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).'"

19 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.
  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 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...

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.