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."

28 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Switch away from .com? by Strawser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Switch away from .com? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course. But then many of them already operate under international domains and just use the US .com domain to redirect to their main site. But I suspect that the people behind this legislation have no real idea how such things work.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Switch away from .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine that someone thought this was a creative way to attain a short-term objective (shutting down a web site) without regard to the long-term impact (loss of trust in the US).

      I sometimes think that's the difference between cleverness and wisdom.

    3. Re:Switch away from .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just for sake of accuracy, this was a court ruling - and a state court at that, not legislation that passed.

    4. Re:Switch away from .com? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, because most companies don't care to do illegal activity which will cause legal action to allow for this action against their domain. And if they don't fit into that category, chances are they are already on a different domain.

      This was a Canadian website doing something legal in Canada. We have turned a corner where obeying the law is no longer protection from arrest or confiscation.

      If you are the least big worried about it then you need to be working for legal reform rather than the stupidity which is this article. As if you have a problem with this, you have a problem with US law. Period. So please, let's stop having the dipshit of the week post more stupidity about a symptom that largely only creates problems for criminals. And if you disagree, then go fix the legal system rather than boo-hoo about how a legal system is doing perfectly legal things with the entities its largely created, nurtured, owns, and controls - as in, is clearly within its jurisdiction.

      It also creates a problem for forums, blogs, independent companies hosted at a provider that also hosts forums and blogs, file storage providers, cloud services... But you are absolutely correct in that we do need to fix the laws, and the people that believe in global projection of law to independent nations. And I say this from the US.

    5. Re:Switch away from .com? by MisterMidi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I have a problem with this. The US seem to be claiming jurisdiction over everything. ACTA anyone? Next thing you know I have to pay Uncle Sam taxes just because my site has a .com, .net or .org tld.

      What if I published a music video of a song written and performed by me, on my site, but a RIAAA member claims it's theirs (very realistic scenario since they even claim copyright to bird songs)? I'll tell you what will happen, it will be shut down by removing it from DNS, even though the server is not on US soil and they have no jurisdiction over the song, the site or me whatsoever. What would happen if I wrote and published a program that "violates" a software patent in the US, while I live in the EU and the EU doesn't recognize software patents? Yes, they will shut it down.

      The problem is US laws are getting more insane by the day, and then try to shove them down the throaths of the rest of the world. You bet I have a problem with this. If they want to have jurisdiction over the TLDs, they shouldn't sell them outside the US.

    6. Re:Switch away from .com? by suutar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a general principle, it affects any business with a .com domain. Who says a business cannot be targetted unless it's shady?

    7. Re:Switch away from .com? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is probably a big reason why GoDaddy has started marketing the .co domain. The US can't assert jurisdiction over Columbia's national domain.

      Of course, GoDaddy is the registrar that will just cut off your domain just because a big company asked it to, so trusting GoDaddy would be like trusting your enemy with a gun at your head.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    8. Re:Switch away from .com? by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can you please cite some sites which do not participate in illegal activity who have suffered? AFAIK, the list is exactly zero. And in either case, can you please show where due process was denied?

      dajaz1.com
      http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mistakenly-Seized-Hip-Hop-Blog-Returned-to-Owner-After-One-Year-239685.shtml

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    9. Re:Switch away from .com? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      This affects only some "gray businesses"

      You're making the assumption that the people handling this are responsible and well-informed.

      They're not.

      They took down the dynamic DNS domain mooo.com and replaced all 84,000 of its subdomains with a message insinuating that they had each been used for child pornography. They seized a totally innocent music blog called dajaz1.com for more than a year while filing sealed continuances in court and refusing to provide any information to the owners before giving it back without so much as an apology. They seized the domain for jotform.com, a site for making web forms, for no apparent reason with no notice.

      They're unaccountable bureaucrats playing games with nuclear weapons.

    10. Re:Switch away from .com? by elbonia · · Score: 5, Informative
      No the .com domain belongs to the US. .com, .net, .gov, .mil, .edu, .and org are ALL US domains. Since the US invented the internet through ARPNET those extensions do not need the .us at the end. This was specifically designed to follow the stamp model. The UK came up with the idea of standard postage and it's the only country not needed to identify itself.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamp_design#Country_name

      Jurisdiction is clearly under the control of the US. .com was originally made and administered by the US Department of Defense. Anyone can register and get a .com domain name but it's clearly under US jurisdiction.

      http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/summary-factsheet.htm

    11. Re:Switch away from .com? by david_thornley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Internet also decentralizes diplomacy. Right now, a state court is busy creating an international incident (how serious of one is another question). It used to be that diplomacy was handled at a high Federal level, and was overseen by people who are either competent to conduct diplomacy or powerful enough to influence the policies.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Switch away from .com? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      No the .com domain belongs to the US. .com, .net, .gov, .mil, .edu, .and org are ALL US domains.

      I refute this claim.

      [.com .org .net .edu .int ] were classified as 'World Wide Generic Domains' while [ .gov .mil .us ] were US-only according to RFC 1591 [^1]

      I highly recommend that you read the paper titled "WRONG TURN IN CYBERSPACE: USING ICANN TO ROUTE AROUND THE APA AND THE CONSTITUTION" by A Michael Froomkin. [^2]

      In 1998, ICAAN was formed and given management rights of the [ .com .net .org ] TLD's by the USC. In 2000, ICAAN's rights were formally recognized by the DoC and separate (and conflicting) agreements were signed. U.S government retained control of [ .int .edu ] domains and set restrictive polices on both (against the RFC). Please note that ICAAN is required to comply to RFC 1034, 1035 and 1591 [^3][^4]

      Today, we no longer have the 'World Wide Generic Domains'. These have been replaced with a different TLD system which specifies Generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) as domains that operate directly under policies established by ICANN processes for the global Internet community. [^5] [ .com .org .net ] are classified as gTLD's and thus are for the global Internet community. [^6]

      http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/summary-factsheet.htm

      Nowhere in this factsheet does it say that [ .com ] etc belong to the US. This is simply regarding an agreement transferring management from the U.S government to ICAAN.

      I'll see you're source and raise you 6

      [^1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591

      [^2] http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf

      [^3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034

      [^4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035

      [^5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain

      [^6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    13. Re:Switch away from .com? by elbonia · · Score: 5, Informative
      This law article explains the situation in detail.

      http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/x9/zx/x9zxd7nnmzDMMwHVC-aRHw/Sonbuchner-Final-Online-PDF-04.07.09.pdf

  2. *.is ? by J'raxis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. America fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We invented it and we own it. Eat shit eurotrash. Make your own Internet and stop leeching if you don't like it.

  4. leave each country to run its own by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "US Asserts Super-Jurisdiction Over [...]" seems to be rather standard.

  6. Re:Of course by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this company also act surprised that the US government could access any US-based bank accounts it has?

    I suppose it would be. By taking this aggressively authoritarian stance on global commerce, the United States is threatening its own interests: The financial power of the US is tied directly to its financial markets. The US signed treaties with many countries that, even if war were declared, their assets would be left alone. For this reason, many countries use the dollar as their only form of currency, store their assets in US-controlled financial systems, etc. As a result, the US government is the largest bank in the world, by far. The internet is fast becoming the major driver of economic power worldwide, and the fact that the US is not putting its internet connections on the same level threatens its status as a superpower.

    Countries are moving away from the dollar. The Chinese is divesting itself of dollars every day, growing larger economically while we grow weaker. Corporations based in this country are outsourcing at a record pace, even during the longest recession in history. Everyone is jumping ship because the public policy the US government has instituted is no longer beneficial to them economically, politically, or even morally. In ten years, the United States will no longer be the dominant superpower. They won't be able to maintain a vast military, their infrastructure will have finally reached a point of decrepitation that requires such enormous capital investment versus the (now substantially reduced) economic benefit, that large sections of infrastructure will be abandoned or scaled back.

    In short, America is dying. And it didn't die because of a lack of natural resources, or because it was attacked by terrorists, or got hit with a natural disaster. It died because a select few people, perhaps less than 20,000, opted to raid the treasury, and then pass a bunch of laws to ensure the country never recovered.

    So yes, to see the US killing its last viable resource that could be used to keep it in the game is a bit surprising. Without a free internet, there's no reason to choose US labor, good, or services, over that of its competitors who, while they may have a restricted communication network, offer better economic opportunities (read: China).

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Re:Of course by shogarth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not so much. Those were created while this whole Internet thing was a DoD/DoE/NSF (and other TLA) plaything. Anyone expecting that there would be a neutral, internationally managed jurisdiction was being idealistic and/or naive.

    The problem is that governments have an established interest in and right to set the ground rules within their respective jurisdictions. For most of the internet, that comes down to boxes in their physical territory and the relevant CcTLD. The US has a first-mover advantage (or headache) in that they also created the .ORG, .NET, .COM, .MIL, and .EDU zones and can make a reasonable jurisdictional claim to them.

    This is also why I think the open registration for TLDs is a bad idea. These jurisdictional issues are complicated enough (and will likely require a treaty or two to work out) without corporations in one country registering a TLD from a registrar in another to use for business worldwide. It's similar to the problem that had to be worked out internationally as corporate legal fictions became the norm in international commerce.

  8. Re:Time to remove control from the US by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And give it to whom?

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  9. What? by schroedogg · · Score: 5, Funny

    All your domain are belong to U.S.!

  10. US doesn't deserve the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and the library of Alexandria still continues to burn

  11. Re:Time to remove control from the US by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually, lots are outside the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dns_root_servers#Root_server_addresses

    While only 13 names are used for the root nameservers, there are many more physical servers; A, C, F, G, I, J, K, L and M servers now exist in multiple locations on different continents, using anycast address announcements to provide decentralized service. As a result most of the physical root servers are now outside the United States, allowing for high performance worldwide.

    The question is if the company running them us US based? RIPE (Amsterdam) is not. Nor is WIDE (Japan), or Autonomica (Sweden). Once they stop accepting updates from US DNS, things will get ugly fast.

  12. That's a terrible idea by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  13. Re:There's no "superjurisdiction" here. by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How did we ever get to a point where suggesting a move from US jurisdiction to Russian jurisdiction to avoid abuses of government power actually sounds reasonable???

    How sad a state of affairs this truly is.

  14. Re:Is anyone surprised? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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();
  15. Re:I doubt this is good even for short-term object by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Oatmeal describes this phenomenon perfectly.