9 ms·
US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
- kube-system 5y agoYour registration in the DNS is always subject to the policies, procedures, security, and legal environment of the controlling registry. This is one reason I always recommend avoiding obscure ccTLDs, especially if you have no presence there.
- byoung2 5y agoThis article is from 2011...how has ICE used this power since then?
- rasengan 5y agoSince then, they've shut down atleast 1 million if not more websites.
- luke2m 5y agoSource?
- rasengan 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites Keep in mind, they classify, for example 'scihub' as a piracy site [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-science-site-sci-hub-shut-down https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-sci...
- mhh__ 5y agoWhich it is, surely? Don't get me wrong, sites like it are on my most-visited list on every device, but they are for pirating papers, no?
- rasengan 5y agoIf you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.
- retrac 5y agoSo have some people who campaign for the Pirate Party in various countries. It's not necessarily even a pejorative.
- mhh__ 5y agoIt's not all publicly funded, to be clear. Lots and lots of finance stuff is written by people in industry for example. It's a gift to mankind but it is still technically illegal (which I would vote to change every single second of the day, but still).
- rasengan 5y agoIt could be illegal in the US, but not in all the jurisdictions where they overstepped their bounds.
- staticassertion 5y agoI feel like you're trying to argue that piracy is ethical, which is different than something not being piracy.
- rasengan 5y agoI think it's possible it could be considered piracy in the US, but not all countries follow these same rules nor schools of thought. The issue is that the jurisdiction bleeds into others' jurisdictions that might have different rules on these types of things, but the US doesn't really care since it has absolute power and exercises its authority over those outside of its jurisdiction.
- elmomle 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- drubio 5y agoIn more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.
- easrng 5y agoHandshake is awful. Because they decided to allow anyone to register a TLD there's no way to determine if a name needs to be resolved with handshake other than trying to resolve it.
- rasengan 5y agoThere was a time when some used /etc/hosts whilst others used DNS. It was definitely a different time. Resolution issues with Handshake TLDs will easily be solved in time. There are, however, other reasons why one might think Handshake isn't up to par just yet. Those reasons might be, for example, even though it completes the internet, making it significantly more secure and sovereign, the current implementations including DANE aren't as fast. Of course, this too [1] will be addressed with time. There are highly technical people working on these problems with a heavy lean on making sure the experience is comparable if not better than today's expected experience. I think things will only get better from here. [1] https://github.com/handshake-org/HIPs/discussions/44 https://github.com/handshake-org/HIPs/discussions/44
- drubio 5y agoInteresting, I had no idea they were letting anyone register data, I had initially thought the idea was for registrars to provide nodes & data to eventually phase out the current DNS architecture, ensuring no single TLD org could wipe out a domain. The Handshake design still seems like a step in the right direction, but even with sound data, it's probably years away (if ever) for DNS resolution to "flip the switch" to use this kind of architecture.
- salawat 5y agoSee, this is an interesting problem. Seems like you might be caught on the infinite abstraction escalator though, as who will manage the DNSNS (Domain Name Service NameSpaces) servers, and who'll take the onus for making the standard selector or display for the user to decide which lookup to consider canon for the request? This would actually be a pretty exciting development. This would greatly complicate domain squatting (or maybe intensify/arms race it), and add a layer of resilience in the form of building up the interfaces required for users to maintain their own private DNS namespaces. This would conclusively shut the door in terms of centralized seizability of domains, since the user would in effect be empowered to be their own registrar. You could even keep the traditional stuff seizable I guess. However, you'd be able to ask the fellow down the street if he still had the old DNS entry for x.y.z
- Spivak 5y agoThis seems way more sensational than “US government tells US company to remove entry from their own servers.”
- rasengan 5y agoNot sure where you got that title from. The actual title is: "US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction" which is virtually the same as the title of the HN thread. The literal first sentence is: "THE US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) wants to take down web sites that use the .com and .net top level domains (TLD) regardless of whether their servers are based in the US."
- Spivak 5y agoI’m agreeing with you? I’m saying that the HN title “claims jurisdiction over all sites even if outside the US” is way more sensational than the US gov’t telling a US based registrar to remove entries pointing to sites hosted outside the US.
- lixtra 5y ago> than the US gov’t telling a US based registrar to remove entries pointing to sites hosted outside the US. But this title does not capture the impact of the fact. Every RCE exploit is just the ability to change a few bytes on your computer.
- gnulinux 5y agoCan someone explain me why ICE has the power to enforce intellectual property laws on the internet? What does this have to do with immigration enforcement? Can ICE enforce other seemingly irrelevant laws? E.g. can ICE bust e.g. drug users, prostitution etc?
- torstenvl 5y agoForeign entities engaging in exchanges with the U.S. market via U.S. TLDs implicate U.S. customs enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has jurisdiction over customs enforcement.
- jhbadger 5y agoI suspect that even the majority of Americans don't know that ICE handles customs as news stories rarely expand the acronym and the stories almost always deal with the immigration side of things.
- mbg721 5y ago
- gnulinux 5y agoI guess I still have no idea how come this falls into customs (what is being imported exported here? The domain?), but I can accept it as a fact.
- rasengan 5y agoOne of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this will continue to be a reality. There may be some naysayers about solutions like Handshake, but frankly speaking, there's no person who would logically want their name to be able to be taken away by someone else. Your name is your identity and it is you. To be able to assert this with cryptography is a cypherpunk's dream. [1] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/heels-ag-becerra-letter-icann-rejects-transfer-org-registry-private-equity-firm https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/heels-ag-becerra-lett...
- f0xtrot 5y agoThey always have, the internet originated from U.S. defense, (was that not domain name allocation)? residing physicaly with-in a country never mattered. they still consider it ownership. wasen't this why russia/ussr didn't adhear to US ip's on their local lan? is this not the same as FAA wanting all the control, including foreign airspace and the space whithin your ceiling? you physically do not have control over something but still want to say it's yours. that's what this is, no?
- biglost 5y agoAbout that, I don’t know why nor how but, does starlink needs authorization for all the countries their satellites fly by or only the usa? Is it becasuse the satellites are too “up” in the sky in ot her countries?
- wmf 5y agoThis is probably covered by the Outer Space Treaty, but in short, no. Satellites overfly many countries and if they needed permission from every country we'd have no satellites.
- anchpop 5y agoMany states have the capability to shoot down the satellites if they violate local rules, but AFAIK whether they would actually be willing to do that is unknown.
- black-tusk 5y agoI imagine orbits are a thing seen not as deliberate as say, flying a U-2 plane over other airspace. Terrestial jurisdiction would be a very trying thing to enforce for space vehicles
- f0xtrot 5y agoPIRACY!! It looks as the same as international waters. thought it was around 40-50 miles from dry ground. but idk edit: (hope someone vouches for you else your free game.)
- acdha 5y agoThis article is from 2011. Notably since then, the Department of Commerce’s control ended in 2016: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/cheers-to-the-multistakeholder-community-30-9-2016-en https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/cheers-to-the-multist... https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-of-iana-functions-transitions-to-global-internet-community-as-contract-with-us-government-ends-1-10-2016-en https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-o...
- smegsicle 5y ago
- rasengan 5y agoEven with a CIC, the Operation continues [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites
- vmception 5y ago> to detect and hinder intellectual property violations on the Internet by detecting and hindering domain name intellectual property double plus based
- encryptluks2 5y agoThis is why we need decentralized DNS. Sure you can subscribe to ICANNs list, or create your own TLDs, or pin domains to something ICANN doesn't agree with because fuck governments trying to control domains and TLDs.
- moralestapia 5y agoI always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light. It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it. What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .com domain?
- CrazyStat 5y agoICANN has a process [1] by which they can take the domain away from you, doesn't matter where you live. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...
- passerby1 5y agoI'm not a us citizen. But as far as I see, money talks in courts. So if one cannot afford a good lawyer, or at least does not have a valuable domain to defend using a borrowed money, that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- 0xcde4c3db 5y agoI'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that money mostly matters in tipping the scales of a difficult case (e.g. Google v. Oracle) or in pursuing a case despite low stakes or a fundamentally weak legal position. Someone with a strong, high-stakes case can typically get a lawyer to take it on contingency.
- kube-system 5y agoMinor tangentially related quibble: copyright law and trademark law are entirely separate. The rules by which they work are different.
- moralestapia 5y agoThank you, you are absolutely right!
- ramesh31 5y agoI honestly can't think of a better steward. Believing that independent organizations can continue to main an infrastructure that supports trillions of dollars of economic activity is absurd. And regardless of politics, the US has the most stable and trusted rule of law in the world.
- saagarjha 5y agoNot at all, and I say this as an American. I mean we’ve had several protests in just the last year about our legal system’s inability to function correctly.
- twirlock 5y ago
- hda2 5y agoThat's why we offer .onion addresses for our services (websites, APIs, everything). These addresses connect customers to tor/onion services hosted on our property. Customers who need to keep disruption at a minimum are advised to implement tor access as a fallback. I firmly believe that automated DMCA-style processes (and other slow, guilty-until-proven-innocent schemes) are going to become more prevalent around the world. Defending against all of them in a timely manner will become impossible for all but the biggest of players. Smaller players will have to use services like Tor to have any semblance of reliability. Disclaimer: We're a registered llc (not US-based), and all our activities are 100% legitimate in most jurisdictions including the US.
- blooalien 5y agoOld article, but still relevant in that it should be seen as a reminder of the sorts of political and corporate Internet "fuckery" that we should all always be on the lookout for. Something something … "forget history" … "doomed to repeat past mistakes" ~ Someone Famous