U.S. says it can seize any .com domain, regardless of where it is registered

[Leeky]

The shutdown of online sports betting site bodog.com by U.S. law enforcement authorities last week certainly raised eyebrows throughout the web. Despite the site’s domain being registered in Canada, it was seized by authorities who went to the .com domain's root operators, VeriSign.

Using a domain registrar in Canada should have been enough to prevent the U.S. any lawful access. That probably would have been the case if it weren't for VeriSign having the right to force changes on top of local domain registrars.

Mark Jeftovic summed up the concerns aired by many over the recent actions of the Federal agencies. "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 US federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet)," said Mark Jeftovic wrote on the EasyDNS blog.

Even more alarming, the U.S. government responded to this news by saying they have done it hundreds of times previously. They didn’t stop there though; a spokesperson left no doubt as to how the Federal agencies feel about seizing U.S. managed domains.

"They have the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain as the companies with the contracts to administer them are located on American soil, and therefore fall under U.S. laws," according to Nicole Navas, a spokesperson for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

So it seems it doesn’t matter where the server is located, or who you have registered the domain with – if its .com U.S. law enforcement have a right to seize it should it commit any offences under their law.

VeriSign has been caught up in this mess, tied between complying with legal requests in its headquartered state, against allowing the laws in the domain's registered home country to prevail.

"VeriSign responds to lawful court orders subject to its technical capabilities," the company said in a statement. "When law enforcement presents us with such lawful orders impacting domain names within our registries, we respond within our technical capabilities," they said in a statement to Wired.

The root operator refused to comment on how many times it had taken these actions previously, and insisted that all further enquiries be made to the appropriate seizing authorities.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/47688-us-says-it-can-seize-any-com-domain-regardless-of-where-it-is-registered.html

 

[Guest]

This article is a perfect example of why we need ACTA.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I still don't understand why anyone is surprised by this. If you break the law in the US, you must deal with the consequences of the law. These aren't websites who are breaking US law in another country. They're breaking US law in the US. Isn't this common sense?

Can you imagine the pandora's box that would be open if websites could operate against US law just because they registered in some other country? A pedophiles dream come true!

You quote Mark Jeftovic... a guy who makes more money if these sites remain open. No wonder he's against it, but why should we be?

 

[psycros]

It wouldn't even matter if Verisign was as US company or not. Buying Canadian drugs online is just as illegal (and stupid) as using a foreign gambling site. US companies shouldn't be allowed to skirt the law just because their sites are in other countries - that's would be like RJ Reynolds selling hashish online from a domain in Yemen.

 

[Guest]

I don't see how they can do this.
Surely all they should be able to do is ban the viewing of whichever website is in breach of US law within the US?

I can see things getting very out of hand soon

 

[Guest]

if i live in canada, and i buy a hammer online from a company in the us and then go and beat the life out of some canadian, i'm not subject to us law simply because i bought the weapon from a store in the us.

this website seizing is no different.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

psycros said:
It wouldn't even matter if Verisign was as US company or not. Buying Canadian drugs online is just as illegal (and stupid) as using a foreign gambling site. US companies shouldn't be allowed to skirt the law just because their sites are in other countries - that's would be like RJ Reynolds selling hashish online from a domain in Yemen.

Not trying to get off subject, but buying Canadian drugs isn't illegal. They require you to mail or fax them a valid perscription. You might be able to fax it, and then get it filled locally and double up, but that's up to you.

Imagine if we could order any blu-ray we want for $5 just because the company registered a website in China?

 

[Guest]

so..its only bcuz they have some kind of "Rights" or "Patent" for the creation of the domains .com. .net .org etc? its really bad that they mess with other countries like this, its not that the pedo guy will be outside of the arms of the law but...this is a threat to all the liberties so....maybe we need a new internet out of the hands of any country specially the US or something like that...its really bad they own that... the answer should be clear...let them have it and create something else like (windows and Linux)

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Guest said:
if i live in canada, and i buy a hammer online from a company in the us and then go and beat the life out of some canadian, i'm not subject to us law simply because i bought the weapon from a store in the us.

this website seizing is no different.

This isn't about a US Law in Canada, or a Canadian law in the US. This is about the US law in the US. And your example is so completely lacking in common sense that I can't tell if you're trolling or just shockingly naive.

 

[Guest]

I don't get it. Does the US think they own the internet?

If I was living in a country where marijuana was legal and I was selling it online, then why would the US be able to shut my website down?

I think the only right the US should have is to block US users from accessing it.

I'm sick and tired of Americans thinking they run the world.

 

[cptmds]

Guest said:
I think the only right the US should have is to block US users from accessing it.

I have to agree - if a US company registered a .com domain using a Canadian registrar, I can understand seizing the domain. However, if a NON-US company registers a domain, using a NON-US registrar, and that non-US company does not have any offices in the US, how can the US step in and seize it? This opens up a huge can of worms...essentially, it means that if some company in India were to register a .com domain, and some US government official didn't like it, they could seize it.

On another note, how come the US gets .com , .net, etc. but no other country can? I think the US should only get .us ; much as another country, like Canada, gets .ca .

If the company does not have a US presence, then I think the most the US should be able to do is censor it and block US users from using it (much like the policies in China, I might add).

 

[Guest]

The new Soviet Russia right here people! Land of the Free my a@@.

 

[Guest]

The fact that I live in the U.S. and I am reading this makes me feel bad. I finally understand why so many people hate the americans becuase of the politicans doing this and giveing the american citizens a bad image.

 

[Guest]

No, this is the perfect reason that ACTA, SOPA, and all similar bills are completely unnecessary as they already have the power they need.

If I ever host a website, I'm doing so on either a .se or another international hosting service.

 

[Renrew]

1776 Land of the free, 1976 land of the freer than most, 2012 land of the freer than some.

 

[Guest]

You... don't seem to understand do you? The DOMAIN was registered through an American company. The SERVER ( which all information was stored on ) was in Canada along with the company paying for the domain. These people weren't breaking laws in the US, just using a US company to register a .com domain for their server.

 

[inventix1136]

I know more and more companies are thinking about not using any servers or registrars in U.S. due to the danger of out of control government. Do you know that it is against European privacy law for a European company to use a U.S. based cloud provider because of the fact that U.S. does intercept the data without warrant (since it is coming from foreign location)? Also due to the reckless nature of this administration, a company has to consider the risk on using a U.S. based web host. Did you know that they had in the past raided a colocation hosting company because a single customer had questionable content and instead of grabbing the customer computers, they grabbed ALL servers at the center -- effectively taking many companies out of business since it took months to get back the servers.

I virtually GUARANTEE that a lot more jobs were lost due to the questionable behavior of the government than are lost due to the piracy that they are "fighting".

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Nuremburg trials

 

[treetops]

So am I to understand if they were using say .xxx in another country that there would be nothing the usa could do?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

cptmds said:

Guest said:
I think the only right the US should have is to block US users from accessing it.

I have to agree - if a US company registered a .com domain using a Canadian registrar, I can understand seizing the domain. However, if a NON-US company registers a domain, using a NON-US registrar, and that non-US company does not have any offices in the US, how can the US step in and seize it? This opens up a huge can of worms...essentially, it means that if some company in India were to register a .com domain, and some US government official didn't like it, they could seize it.

On another note, how come the US gets .com , .net, etc. but no other country can? I think the US should only get .us ; much as another country, like Canada, gets .ca .

If the company does not have a US presence, then I think the most the US should be able to do is censor it and block US users from using it (much like the policies in China, I might add).

You answered your own question. In the case that started this Bodog.COM was shutdown because it was operating in the US. BODOG .CA is up and running fine in Canada. the US isn't shutting down foreign websites. They can step in and seize the website because it's illegal where it's being USED, not where the server is, or where the office is.

The US doesn't have censoring firewalls like China, that would be worse because we'd never know what was censored.

(The US gets .COM for Commercial because the internet started here. Same for .NET .ORG and why we don't have 'European Americans')

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

It's important to remember that the head of BODOG is being indicted for money laundering and his defense is 'I never allowed people in Maryland to gamble on my website, nor did I send them any winnings' No where in his defense is anything about the US seizing a website they shouldn't.

This whole debate really only exists in blogs and news sites like this one that prefer ranting to intelligent debate. The courts aren't even debating this, only the 'lawyers' in the comments section.

 

[Tygerstrike]

To be fair, if it wasnt for the US and its ppl, we prolly wouldnt have the internet. I can remember a time when it took a hurculean effort to get 2 laptops sitting next to each other to talk to each other. The tech evolved. And it was started in the US. If the US govt has the rights to any of those domains, its seems the logical solution would be to not register with those domains. Atleast not with those domains if youre planning to embezzel money or run an illegal betting operation......
The individual persons freedoms are no more in danger then you would be in danger of a shark attack in the mojave desert. 99% of the web useing populace doesnt have much to worry about unless they are doing something illegal. Theres a right and a wrong. If you have to justify your actions, its probly something illegal.

 

[treetops]

@milmike

Whats next are we going to try to regulate whats broadcasted on tv in other countries because television was invented in America? Just because something was invented in america doesnt give america the right to regulate it at home or throughout the globe. It reminds me of how freedom of speech applies to everything but our televisions. The fcc is a government appointed group that tells us what we can and can't say on television. As wrong as that is it doesn't extend to other countries.

Speaking of pedophiles, France harbors convicted pedophiles from other countries including the USA. Why does the USA put up with it? Simple no one is losing money. A gambling site in Canada is taking money out of the pockets of the folks in America who run "legal" gambling sites from what las vegas? You can bet this is a result of lobbying (legal bribes) from las vegas big belt sports gambling to your baby kissing politicians.

Anytime the gov appears to make a decision based off lobbying and not logic I tend to be against it.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

No where in the article does it say 'WHY' the website was shut down. That's because it's not really important. What's important is to get everyone angry at the govt. 'Sports betting' sounds much better than illegal gambling or money laundering.

You left out the part where the guy who runs the site is looking at 20 years in prison.

Reminds me of that scene in Holy Grail where they dress up a woman with a hat and fake nose and yell 'She's a witch! Burn her!'

 

[Lurker101]

Coming next week: Techspot.ca

 

[Tygerstrike]

@Treetops
You are missing the whole point. Regardless of the action the us govt had to take, what the guy did was illegal. The US govt seizing his website is the consiquence of his illegal actions. Im sure if he was running a legal and aboveboard operation none of this would have happend.
Under your premiss, the govt should have left his website up? Why? So he can continue to perform illegal activities and make more money stealing from the very same ppl who were betting there?