Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: iTunes 11.0.3 delivers revamped MiniPlayer, security fixes
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.
User Comments: 44
Got something to say? Post a comment-
So this means that the US Government can shutdown any .com site anywhere in the world if 2 conditions are met:
a) it is accessible in the US (dah, INTERnet)
b) whatever business it runs, it's illegal in the US
So let's assume the scenario:
a) dutch website, hosted in the Netherlands, sells drugs to dutch people online
b) the .com was registered using Verisign
c) those drugs are illegal in the US
d) the site is accessible in the US
This means the US Government has the RIGHT to shutdown the site? Why can't one of the following options be used:
a) block access to the site in the US (a lot less work than having the site closed)
b) cancel the .com domain and force the company to host it elsewhere. This would require some days notice to allow dns spread and prevent economic damage to the selling company.
Geez....
-
Small FYI, most every big country has at least one nuke pointed at the US, just like the US has nukes pointed at them. It's called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), one shoots we are ALL screwed.
-
If the domain was registered in the US the US has every right to take it back if the content of the site violates US laws. If it's a non-US domain and non-US servers, then the US cannot do anything unless they own the rights to .com, .net and .org domains. I don't know if they really own them, but if the US does own the three most common domain extensions, then yes they can do whatever they darn well please because they own the rights to them and you are just buying the right to use the domain, not own it for life.
-
Guest said:
So this means that the US Government can shutdown any .com site anywhere in the world if 2 conditions are met:
a) it is accessible in the US (dah, INTERnet)
b) whatever business it runs, it's illegal in the US
So let's assume the scenario:
a) dutch website, hosted in the Netherlands, sells drugs to dutch people online
b) the .com was registered using Verisign
c) those drugs are illegal in the US
d) the site is accessible in the US
This means the US Government has the RIGHT to shutdown the site? Why can't one of the following options be used:
a) block access to the site in the US (a lot less work than having the site closed)
b) cancel the .com domain and force the company to host it elsewhere. This would require some days notice to allow dns spread and prevent economic damage to the selling company.
Geez....
Answer: Because the website was being used to launder money. I'd say go read the article, but it leaves out all the reasons his website was shut down. I dont' think they'd block access because it raises all sorts of censorship issues. It would also be easier to get around. The Chinese use IP scramblers etc to get around the firewalls. Blocking isn't as effective and more repressive.
-
Mike do you honestly believe that half the posters here actually even know what the whole story is? All they see is "America is EVIL". That bandwagon has broken wheels.
All ppl are commenting on is the fact that America closed a website down. Not that the reason was because someone was commiting a crime. Not that a Canadian citizen attempted to circumvent American Laws. Any business worth its salt has a lawyer or two. Im 100% positive that his lawyers told him to expect legal trouble. And im also sure he sat back and said "Im Canadian, they cant touch me" Well guess what, the price of crime means he lost his .com domain. No if ands or buts.
-
On another topic concerning America being evil:
Kim Dotcom's lawyers informed him that he was protected by US law, the same laws that protect Youtube and Google. The same laws that allowed Youtube to beat the courts. However the law doesn't matter if it doesn't fall in line with the US agenda, Kim Dotcom was arrested and had all his assets ceased/frozen without trial. Not sure how he is suppose to pay his lawyers. However they're apparently still working for him, I guess they know that he was in the right, and what the FBI did was illegal (as long as they win the case they'll get paid).
Interesting interview with Kim Dotcom: http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Campbell-Live-Thursday-March-1-201
/tabid/119/articleID/5578/MCat/73/Default.aspx -
Every time I mean to write "seized" my fingers type "ceased". Meh.
-
If he broke no Canadian laws he should not be touched by the USA. Close the .com domain for violation of VeriSign's AUP (not sure if he violated the Canadian registrar's AUP or not). Trying to prosecute him for breaking no Canadian laws is absurd.
-
treetops said:
@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.
Try making an argument that DOESN'T rely on logical fallacy.
For anyone interested in what I'm talking about : this is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Rather than address the argument presented, instead of responding to MilMike's argument, Treetops instead created an argument MilMike WASN'T making, but he used PIECES of MilMike's post (constructing a straw man).
MilMike's argument:
.com is a domain for US commercial businesses. ONLY US commercial businesses are allowed to use .com. As a .com website, bodog.com is a US business. THEREFORE, bodog.com is under US jurisdiction regardless of the location of its servers, or the country in which it was registered.
end argument
MilMike then ANECDOTALLY adds that the REASON .com is a US domain is because the internet was started in the US.
Treetops' straw man (what HE says MilMike's argument is): The US invented the internet. Bodog.com is a site on the internet. THEREFORE, bodog.com is under US jurisdiction.
I don't think I have to explain why the second argument would be retarded if it were true, and why that would be a serious threat to the freedom of the internet, but I don't have to, because NO ONE is claiming that the second argument IS true.
I find it hilarious that someone would think such a blatantly fallacious argument would be convincing to anyone.
-
anguis said:
If he broke no Canadian laws he should not be touched by the USA. Close the .com domain for violation of VeriSign's AUP (not sure if he violated the Canadian registrar's AUP or not). Trying to prosecute him for breaking no Canadian laws is absurd.
They're prosecuting him for violating US laws. The argument isn't whether or not his servers or registrations were in Canada (they were). The argument isn't even whether or not bodog.com was operating within the US (it was, the .com domain name is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for commercial businesses operating within the US). The argument was whether or not, while operating in the US, bodog.com broke US laws.
-
@example
Give it up. Trolls dont understand basic logic. You can try and explain but all your doing is wasteing cyber ink lol. Alot of the posters here are confusing kim.com and this case. This one was about a Canadian billionaire flaunting his Canadian citizenship trying to bypass US Laws.
-
example1013 said:
They're prosecuting him for violating US laws. The argument isn't whether or not his servers or registrations were in Canada (they were). The argument isn't even whether or not bodog.com was operating within the US (it was, the .com domain name is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for commercial businesses operating within the US). The argument was whether or not, while operating in the US, bodog.com broke US laws.
He is not a US citizen. He was not doing business in the US. .com domain names are NOT ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for commercial businesses operating within the US (this is a completely absurd assumption). Shut down the .com domain and gtfo, there is nothing more to it. Trying to prosecute a foreigner for doing things that were legal in that foreigner's country of citizenship is absurd and disrespectful of that country's sovereignty.
-
what matters to the US if a canadian was using a canadian site to break US laws?
the only connection to the US was the .com DOMAIN. not even the server.
if the site is made available IN the US, thus breaking US laws, then shutdown access to the US "customers". that's as stretchable as I see it. If the people can go around these blocks, then it's an individual crime, not the "seller's" crime.
blame the canadian guy if he operated in the us, dont blame the site.
-
@anguis
He doesnt have to be a US citizen to violate or break a Law in the US. He broke a Law in the US and has to pay for his crime. And point in fact...Embezzelment is Illegal in Canada too. You are latching on to the fact that his domain got shut down all the while completly ignoring the fact that the gentleman in question was doing something thats illegal ALL OVER THE WORLD! His betting site was the vehicle for his Money Laundering and Embezzlment. Having his site shutdown isnt imoral nor illegal. Since his site was what he was useing to commit the crime, it was taken away from him.
-
@Tygerstrike
He is a Canadian running a business in Canada that is accessible to the entire world.
Canada happens to be a country with its own sovereignty, its own law enforcement agencies, its own laws, its own courts. It's not the US, period.
I agree he happened to be violating the law and should be taken into court and judged by that. But that is not the real issue here.
The issue is the US, as a state and through its own law enforcing agencies, effectively succeeding in enforcing its own laws and own law enforcement over another country, superseding its sovereignty. Kinda like breaking into "someone's" house in Afghanistan without telling the local authorities first.
That is a defiance to each country's authority and sovereignty. The US should have no legal basis to make its rulings in another country.
I don't believe it would be taken kindly if it was found by Canada that the CEO of Amazon was conducting illegal business, and Canada by itself managed to take down Amazon, without the US taking part.
Yes, he was doing illegal stuff. Yes, it should be taken down. I would accept Canada or INTERPOL or something. But not the US, as an independent entity. That's unacceptable. The US don't police the world based on their own rules.
First approach, close down access to the site from the US with the pretty image with the eagle when accessed, then start legal action WITH Canada, not OVER Canada, to take the site down.
Otherwise, just GTFO!
-
The crime was commited in the US. Verisign already admitted that they had a court order to take the site down. Ergo there was a court order delivered to Canada. Obviously a Canadian Magistrait agreed with the court order. So its not like the US is storming into Canada and snatching the billionaire from his bed. Its going through the legal channels. The US isnt policing the world. They are attempting to bring to justice a person who hides behind another country to protect themselves from being charged or arrested. Just because he is at home in Canada doesnt mean he doesnt have to face any charges. The US isnt trying to control the internet, just shutdown a website that is theirs to do with as they see fit. This is all being done through the courts. Both US and Candian. The US seizing his website is no different then the police taking a car that was used in a smuggling operation. It was part and parcel of the crime.
-
Verisign has no authority to take a site down. At best, to take the domain down, or to route it somewhere else.
I agree the man should be charged of his crimes, but the site itself is not illegal where it is hosted.
Again, take down access from US users or take down the .com domain. Not the site.
-
treetops said:
I wonder what people woulds say if a USA meat packing factory was shutdown by another country ran by islamic law because the meat factory shipped it with a envelope invented in their country.
I guess it would be a better example if they seized all their envelopes and prosecuted them for selling pork.
btw i dont consider mil a opponent nor am i trying to misrepresent his position, not everything said is directed solely to mil but to the topic as a whole
mm envelope full of pork gurgle
-
You obviously have zero CLUE... ACTA is a unmitigated disaster.... making the DMCA look nice.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Microsoft launches YouTube app, Google demands it taken down
-
Nvidia Shield arrives in June for $349, pre-orders open now (update)
-
Bill Gates is once again the richest person in the world
-
Google, NASA join forces to build quantum computing laboratory
-
Google I/O 2013 Roundup: Learn about all the company's updates and announcements
Featured on Cameras
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.