

Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable - e1ven
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/

======
jgarmon
There's a legal principle call Forum Non Conveniens that is supposed to remedy
this, though I don't know if anyone has challenged these seizures on those
grounds. Basically, a legal matter is supposed to be tried in the most
relevant and appropriate jurisdiction. For example, you sue a corporation in
the state where it violated civil law, rather than state where it's
headquartered. I shouldn't have to fly to Dallas to sue Pizza Hut if my local
franchise poisoned me.

That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law
because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as
such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected
jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not
caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.

There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under
its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where
the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or
participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common
maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.

That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US
Government doesn't see it that way.

~~~
scottdw2
The US constitution also grants a right to a jury trial in "all suits at
common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars".

All US judicial authority derives from the constitution. Given a controversy
under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, a trial cannot be denied the
agreeved party unless:

1\. There is no controversy

2\. There is a stipulation in the constitution, or the jurisdictional laws
passed by congress, that says federal jurisdiction doesn't exist.

3\. There is a valid treaty which specifies a different process

4\. The case was already tried.

5\. Neither party is subject to the laws of the US.

Absent those conditions the US courts would have to take the case.

Forum selection conventions must still conform to the constitution.

If you wanted to change this you would need to convince Congress to pass a law
changing enforcement of copyright.

~~~
Symmetry
This isn't a suit at common law, though, this is a seizure by government
officials. The courts have generally held that those only have to allow you a
chance to legally contest it after the fact.

------
mmaunder
I see a distributed hosting model with encrypted peer-routed traffic in our
future. It would include peer to peer DNS and country neutral hosting. By that
I mean redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions.

Without the ability to take servers offline and to firewall traffic based on
source/destination, what is an overreaching government to do?

This reminds me of the Laffer curve of taxation vs tax revenue.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve>

As government interference with the free Internet reaches a critical level,
their enforcement and intelligence gathering ability will begin to decrease.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Isn't that pretty close to Tor (ironically developed by the US government)?

~~~
pavelkaroukin
if we are talking about P2P DNS only, it is more like "namecoin". Tor do not
have anything like DNS. You can have local directory, but it is more like
/etc/hosts

~~~
rmc
Yes it does. It's called "Hidden Service" and you get a *.onion address (
<https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en> )

Although you cannot control what DNS name is given, so it's not a full DNS
drop in.

~~~
pavelkaroukin
this is not really a name, it is generated key/address/whatever. namecoin
allow you to choose name, where in hidden service subsystem you can generate
one (although, you probably can setup key generator to get desired name...
like vanity bitcoin addresses..)

------
ec429
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: _the US cannot be trusted with
stewardship of the global Internet_.

Wired suggests that some want to move this stewardship to the UN. _This is not
a solution._

A still more decentralised approach is needed; if the Internet is to truly
"treat censorship as damage, and route around it", no core Internet protocol
can afford to have any kind of "root server", "switch board" or "root
certification authority".

There are plenty of good hackers here, perhaps more importantly there are
people here who can build communities; rather than trying to invent the "next
facebook", I hope you will divert some of your attention to making a
pervasively distributed Internet both (a) technically feasible and (b) desired
by the Man In The Street.

~~~
andrewflnr
This, a thousand times over. I don't know why more people aren't saying it.
We've _got_ to build a better decentralized Internet.

~~~
waqf
Better, meaning better than Tor? Better than I2P?

I think we've got to get people to start using the decentralized internet we
have.

~~~
ec429
Yes: that's exactly my point (b).

------
raganwald
I recently registered a new domain name for a side project,
<http://recursiveuniver.se>. Catchy domain names like this are a little passé,
but I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely.

~~~
larrys
"I’m steering clear of .com indefinitely."

Why? Sounds like cutting your nose to spite your face.

If you had a store to open and all the customers were on "K" street would you
not go there because "K" street had a .0001 chance of crime vs. a street with
.000000001 chance of crime.

Is there rationality in your decision (for your particular purpose) or are you
just protesting against what you see as a potential slippery slope?

~~~
ktizo
.com is only valuable because it is a default that is perceived to be
valuable, so it could loose value really quickly if it becomes perceived as a
risky place to do business, much in the same way as a currency can fall like a
stone if it loses trust.

Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a physical
source, or more often they search or follow links. Which TLD is used in the
domain doesn't really affect this process very much, except in situations of
'passing off'. So perhaps it is a good idea to register the .com, but just not
do anything with it.

~~~
larrys
"so it could loose value really quickly if it becomes perceived as a risky
place to do business"

How in touch are you with everyday users of .com domains?

Do you think the majority of the individuals and businesses in this country or
in foreign countries are doing things that will make them fear loosing their
domains because the US might seize their domain? (These are people that in
many cases support racial profiling.)

They won't. I've been dealing with these people since 1995. They don't care.

They use passwords like "football". Then don't read FAQ's.

"Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a physical
source, or more often they search or follow links."

Where are you getting this from?

~~~
noblethrasher
>>>> "Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a
physical source, or more often they search or follow links."

>> Where are you getting this from?

See here <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/11/facebook-login>

~~~
larrys
Quoting a post on daringfireball (about a story on readwriteweb) that has
confused some foreigners hardly proves that "more often they search or follow
links".

~~~
ktizo
Dismissal of an argument by laughing at foreigners doesn't do wonders for your
point either.

My observations of usage come from working in IT at a wide variety of
companies, from corporates to small businesses, including doing customer
support at an ISP. I also have been coding HTML since December '93, so am no
novice when it comes to the habits of people online. Personally I would say
that people use the location bar as rarely as possible, and usually navigate
by remembering a path to something, so once they are used to finding a login
page through google, they tend to go through the same process again and again
rather than typing in the URL, as even though that would be much quicker, it
requires more actual thought.

~~~
larrys
Where does "confused some foreigners" equal "laughing at foreigners"?

~~~
ktizo
In regards to your post, when it is part of a derisive comment and the aspect
of 'foreignness' is used in an attempt to belittle the point you are arguing
against, despite not being particularly relevant.

As in; _'X is not really an issue, because in example Y it was mainly
happening to foreigners'_ , is very rarely a good argument for the vast
majority of values of X and Y.

------
iwwr
Credit card transactions are also by design bound to the US. A transaction
going from France to Germany, legal in both places, may still need to be
routed through the US and hence controllable. And when all that fails, the US
can pull on their extradition treaties to get governments to hand over anyone
else.

~~~
ghurlman
Is this just a result of Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, etc. being American
companies? Are there no non-American credit card conglomerates out there?

~~~
timbre
If it is just a result of the credit card companies being American, JCB is a
fairly widespread non-American (Japanese) alternative.

------
sek
This is really dangerous for the .com brand!

What are generic non country specific domains and is the new domain you have
to own? This is the reason why they are so popular, nobody uses .us exactly
for that reason.

Is .co a replacement, it's similar to .com, short and non US based. Maybe this
will make the domain indifferent, TPB has .se now as the primary domain.

------
swombat
Well, I finally caved in and purchased swomb.at.

Seems like the US govt is determined to destroy the value of dot-com domains.
I'm sure thousands of domain squatters are crying their eyes out right now!

~~~
masonhensley
So, if you moved to swomb.at, would you just redirect swombat.com to it? Is
that a way people can have the best of both worlds?

1- you own the .com domain for branding, people understand it etc

2- your site isn't actually a .com

Would SEO be hurt by doing something like this?

~~~
swombat
I'm a huge believer in fighting link-rot as much as possible, so unless the US
govt seized my domain for some reason, I would make sure all swombat.com links
would still work.

~~~
SquareWheel
Assuming the site had the same structure, you could easily 301 redirects to
their .at equivalent.

------
bcantoni
I'm beginning to think registering a non-US domain will be a good strategy for
internet businesses - either as a backup or primary business move.

Also, I didn't remember wired.com comments being such a cesspool...

------
hef19898
Interessting. If I put it in the context with megaupload, it basically means
that .com is under the iron grip of us law (or any other copyright-y what ever
law in the world) and if that doesn't work out you can arrest german citizens
living in NZ operating a website owned by a company in Hong Kong for aleagly
breaking us law. Wow, that explains why the web is speaking english. How do I
miss the time of the treestructred websites back the day when the internet was
still 56k fast but free. Great news for content owners, on the other hand.

~~~
talmand
In the long run this is actually really bad for content owners. Content
owners, in their effort to protect their business model, has actually given
the government the tools to shut them down if their content is found to be
"undesirable". Just because the government likes you today doesn't mean it
will tomorrow.

~~~
raganwald
_Just because the government likes you today doesn't mean it will tomorrow._

Of all people, I would expect Hollyood executives to be particularly sensitive
to this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist>

------
Roboprog
It's hard to tell from the article if this was jack-booted thuggery, or if
some kind of due process was followed to shut down an organization causing
actual harm. Anybody?

~~~
tomp
Does it matter? What the company was doing is legal in Canada, where the
company was based (if I understand the article correctly).

Unless if by "causing harm" you mean "not paying enough tax to the US", then I
fail to see how this website was causing any harm...

~~~
ubernostrum
As I've said again and again and again and again and again:

If you are engaging in what is undeniably a business relationship
(money/goods/services/written agreements/etc.) with people who are in a
country, then it doesn't matter where _you_ are; you can quite easily end up
subject to the laws of that country. This is not a new idea. This is not a
scary idea.

bodog got their domain seized because they thought they could engage in that
sort of relationship with US customers despite offering services which were
illegal in the US. This is downright _mundane_ , and the amount of ignorant
hyperbolic OMG FASCIST IMPERIALIST JACKBOOTED THUGS TRAMPLING ALL OVER ME
hysteria it's generated frankly disgusts me.

~~~
tomp
I completely disagree. I guess we have different philosophical views and will
never agree, but I will still try to present my point of view, for the sake of
the debate.

In any kind of business relationship, there are two parties involved, usually
a seller and a buyer. In this case, it's the business and a costumer. If a
transaction is illegal, both are equally responsible and thus liable, not just
one of them (e.g. rape is not a business relationship, so the victim cannot be
blamed, but prostitution is (as long as it's not forced), so the prostitute is
breaking the law as well).

If the US makes some business relationships illegal, when one of the parties
is in the US, it should go after that one party, not after the other one. E.g.
copying DVDs is illegal in the US, but legal in most of Europe. Should I be
punished for offering the service of making backup copies of DVDs for
EVERYONE, or should the US punish the US customer that was using a service
that is illegal?

In a way, what the US did is disrespect and ignorance of Canadian national
sovereignty. Canada seems to be OK with that, but I hope that other countries
won't be...

~~~
JJKraMer
just so you know prostitution isnt illegal everywhere, so here's something to
think

If an US citizen pays to prostitute at overseas can US sue the prostitute for
offering the service to united states citizen where it isnt illegal?(assuming
states finds out about it somehow)

Because this is basically the same, a serviceprovider offers a service thats
legal in the country the company and hosting is based on for customers of said
country. When someone not from the said country finds out about the service
and starts to use it the company is doing something illegal? Internet is
global and it is nearly impossible to make a service that ISNT ILLEGAL
SOMEWHERE (see china & citizenrights/laws)

------
SoftwareMaven
If the UN were an organization with meaning, the US should be getting slapped
for stuff like this. As an American citizen, I am revolted at what my
government has become (I still think it is a pretty good country, but that is
changing, too).

The constant rhetoric of groups like the Tea Party around "what the founding
fathers wanted" is a response to things like the Fourth Amendment being
completely ignored. It is unfortunate so much of that anger gets focused in
ultimately useless directions with the Democratic witch hunting. The Organized
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force was started by the Reagan administration.

~~~
paulhauggis
You are angry at the republicans in the US, yet in general, the left wants
more government control over our lives.

~~~
onemoreact
Both sides of the Left-Right debate want more control.

Gay marriage is only an issue because _some_ Republicans feel they have every
right to control your personal relationships. A few Republicans also want to
ban abortion, which is again a ridiculousness intrusive government control.
Let alone tapping every form of communication, tightening immigration
restrictions, increasing law enforcement funding etc. Even the idea we can
dictate what other country's do inside their brooders suggests a level of
control that's unreasonable.

PS: I would love to vote for Ron Paul, but everyone else just seems to pay lip
service to the idea of smaller government without intending to do so.

~~~
spindritf
> marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every
> right to control your personal relationships

This is completely OT but marriage is by design, its very nature and tradition
not a personal relationship. That's why you have a gathering (the wedding
itself), someone usually perceived as important presiding, a party (the
reception), why you take your vows in public, why its registered in often
publicly accessible registry, why you announce it in a newspaper etc, etc. The
concept is even established in the common law by which you can, sometimes and
in some places, become married by "acting married" in public.

Marriage is for the society much more than it is for the people getting
married. And in the western culture governments decided the terms of marriage
(also, possibly more importantly, divorce) on and off since antiquity. It's
not some new development.

~~~
onemoreact
That's a vary western view of marriage, other cultures have a vary different
view of similar concepts. In the US we pay lip service to the idea of
separating church and state, but we don't actually do much to separate culture
and state which means religion has a back door.

------
sdfjkl
Alternative DNS roots[1] will get increasingly popular if this sort of thing
(and the DNS-based censorship ISPs are forced into) keeps going on unchecked
(read: ICANN keeps sleeping). We may yet end up with an internet where DNS
resolvers check multiple roots in descending order of preference, with the
ICANN root last.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root>

------
philipmorg
So are there _any_ TLDs that are safe from seizure? If so, which ones? If not,
which ones are less likely to be seized?

~~~
count
'.', the DNS root zone, is considered the property of the US Dept. of
Commerce, so, no.

However, I could see a seizure of a domain in a different country's TLD (ccTLD
to be specific) causing a diplomatic scuffle between the US and the foreign
country. I can't imagine France would be thrilled with the FBI seizing
'foo.co.fr' or something.

~~~
wmf
It's generally not technically possible for the US to seize individual domains
located in ccTLDs, so that's a pretty moot issue.

~~~
count
Sure it is. They own the root, they can return an RR marked as authoritative
for any domain in the system.

~~~
wmf
Would that work in the face of caching? If my resolver already has .se cached,
for example, it wouldn't consult the root at all when looking up
thepiratebay.se, right?

~~~
count
No domain seizure works in the face of caching. Eventually your cache will
time out, and then it hits.

------
rmc
The USA should be careful about throwing it's weight around like this too
much. Do it too much and the rest of the world will either (a) start using a
different .com root server or (b) force the USA to give up power over .com

~~~
YooLi
If the rest of the world sees it as such a problem, whey don't they do either
a) or b) already? (serious question)

~~~
rmc
Cause it hasn't become a big problem yet. The main sites that have been taken
down are minority or suspicious sites. Most of the countries that would care
enough to do something about this (e.g. Europe) are mostly ideologically
similar to USA on a lot of issues. The internet is still so very young, a lot
could happen in the next 50 years.

------
pavelkaroukin
seizing .com is like a censor. while I do not believe in efficiency of
censoring, I agree every society have right to do it. But it should not affect
other societies. So correct measure would be direct all US-based ISP block
access to bodog.com, not steal IP from canadian company.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
But the US population won't stand for that kind of "great firewall", and the
Federal police forces must be showns to be doing something, so you end up with
this.

~~~
pavelkaroukin
But why US population stands censoring in form of seizing domain then? I think
you overestimate "US population". It is not a walmart censored, it is some
gambling website.

------
mtrimpe
By the way, the bodog.com domain performs quite well.

A quick performance scan show it can comfortably handle 50 concurrent requests
with a 5.5MB throughput.

I'm very curious what kind of numbers longer tests on higher bandwidth
connections would generate.

<http://pastebin.com/FPfjTiJS>

------
shareme
What people fail to realize is that US DOJ paved the way for other countries
who do not want free internet to do what the DOJ does..ie India can demand
that any *.in domain has to follow Indian law and take down any posts that
disparage its leaders, etc..

Its really a very bad long term move on DOJ's part and especially undercuts
the US State department efforts

~~~
anamax
> ie India can demand that any _.in domain has to follow Indian law and take
> down any posts that disparage its leaders, etc..

Why is it unreasonable for a _.in domain to follow Indian law? Isn't that the
whole point of country-specific domains?

~~~
YooLi
Who decided that .com is for everyone? (serious question)

------
jQueryIsAwesome
Well, looks like Verisign should move to another country for the sake of their
client's clients... Sweden perhaps?

~~~
dangrossman
Verisign only controls the .COM registry because the US Department of Commerce
gives them the contract. It's not their property otherwise. If the DoC doesn't
like how Verisign is handling it, they won't renew the contract and will have
a different company manage it.

