When U.S. authorities shuttered sports-wagering site Bodog.com last week, it raised eyebrows across the net because the domain name was registered with a Canadian company, ostensibly putting it beyond the reach of the U.S. government. Working around that, the feds went directly to VeriSign, a U.S.-based internet backbone company that has the contract to manage the coveted .com and other “generic” top-level domains.
EasyDNS, an internet infrastructure company, protested that the “ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc. needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers.”
But despite EasyDNS and others’ outrage, the U.S. government says it’s gone that route hundreds of times. Furthermore, it says it has the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain name because the companies that have the contracts to administer them are based on United States soil, according to Nicole Navas, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman.
I'm thinking the Internet should fall under the full control of the UN, not any individual nation, which would actually give the UN something they can own outright.
I'm thinking the Internet should fall under the full control of the UN, not any individual nation, which would actually give the UN something they can own outright.
I can fully understand the rationale of seizing domains that are engaged in illegal activity, and honestly, I do not have a problem with it.
Although gambling sites were only illegal in the US, not other countries, and we shut them down for violating US laws when in fact they were perfectly legal elsewhere.
I think the UK should enforce the Tim Berners Lee Law right away.
I'm thinking the Internet should fall under the full control of the UN, not any individual nation, which would actually give the UN something they can own outright
I can fully understand the rationale of seizing domains that are engaged in illegal activity, and honestly, I do not have a problem with it.
It is all about intellectual property and freedom of expression.
If someone sets up a domain solely to defraud someone there is no IP or freedom of expression, it's a crime.
You would defend a site set up for nothing but phishing?
I hardly think you would.
Where do you draw the line? Owning a pet hedgehog is illegal in California. Should the Department of Justice start seizing hedgehog websites because Californians are using these websites?
Actually I would defend the site. Because it is not up to pannels or burocrats to administer justice. This is not due process.
I can fully understand the rationale of seizing domains that are engaged in illegal activity, and honestly, I do not have a problem with it.
the government usually has a decent case before going to such extremes
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Tossing me in jail, that's another story.
I'm not sure someone seizing my domain name would impact my freedom whatsoever.
Tossing me in jail, that's another story.
This has nothing to do with DUE PROCESS, civil liberties, freedom of expression or wrapping the flag around like a bathrobe while standing on the kitchen chair singing the national anthem with an original tea kettle from the Boston Tea Party whistling in the background.
If a crime is in the process of being committed, you STOP THE CRIME and then follow up with DUE PROCESS to convict the criminal.
Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that's a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.
But, in a story that's been in the making for over a year, and which has been exposed to the public this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."
Using the logic presented above all bank robbers would be allowed to rob the bank, shoot all the people, and spend the money while waiting for DUE PROCESS. You don't allow the criminal to continue committing the crime, you toss him in jail first, or in this case SEIZE THE DOMAIN, and then let a jury of his/her peers sort it all out after the fact.
Last post on the topic, agree to disagree, don't really care, but stopping the crime in progress first has ALWAYS been the standard method of operation for any law enforcement action.
You aren't understanding everything that is at issue here.
The government is using a statute that allows the seizure of assets used in illegal activity (an extension of the war on drugs) and presumably needs a court order to implement the seizure. And while the legal system is not perfect, one does need to present a prima facia probable cause to the courts. In other words, it is not just some arbitrary action.
sick of criminals being coddled by bleeding hearts
