-only device like TV, easily regulated and controlled. The population will be required to sit quietly and keep their eyes glued on the screen so they don't miss the ads, with any infringers deemed terrorists and pedophiles and thus deserving of summary punishment by DHS squads.

    Hopefully the internet will route around the damaged segment, and the rest of us can continue to enjoy the amazing interactivity it has brought our society.

  50. Alternate DNS System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world is going to move to an alternate DNS system that cannot be controlled by any one entity. It's the future of the Internet. Think of these sorts of "attacks" as initiators of innovation and evolution. They are a good thing in the end. They keep the people on the side of the hackers, or at least the important people.

  51. Re:It is interesting how U.S. corporations and gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he reason the internet has been such a phenomenal success, with the most amazing record of growth ever, is that up to now the government has, perhaps unwittingly, kept its hands off. But there is nothing that the government can't improve, and they are going to improve the hell out of the internet.

    I believe that this mistake in perception is one that we can't afford to make again. The government is only a puppet of the businessmen that back them. The government doesn't just engage in random acts of police power. There is a purpose behind each and every move. If that purpose is not clearly to protect the public's interest, then you know whose interest it is protecting. Follow the money. By attributing these evils to the government instead of the businesses behind them, you allow those businesses to escape the scrutiny and ridicule they deserve. Even if you succeeded to remove the government's power to "protect" the business interests of these businesses, those businesses would just find some new way to accomplish the same goals. They could hire mercenary hackers to take out sites, or use any number of tools that don't require a government and couldn't be stopped without a government powerful enough to stop them.

    Government is the only way common people have any hope of counteracting the power and influence of people and organizations with huge sums of money. Arguing that government power should be limited because it can be co-opted and used against you is the same as arguing that guns don't offer any self-defense value for the same reason.

  52. I remember the discussion some years ago by lbschenkel · · Score: 1

    I remember the discussion some years ago here in Slashdot about why ICANN and DNS should stay under U.S. control because it was the "land of the free", the country was neutral regarding these matters, there would be no political pressure of any kind, guaranteed freedom of speech, yada yada yada. It's also funny (in a sad way) that we are seeing this whole apparent enforcement of U.S. jurisdiction on foreign countries (NZ, Megaupload, the extradition of the British guy that posted links, etc.) when the military on American bases abroad are never subjected to local laws even when committing crimes locally outside the base, and when U.S. absolutely refuses to sign or endorse the International Court of Justice (recognised by more than 190 countries) because it will not accept foreign influence on its sovereignty in any way. I don't think my country (Brazil) is any better, but at least I'm not brainwashed since birth to think otherwise.

  53. Quit Gambling by bhlowe · · Score: 1

    If you're spending more than 10 hours a week online gambling, do yourself a favor and quit. Cold turkey. Cash out, uninstall, and close your account(s). Even if you're profitable.

  54. TLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At issue is that the US government controls some key TLDs (such as .com). Any site which registers with a US government controlled TLD is subject to the whims of the US government. If I (a US citizen) registered mysite.ca, then I would be subject to the Canadian government.

    1. Re:TLD by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Umm, if this was a .US website then I might find the seizure of the domain to be okay - but it was .COM which isn't specific the to US. While the US has some control over that via Verisign which happens to be BASED in the US I don't agree that the US Govt. can claim ownership of the entire.COM TLD.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  55. Government Wants Their Cut, that's all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't about terrorism... it will be all legal once the government finds out how to extract their cut from the on-line gaming

  56. SO Cuban cigar by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    shops are next?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:SO Cuban cigar by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      shops are next?

      Only if a US citizen goes there to smoke them...makes about as much sense as this does.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  57. Occupy DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to occupy DNS. Esp. *.gov.

    Time for a distributed DNS, screw the nazi monkeys.

  58. Way to help ensure... by forkfail · · Score: 1

    ... that the UN does eventually get control.

    Also, what the hell is DHS doing enforcing gambling rules and laws at all? Let alone on other nations?

    --
    Check your premises.
  59. Two different subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject 1 - US shuts down website registered in the US for violating US customs laws. Duh
    Subject 2 - US controls .com domain registry. Should it?

    1. Re:Two different subjects by Torinir · · Score: 1

      Subject 1 Response: The domain was registered in Canada, not the US.
      Subject 2 Response: Hell no.

    2. Re:Two different subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subject 1: No, you moron. The domain was sold by a RESELLER in Canada who resells services by Verisign, a U.S. company.

  60. dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dot com is not US domain, it is international. Other countries should oppose this.

  61. Enter namecoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Screw justice systems of the world, let's solve this with more tech, like usual...

    https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin

  62. Malicious Governance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to make Malicious Governance a felony and RICO crime - pierce that veil of sovereignty and make the thugs personally liable and send them to jail.

  63. Aren't they chasing the wrong end of the stick? by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that if Maryland law was broken by Maryland residents, then those residents should be the target of these gestapo tactics...but I guess there's more $$$ to be had by squeezing an international business than a bunch of casual gamblers...

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    1. Re:Aren't they chasing the wrong end of the stick? by shugah · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, the real issue is the illegal gambling and money laundering charges. The bodog.com domain has not been used in months. However according to the DOJ, the investigation goes back almost 6 years. At that time, bodog.com WAS being used and Bodog was using a US based payment processor Zip Payments Inc. to "recode" online gambling transactions (which are normally rejected by credit card companies in the US) as normal commercial activity. "The four are accused of conspiring to direct winnings to players in Maryland via check and wire using payment processors that included JBL Services and Zip Payments". Their mistake was using a US based payment processor.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  64. And you wonder why the ITU/UN ghost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people wonder why there is such a real possibility of the rest of the world giving control of the Internet to the ITU/UN?

  65. Question by brit74 · · Score: 1

    The article seemed to avoid the question of where the servers were. Part of me wonders if they were intentionally avoiding mentioning if the servers or the entire organization was being run out of Maryland, and that's what gave the US jurisdiction in this case. Sorry, the article just looked a little suspicious for the lack of information which might inform the reader as to why Maryland might claim jurisdiction.

    Also, as I always point out in these stories: the internet is global. This creates a number of problems for enforcing laws. It seems like in the long run there's only two options: countries either succeed in enforcing their own laws (against, say, gambling, copyright infringement, counterfeiting, child porn, slander, money laundering, drug trafficking, hiring hitmen, creating computer viruses, stealing/reselling credit card information, etc) or all countries must accept the aggregate of the most permissive laws of every country. For example, if one country decides piracy or child pornography is legal, then all countries have to suffer the consequences because everyone in the world will have instant access to it. I'm not the least bit surprised that this has caused tension in the global system.

  66. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

    I think that's all part of the problem. Most likely, they were serving US customers. They probably made no attempt to turn away customers from other jurisdictions where the website may not have been legal. To operate within the law, they should probably do like all the media sites (like Hulu and Netflix) and assure that all payments are done on credit cards within countries that have legalized online gambling, and that traffic is coming from proper IPs. sure there are ways around this stuff but if they were making an effort to block US traffic, I'm sure they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

    Think about what you are saying! Essentially you are asking website owners to not only be fully versed of the legal situation of every single goddamn visitor to their site, but also somehow to police it. The site can be accessed from anywhere in the world: Thousands and thousands of independent jurisdictions with their own silly little contradicting laws that you have to obey. Ridiculous. If some guy from Bumfuck, USA is breaking the law then it is up to the legal system in Bumfuck to deal with it, NOT the website owner.

  67. Now you notice by rs79 · · Score: 1

    15 years ago when we were running around screaming about this... where were you guys?

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  68. In tech security news today... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    ....The U.S. Government replaces the DNS Changer virus with itself.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  69. DNS by consensus? by chikchak2000 · · Score: 1

    this is why current DNS needs to go away and we need multiple decentralized DNS servers that do IP redirection based on consensus instead of a definitive registry. don't trust the US? compare US+Canada+India+China, go with the IP address that the majority of the DNS servers agree upon. this is how fly-by-wire airplanes determine what to do. in case of conflict, they use a tie-breaker computer. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln

  70. Can't allow 2 bit sherrif to control the internet by sunyjim · · Score: 1

    If it's illegal to sports gamble in Maryland, arrest people sports gambling in Maryland, but these 2 bit wahoo prosecutors that think they can impose Maryland state law on Canada can go F&*%$ themselves. It's not an illegal business here, it's a legal one. Websites can't be expected to know all the laws everywhere or block everyone from every hick burg that has different laws from accessing their site. The internet is free, lets keep it that way

  71. I'm glad I don't live in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, wait ...

  72. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    You can't get from: Generic Top-Level Domains like [ .com .net ] by spirit belong to the global community and are under the control of ICAAN, however, ICAAN incorporated in the U.S and falls under U.S Jurisdiction.

    to:.com belongs to the global internet community

    Your conclusion is illogical.

    Disclaimer: What DHS did was unforgivable in my not so humble opinion.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  73. If this were Land... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put it into perspective... imagine that this wasn't a website but it was land.

    first off, that could be and very likely would be considered an act of war. and before anyone wants to think that Canada would automatically lose, consider two points.

    1. the American military is currently mostly deployed overseas whereas Canada's troops are mostly at home.
    2. Canada would likely have most (if not all) of the commonwealth nations at it's side.

    1. Re:If this were Land... by shugah · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. The state National Guards of any number US states that border Canada are larger and better equipped than the entire Canadian Armed Forces.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    2. Re:If this were Land... by shugah · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and NONE of the commonwealth countries have any capacity to project force overseas.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    3. Re:If this were Land... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9_9 now why did i not expect any sort of response like that?

      Typical American ignorance... We may not have the bomb but we do have ties with countries that do (and they like us more than they like you.)

  74. But what if it is wire fraud? by phriedom · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, my company firewall prevents me from reading TFA, but your comments refer to a Detective in Maryland, the DHS, ICE and moving money through foreign banks. I do know that in the cases for PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and the others that were shut down in the last big legal action, what they were actually charged with was bank/wire fraud. The credit card companies, in compliance with US law, were refusing to make payments from US residents to these foreign casinos. So the casinos were disguising the charges' origin and nature by routing them through a third-party and presenting them as being for non-gambling products and services. If you are presenting a fraudulent charge to a US credit card company for a US customer, it seems to me that you are breaking US law and under US jurisdiction. What if Bodog is doing the same thing? What if they are routing a charge through the Maldives and disguising its' origin and nature, presenting it to a customer and credit card company in Maryland? At that point aren't they doing business in Maryland? I don't think we can pretend this is all perfectly legal in Canada any more. And if they are legally seizing assets, isn't the domain an asset that is based in the US? If we say that Verisign shouldn't obey a US court order, then what court should have the authority to seize that property? Are you saying the Fed should have to go to a Canadian court because the original registrar is in Canada? Even if the law was broken in the US and the domain resides in the US?

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  75. This bull shit will not happen by Dainsanefh · · Score: 1

    in an anarchy.

    Anarchy is the REAL democracy.

    --
    Twitter: @dainsanefh
  76. Re:Left by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    If by "Left" you mean Obama and the Democrats, please realize that you are using US definitions for "Left" and "Right". In the rest of the world, Obama qualifies as "Right-wing" and the Republicans range from "Right-wing to Very-Far-Right-wing". There is no "Left" in US politics as seen by the rest of the world.

    It seems hard for most /. posters from the US to keep this in mind, everything is relative I suppose, but the US is generally speaking, very right wing in its politics and culture. That doesn't mean all Americans are of course, but those I would view as "left-wing" by say, Canadian standards (where I live), are few and far between. Now, of course my country is finlandizing to the US and growing increasingly rightwing itself in the process. Our current PM, Stephen Harper is about as right-wing a leader as this country has ever seen, and even he probably qualifies as just a left-leaning Republican in the US.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  77. W....T.....F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything ? any one tiny tiny thing that the government of the United States,
      that was voted in by all you people that wont admit you did, can be trusted with ?
    come on... there must be something ?

  78. Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh?

    Well, except for companies in eastern Canada. They don't use .ca, they use .eh (or is it .ca.eh?)

  79. AIDING TERROR by glorybe · · Score: 1

    It is often very difficult to tell a true subversive from a normal citizen. If you complain about something because you are unhappy is it because you really want something fixed or because you want to break down the morale of the public? When we have an industry such as internet gambling it is known that some of these games are rigged. Now is that simply to steal money or is it also to try to boost the debt level of Americans and weaken our nation? Or does a portion of the profits clearly flow to promote violence against our nation? With gambling so much money is involved that government needs to be very certain of the motives of the businesses as well as very aware of where all of the cash goes. The same applies to illegal drugs. Surely some drug runners and dealers are in the business and deliberately attempting to destroy the US. There is a danger in assuming that a drug runner simply wants to make money. If you begin to understand that many of these people are eager to see the collapse of America and drugs and dope are only one way of attacking us. Smuggling in alien species of plants and animals can cause billions in losses to us. So when we see such smuggling it would be wise not to just consider the person who sets these species loose not just an animal lover. They may be trying to screw up our nation. Imagine what you can do with killer bees by establishing nests around the nation. Or how about the water hyacynth? One plant can cost a state millions to eradicate. We are at war and it is high time we took other nations seriously.

  80. Maryland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This originated from Maryland? The same same state on the eastern shore of the U.S. that has a state lottery AND slot machines?

    The U.S. is out of control.

  81. Implications by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Well I find the implications more distressing than reality. The fact that they did this is scary. It will be interesting to see what the response is, both civilly and legally from government (though with conservatives I don't see them doing squat). This is nothing short of a violation of sovereignty. Applying your laws to another country, I mean at least the US could just buy off our politicians like the past.

    Anyway the fact that it was a scuzzbag gambling site, which is more than likely (if previous examples have showed anything) involved in illegal activity (even by Canada's laws) anyway so I am not about to shed too big a tear. Though as likely already pointed out, it is a slippery slope, as today may only be a douchebag gambling site, who knows what tomorrow brings...

  82. the hypocritical god by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

    you left out the most relevant part, which was that one should love God more than their children or parents.

    I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breathe.

    As for religion causing discord between you and your daughter, maybe it's time to lay off a bit? After all, it's not your decision as to what she believes provided she is not in immediate danger.

    We could get into the whole "sovereign god vs action" bit, but ultimately being a good parent means giving them the tools to make their own decisions, and then respecting them, even when we disagree.

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    1. Re:the hypocritical god by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      As for religion causing discord between you and your daughter, maybe it's time to lay off a bit?

      That isn't the problem. The problem is her having a problem with my being too generous. She's madly jealous of a woman who never knew her father who comes to me for advice, and sometimes a place to lay her head. I've never pushed religion or anything else on either of my kids.

      I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breath

      It ain't easy being a Christian, believe me.

    2. Re:the hypocritical god by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      Okay, that is a serious problem ... it's easy to solve for outsiders, but family ... because the stakes are so high (you can pick your friends, but family is like luggage - you're stuck with it), people get bent out of shape easier, and stay bent out of shape longer.

      Not knowing the details, I'd say continue being generous - leading by example is always a good thing, as is anything that increases the total amount of "Good" in the world.

      Sorry that I assumed you were pushing religion. My bad. Please accept my apologies.

      I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to tell me that my kids come second to anything is wasting their breath

      It ain't easy being a Christian, believe me.

      Me, I'd rather be the one who does what's right because it's right, not because I'm afraid someone is up there keeping score. If I only do it to get some reward in some hereafter, it really shouldn't count for much (actually, it should count as a negative in my books). I'm not going to let someone else dictate my morals - that's abrogating my responsibility to use my head, and it also over-simplifies a lot of grey areas. So I guess a more general statement would be "It ain't easy, period, if you have a conscience." Or "It's complicated."

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    3. Re:the hypocritical god by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Me, I'd rather be the one who does what's right because it's right, not because I'm afraid someone is up there keeping score.

      And that's exactly how God wants it. After all, if one is a Christian his bad deeds were already paid for. It all comes from love. Love gives, lust wants.

  83. Veri-slime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK VERISIGN.

    Sorry for letting out my inner 4th-grader, but FFS, could this company possibly be any farther up the US Gov't's ass?

    They make me sick. They "compete" every few years for the DNS contract, but let's face it, the fix is in. My old roommate was involved with a company that tried to go up against Big Brother, excuse me, Verisign, and it was clear from the beginning that the fix was in.

    Makes me sick. Ever drive over to their campus? Tons of Porsches, BMW M3s & M5s, Mercedes S600s, etc... We're all paying for them. The engineers might be outside the shenanigans, but they are still part of the system and still eating at the trough.

  84. Re:Left by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Having lived in Europe for six years, and Asia for another six, I would disagree with your assessment of the rest of the world. I would agree that Canada, Australia, N.Z., and western Europe are definitely to the left of the US (and I'm happy you are...I have relatives in Ontario, and have spent a couple years of my youth there)...not so much in the world. In general, it all depends on what topic you're aiming at. For example, the original post mentioned Japan, which clearly has more right wing pornography rules than the US.

    All that said, the original post was squarely aimed at the far right (Christian conservatives..in US terms), and as I pointed out this has all taken place on the more liberal (again in US terms) Democratic watch, and in a rather liberal (I lived there for 7 yrs) state.

    For the record, I'm a fiscal conservative, but rather liberal when it comes to social issues...I don't care what you do, as long it doesn't impede me from doing what I want to do.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise