Slashdot Mirror
US Asserts Super-Jurisdiction Over Dot-Com, Dot-Net, and Dot-Org Domains
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that last week State of Maryland prosecutors were able to
obtain a warrant ordering Verisign, the company that manages the dot-com domain name registry, to redirect the website to a warning page
advising that it has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The message from the case is clear: all dot-com, dot-net, and
dot-org domain names are subject to U.S. jurisdiction regardless of where they operate or where they were registered. This grants the U.S. a form of 'super-jurisdiction' over Internet activities, since most other
countries are limited to jurisdiction with a real and substantial
connection."
Won't this just encourage other companies, or even US companies, to switch to a national domain?
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
like troll the internet with inflammatory posts?
Which web site would that be? Bodog.com?
I think it has now become vital to remove control of the internet's root services from the US. I'm sure the process is now underway.
Last I knew, .com, .net, .gov, .mil, .edu, .org, and .us were all United States TLDs. For websites outside the US that want to keep all of their systems out of US jurisdiction, don't use a US-based domain name. Does this company also act surprised that the US government could access any US-based bank accounts it has?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Switching to a non-US TLD....
I am John Hurt.
Well shit, I only have the .com, .net and .org versions of my domain name. Maybe it's time to grab the .co GoDaddy keeps pimping as "the new .com".
This would be an excellent opportunity for Iceland, which has been working on become a haven for free speech, to drum up a few million dollars worth of business for their ccTLD.
Liberty in your lifetime
We invented it and we own it. Eat shit eurotrash. Make your own Internet and stop leeching if you don't like it.
that way we don't have an international super committee which will bow to every petty demand that is brought before it. However even national ccTLDs arent immune as the US and other governments are not beyond threatening other countries, even allies (see the recent witch hunt after swiss bank accounts)
Really think about it, an international group would most likely be within the domain of the UN and that would result is so many attempts to filter content that the internet we know now could never exist.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Currently I use OpenSRS but they are also based in the US so from the looks of it they'd be forced to break any Canadian privacy laws to give out domain name info. I've never had problems with them. Now obviously they might not be able to give out info past the .com/org/net domains but I don't want anything to do with a company doing business with the US.
Any one know of any registrars that have no business doing with the US? I still have an old Stargate/Resell.biz account that I can transfer all my domains to...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Good! If it can't fail, then why reckon with it and why argue against it? It's one thing to take a wishy-washy approach to the internet and back it up with some "Tao of Information" assertions, but when it comes down to it, the internet will need a form of regulation to be tolerable, and if the regulation stems from natural law and can't effectively be gotten around, then no harm done, it's part of the natural "tao" of the internet.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
"US Asserts Super-Jurisdiction Over [...]" seems to be rather standard.
From sites I belong to in the last couple of weeks going "becuase the US legal system is broken, we have shut down our .com domain in favor of a .[whatever] doman. please keep that in mind when visiting in the future, thanks". one company went as far as to call the us govt "retards". a professional company.
With this migration, how long until we get warnings from DHS saying "If its not .com, its terrorists and you cant trust it!"
Being an option, and knowing that big business can motivate US law enforcement to cross borders, samsung.com must now look like a viable target to be included in Apples next injunction attempt.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Holy BALLS! That has some ludicrously deep ramifications, what the hell are they... oh wait, timothy submitted this from "anonymous"?
Alllright, lemme just wait for the +5 insightful comments to clear this up before I get my rage on.
Switch off these domains.
I'm thinking of switching to Dot-FuckyoUS
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
While I'm sure that the feds managed to do something tasteless and possibly illegal with this power, I'm a bit confused by the summary:
.com pointing to it placed the site, server(s), or operator(s) under US jurisdiction would be rather more dramatic; but the DNS record that points FOO.com to your IP has always been under American jursdiction...
In order to 'have' a FOO.com/.net/.org domain name, you have to pay for the appropriate registration with Verisign, a US corporation, who handles those domains. If the feds secure the appropriate court order, they can direct Verisign to have your FOO.com point to a different IP.
Ok. Hasn't that always been the case?
Some sort of argument that a site having a
There used to be a site called QuickSilverScreen. It was essentially a lot of links to videos uploaded to Megavideo and the like (you were able to browse by category, by show, by season, etc...). When it began attracting attention, it switched TLDs. I'm not sure whether it was originally .com or .net or what but it switched to .im and continued for a while like nothing would've happened. Eventually it was shut down and I'm not sure what kind of threats/laws were used for that but I'm pretty certain that attacking the domains had essentially no effect at all.
I need to buy a few new domains soon and .com seemed like the obvious choice, but perhaps I'll go with .fi instead.
So, any country can declare a global legal jurisdiction, and pass laws directing everyone on the planet to comply? Or only those countries with very large militaries, indicating that might not only makes right, but assures authority over legal matters outside the nation's boundaries.
I don't think so, fascist state.
Silly ferriner, the world IS our back yard. Go find your own.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
We shoot you in the back as you walk away, then sue you for copyright infringement!
How is this different from like Libya exercising control over the sites being hosted under .ly domains?
"International law .ly domain in October 2010 to shut down vb.ly for violating Libyan pornography laws. Failure to predict such problems with URL shorteners and investment in URL shortening companies may reflect a lack of due diligence.[19]"
Shortened internet links typically use foreign country domain names, and are therefore under the jurisdiction of that nation. Libya, for instance, exercised its control over the
Not to say any kind of censorship is right, but at the moment, us treating the US based TLDs as, well, US based, is just the way jurisdiction has been being handled when it comes to domain names.
Dear Justice Department, Can you please take down godaddy.com? Thanks, NameCheap.com
Unfortunately, a lot of ccTLDs are actually run by US companies, within the US. It will happen, and I bet within a year, that the US will steal a domain name (Steal as in deprive the owner of the use and enjoyment of it) from another country ccTLD, and will then be surprised by the reaction.
Verisign is inside the USA and that is where all .coms are registered. The "registrars" are just sales agents. Get youself a .ru domain.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Which one? Many are actually administered in the US by US companies... Doh!
As an American, I appreciate that you addressed your comment to the singular parent above, not showing the same ignorance (by parent) to the fact that there are many, many different people in each country of the world.
Come on. Who should have control of these (and .gov)? I think that we all knew that this was the case. .US. Likewise, I would think that the same is true of other alphabets.
The problem becomes if we ever think that we own any of the national levels other than
Sadly, I can see this coming that some idiot will scream that we do.
Now, the question is, who owns the new ones coming up?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
All your domain are belong to U.S.!
and the library of Alexandria still continues to burn
Let countries maintain their own TLDs and give jurisdiction over the international ones to a UN body.
That is a terrible idea. If you understood the simple fact that the UN does not, never has, and never will represent you or any other single, individual Human Being, you would understand the rediculousness of what you propose.
The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, most of whome are actively oppressing their own people to one degree or another. Cede control of key Internet infrastructure to that organization, and you cede control to an organization that represents the interests of REGIMES, not people. Censorship, filtering, domain seizures, etc. will follow the path of least resistence, and the lower common denominator. Governments will be pleased, and rarely will one stand up for you unless a specific political interest crosses enough borders, and gains enough attention (e.g. maybe Tibet, or Dafur, certainly not YOU, me, or anyone else on slashdot, in the EFF, the FSF, etc.).
You think American suppression of speech is bad? It is, but no where near as bad as it will be if we cede that authority "to a UN body."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Unless you are:
-a multinational (aka Puppet master)
-Government that is friends with above (aka Puppet)
You will NOT be *able* to get a DNS name.
P2PDNS will be the way to do things and Browsers will have a DNS plugin to look-up for DN$ and P2PDNS addresses.
(Posting Anon by choice + fear)
Didn't TFA teach you anything? The US is an International Authority!
Dear United States of America,
We created you.
Regards,
England
Fuck, yeah !
It seems that since we joined the UN, the United States has become the Police of the World; usually operating on behalf of UN voted actions. This seems to be just another arm of that thinking.
I am not either for or against this yet as I am still deciding while gathering more facts, but, it seems to me that if companies or individuals who want to operate a .com, ,net or .org domain that originated in the US should be liable for any actions that resulted from that domain...
Just a thought...
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
They invented it, so they ought to have the right to control it.
I agree 100%. A Scotsman called John Logie Baird invented the scanviewing screen. Every single viewing screen in the world (computer monitor; TV; security monitor; infra-red main battle-tank target sighting system; space ship piloting screen etc. etc.) should be routed, at the owner's expense, through a centre in Scotland so that the Scots can ensure their control over what is viewed on those screens.
My only fear is what the Chinese are going to do with their right to control your use of toilet paper.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The US has had jurisdiction of course for a long time. But it can only maintain it for as long as it doesn't claim it. That's the catch 22.
If the US starts dictating terms on it's corner of the internet then many international services that reside there will fracture into their own segments and the global internet will break down into national jurisdictions.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Perhaps it's time to move away from total dependence on domain names. Their value comes inherently from qualities that invite dispute.
With search services, it's quite possible to find hosts that have no domain name at all. I can't post my favorite example, because the server has insufficient power to handle lots of hits, but such things definitely exist. There's still some problem with control by the search companies, but there's a finer granularity of competition there.
Once you get to a given host, you can determine whether it's World Wrestling or World Wildlife. That doesn't have to be certified (very unreliably) by a DNS registrar.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
Dear World,
We created the internet, Fuck Off.
Regards,
America (ie, the country that runs the world)
Al is that you? What are you doing on that sinking ship?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
TPB has also switched to an .se domain, that they forward to by default. But with TPB now being DHT-only and magnet-link-only, and even more easily mirrored, it would be stupid and pointless to take it down.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Didn't TFA teach you anything? The US is the International Authority!
FTFY
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Since the USA government has taken control of the servers controlling .com, .net and .org, they can now officially be considered Rogue Servers. The common Internet practice is to route around this and tell the root servers that other servers have taken their place. It would be wise to place those servers outside of USA jurisdiction, to prevent a case of takeover in the future. I'm sure RIPE, IANA and other organizations are more than capable of coming up with a technical solution to deal with this.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Dear non-Americans - Don't play in our court if you don't like our rules. You have you're own TLD.
And so do you. It's called ".us".
On the other hand, .com, .net, and .org are supposed to be non-nation specific.
No, they belong to the US and are on loan to Network Solutions for international use. This means that the US government can tell NetSol to do whatever they want them to, or they lose the rights to domain control. This is completely outside the fact that Network Solutions is subject to California and US law.
I think the obvious answer is that we need to petition ICANN to open the ".them" TLD to compete with the American ".us" doamin.
Let's face it, the .com domain registry is in the US and the the US does have jurisdiction by the logical extension to the Internet of old case law.
US servers are being told to resolve domains.
Courts, prosecutors, the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security (and other things) being able to arbitrarily seize domains IS the problem.
The only purpose for seizure as it was intended to be used when restrictions on search and seizure were added to the Constitution was to gather and preserve evidence.
That is its only LEGITIMATE purpose still, unless someone has been convicted of a crime and it is part of their sentence or to stop a terrorist attack.
And if they don't have the Department of Homeland Security STOP worrying about bullshit and just deal with actual homeland security, I'm afraid another 9/11 is extremely likely. Having them involved in the War on Drugs and the War on Piracy and the War on Gambling is going to make us lose the War on Terror (the only one WORTH fighting).
And FreeNet is easy to take down.
Try, convict and then sentence node owners to 20 years in prison. The rest will shut themselves down.
You don't even need to convict people. Here in Las Vegas, someone was accused (not even yet tried) of possessing child pornography. Rather than try the alleged pervert, they assigned him a cellmate in the Clark County Detention Center (*) who was an accused murderer of a child (killing his own nephew!), who, get this, ended up killing (BEAT and STABBED to death) the alleged pervert. Imagine that.
That was a hit.
So now people know that just being accused can result in an indirect death sentence. Even those innocent could die.
And guess what one running a FreeNet node could be accused of trafficing in? They could be set up with bogus/planted evidence, arrested, set up in prison and brutally killed with in a week! No need for a trial where someone could be found not guilty.
Talk about a chilling effect!
(*) This jail is way out of control. Maybe not as bad as Rikers Island in NYC, but close! Some years back they put someone accused of marijuana possession in with hardened criminals and he got raped in the shower. I don't think that was an accident.
Sam Donaldson of Stop Prison Rape (now Just Detention International) was set up in the DC jail to get raped - read the story. (**)
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/15175310/inmate-murdered-at-ccdc
http://www.lvrj.com/news/inmate-kills-roommate-in-clark-county-detention-center-126413548.html
http://www.bravemantherapy.com/articles/prison.htm
"In 1997, Robert was arrested for possession of marijuana and taken to the Clark County detention center in Las Vegas where three men raped him in the shower. Now, 18 months out of prison, he is still trying to come to terms with the experience."
Guess they taught him a lesson for daring to possess the "evil reefer"!
(**)
http://www.jimgoad.net/pdf/prison/donny.pdf
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
People are claiming that bodog.com was a Canadian site, but I'm confused. Here's a cache of the page from April 2011.
Less than a year ago the website said "Bodog Gaming is operated in the United States under License by Morris Mohawk Gaming Group." Could this be why the domain name was seized? It would see to fall inside US jurisdiction in that case.
Thanks; I do try occasionally. Though I have to say that the signature a bit spoils it in this case.
Or should that be: "WHOOOOOSH. The sound you hear is the sound of the Chinese controlled Minuteman nuclear missile (they are a type of rocket) on it's way over your village to a demonstration point somewhere in the Nevada desert"???!!!???
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The really annoying thing is that many, many technical gurus were against international control of the Internet and for US control of it in order to "protect the freedom". Yeah. Right. The rest of us have been posting for a long time now that all this was to be expected and that, whatever the faults of the UN and other international bodies, they're still better at safeguarding things like freedom.
ICANN should be dismantled completely and all control transferred to a quasi-independent international body. THAT is how to protect freedom.
Though I sincerely doubt that we'll see a single apology from those who protested against such a move the last time for what is ultimately their fault. Yes. Theirs. They are responsible for their actions and their actions include pressuring the US Govt to retain the power of dictatorship over the Internet. They owe, big time, to the rest of us for the inevitable and obvious consequences.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Please - there are 50 states in the Union, and at any given time, one of the hundreds of judges in each state has the ability to issue an Order of the Court that a) vastly oversteps his/her powers; and b) vastly misunderstands the far-reaching implications of said order. This does not mean the "United States" is taking over the internets....It's just one judge making an error in judgment. That's why we have appeals courts.
Seriously though, is there any doubt that the USA is fast becoming the schoolyard bully of the world? And we wonder why other countries hate us so!
I rememeber that site - used to watch reruns of some of my favorite sci-fi series while the CEO's of Virgin and Sky media were having ego-fights over syndication fees. Thanks to those butt-heads never got to see the first run of the new series of Battlestar Galactica - so just watched it online instead, and cancelled my cable subscription.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Moral of the story:
a) If possible, avoid US-managed TLDs
b) If possible, avoid doing business with US-based companies altogether.
Dear England,
Last time we played this game you got your ass beat.
The last time you played this game the British Army burnt Washington DC to the ground.
The last time you played this game the British Army burnt Washington DC to the ground.
Hey, could you do that again? We seem to have some cruft built-up there and need a little tear-down.
The Oatmeal describes this phenomenon perfectly.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
? :) CD, maybe... CSPD, definitely.
Just because you're pushing the phrase "2000s" does not mean that others cannot use other accepted nomenclature in regular correspondence. I prefer naughties. So sue me -- but watch who you're calling OCD, as I'm not the one who posted an anonymous comment to correct a perfectly standard word usage with another perfectly standard word usage. And I'm definitely not OCD, as a walk through my post history will quickly show
Isn't the DNS system roughly the Internet equivalent of a telephone book that gives the association between someone's name and the actual telephone number? All computers actually use the IP address that gets looked up in some directory. Just like I have an address book that associates my friends and business partners names with their telephone number, could there not be in each computer such a simple list? If someone screws around with a directory somewhere, then searching for my name will no longer bring up my actual phone number or IP number. However, all those people that still have my name correctly associated with my number, would still be able to reach me. If most people had such a local directory, then seizing a domain name by simply messing with the public master directory, would not be very effective, at least not immediately. Also, could there then not be any number of directories kept in places and by people outside the reach of any particular jurisdiction?
One of the IP addresses of Google.com is 74.125.127.100
If I type that address into my browser, I get Google.com. If I know that association, could the seizure of the Google.com domain name prevent me from reaching Google's website?
Storage these days is cheap. Could a computer not keep a gigabyte or 2 of my favorite address associations? Since the name to IP number translation is done locally, would that not speed up web surfing dramatically?
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Naughties is definitely standard. 2000s is awkward, who would use such drivel?
Verisign is the ICANN assigned registrar that manages the .com root. What do you not understand? We invented it, it's ours, it's run by a US company, and they are bound by US laws.
My only fear is what the Chinese are going to do with their right to control your use of toilet paper.
I thought that's why we grow so much corn.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Kewl. I wrote a whole article in CACM on this proposal. I would have cited you had I known you'd mentioned it too.
I've gotten nowhere convincing anyone to implement the idea, although it would cost very little to provide an automatic registrar, and it doesn't have to be right below a TLD.
In fact, the basic service might end up being more useful for distributing public keys than for DNSish utility per se. I have a lot of notes regarding more detailed protocols, and the value as public key distribution infrastructure. Then I got too sick to finish. If you have any interest in co-authoring, you can look at http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/Citizen/Network_Identifiers/ and/or contact me as michael_odonnell at acm.org
Even if you just want to pursue the ideas on your own, I'd rather have them snitched than wasted. Everything I wrote is licensed Creative Commons Attribution/Share-alike, and I'd add a more liberal license if anybody wants it.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
This is a good reason for moving the SOA of . out of Verisign's control and/or out of the USA.
The next issue is who and where should the SOA be published from?
It sounds to me as long as nobody gets killed, you think it's acceptable collateral damage even though you recognize it's wrong. I think it's unequivocally unacceptable anytime the government takes away somebody's property, liberty, livelihood, or reputation unjustly in its zeal to combat the boogeyman du jour.
It seems to me that this is another example of backwards policy. Maryland has a law stating that sports betting is illegal. OK, so just arrest the people in Maryland who were betting on sports.
But no. Instead, they shut down the site that enabled those people to break the law. Same as ban IP tools that allow people to break the law. While they're at it, they should seriously consider banning cars and any blunt or sharp object, as these can all be used to commit crimes.
.fi? Under the circumstances I'd say register in Fortunata and get a .FU suffix.
Three Squirrels
Gezz im soposta feel sorry for some foreign Company trying to run a gambling site for US citizens which is against the laws in the US and they knew this international law so no excuses. If our businesses must abide by foreign laws then don't cry foul when the US enforces its own laws. This wasn't some oops that was a mistake. It was a well thought out crime against US gambling laws.
Jack of all trades,master of none
sounds like a hosts file - are you intentionally referring to it indirectly?
I do have a few hosts file entries for websites I visit frequently
Yeah, even assuming no DNS problems, this does make things faster by saving time on DNS lookups. Also, you can point ad servers to 127.0.0.1 (localhost), which also makes the Internet faster.
however, when I get a bare IP address for a site, typing it in doesn't always take me to the site I'm trying to reach.
On WinXP, it's at C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (no filetype exension).
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
There's a song that goes "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" which should give you a good starting point on US history. It's not all bad but it's not perfect either. Grenada without even telling the UK first and Panama a few years back are some low points worth mentioning. The USA had lost the goodwill of most of the world, got it back with 911, and then had it thrown away again by Prince Bush threating to bomb even his allies (Pakistan) back into the stone age. I suppose an overriding theme is uncontrolled adventurers doing incredily stupid things and destroying whatever postitive reputation was gained - eg. a corrupt Senator running guns with government money into Afganistan and some of the consequeces (including one US armed non-Taliban warlord fighting US troops until recently) coming back to bite hard.
an UN based domain name would not bow to every petty dictator, but rather it would be stuck into making no decision whatsoever, because every petty dictator would not agree together on what the decision should be. Much much better to have a GROUP of petty dictator bicker on the TLD (UN) rather than one single petty dictator (US) which do not need to argue about anything, jsut grab.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Between a single pesky non representing entity, and a bunch of non representing one, I choose the bunch, because AT the very LEAST, they could go into lock down because they can't agree on everything or anything. Whereas there is no need of disagreement with the US, it can simply do whatever it pelases. So yeah , the UN looks like the LEAST of the evil right now, among a bunch of people which do not represent me.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Wait... the _State of Maryland_ obtained a warrant to redirect a website to a warning page run by the _Department of Homeland Security_?
This doesn't make sense. Why would the State of Maryland redirect a website to DHS? A little research reveals they did not -- the warrant was obtained by the US Attorney for the District of Maryland.
Anyway, there's no question that the US has personal jurisdiction over Verisign (and hence .com and .net). Whether they have jurisdiction over a company's actions merely because those actions are done through a .com or .net domain is another question -- but not one at issue, as the prosecutors are claiming that bodog.com was taking bets from the US; Bodog denies this. As is whether a warrant should be sufficient to punitively seize a domain name before trial -- as far as I know, they've managed to avoid challenge in court on this issue.
This is exactly why we all need to get behind the movement to remove air conditioning from the corridors of power in Washington, DC.
In case you don't know, before AC, summers used to be unbearably hot in DC. Congress would take long recesses. Now, with AC, they're busy making all sorts of useless laws, and then the executive enforces them with abandon.
So, again, the #1 thing that can be done to trim the government is to remove the air conditioners.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Ooh good idea.
While we're at it, the Dutch want jurisdiction over multi-national corporations, stock markets, traffic enforcement cameras, compact disks, laserdiscs and compact cassetes. Also yachts.
....are becoming ever more of a nuisance to the rest of the world, not to say a brake upon all developments once deemed good and progressive. Although the sun is going down over the US, they will be here for some more time. Untill then, we will have to live with a self-nominated policeman, who is more of a bully than a law-abiding cop. Alas.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
No need to fight, he's probably just in a different part of the Anglosphere than you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
What if instead the TV advert, print advert, radio, etc were telling people to go to fg38gq4kuq234y0f283gfo4238624a3846ofgy.9247.asdli3? Sure, it might be a stable, eternal address unlike a raw IP... but it's hardly human-readable, and no marketing people in their right minds would ever allow their company to use such a name as their main means of customer contact. How do you build brand recognition into that?
You don't try to build brand recognition into that. You get it elsewhere.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
Yeah, while it's true that .com was always under US jurisdiction, prior to this time, they administered it with half a clue.
Now, however, they're seizing domains on a whim.
Think of it like this: all the cars, houses, and businesses in the United States are under federal/state jurisdiction. (Most are owned by Americans, some by foreigners.)
Yet, people (both Americans and foreigners) would be outraged if the government started seizing cars and buildings on the mere accusation of malfeasance.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Name one international body that actually accomplishes things AND is less politically motivated than the US government.
The IMF. They accomplish things and are motivated by greed, not politics.
Hey, you didn't say it had to be a positive example.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Being hopeful means there is a non-zero probability of being right. Being hopeful but skeptical means that probability rises to above 50% (since skepticism guarantees eliminating any solution that is certain to be flawed). Being a cynic GUARANTEES a 100% probability of being wrong. I'd rather be a hopeful skeptic than a moronic cynic.
There has never been a pure democratic, communist OR socialist government, so I can be 100% certain you're ignorant on the qualities of any of them.
The BBC is, in effect, an international body (since it has federalized and has branches in many lands, strange and otherwise, and it is not under the control of any nation - UK included) that DOES accomplish things AND is less politically motivated than the US government.
UNESCO is certainly an international body, it protects heritage in many countries (so is definitely accomplishing things) and it has shown a willingness to completely ignore the views of ANY nation - US included - that violate the purpose of the body, no matter what the cost to itself.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Too bad stupid and pointless seems to be the slogan of the year,and all this is indeed not inspiring very much confidence in or goodwill towards the current US administration. I can not imagine lawyers being so stupid to really think they are fighting something, whatever it is they call it. It's clear, or it should be to everyone, that everything in this farce is just about making a quick buck from defenseless people and getting the hell out. Guerilla lawfare and extortion all the way. The good thing is, with all their pointless action they seem to have aroused some sense of community around the globe. I at least think that's a good thing but i'm afraid it's escalating and we haven't seen the end of this madness. A lot of 'normal' folk are going to get hurt in the process. No good can come of it but the trolls like to hoard or so i hear so i don't think they will come to their senses anytime soon.
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?