All Your .COM Domains Are Belong to U.S., Government Says

38

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Neel Chauhan

I would rather live with a 600MHz Pentium III than live on a internet where the corporate-owned US government controls all the websites, but at least when I set up a website I will register a .ca instead of a .com domain

avatar

OCFRED

More protectionist bullshit, now that autos will only become more expensive and less fun too why not throttle the Internet arbitrarily also. With all the imbalanced spending for Utopian dreams I am not going to miss being deprived of freedoms by Uncle Sam because I will be moving overseas once grad school is complete and taking my tax base with me. The welfare state and media machine driving it will never feel any shame and new business units may actually have a chance at success without being taxed to death by awful states like CA. How is it the "justice" dept can step so far over bounds like this yet cannot stem the flow of billions from the trafficking of people and narcotics, so long as the wheels are greased anything is legal and the poor will never afford to change it.

avatar

Ghost XFX

Vote their progressive asses out. End of story.

avatar

livebriand

I'm absolutely amazed that they haven't seized thepiratebay.com and thepiratebay.org yet. (good thing they switched to thepiratebay.se though, just in case) Seriously, someone needs to challenge this. (I live in the US btw)

avatar

misterz100

Makes me glad I live in Canada...oh wait Americans can still screw me over, well shit...

avatar

Danthrax66

The easy fix for this is to remove the authoritativeness of the US based top level providers and just give it to other domain servers. The US gov't actively trying to force companies out of the US.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Welcome to the police state that is still growing in it's power and control over it's citizens and those from around the world. Soon, only the USA will be recognized by the USA as a sovereign nation.

avatar

tekknyne

Good thing all the savvy software pirates don't even use websites. Just don't tell the government.

avatar

HoopSpread

The article states 'with a warrant'. Im ok with that. On a side comment,the structure of the web doesn't have to be the rigid thinking that is used today. Imagine 'with a warrant',when the 4th amendment applied to your desktop pc. Of course the domain name is a 'registrar with icahn(i can never remember how to spell this),but you have YOUR server,at YOUR residence,that runs itself from there on the web.
This is a little different structure than what is trying to be pushed,or is known.As the structure is not much perpetuated since there are so many interests vying to 'control,rather than participate'in the web.
Think about it,your ISP buys a lot of domain names,and gives/sells them to their customers. Well now that your thinking is done,you can not only tell me why,you can tell me what. Thats my take anyway.

avatar

Penterax

I tend to agree that it doesn't look like "due process" is being circumvented here; a court must grant permission for the federal authorities to take their actions. Despite what you see on TV, this isn't the "call Judge Joe-Bob in the middle of the night and get him to blindly sign something that is legally and morally reprehensible" action portrayed in sensationalist fiction (not usually, anyway).

(Speaking of sensationalism, the title of the article is designed to elicit an emotional reaction rather than state facts. This is a common, and alarming, though far from new, trait in news reporters, and some of them actually believe they are merely reporting the news, which is even more alarming. Of course, the article here does not claim to be a "news report", and it is our responsibility to know the difference between what is news and what isn't.)

The question is, though, does involvement with a company on a nation's soil give right to that nation to take certain actions? My position, as another nation, would be no, it does not, not without due process in MY country; the internet is not a physical location (infrastructure aside), and the governing of it should not fall under the jurisdiction of any one government.

I would even argue that the jurisdiction if the internet does not fall under the jurisdiction of ANY government as a matter of policy; it is a method of communication, and the rule of "free speech" should be regarded with highest esteem. Regulating interaction through it with the citizens of your country must be done with extreme care, less we turn into another Soviet Union or China, in which news and ideas are strictly curtailed, and freedoms withheld based upon beliefs that are appropriate for guiding one's own life, but not the lives of others.

HoopSpread's point, on a personal level, can not be ignored; renting server space (for example) from a company should not, and doesn't, give authorities the right to seize your property by serving papers on that company, but the warrant must be applied to you, specifically. It is wrong to accuse the company if you are at fault (or suspected to be with enough evidence to establish reasonable need for a warrant), and it is wrong to end-run around the intent of the law by doing so.

Authorities can not gain legal access to your dwelling by serving your landlord a warrant. That is very clear. The same principle applies to the digital property and communications between people. While it is appropriate to test these waters and in so doing cause the courts and legislatures to clarify through precedence and, if need be, new law, I think we can understand easily enough when someone is stepping beyond their authority.

avatar

HoopSpread

A Couple of recent articles at arstechnica.com

Obama admin wants warrantless access to cell phone location data

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-wants-warrantless-access-to-cell-phone-location-data.ars

Obama admin: War is peace,IP negotiations are transparent

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-war-is-peace-tpp-negotiations-are-transparent.ars

Just as the author there in Wired is overly generalizing a topic when said ''the government',guess cant really fault them for being so.When the courts have to go to find precedent through (rather than lawmaking) some drug dealers litigation- that makes the rest of us just cow tow.

This statement here:Fortunately, the Supreme Court re-thought this reasoning in 1967. The high court reversed its previous reading of the Fourth Amendment and found that the government needs a warrant any time it violates a target's "reasonable expectation of privacy."
_______________________________________________________________
This here is more of a self fullfilling prophecy,than a convenience of functional law. As at that time,most were using telephones,and of course most phones were where ? On the premises.

The clouding curcumstance gets even more noticable when all will find that in a W3C specification that GEO location cookies are sent willy-nilly through HTML and this 'privacy'which was suspected as adaquete,becomes something of a distancing mechanism between that 'third party doctrine',and what I had mentioned at my first post.

A little structure would go a long way. Wouldn't take much. Still you can imagine that ISPs are following quickly to close loop holes in their business practices where all the convenience of functionality is theirs,not yours of course.

If you take a look at the movie Bourne Identity- that is a real conjecture to see several men in a room full of computers that know more about you than you know about them. None of that information would be available had it not been that Separation of government powers ' was being completely ignored.

The storage of electronic paperwork,is just another way of 'securing your documents',in a digital format. When the government says 'thats all mine'because 'it is mobile',or 'its right is not yours,its a business liscence',when it is digital - and to do so without a warrant there is a real problem with that.
_________________________________________________________________________
ACTA plumbing on the border stinks,think of it,because an item is digital it can be seized when it is considered contraband via: patent enfringement (think some source knowledge in wikipedia),copyright enfringed (no receipt mp3s,or that 400+tape transcode),child pornography (the days at the beach were of course numbered).

Even so,with due process there is at least the relationship that a structure of government is in place to litigate post humerously. On the border with ACTA does not leave much for much of any the Bill Of Rights - which (yea sure presidental powers) a government that MUST adhere to for its own citizens will not secure conductively to something considered policy in the 'foriegn areana'. Seriously that day of running to the embassy is over.

A little structure would go a long way.

ACTA on the edge in Europe? Poland suspends ratification, Greece gets hacked
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/acta-on-the-edge-in-europe-poland-suspends-ratification-greece-gets-hacked.ars

Heres a read of what the European Court said of ISPs monitoring their users for 'copyright enfringement': EU Court Bans Anti-Piracy Filters On Hosted Services.
http://torrentfreak.com/eu-court-bans-anti-piracy-filters-on-hosting-services-120216/

Today the European Court of Justice delivered its ruling, concluding that the social network can’t be forced to install an anti-piracy filter.

"This obligation would be contrary to the requirement that a proper balance is ensured between the protection of copyright and the freedom of entrepreneurship, the right to privacy freedom, and the freedom to obtain knowledge and information," the Court announced.

The Court noted that the privacy of users is more important than protecting copyright. In addition, it fears that a filter would result in censorship of legitimate content, thereby obstructing freedom of information.

avatar

albe23

Due process not being circumvented? I submit that you should read some actually insightful/truthful articles on the matter over at techdirt.

avatar

Tyger

Yes, this is a huge priority. We have gangsters, drug dealers, kidnappers, killers, and child rapists on the streets...but before we deal with them, we need to make sure no one is pirating the latest Adele song, because 1st and foremost we have to protect corporate America's bottom line. Then we'll worry about the little people.
GBA baby, GBA. lol

avatar

win7fanboi

+1. You forgot to mention scumbag lobbyist, corrupt politicians (SOPA supporters anyone?) and ex-politicians (MPAA CEO - see link below), bankers paying themselves big bonuses with bailout money, etc, etc.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv

avatar

Xiongrey

The U.S. has been transforming into a world empire for almost a century. I love my constitution but hate what we are becoming. I served 2 tours in Iraq and it has become difficult for me to tell(lie to) myself why we were there. It is a soldier's duty to follow the lawful orders of the President. It is every citizens duty to make sure those orders are also the will of the people. The path America is on has one goal. A world united under one flag. Some may see promise in that idea, others may see despair. The U.S. will succeed or will collapse under its own weight as all great nations in history have. Only time will tell which is considered a failure.

avatar

Penterax

I suggest it would serve you better to get some historical perspective and look at the bigger picture.

If the intent of our leaders is to put the world under "one flag", they sure are going about it in a strange way. We have spent the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans since World War I, and not claimed one square inch of any of the soil we fought on.

The only idea we perpetrate (if you want to use a negative term to describe it) on the world is that the people have the right to choose their own government. We join other nations in the concept that the people of any nation, country, or area of the world should be treated with some minimum level of decency - they shouldn't be murdered and raped at will. That's not "imperialism".

You may question our methodology, and all of us should do that and do everything in our power to keep our leadership within the guidelines of the higher purposes of what we do, but to claim we are trying to make the entire world the "United States" is to miss the point entirely, and is not backed up by the facts of what we have done, because we have time and again let countries we could have claimed as our own develop their own system of rule and government, even if it has gone poorly to our way of thinking.

avatar

Xiongrey

I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with you. The "One Flag" I spoke of in my opinion does not necassarily mean a physical symbol. It could denote political influence. We have military bases in Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea to name a few. To say we have not claimed one inch of foreign soil is like calling the American War in Vietnam a "Police Action."

I am not stating that we should resign to a state of appeasement. For in that also lies great danger. My opinion, and that is all it is, is that we as Americans need to be careful of the path we are on. One step to far and we risk becoming tyrants. And also that if citizens of this country do not agree with the actions of our elected officials it is thier right and duty to do something about it.

avatar

tekknyne

Keep dreaming buddy.

avatar

fry

So much for due process. Contribute to the EFF.

avatar

warptek2010

This is a direct result of Obama's Justice Department. Look up Chief Attorney Eric Holder. He's a disgrace and under normal circumstances (i.e. a non-radical administration) he would've been removed long ago.

avatar

win7fanboi

I saw him on tv with the title of national security advisor and i was going to list him as another example of screwed up officials at the top level of the cabinet but it turned out to be the same guy. Colbert has the right take on it :

http://on.cc.com/zxhxxg

avatar

tony2tonez

If Eric Holder cant be removed because of 'Fast and Furious', 1 boarder agent death, and countless Mexican deaths. Then there is little chance in Hell, he would be removed for domain seizure.

avatar

HKUSPC40

America! F*** Yeah!

Poor David... Goliath is no longer just a dude with a club...

avatar

jabber63

time to move to a neutral country like switzerland for the registration headquarters and not have it in the US

avatar

avenger48

Yes, Switzerland, that'd be great! Everything would run on time and confidentially!

avatar

tony2tonez

Just dont bank there. because after hundreds years of secrecy, the Swiss banks finally caved to American politics.

avatar

Marthian

Sounds like politics and Obama trying to screw the US as much as possible before he is out of office.

avatar

win7fanboi

Country is going downhill fast because of stuff like this... Now US registrars will lose a lot of the potential .com .net .biz .org business.

Similar story with the airport security theater hurting the airlines.

There is less and less to protect everyday and before you know it we ain't # 1 anymore y'all.

avatar

MaxPower99w

It's amazing that your site can be seized (virtually thrown in jail) without warning.

"Hey judge, sign this."
"Hmmm, OK seizure approved."

There needs to be legislation to work through these cases fairly with checks and balances. Everyone seems to be jumping on the "They are criminals" or they are "Liberators" bandwagons and forgetting that this is about more than Good v Evil or Right v Wrong.

Content owners need to understand that raising the costs are outweighing the desires of the common user. I never used to mind paying $10 for a music CD, but I stopped buying when they went to $16 or more. Now in the digital age, I can't justify paying as much or more with no tangible proof of ownership.
Personally, a streaming or digital copy is not worth 70-80% of the cost of a physical copy, especially if i purchase it and have no control over where and how i view it.
I can rent a physical copy of a movie at my local grocery store, but i need to pay 400% more to view it on my tablet when there is no packaging, distribution costs or other overhead associated with it?

Don't get me wrong, i support artists and content creators, but i am not much of a consumer and have long survived without much of the content available. I have Cable, Netflix and Stream content to my TV form a PC. it is adequate for my needs.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

avatar

kris79

+1. I hope everyone reads your comment above...

avatar

Engelsstaub

I actually just tire of the way the US feels it must police the world. I know, there's cause and effect and all that stuff. I just wish that the UN (read: the real world police) did more so the US would do less. Neither one is right.

I'm assuming this has to do with sites suspected of blatant copyright infringement. If so, then this should be in everyone's interest and not just the prerogative of the US. Hollywood isn't the sole source of entertainment. The UK and EU are a big part of it as well. Many great record labels in Germany and Sweden probably have an interest in people buying, rather than file-sharing, their products.

...but for whatever reason some US authorities still believe their jurisdiction extends beyond their borders. (You're right: I never heard of Vanuatu.)

avatar

avenger48

To be fair, though, the US provides probably 90-95% of the UN's power. If the US stopped giving money and troops to UN causes, the UN would go the way of the League of Nations.

avatar

unsunghero225

ok new business idea.... start an overseas root nameserver

any takers? :)

avatar

aaronj2906

I have the feeling that the HOSTS file is about to become more popular again, as some kind of P2P file.

While resolve from an upstream DNS cache if the local resolver already has the IP?

OR...

A non-US controlled DNS server that can be set via router with custom update host-A records for seized sites? Maybe too late? Maybe not.

avatar

tony2tonez

Wow, so now US Government is the world police of the internet.
Are there no bounds to their Jurisdiction?

avatar

aaronj2906

As long as it goes unchallenged, then yes.

avatar

tony2tonez

And that is the problem. It wont be challenged. So they will keep taking and taking.

avatar

Cache

Not surprised, but this is the next logical step as they work towards a way to tax all online sales/purchases. Especially if they use the logic that it is based in the US>

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.