7 ms·

People here seem to be thinking this a UK/Europe-specific phenomenon, but there's plenty of examples of the US "seizing" sites that were never hosted in the USA

by kimixa 7mo ago

People here seem to be thinking this a UK/Europe-specific phenomenon, but there's plenty of examples of the US "seizing" sites that were never hosted in the USA either, and even put pressure on countries to extradite people involved even if they never broke any laws in the country they're living in. One I remember was a site hosting streams of the 2022 football world cup. Or a number of Iranian-affiliated news sites just last year. Or offshore gambling websites in 2021. People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen Here!" seem pretty ill-informed.

petcat 7mo ago
USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
- aaomidi 7mo ago
  And you can use cctlds to bypass this too
  - ronsor 7mo ago
    Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive persists on CCTLDs. The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it doesn't really extend beyond that.
    - NicuCalcea 7mo ago
      > It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants (“Newly Detected Websites”) by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the “Landing Page”). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-every-isp-in-us-must-block-pirate-sites-run-by-mysterious-defendants/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-ever...
      - betaby 7mo ago
        ISPs just ignored that order.
    - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
      Short memory then. Megaupload was censored by way of seizure. Exactly what you said doesn't happen in the us
      - ronsor 7mo ago
        I literally said "They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains."
- kimixa 7mo ago
  Yes, you've just described one method the US authorities use to block websites. They also force ISPs to block IPs [0]. I feel trying to say that's not "blocking websites" is playing games with words, and the results are functionally the same to the "average" user. The fact that the US effectively claim juristiction over the root DNS system is a more a geopolitical power thing rather than a legal restriction. [0] https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-the-united-states-to-block-illegal-streaming-sites-220502/ https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-the-un...
  - themafia 7mo ago
    A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency. Pretty big difference.
    - InvertedRhodium 7mo ago
      So if the UK gets a court to ratify these orders then you’re on board with them being globally enforced?
      - betaby 7mo ago
        The article above is about US ISP ordered to block sites for US customer. Not 'globally' enforced. Important difference. Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.
      - themafia 7mo ago
        I think one advantage is you can directly appeal a court ruling. To challenge an administrative order you need to sue the government. In some cases, you need to sue the government in a separate trial first, in order to get permission to start suing them for cause in another one. Another advantage as the other reply has mentioned is that courts have broad authority but must narrow the effect of their rulings to the minimum necessary to address the suit. In this case it would certainly lead to 4Chan being blocked by UK ISPs by order of a UK court. I think even 4Chan would be fine with that.
- ascorbic 7mo ago
  The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK – they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.
  - petcat 7mo ago
    "You’re taking bets from U.S. customers → you’re violating U.S. law" This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access the website at all.
    - jen20 7mo ago
      Why? It doesn't strike me as remotely different. Country A has a law that says X is illegal, and tries to enforce it against companies in country B where X is legal. Whether either case is reasonable is a different question, though.
    - egorfine 7mo ago
      > You’re showing pictures to UK customers → you’re violating UK law
  - egorfine 7mo ago
    As we can clearly see from the comment section here, Americans absolutely non-ironically believe their law applies to anyone they have business with.
soco 7mo ago
I think people here are also more fond of 4chan than the average citizen, and also in general rather fond of technological freedom of anything. Makes sense, being players basically in the team about to get a red card. Like it or not, the global internet became a convenient way to skirt local laws and I don't see any reason why exempting something in one place only because it originated in some other place. Is now enforcing a law "the CCP way"? Should internet be kept lawless only because... internet?
- pixl97 7mo ago
  Yes it should, there is no global law, and hell forbid there ever should be. It's fucking stupid that an American site that is afforded free speech protection in its own country has to deal with the UK acting like a tyrant.
  - testing22321 7mo ago
    You know a bunch of people feel that way about the US forcing it’s copyright laws on everyone, right?
  - egorfine 7mo ago
    > there is no global law, and hell forbid there ever should be. There are so many global laws that are actually enforced. Of course they all origin in the US. See KYC/AML laws.
- greycol 7mo ago
  Of course, because they're not proposing "apply our laws in our country" they are proposing "apply our laws in another country". If you want to enforce this law you need to do it the CCP way (punish your ISPs for alllowing it into the country and monitor your citizens for accessing it) because you don't have the jurisdiction to enforce it otherwise. Let's not forget how many UK criminals have made fun of Kim Jong Un's haircut and are getting away with it because the UK is such a lawless place that doesn't enforce DPRK law.
  - erentz 7mo ago
jxdxbx 7mo ago
I am hardy a fan of these processes but they are not "extraterritorial" in the same way, since the registrars were generally US-based.
phendrenad2 7mo ago
Then why doesn't the US seize the domains of the Iranian government? They should be able to just seize every .ir domain, if your accusation is correct. The fact is it isn't. It looks that way because most people blindly choose .com without thinking about what country the TLD registry is located in.
epolanski 7mo ago
I have worked for a company that was threatened by the US to not offer services to several countries or face criminal charges in the US. I'm talking about a saas nothing strange. We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice.
- troad 7mo ago
  > not offer services to several countries The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? > also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    > What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
    - troad 7mo ago
      You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws? Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market. You are absolutely free to sell your services to whoever you want, but the US is equally free to refuse to allow you to operate domestically if you're breaking their laws (and otherwise make your life difficult if you e.g. rely on US banking infrastructure). If you want to do business in Iran, don't expect to do business in the US.
      - epolanski 7mo ago
        Except that the hint was for criminal charges, not lack of business :)
gib444 7mo ago
Nah they're aware. They just think the US has the absolute right to be a hypocrite and not to be called out on it, ever
veunes 7mo ago
The concern here is that regulators are starting to assume global reach by default, even when that leverage isn't obvious
pc86 7mo ago
> People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen Here!" seem pretty ill-informed. Well the second part of that is ill-informed but the first part is just... informed? As far as the US seizing sites, does that happen when the site is hosted outside of the US and without the cooperation of authorities where ever it is actually hosted? I don't think so but I'm happy to be proven wrong there.
- flir 7mo ago
  DNS.
  - pc86 7mo ago
    What about it?
    - catlikesshrimp 7mo ago
      If they can't undo the site at the tld level, the US can still compel the DNS servers nearby to erase their record, or redirect it to a "this domain is seized" page. In extremis. they could just poison the DNS addresses of blocked websites although they dot need to.
      - pc86 7mo ago
        If the DNS is located in the US then they have to comply with US law. My point was just "the US seizing websites hosted outside of the US without that country's cooperation" simply doesn't happen because there's no way for it to happen.
papa_pandora 7mo ago
solk road was a big one.

by kimixa 7mo ago

petcat 7mo ago

USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.

aaomidi 7mo ago
And you can use cctlds to bypass this too
- ronsor 7mo ago
  Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive persists on CCTLDs. The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it doesn't really extend beyond that.
  - NicuCalcea 7mo ago
    > It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants (“Newly Detected Websites”) by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the “Landing Page”). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-every-isp-in-us-must-block-pirate-sites-run-by-mysterious-defendants/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-ever...
    - betaby 7mo ago
      ISPs just ignored that order.
  - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
    Short memory then. Megaupload was censored by way of seizure. Exactly what you said doesn't happen in the us
    - ronsor 7mo ago
      I literally said "They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains."
kimixa 7mo ago
Yes, you've just described one method the US authorities use to block websites. They also force ISPs to block IPs [0]. I feel trying to say that's not "blocking websites" is playing games with words, and the results are functionally the same to the "average" user. The fact that the US effectively claim juristiction over the root DNS system is a more a geopolitical power thing rather than a legal restriction. [0] https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-the-united-states-to-block-illegal-streaming-sites-220502/ https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-the-un...
- themafia 7mo ago
  A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency. Pretty big difference.
  - InvertedRhodium 7mo ago
    So if the UK gets a court to ratify these orders then you’re on board with them being globally enforced?
    - betaby 7mo ago
      The article above is about US ISP ordered to block sites for US customer. Not 'globally' enforced. Important difference. Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.
    - themafia 7mo ago
      I think one advantage is you can directly appeal a court ruling. To challenge an administrative order you need to sue the government. In some cases, you need to sue the government in a separate trial first, in order to get permission to start suing them for cause in another one. Another advantage as the other reply has mentioned is that courts have broad authority but must narrow the effect of their rulings to the minimum necessary to address the suit. In this case it would certainly lead to 4Chan being blocked by UK ISPs by order of a UK court. I think even 4Chan would be fine with that.
ascorbic 7mo ago
The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK – they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.
- petcat 7mo ago
  "You’re taking bets from U.S. customers → you’re violating U.S. law" This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access the website at all.
  - jen20 7mo ago
    Why? It doesn't strike me as remotely different. Country A has a law that says X is illegal, and tries to enforce it against companies in country B where X is legal. Whether either case is reasonable is a different question, though.
  - egorfine 7mo ago
    > You’re showing pictures to UK customers → you’re violating UK law
- egorfine 7mo ago
  As we can clearly see from the comment section here, Americans absolutely non-ironically believe their law applies to anyone they have business with.

soco 7mo ago

I think people here are also more fond of 4chan than the average citizen, and also in general rather fond of technological freedom of anything. Makes sense, being players basically in the team about to get a red card. Like it or not, the global internet became a convenient way to skirt local laws and I don't see any reason why exempting something in one place only because it originated in some other place. Is now enforcing a law "the CCP way"? Should internet be kept lawless only because... internet?

pixl97 7mo ago
Yes it should, there is no global law, and hell forbid there ever should be. It's fucking stupid that an American site that is afforded free speech protection in its own country has to deal with the UK acting like a tyrant.
- testing22321 7mo ago
  You know a bunch of people feel that way about the US forcing it’s copyright laws on everyone, right?
- egorfine 7mo ago
  > there is no global law, and hell forbid there ever should be. There are so many global laws that are actually enforced. Of course they all origin in the US. See KYC/AML laws.
greycol 7mo ago
Of course, because they're not proposing "apply our laws in our country" they are proposing "apply our laws in another country". If you want to enforce this law you need to do it the CCP way (punish your ISPs for alllowing it into the country and monitor your citizens for accessing it) because you don't have the jurisdiction to enforce it otherwise. Let's not forget how many UK criminals have made fun of Kim Jong Un's haircut and are getting away with it because the UK is such a lawless place that doesn't enforce DPRK law.
- erentz 7mo ago

jxdxbx 7mo ago

I am hardy a fan of these processes but they are not "extraterritorial" in the same way, since the registrars were generally US-based.

phendrenad2 7mo ago

Then why doesn't the US seize the domains of the Iranian government? They should be able to just seize every .ir domain, if your accusation is correct. The fact is it isn't. It looks that way because most people blindly choose .com without thinking about what country the TLD registry is located in.

epolanski 7mo ago

I have worked for a company that was threatened by the US to not offer services to several countries or face criminal charges in the US. I'm talking about a saas nothing strange. We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice.

troad 7mo ago
> not offer services to several countries The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? > also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.
- epolanski 7mo ago
  > What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
  - troad 7mo ago
    You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws? Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market. You are absolutely free to sell your services to whoever you want, but the US is equally free to refuse to allow you to operate domestically if you're breaking their laws (and otherwise make your life difficult if you e.g. rely on US banking infrastructure). If you want to do business in Iran, don't expect to do business in the US.
    - epolanski 7mo ago
      Except that the hint was for criminal charges, not lack of business :)

gib444 7mo ago

Nah they're aware. They just think the US has the absolute right to be a hypocrite and not to be called out on it, ever

veunes 7mo ago

The concern here is that regulators are starting to assume global reach by default, even when that leverage isn't obvious

pc86 7mo ago

> People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen Here!" seem pretty ill-informed. Well the second part of that is ill-informed but the first part is just... informed? As far as the US seizing sites, does that happen when the site is hosted outside of the US and without the cooperation of authorities where ever it is actually hosted? I don't think so but I'm happy to be proven wrong there.

flir 7mo ago
DNS.
- pc86 7mo ago
  What about it?
  - catlikesshrimp 7mo ago
    If they can't undo the site at the tld level, the US can still compel the DNS servers nearby to erase their record, or redirect it to a "this domain is seized" page. In extremis. they could just poison the DNS addresses of blocked websites although they dot need to.
    - pc86 7mo ago
      If the DNS is located in the US then they have to comply with US law. My point was just "the US seizing websites hosted outside of the US without that country's cooperation" simply doesn't happen because there's no way for it to happen.

papa_pandora 7mo ago

solk road was a big one.