3 ms·

The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care". Any country in the world can make laws about w

The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care". Any country in the world can make laws about whatever they'd like with regards to things they have control over. In fact, they can make laws about things they don't have control over, but in practice, you can safely ignore getting sued in Iran unless you plan on visiting Iran. In this case, things are pretty simple: .com, .net, .org, etc are US domain names, administered by a US company, and the US has the authority to subject you to their jurisdiction (because so much of it happens in the US). If you would like to use a US domain name, you are subject to US law. If you live outside the US and would not like to be subject to US law, then don't use a US domain name or a US web host. The United States isn't doing anything special here that every other country in the world isn't also doing. If I buy and use a .fr domain name and host servers in France, I am subject to French and EU jurisdiction.

excuse-me 15y ago
This doesn't apply only to servers hosted in the US. The US is claiming that because .com domains must ultimately be registered by a US registrar (since they have ultimate control of the DNS) then even if you have no servers in the US, no customers in the US and no links with the US - you are under US jurisdiction. It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product.
- drusenko 15y ago
  No, it's exactly like if I registered a .fr domain name. France has jurisdiction over that domain name, and can shut it down if they'd like. The US has jurisdiction over the .com domain. If you have no US customers, no servers in the US and no other links to the US -- you may have your domain shutdown, but that's it. I very much doubt you would be extradited to the US in that situation as it does not involve the US at all. But the US having extradition abilities with other countries' foreign nationals that it finds to be criminals is a separate issue entirely from their jurisdiction over .com, .net, .org etc. [edited for clarity]
  - excuse-me 15y ago
    So should the US have jurisdiction over .com/.net/.info etc rather than just over ".us" ? Isn't .com an international designation nowadays? Isn't that like giving the country that invented the telegraph jurisdiction over all undersea cables wherever they are installed?
    - drusenko 15y ago
      No. com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning. It's a big reason why others were created. When you run a .com, you are running a US domain name. There are no international domains -- can you imagine how disastrously messy that would be? Domain names are under the jurisdiction of one country. It just so happens the US domain names are popular, but that certainly doesn't mean you are forced to use them.
      - iand 15y ago
        What about .int? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int Also .eu is international, i.e. not a single country, although a single legal jurisdiction
      - foxylad 15y ago
        "com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning" - Citation? And how come there is a ".us" TLD? It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value.
        joshAg 15y ago
        Here's what wikipedia has to say: "The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985. The domain was administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), however the department contracted the domain maintenance to SRI International. SRI created DDN-NIC, also known as SRI-NIC, or simply the NIC (Network Information Center),[3] then accessible online with the domain name nic.ddn.mil. Beginning October 1, 1991, an operations contract was awarded to Government Systems Inc. (GSI), which sub-contracted it to Network Solutions Inc. (NSI).[4]" > And how come there is a ".us" TLD? Because every country gets a two letter country code TLD. > It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value. Just because you see certain TLDs as transcending countries doesn't mean that they actually do. Besides, having jursdiction over a TLD is necessary to deal with sites that have servers in multiple countries. How else do you handle jurisdiction for a website with multiple servers in multiple countries and that advertises to multiple countries, some of which don't have a server inside that country's border?
- dfc 15y ago
  It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product. No it is not. This policy will not be beaten back with silly analogies such as this. If you are interested in this topic and advocating a change in policy I highly recommend that you become familiar with the legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction.
  - excuse-me 15y ago
    The " legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction" consists of who has the biggest fleet. This has been true for about 5000years since the Egyptians got their act together, has continued through the Greek, Roman, Venetian, British and now American empires. The only thing that is new is the power behind the fleet is now whoever pays for the commander-in-chief's re-election effort. If you doubt this you should look at UK students being extradited to the US under 'vital anti-terrorism legislation' for running a site giving links to TV shows
    - polemic 15y ago
      Well, yes. Force is the ultimate source of power. The extent of which, in this case, means jurisdiction. To quote drusenko's first point: The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care" I don't see you disagreeing!
    - tptacek 15y ago
      You discredit your argument by wording it so outrageously. The UK student you're talking about ran a 6-figure business, which he admitted publicly on his site was all about directing people to pirated movie content (the "TV" in his domain name is, of course, a red herring). But, worse, the notion that he was "extradited under vital anti-terrorism legislation" is simply a lie. The "anti-terrorism legislation" this phrase refers to is the entire UK/US reciprocal extradition treaty, which governs absolutely all extradition between the two countries. The changes in that treaty that people are referring to when they invoke "terrorism" were proposed and negotiated before 9/11, and actually remediate an unfairness in evidentiary standards towards the US --- it used to be easier to be extradited from the US than from the UK, and now the same standards are used on both sides. Moreover, those changes have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The crime which O'Dwyer was charged under was a criminal offense in both the UK and the US, and the evidence implicating O'Dwyer is open-and-shut: O'Dwyer, after having his domain seized by ICE, brought it up again with a fuck-you to the authorities. He admitted to UK prosecutors that he had been taking in 15,000GBP per month (!) running the site.
joe_the_user 15y ago
The United States isn't doing anything special here than every other country in the world isn't also doing. Yes but one should use "special" advisedly here. As you say, the US has arrogated this authority simply because it can and indeed every state does this at one time or another and in one fashion or other. This shouldn't stand in the way of those who feel that those claims are outrageous trying to stop them.

excuse-me 15y ago

This doesn't apply only to servers hosted in the US. The US is claiming that because .com domains must ultimately be registered by a US registrar (since they have ultimate control of the DNS) then even if you have no servers in the US, no customers in the US and no links with the US - you are under US jurisdiction. It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product.

drusenko 15y ago
No, it's exactly like if I registered a .fr domain name. France has jurisdiction over that domain name, and can shut it down if they'd like. The US has jurisdiction over the .com domain. If you have no US customers, no servers in the US and no other links to the US -- you may have your domain shutdown, but that's it. I very much doubt you would be extradited to the US in that situation as it does not involve the US at all. But the US having extradition abilities with other countries' foreign nationals that it finds to be criminals is a separate issue entirely from their jurisdiction over .com, .net, .org etc. [edited for clarity]
- excuse-me 15y ago
  So should the US have jurisdiction over .com/.net/.info etc rather than just over ".us" ? Isn't .com an international designation nowadays? Isn't that like giving the country that invented the telegraph jurisdiction over all undersea cables wherever they are installed?
  - drusenko 15y ago
    No. com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning. It's a big reason why others were created. When you run a .com, you are running a US domain name. There are no international domains -- can you imagine how disastrously messy that would be? Domain names are under the jurisdiction of one country. It just so happens the US domain names are popular, but that certainly doesn't mean you are forced to use them.
    - iand 15y ago
      What about .int? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int Also .eu is international, i.e. not a single country, although a single legal jurisdiction
    - foxylad 15y ago
      "com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning" - Citation? And how come there is a ".us" TLD? It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value.
      - joshAg 15y ago
        Here's what wikipedia has to say: "The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985. The domain was administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), however the department contracted the domain maintenance to SRI International. SRI created DDN-NIC, also known as SRI-NIC, or simply the NIC (Network Information Center),[3] then accessible online with the domain name nic.ddn.mil. Beginning October 1, 1991, an operations contract was awarded to Government Systems Inc. (GSI), which sub-contracted it to Network Solutions Inc. (NSI).[4]" > And how come there is a ".us" TLD? Because every country gets a two letter country code TLD. > It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value. Just because you see certain TLDs as transcending countries doesn't mean that they actually do. Besides, having jursdiction over a TLD is necessary to deal with sites that have servers in multiple countries. How else do you handle jurisdiction for a website with multiple servers in multiple countries and that advertises to multiple countries, some of which don't have a server inside that country's border?
dfc 15y ago
It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product. No it is not. This policy will not be beaten back with silly analogies such as this. If you are interested in this topic and advocating a change in policy I highly recommend that you become familiar with the legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction.
- excuse-me 15y ago
  The " legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction" consists of who has the biggest fleet. This has been true for about 5000years since the Egyptians got their act together, has continued through the Greek, Roman, Venetian, British and now American empires. The only thing that is new is the power behind the fleet is now whoever pays for the commander-in-chief's re-election effort. If you doubt this you should look at UK students being extradited to the US under 'vital anti-terrorism legislation' for running a site giving links to TV shows
  - polemic 15y ago
    Well, yes. Force is the ultimate source of power. The extent of which, in this case, means jurisdiction. To quote drusenko's first point: The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care" I don't see you disagreeing!
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You discredit your argument by wording it so outrageously. The UK student you're talking about ran a 6-figure business, which he admitted publicly on his site was all about directing people to pirated movie content (the "TV" in his domain name is, of course, a red herring). But, worse, the notion that he was "extradited under vital anti-terrorism legislation" is simply a lie. The "anti-terrorism legislation" this phrase refers to is the entire UK/US reciprocal extradition treaty, which governs absolutely all extradition between the two countries. The changes in that treaty that people are referring to when they invoke "terrorism" were proposed and negotiated before 9/11, and actually remediate an unfairness in evidentiary standards towards the US --- it used to be easier to be extradited from the US than from the UK, and now the same standards are used on both sides. Moreover, those changes have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The crime which O'Dwyer was charged under was a criminal offense in both the UK and the US, and the evidence implicating O'Dwyer is open-and-shut: O'Dwyer, after having his domain seized by ICE, brought it up again with a fuck-you to the authorities. He admitted to UK prosecutors that he had been taking in 15,000GBP per month (!) running the site.

joe_the_user 15y ago

The United States isn't doing anything special here than every other country in the world isn't also doing. Yes but one should use "special" advisedly here. As you say, the US has arrogated this authority simply because it can and indeed every state does this at one time or another and in one fashion or other. This shouldn't stand in the way of those who feel that those claims are outrageous trying to stop them.