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
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.
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*
"US Asserts Super-Jurisdiction Over [...]" seems to be rather standard.
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.
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
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.
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
The answer would be that, yes, any country can do so, and several have. The following countries have declared that they have the authority to prosecute those who violate certain of their laws, no matter where the crime is committed: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
These guys might not like that... http://www.parliament.uk/ But with this site they may be on to something... https://www.whitehouse.gov/
More amusingly the ssl is broken, so it comes up with the "This Connection is Untrusted" message. Truer words were never written...
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();
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/
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
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!
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)
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
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 Oatmeal describes this phenomenon perfectly.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.