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).'"

48 of 354 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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.'
    4. 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."

    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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!
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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!
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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?
  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: 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
    4. 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...

    5. 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.

    6. 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..
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

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

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

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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]