Why Did The US Gov't Take Down A British Travel Agent's Websites?
from the jurisdictional-questions dept
Over the years, we've seen a ton of jurisdictional questions raised by the internet. After all, since the internet is available just about anywhere, and content on it may break laws in some countries, but not others, how do you handle the jurisdiction question. Some courts have determined that it doesn't matter -- and they'll claim jurisdiction for whatever they want. Others suggest that evidence needs to be shown that the content is directed at and was seen by many people within the jurisdiction. Others have held that it needs to be created by a local resident or hosted on a local server. However, with all that said, it's not clear what jurisdiction the US government seems to be claiming over a bunch of websites created by a British travel agent. The websites all advertise trips to or information about Cuba. The websites were designed for European travelers to plan trips to the island nation. Now, it's well known that US citizens are not allowed to travel to Cuba, but that's not true of people from other countries. So, this guy clearly was not breaking any laws.No matter, though. Since he had registered the domains for his various websites through eNom, an American company, the US Treasury Department had them pull down his sites and to refuse to release them to another registrar. There's no doubt that if the sites were targeting Americans or was run by an American travel agency, you could understand these actions. But to take down a UK-based website that was aimed at European travelers, offering them perfectly legitimate trips to Cuba, seems to go beyond any reasonable jurisdictional claim.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cuba, domain names, jurisdiction, politics, travel agent, websites
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If the web site had been registered as a Spanish site then it would not have been subject to US law and would not have been taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No law was broken, so there shouldn't be any issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"U.S. travel service providers, such as
travel agents, who handle travel arrangements to, from, or within Cuba must hold special authorizations from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to engage in such activities."
It is therefore illegal for a U.S. travel agent to offer travel to or from Cuba without meeting this requirement. However, the travel agent in question is an English (UK) travel agent living in Spain, and as such is not required to meet the U.S. requirements for offering travel to Cuba.
He is simply not subject to U.S. law, because he isn't a citizen. No law was broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you read the article you'd see he wasn't targeting Americans so was not breaking any law, US or otherwise. It is NOT breaking the law to market to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ICAAN, InterNIC, these are "independant" organizations, they are supposed to be unbiased and neutral. But they are founded in and run from the US. Something the US Government has no problem taking advantage of.
Other countries have 2 choices, fall in line with US controlled rules regarding DNS, or develop an alternate, uncontrolled name system. If they were smart they'd impliment their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough America Bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough America Bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough America Bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dot com nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dot com nonsense
And the only ICANN-accredited registrar for the .com domain is Verisign, which is a US company. I guess Verisign can sublet out their rights to registration companies like eNom, but it still boils down to the fact that it appears that *all* ".com" addresses are by definition registered through an American company (either directly by Verisign, or though some company like eNom that been "blessed" by Verisign).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dot com nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dot com nonsense
Here's the link to the ICANN website listing the accredited registrars for each TLD:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html
As you can see, .om is operated solely by Verisign Global - a U.S. company.
So, if you were to use one of your .com sites to sell Cuban cigars to other UK residents, I suspect you wouldn't be doing it for long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dot com nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dot com nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dot com nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dot com nonsense
Damn right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: The British Travel Agent "had registered the domains for his various websites through eNom, an American company."
Any other questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are the chickenshittiest of bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We are the chickenshittiest of bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We are the chickenshittiest of bullies.
It goes back to when Castro and the Communists took over Cuba and the US/Soviet Union missle chrisis.
What really happen is official US, Cuba, Russia official secret as is most of the real events of the cold war. What is publicly known does not add up or explain the issue. Judging from sequential events the US and the Soviet Union must have reached a secret agreement part of which is that the US would have nothing to do with Castro, Cuba, and the Cuban Communists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flexing Muscle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flexing Muscle
That would make sense, if any laws had been violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flexing Muscle
It appears that by booking trips using a US-registered website, the UK-based company is subjecting themselves to the same rules as "the U.S. travel service providers" mentioned in post #12.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flexing Muscle
Except there doesn't seem to be any law that actually spells this out. If it's illegal to do business with a foreign travel agent offering travel to Cuba, then the registrar is the guilty party, and the domain names should be released back to the owner. There should also have been some type of notice of this restriction when the travel agent registered the names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waving Dick Cheneys
That's what it's all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waving Dick Cheneys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue
I would think that the proprieter of the website might have a WTO claim to the domain names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws Broken?
The US Treasury Department just made the ISPs unavailable. He is free to continue to operate his business, just not on those domains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contrary to popular opinion...
.com is an open generic TLD for use by anybody, though it was originally intended for commercial entities only (com is short for "commercial" not company as most people think)
The agents mistake was registering with a US registrar, which gave the US authorities the ability to flex some Internet muscle even though he was breaking no US law (American cannot make laws controlling the travel of non americans to and from non US territories). If he had registered his .com with a non US based registrar they would not have been able to touch him
Refusing to release the domain so he can move it is the American government being it normal childish bitchy self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contrary to popular opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contrary to popular opinion...
Bullshit. You are subject to the traffic laws of the country in which you operate a vehicle. Just because you take your UK registered vehicle on holiday with you to France doesn't mean that you can drive it on the left while there.
What an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, one CAN make a case that the travel agent in question was violating the letter of the law; like it or not, the USA has de facto possession (and arguably jurisdiction) over the .com domain name. However, this strikes me as an extremely flimsy justification to take summary action; all they had to do was write to him and inform him that he was technically in violation of US law by employing a .com domain name, and could he please do something about this within a reasonable period to correct it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here is the real story
Gary Sinnott had created a Web site, Mildenhall.com, in the 1990s in order to promote his hometown. But not long after that, he reportedly began to be bombarded with e-mails from Air Force members who were trying to contact people on the base, according to the BBC.
Sinnott contacted Air Force officials, who told him not to be concerned about it and assured him they would tell their staff to use the correct address. But what started off as some personal e-mails and jokes later devolved into some pretty classified information, including military procedures.
At one point, Sinnott received information about a presidential flight, so he contacted the Air Force again and an official, as expected, "went nuts," he told the BBC.
Sinnot has since closed down the Web site to avoid receiving any more of the e-mails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here is the real story
Er... which we wrote about two days ago:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080303/154948419.shtml
I'm not sure why you're posting it in the comments here and now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US
The requirement that all passengers on European planes divulge personal information down to the blood type of their maiden aunt would be a case in point. It's the old "One - Two" : dominance and making it as intrusive as possible.
I don't see any difference between this internet registration b.s., illegal spying and government hacking : it's part of a pattern of overbearing effrontery.
It's not a case of the particulars of the law so much as the particulars of the cover story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough America Bashing (#31) and #36
"The US does run things and if your sissy country forgets that we can come and kick your ass just to remind you"
It was anal-retentive, stuck-up, illiterate, ignorant (throw in favourite epithet here) morons like you who elected Bush and Dick. "See you in Iraq", eh? What an effin' joke! High time you ran along back to mommy. Run, jackass, run!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Following that line of thinking, they should have been following US law and filing US Federal income taxes as well. In fact, that would make every foreign company that registered a domain name through a US company would be liable for US taxes. Do you think the IRS is going after them? No, because even the IRS knows how stupid that idea is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]