---- US Customs: It Has The Right To Seize any .com, .net or .org
davezan - 12:52 am on Mar 10, 2012 (gmt 0)
the extraterritorial extent of US law
I think this one can be explained, if it hasn't been already.
Both we and whatever we possess or use are subject to any applicable law in the jurisdiction operating in. Since the .com Registry is in Virginia and VeriSign's HQ is in California, both are bound to whatever laws apply in either one.
If any nation wants to seize, say, a .com for violating their law on something, it has to go through that registrar or the Registry's jurisdiction. While either one of them can choose to comply with any court order they see fit to, they otherwise know they're not compelled to obey it unless some law in their area forces them to.
Where I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is this supposedly started by Bodog's violating a state law rather than a Federal law. But I guess someone at law enforcement got creative enough to find a way, and all that will have to be threshed out in court in the days to come.
Your total lack of understand of due process
That's probably another issue here. While we all have our notions of what "due process" should be, it's the one where laws apply that virtually matter. For this specific instance, it's U.S. law's.
Rather to be expected, not many people are aware that exceptions to the U.S. 4th Amendment can allow seizures of this nature, albeit it tries to "compensate" by imposing specific, tougher standards. While it doesn't specify domain names are included, it doesn't say they can't be seized either.
That's a dilemma with any law: you try to cover any and all scenarios, but one is bound to come up that's not exactly covered or is violating another law. Then again, the law can save or screw you depending which side you happen to be on.
Let's also not forget that despite U.S. whoever law enforcement thinking one is guilty, they're still giving you a chance to dispute your case in court. Otherwise why bother with "due process" and all that if they don't believe in it, especially when the law requires them to anyway?
Of course it's one thing to understand, it's totally another to agree or like that, but no one's required or forced to do the latter. IMHO what matters is trying to at least understand the method behind the madness to (hopefully) avoid having that undesired fate befall him or her.
One thing I'm sure many (if not all) can agree on, though, is this definitely does not have a good feel to it. Yeesh.