Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, You Can't Seize Country TLDs, US Court Rules

Posted by timothy on from the you'll-have-to-settle-for-sabotage-and-eavesdropping dept.

itwbennett writes A U.S. court has quashed an attempt to seize Iran's, Syria's and North Korea's domains as part of a lawsuit against those countries' governments. The plaintiffs in the case wanted to seize the domains after they successfully sued Iran, Syria and North Korea as state sponsors of terrorism. But the court found the domains have the nature of a contractual right, and ruled that rights arising under a contract cannot be seized as part of a judgment.

16 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Bennett! Bennett! He's our man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what does Bennett Haselton think about this? I can't form an opinion until he weights in on this issue. He's a frequent contributor.

    1. Re:Bennett! Bennett! He's our man! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      And don't forget apk - I'm sure he wants to explain that the best way of blocking entire TLDs is using hosts files...

    2. Re:Bennett! Bennett! He's our man! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      And don't forget apk - I'm sure he wants to explain that the best way of blocking entire TLDs is using hosts files...

      I know Alex P. Keaton was a know-it-all, but I'm not sure he cares about this topic.

  2. damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Damn, I was hoping to get .com's and .gov's seized due to US state sponsored terrorism (I mean surveillance)

    1. Re:damn by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      We see the USA government as terrorists, but we won't say who we are, eh?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:damn by neoritter · · Score: 2

      I'm unsure how the use in wartime would classify as terrorism. Further, how moral judgements of the actions can be made when it was the first usage of such a weapon against an enemy force. Even more so when, Germany and Japan were both attempting to develop the same weaponry for use.

    3. Re:damn by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      but we won't say who we are, eh?

      Canada, is that you?

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    4. Re:damn by graphius · · Score: 2

      But, but, it is only terrorism if you are on the receiving end. If you are dishing it out it is justified.
      History is written by the winners...

    5. Re:damn by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      We see the USA government as terrorists, but we won't say who we are, eh?

      Perhaps International Court of Justice? The United States is the only country to ever have been found guilty by the ICJ of sponsoring terrorism.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  3. Who's the genius that thought this was smart? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Seriously, what do they think they can gain from not letting a government control it's own name?

    It's not like Iran is going to stop existing on the Internet even if they did take them. Peering through less hostile neighbors wouldn't just stop. The only leverage this would really give the US government is the ability to set up "kimjongisapoopyhead.nk".

  4. Interesting by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically it works like this.
    1) Amy has a contract to wash Bob's car for $100 month.
    2) Carl sues Bob for murdering his dog.
    3) The courts can not give Carl a contract with Amy. The courts can only award Carl with property and money taken from Bob.
    Basically the courts can't force Amy to work with Carl. They can't force ICANN to work with the plantiffs.

    1. Re:Interesting by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Which is an interesting precedent to set on this issue. Consider the cases recently where Microsoft and others have been permitted to size domains. Under this logic that does not fly.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  5. There's only one solution by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    DDoS those countries from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  6. Act of war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One reason (IIRC, it was the same reason that SOPA/PIPA was shelved) is that China and Russia made it quite clear that blocking their domains is the same thing as blockading physical ship ports or denying access to airspace -- it would be considered an act of war and treated as such.

    Same thing on this level. Taking the TLDs from the countries would further advance the cause of the UN to seize ICANN.

    You think the US is bad... wait until the UN starts running things, with countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia at the helm. Got a pic of your friend eating a BLT? Your entire domain and IP range gets pulled.

  7. North Korea? by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who gave North Korea a computer? Why would they need a TLD?

  8. Re:Any info on the original court case? by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

    The case was brought by a number of parties, who have separate claims against Iran, North Korea, and Syria. All have gotten judgments, now they are trying to collect on them. For the North Korea judgment, the claim results from a 1972 terrorist attack in Israel. The attackers were actually Japanese, part of a Japanese terrorist group called the Japanese Red Army, loosely linked (if I remember correctly) to the German Red Army Faction, and backed by a Palestinian terrorist group (offshoot of the PFLP), the same folks who hijacked the plane to Uganda, resulting in the "Raid on Entebbe." The court ruled that the terrorists' training had been funded at least in part by North Korea.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...