Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?

from the driving-business-abroad dept

Wed, Feb 2nd 2011 7:23am — Mike Masnick

With Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) group now seizing domain names of perfectly legitimate foreign companies, one of the "defenses" of this action is that what those sites do may violate US laws (the lack of an actual court deciding this is conveniently overlooked, but we'll let that slide for now) and thus since the domains are managed by US-based registrars, it's technically property in the US, and thus open to seizure. That, of course, is a case of focusing on the technicality of the situation, rather than the reality of the situation. With Rojadirecta, it's pretty clear that the site was used almost entirely by people in Spain, not in the US. That the .org domain is managed by a US company seems like a weak dodge by US officials at the urging of industry.

But, of course, there are serious questions about the wider impact of this decision. Back in October, we highlighted how Libya had begun seizing .ly domains, because they felt that the content on those domains violated Sharia Law.

When the US is following in the footsteps of Libya for foreign censorship, there's a serious problem.

Of course, after the seizure of the .ly domains, many people started to move away from those domains (including presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who dumped his Mitt.ly domain). It will be interesting to see if more companies (especially foreign ones) start moving away from .com and .org for just this reason. When the US government suddenly decides that it can simply take your domain name with no warning, no due process, no adversarial hearing and no regards to whether or not the site is actually legal in the country it's targeting, that seems like a pretty clear warning sign that it's time to find a safer domain home. If I were a US domain register or registrar, I'd be pretty pissed off at Homeland Security for promoting the fact that the US government has no problem censoring websites it doesn't like. It's only going to serve to drive people away, and perhaps open up a huge opportunity for a new TLD to become a standard from a country that really believes in due process and free speech.

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: censorship, domains, homeland security, ice, seizures

137 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:43am

Communistic?
And I thought that this is the sort of thing the US government was fighting so had against from the 40's thru the 80's. You know, communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Communistic?
  this isn't communism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:46am
    
    Re: Re: Communistic?
    You're right.
    
    This is fascism. (At least the dictionary definition of fascism. There's other connotations that arguably haven't occurred yet.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:46am

Techdirt.me?????
When will we see Techdirt.somethingelse ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- johnjac (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: Techdirt.me?????
  I wasn't a coward. I promise. I pretty sure I was signed in. Oh well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt.me?????
    Claim the comment from your settings page :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Techdirt.me?????
      That only works if you had put in an email address when you wrote the comment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt.me?????
        really? I thought it was IP-based. It's been awhile!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt.me?????
        Well, it's that way for me. I couldn't claim any of my comments before I registered nor any of my not-signed-in screw up since I have registered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        johnjac (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt.me?????
        I couldn't claim it. And since it isn't generating any discussion, maybe I should have remained an Anonymous Coward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:32am

Time for the Native Americans to run it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:43am

How about off shore registrars?
I think I will set up a domain registrar in the Cayman islands and get rich. If it works for banking, why not registrars? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:43am

Anti-bodies.
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Every time some misguided government attempts to place undo control on the internet, thousands of people respond by making that form of control irrelevant.

It's just like when a hacker points out a major flaw with someone's software by publishing the flaw to the world. It is a weakness and needed to be fixed.

Thank you, **AA, we'll get right on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Anti-bodies.
  The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Every time some misguided government attempts to place undo control on the internet, thousands of people respond by making that form of control irrelevant.
  
  I agree in general. But as we've seen with Egypt, there are limits to what it can route around. I think we can all imagine that if a dictator was willing, they'd be able to completely censor the Internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
    Well, not completely.
    
    ...and, push comes to shove, there's always dialup. (Yes, it still exists.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
    "I agree in general. But as we've seen with Egypt, there are limits to what it can route around. I think we can all imagine that if a dictator was willing, they'd be able to completely censor the Internet."
    
    In case you handn't heard Egypt turned on its internet again. Even with it down the protests kept getting larger. The huge problem is you either live with communication or you don't. As a government if you shut down communications it puts you at a great disadvantage, your people can't communicate either. In the case of egypt the communications didn't cause the protest, the oppressive government and economy did.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:24am
    
    Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
    The "inter" part maybe but the "net" one nobody has the power to censor it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
    Egypt lost (most of) the internet for around 24 hours.
    
    If they had tried to institute a permanent shutdown, I'm guessing it would have been less than 6 months before infrastructure outside of government control had restored access for the vast majority of people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
      Multiple projects, some of them involving people who measure their network experience in decades, have already begun to look at how shutdowns like Egypt's can successfully be bypassed in the future. It'll take time, of course, but any country trying this stunt a few years from now will find that it's far more difficult.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
        The most exciting one I've seen is HAM radio based. It will probably never be used for high speed communication but it would certainly work well for text and has fairly low power consumption.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
        IMPORTANT BECAUSE: If the internet gets turned off, it will be the only way that I can talk to myself on Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:00am

Masnick- when are you going to man up and admit you lost your bet with me? You're not going to try and weasel out of your donation of $500 to MusiCares, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  You're starting to sound desperate for that $500... perhaps you should update your business model :-D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'll send him $500, he just needs to post his full name, social security number and bank account number with routing number.
    
    Trust me. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:32am
  
  Re:
  Here was your "bet":
  
  If torrent-finder is cleared of all charges, I'll donate $500 to a charity of your choice.
  
  If they aren't, you donate $500 to MusiCares.
  
  How can Mike lose when no charges have been brought against torrent-finder?
  
  Your willful stupidity is a constant reminder that people with sub-human intelligence shouldn't be allowed on The Interwebs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike bet that the seizures would be found illegal.
    
    Are you trying to help him weasel out of the bet?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      From another post:So I would make the same bet if we can bet over whether or not the seizure of one of the blogs will be deemed legal. If the seizure itself is challenged and at a final level it's deemed legal (i.e., Supreme Court, or at whatever court level this case ends), I'll gladly donate $500 to MusiCares, which is a good charity.
      
      However, if it's deemed that the seizures were not in accordance with the law, then you donate $500 to the EFF.
      Has any of that happened?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It makes no difference, the other party never agreed to the bet and the bet obviously expires after the fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        N/M, he agreed, though he didn't provide any information to allow us to hold him up to the bet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (though, even when/if he loses, there is absolutely no doubt he will not hold up to his end of the bet).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, you accepted the bet per his revision, "If the seizure itself is challenged and at a final level it's deemed legal"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The seizures happened last Thanksgiving. They were never challenged.
        
        Because the owners knew they were guilty and their lawyers told them the seizures were legal.
        
        How long are you boys going to continue this little game of make-believe?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, it wasn't challenged?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CensoredBloggah (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it is being challenged.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jilocasin (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:40am
        
        Actually I think this is a _new_ round of seizures....
        Actually I think this is a _new_ round of seizures. The first round was late last year. I haven't checked if any of the sites were fighting it, though I think when the government actually let the domain owners know (several months later) that at least one of the blogger sites was fighting it.
        
        Most of the sites simply reopened under non-US controlled domains. I you were a foreign company with a .com web address that was seized illegally by the U.S. government, what would you do?
        
        1. Hire expensive lawyers, fly to the United States, get embroiled in a lengthy, potentially very expensive law suit.
        
        2. Shake your head, and reopen your web site on a domain that the US gov. can't seize within hours or perhaps the very next day.
        
        Hmmmmm.....
        
        I don't think that either option requires them to believe that they were guilty of anything or to concede that the seizures were anything like legal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Actually I think this is a _new_ round of seizures....
        It's the third: First in july, second in nov, third with these seizures. New record for censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CensoredBloggah (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why would you speak on things as a matter of fact when you know absolutely nothing. They are being challenged and are currently in the legal process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL, no, they're not. Nice try tho...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CensoredBloggah (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, they are. I think I would know, I network administrate one of the seized blogs from the Nov. seizures.
        
        Thanks for playing though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yes, they are. I think I would know, I network administrate one of the seized blogs from the Nov. seizures."
        
        That makes you one of four people. Any more hints as to who you are? .... :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because the owners knew they were guilty and their lawyers told them the seizures were legal.
        
        I can assure the above statement is simply untrue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Because the owners knew they were guilty and their lawyers told them the seizures were legal."
        
        I demur. Even if that's true (which in the case of the hip hop blogs it's clearly not), even so you agreed to the bet with that condition in it. You even clarified it further that it should be based on the final appeal.
        
        If you just believe your arguments were right and simply want to rub someone's nose in it, well that's kind of annoying and definitely lame, but vaguely understandable, I suppose.
        
        But if you think you've won the bet by default somehow, you're full of it. The bet's only on if a court in some way makes a definitive ruling on one of the Thanksgiving seizures. Then if it goes your way - you win. If it goes Mike's way - he wins.
        
        Apparently, though some folks think there's still some legal process going on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, but this bet doesn't have to go to yet another court to be over. If the Federal District Court's ruling stands, Masnick owes MusiCares $500.
        
        But if one of those hiphop blogs is really going to try and fight this, well, good luck with that. At least we'll have some more case law to quote.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the Federal District Court's ruling stands
        
        Which ruling are you referring to?
        
        No court has ever "ruled" that these sites are infringing. A judge signed off on seizure warrants. That's not a ruling.
        
        ICE hasn't actually brought criminal charges against any of the site operators. How is a court supposed to rule before the defendants are even charged?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 3:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, but this bet doesn't have to go to yet another court to be over. If the Federal District Court's ruling stands, Masnick owes MusiCares $500.
        
        1. That's not what we agreed to. We agreed to concluding this only after the case reached the highest level it would reach -- which you agreed to, claiming that at the district court level, we might get a "bad ruling" such as the Viacom/YouTube ruling (which, in your opinion, was bad).
        
        2. There has been no district court ruling yet to "stand."
        
        You seem very confused. Why are you trying to change the terms of what we agreed upon? Ever since we've made that deal, you seem to feel the need to keep trying to get me to pay up now. It's almost as if you're afraid of what will really happen once this goes to court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 3 Feb 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We agreed to concluding this only after the case reached the highest level it would reach
        
        Exactly. And if the court in which the seizure was signed is the last court that sees the case, that means it was the highest level reached.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Masnick- when are you going to man up and admit you lost your bet with me? You're not going to try and weasel out of your donation of $500 to MusiCares, are you?
  
  Anonymous - when are you going to man up and admit you lost your bet to Mike? You're not going to try and weasel out of your donation of $500 to EFF, are you?
  
  Oh wait..neither can be proven yet....because it has not been proven that the seizures were legal or illegal in a court of law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually it has. Since the seizures were never challenged, the original decision by the US District Court, who issued the warrants, stands. They're the first, and apparently last, court to be involved.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CensoredBloggah (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The legal process is ongoing. The sites were only notified a few weeks ago of the steps to take and the deadline for a response to the court hasn't been reached yet. In other words you have no clue what in the heck you are talking about and would do well to not speak on things you know nothing about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prove it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He just did, moron. Contrary what you babble on about and have shown no prove of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually it has. Since the seizures were never challenged, the original decision by the US District Court, who issued the warrants, stands. They're the first, and apparently last, court to be involved.
      
      This is also untrue. The sites in question were only recently (finally) contacted by the government, and still have a period of time to respond. The claim that they have missed their opportunity to respond is simply false.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
microface (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:02am

5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
I have 5 companies for whom I write software and maintain websites for various purposes. All sell items imported from various countries, using the open trade, or fair trade model. All these websites import form Africa, the Far East etc. They all expressed fear and loathing over the USA government moves, and have requested me to arrange to move them to the .to, .me or some other off shore registry away from ICANN. The move is already happening, there is no if, but how many will run in fear. I agree with the famous quote "I love my country, but fear my government"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
  Oh how dramatic sounding.
  
  There isn't going to be any mass exodus of legal sites because nobody gives a sh*t about this except pirates and their apologists.
  
  The pirate sites will all move their domains, which is exactiy what gov wants. There is a plan behind all of this, but you're all too blind to see it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
    The pirate sites will all move their domains, which is exactiy what gov wants.
    
    Please explain to me the Master Plan, because I can't fathom how this helps America at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
      Please explain to me the Master Plan, because I can't fathom how this helps America at all.
      
      it probably has to do with some sort of "great firewall of china" scheme or some sort of blocklist to prevent access to certain domains, both of which are easily circumvented.
      
      i say let them keep doing it. this does nothing to prevent piracy and everything to make the content industries and the american government appear corrupt. the more frustration and distrust these actions foster, the less this will be about getting free music and the more it will be about building the tools for dissent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - xenomancer (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:31am
    
    Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
    Is the "plan" to corner all of these "pirates and their apologists" into a single TLD (.blowmeMAFIAA, .copytheft, or .butcopyrightinfringement anyone?) and then sue them out of existence? Is this really the sleazy death rattle you think the cancerous dinosaurs at the MAFIAA ought to be employing on their way out?
    
    "There is a plan behind all of this, but you're all too blind to see it."
    
    Perhaps you should take off your horse blinders, they went out of style in the 20's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
    "The pirate sites will all move their domains, which is exactiy what gov wants."
    
    Wait-wait-wait... let me make sure I have this right. The US government, who you claim is on the side of Copyright and against piracy, has a plan to move pirates out of the country...
    
    and therefore completely out of their jurisdiction, thus making them immune from any action whatsoever by the US Government?
    
    Great plan.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
      "Wait-wait-wait... let me make sure I have this right. The US government, who you claim is on the side of Copyright and against piracy, has a plan to move pirates out of the country..."
      
      Truthfully this is alot like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the catholic list of banned books). It just broadcasts to the world things people should not be looking at. Confiscating the domain names is ineffectual because the sites remain.
      
      Okay, I now get their plan!!! They are trying to drive so many people to these sites that their servers crash.
      
      What A Brilliant Plan!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
    "There is a plan behind all of this, but you're all too blind to see it."
    
    I see it perfectly well. They don't understand the internet and are trying to apply IRL rules to it. It will not work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
    So the government's plan is for the domains to move and let people share files out of their reach? Heck, I'm sure it'll work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:03am

You have this backward
"That, of course, is a case of focusing on the technicality of the situation, rather than the reality of the situation. With Rojadirecta, it's pretty clear that the site was used almost entirely by people in Spain, not in the US."

The reality of the situation is that this domain was the property of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: You have this backward
  "property [in] the US"
  
  That's better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:11am
  
  Re: You have this backward
  Yes, we get it. You support this form of censorship. This entire post was not about whether it was right or wrong, it is about the consequences of the (foolish) actions of the US.
  
  Short term, companies will, at least, pick up a few non-US controlled TLDs and at worst, ditching the ICANN controlled one altogether.
  
  Long term, we have to move away from centralized TLDs, so that this tomfoolery is no longer possible.
  
  PS- You have no idea what "property" means, do you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re: You have this backward
    "Yes, we get it. You support this form of censorship. This entire post was not about whether it was right or wrong, it is about the consequences of the (foolish) actions of the US."
    
    And one wonders why we are so loved around the world....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUNWARD (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:05am

considering
I have the domains registered with godaddy and the hosting is with them also.

I have considered moving the registrations locally to Canada but would move the server first. Have seriously considered it due to the potential for lawsuits more than than the seizures.

But it is a serious matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CensoredBloggah (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:12am

What is "Safe" though?
The problem is nothing seems to be safe as far as I can tell.
.com and .net are ran by Verisign which is a US Based company and we know how they got the domains from the music blogs. .tv is ran through DotTV also through Verisign. Afilias which oversee's .org .info .me .in .mobi is not a US company it is based in Ireland, but it has an office in the US. .fm is BRS Media which is a US Based company.

Then attempting to purchase other domains like .co the registries are very limited so even if I go to purchase a domain with say MelbourneIT they also have a US office. I purchased a domain through a German registrar and ended up at Enom.

Exactly where are we supposed to run to? Everything we've found has an office somewhere in the US and apparently that is all the US needs. GoDaddy did not give up the .org domain they were not notified so it once again came from the top level registry only this time its Afilias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:19am
  
  Re: What is "Safe" though?
  Your own country.
  
  After all, they can do much worse to you than just seizing your domain name, so the fact that they can seize your domain name does not matter a lot.
  
  Sites of questionable legality (let's avoid a pages-long discussion on their legality in this thread) are instead hedging their bets and registering their domain name in dozens of countries at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TPBer, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: What is "Safe" though?
  .nl is very safe from those pussies at verisign
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASTROBOI, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:15am

While I agree that the US govt. actions are deplorable, I have second thoughts about the streaming sites that have been tampered with. I checked out one of the "new" .eu sites and was not impressed. I block just about everything...call it paranoia...but to see CNN live I had to temporarily allow script after script and then finally got a request to download a special player. Yeah, sure. The much discussed Spanish site also required a lot of permitting and the only window I got to open was a "demo". I don't know what it was for. Even though I selected English the page was entirely in Spanish. Clicking play in the demo locked up Firefox. I can only assume these sites work only if the viewer is very trusting and blocks nothing. And while most of them are probably ok, I don't see this experience being worth the risk. And watching the endless cookies being laid on me from all our favorite ad servers suggests that the real beef is that these sites serve up tv shows and such and then lace them with crap ads of all kinds, some maybe toxic. Why anybody would watch a movie in this manner stumps me. If you really love sports and can get the site to work, it might be worth the effort. Yes, seizing domains is unacceptable behavior on the governments part but some of these streaming sites seem so flaky that I'm not sure who the bigger creep is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eva, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:16am

Doesn't matter. Rojadirecta has more domains, so it's operating without any trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:19am

At this rate, it is only a matter of time before they start using ICANN (root level) to do their dirty work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shadow, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:20am

Time for a free speech protected TLD
Time for everyone to move on over to .is (Iceland)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:35am

I wouldn't have thought it possible to pack so much FUD into one post. Congrats! You've outdone yourself!

[I'll leave the FUD-packer joke just laying there... :)]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  AJ, I know you tend to argue about "the letter of the law" and I would like to pose a question to you.
  
  Put aside the "letter of the law" part for a moment and think in terms of "the spirit of the law" - Do you feel that these seizures are within the spirit of the law? IE: Do you feel that punishment prior to trial (which effectively has happened in these cases) is the correct path that the US Government should take?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    AJ, I know you tend to argue about "the letter of the law" and I would like to pose a question to you.
    
    Put aside the "letter of the law" part for a moment and think in terms of "the spirit of the law" - Do you feel that these seizures are within the spirit of the law? IE: Do you feel that punishment prior to trial (which effectively has happened in these cases) is the correct path that the US Government should take?
    
    Search and seizure warrants are executed every single day before an adversary trial has taken place. What makes these seizures so special? Is it the fact that the target is piracy? It's kind of scary how much you guys get all riled up when the government goes after pirates. The spirit of the law is that people shouldn't violate other people's rights. Where's the concern for the actual victims? I see none from the bulk of techdirt commentators, and absolutely none from techdirt itself. That's scary to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      actual victims
      
      You mean the site that was found to be perfectly legal under Spanish law? Those victims?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Streaming NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games without permission is a violation of both US and WIPO law.
        
        It doesn't matter what some Spanish kangaroo court says.
        
        And Joe is right, you all have gotten so used to thinking it's okay to rip stuff off that you don't even consider what's legal and who the victims are.
        
        Massively douchey and pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Streaming NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games without permission is a violation of both US and WIPO law.
        
        It should be pointed out that the site in question was found legal in Spain because it doesn't actually host anything, it just makes it easier to find what you're looking for. You know, like Google.
        
        It doesn't matter what some Spanish kangaroo court says.
        
        So, US laws should apply *over* Spanish laws in Spain? You should take a moment to think because you type such foolish things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When the subject is US IP? Uh yeah. Duh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Search and seizure warrants are executed every single day before an adversary trial has taken place.
      
      That's "letter of law" stuff, AJ. You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking if these type of things happen all the time - I know they do. I am asking you, personally, do you feel that they are morally correct?
      
      What makes these seizures so special?
      
      Nothing. But i still feel that seizures of any property prior to trial is in direct conflict of Constitutional rights. Just because it happens does not make it less so in my mind.
      
      Where's the concern for the actual victims?
      
      Where's the proof that any damages to the victims has actually occurred? Lost sales do not equal damages.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's "letter of law" stuff, AJ. You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking if these type of things happen all the time - I know they do. I am asking you, personally, do you feel that they are morally correct?
        
        Should property that is purportedly used for crime be seized from the criminals? Sure.
        
        Nothing. But i still feel that seizures of any property prior to trial is in direct conflict of Constitutional rights. Just because it happens does not make it less so in my mind.
        
        You may feel that seizure of property conflicts with people's constitutional rights, but such seizures have existed since the day the Constitution was signed.
        
        Where's the proof that any damages to the victims has actually occurred? Lost sales do not equal damages.
        
        You don't think violating someone's rights is a harm? I'm glad you're not in charge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Should property that is purportedly used for crime be seized from the criminals? Sure.
        
        Ok AJ. Fair enough. I will disagree with you on this. I feel that property should only be seized prior to trial ONLY to preserve evidence. After conviction in a court of law is also OK in my mind. The problem I have with seizures prior to a trial is the vast slippery slope of potential abuse which is what we are possibly seeing with the domain name seizures and what we have seen with police departments using seizures as fund raisers in the 80's war on drugs.
        
        You may feel that seizure of property conflicts with people's constitutional rights, but such seizures have existed since the day the Constitution was signed.
        
        Once again, because it happens and has happened doesn't change my mind.
        
        You don't think violating someone's rights is a harm? I'm glad you're not in charge.
        
        Ouch. You got me on that one. I do think violating someone's rights is harmful. You said damages and my mind went to monetary damages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Should property that is purportedly used for crime be seized from the criminals? Sure.
        
        I just realized something....you are calling someone a "criminal" before they have been convicted of anything. That's not how it is supposed to work...you should know all about "innocent until proven guilty".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just realized something....you are calling someone a "criminal" before they have been convicted of anything. That's not how it is supposed to work...you should know all about "innocent until proven guilty".
        
        I do. Property can be seized when there is probable cause that it is being used for crime. It is not necessary that the crime be proven first. In these seizures, a judge agreed that there was probable cause and then signed the warrant. When I say "criminals" I should be saying "purported criminals." You're right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I figured that is what you meant AJ. I just had to give you some razzing over it. :)
        
        Although, it something to be mindful of when you become a practicing lawyer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If we start talking about the letter of the law we see that the domains should not be seized. Property that is seized is done so to prevent destruction of said property. A domain name cannot be destroyed thus it should not be taken.
        
        So by the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, domain names should not be seized without due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  Once again you bring nothing to the table.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Once again you bring nothing to the table.
    
    And you are a blind follower of the herd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Isn't the phrase "letter of the law" a form of following the herd? It says that no critical thinking is required-- someone else must have already done that when the law was enacted-- and we should follow blindly what the law says?
      
      I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Isn't the phrase "letter of the law" a form of following the herd? It says that no critical thinking is required-- someone else must have already done that when the law was enacted-- and we should follow blindly what the law says?
        
        I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
        
        I try and analyze things from all sides, especially the ones I don't agree with. Being a good lawyer means being able to argue all sides. If I wanted to have people pat me on the back and tell me I'm right, I'd go to some other board. People that post opposing views on techdirt are shunned and called names, and that's too bad. It's a real middle school mentality around here. I appreciate those who do challenge me though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I try and analyze things from all sides, especially the ones I don't agree with.
        
        Then let's see it. Argue the defense of a legal Spanish site having it's domain stolen by ICE at the behest of the NFL for the Super Bowl. Explain to me how that has *any* function other than to cast doubt on the reliability of any ICANN domain?
        
        Being a good lawyer means being able to argue all sides.
        
        Odd, I've ever seen you argue any other side but the one you usually argue. Oh, wait, that does make sense, after all.
        
        People that post opposing views on techdirt are shunned and called names, and that's too bad.
        
        Please don't make me dig through all your old posts and point out name calling you've done. Selective memory, much? Not to mention, calling something FUD when it isn't is as much name calling as anything else. When you live in a glass house you shouldn't throw black kettles. Or something like that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I call bullshit. Plenty of people have credited you for sound and salient, though opposing points, a relatively recent one was on the appropriate length of time for copyright as regards the film industry. I chimed in on one myself.
        
        Nobody here is shunning you for an opposing view. They're calling you out for a hypocritically baseless claim. Support your claim or bear it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jc (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/04392010918.shtml#c965
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles /20100907/04392010918.shtml#c871
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/11144710895.shtml#c651
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100902/11385710880.shtml#c1640
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  I have a different question... Joe, you are by far the loudest crier of "FUD FUD FUD!!!" I've seen... well, anywhere. My question is this: why does you opinion on this article's (or any article's) status as FUD outweigh anyone else?
  
  I look at this article as a genuine question of consequence for actions taken... I don't feel that it's trying to whip up any support for one cause or another by throwing out outlandish claims that are not supported by evidence. So if you feel it's FUD (which is your opinion and you're welcome to it), why do you feel the need to come in here and sling the word around? What is accomplished?
  
  If anything, I'd say the fact that you come here and scream "FUD" any time this blog (which is an expression of one person's opinion anyway) poses a hypothetical (yet relevant to the subject of the blog) question... well, you're the one creating FUD by trying to discredit Mike.
  
  "You can't trust TechDirt! Look at all that false info! LIES I SAY!!! Look at Masnick trying to garner support for [whichever agend you feel he supports]!"
  
  Sounds like FUD to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    When did I say my opinion outweighs anyone else's? I'd comment on the rest, but you don't really make any sense. You may go back to following the herd now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You may go back to following the herd now."
      
      Says the guy who calls himself average_joe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says the guy who calls himself average_joe.
        
        Nice comeback. I'm reeling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try being more logically consistent. It might help with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try being more logically consistent. It might help with that.
        
        So my choice of username makes me logically inconsistent? You weren't on the debate team, were you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You weren't on the debate team, were you?"
        Judging by the ad hominim response to my last post (and just about everyone else's today), I'd say that neither were you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Judging by the ad hominim response to my last post (and just about everyone else's today), I'd say that neither were you.
        
        Actually I was. But I was only in it for the ladies. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PRMan, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A lady would put up with your demeanor? How did that work out?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A lady would put up with your demeanor? How did that work out?
        
        Chicks dig me. What can I say? :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently chicks also dig cold skinned glittery vampires. There's no accounting for taste. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't see the irony or you feel you're above the fray?
        
        How about:
        -your regular use of ad hom attacks while decrying the same from others
        -rebutting with a pithy one-liner while trying to make the same seem childish and petty
        -I-wasn't-gonna-take-it-this-far-and-now-I'm-getting-bored-but-what-the-hell-it's-cold-outsid e
        
        That last one's more about me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about looking up the meaning of the word FUD then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The gist of the rest is pretty simple:
      1. Gabe (can I call you "Gabe," Gabe?) gives his definition of FUD, and notes the lack of FUD in this article based that definition.
      
      2. He then infers your definition of FUD (actually giving you some credit for relevancy in the process - I would have left the burden of proof on your shoulders, but he seems nicer than me) and
      
      3. then he points out that by what seems to be your definition of FUD, you are guilty of the same.
      
      Now that the sense has been clarified, feel free to actually comment with something other than baseless derrogation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You may go back to following the herd now."
      
      I smell name-calling... naughty naughty!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    But, but, but...FUUUUUUUUUDDD!!!! RRAAAAWWWRRRRR!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Yea FUD is everywhere. But only because these seizures haven't been challenged yet. I believe ICE will continue to get away with it only for so long. These aren't real investigations at all and they'll soon be found out for working a little too closely with the MPAA/RIAA. This is all just a dog and pony show for big media.
  
  Displaying external links, whether the owner or their visitors posted them, is no proof at all of willful copyright infringement. External links aren't even 1st degree copyright infringement. If it is then why don't we just shut down Google, Facebook and Twitter without warning them too?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  Ah the local troll average_joe. Your trolling has topped any FUD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah the local troll average_joe. Your trolling has topped any FUD.
    
    Oh no, some internet coward called me a name! Grow a pair and get a username.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      BUT IDENTITY THEFT!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Choosing to selectively forget your foray as an AC, AJ?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Choosing to selectively forget your foray as an AC, AJ?
        
        You can't prove anything. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you really, really, REALLY want me to go through the articles where you identified yourself?
        
        PLUS where you argue with Mike while calling him absurd names?
        
        Please don't go back to that person. I would rather ask if you could debate normally than degrade yourself by trying to pull a Ronald Riley visage where you constantly call people names because your argument is weak.
        
        But it's entirely up to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't prove anything. :)
        
        I can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can.
        
        That only shows someone was pretending to be me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  There's fear, uncertainty, and doubt all right. But it's being caused by DHS, not Techdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:06am

Many people have found that moving to offshore registries isn't really going to help. If you site is hosted in country A and registered in country B, you have in fact subjected yourself to at least two jurisdictions instead of one. Worse yet, if you are based in the US and trying to play this sort of game, you are screwed because the US laws still apply to you.

At the end of the day, if the beneficial owners live and work in the US, they cannot avoid US law. Seizing the websites is the exposed part for companies outside of the US, which is why they are doing it this way. If you are in the US and move to a .me or whatever domain, then they will just move against your company or you personally.

You can only truly avoid the issue by moving out of the US, which most people will not do.

Good luck in trying to find another way to hide your questionable activities, as this one failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  Good luck in trying to find another way to hide your questionable activities, as this one failed.
  
  What about the perfectly legal activities of the Spanish citizens using Rojadirecta who have been affected?
  
  Oh wait...they don't count because Spain is a 301 Report country, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    "301 Report"
    
    ROFLMAO ... tears ... can't breath ... thanks, I needed that. That report always makes me laugh ... ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  At the end of the day, if the beneficial owners live and work in the US, they cannot avoid US law.
  
  One of the sites in question was found legal by Spanish courts, hosted in Spain, used almost exclusively by Spanish people. They *did* have a .com address, though.
  
  It is useful to keep in the back of your mind, when discussing the internet, that the world is much bigger than the US. (Disclaimer: I'm an American.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  "Good luck in trying to find another way to hide your questionable activities, as this one failed."
  
  So their piracy seized to exit? All's well then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:20am
  
  Re:
  You can only truly avoid the issue by moving out of the US, which most people will not do.
  Uhh..... I know you don't get out of the country much but there's a whole bunch of us already out here *waves* and there's more of us than you already so we don't need any more thanks. I know.. suprising isn't it that things exist outside the borders of the US? Although by observation even the presence of large parts of the US seem to be a revelation to you too.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Wright, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:17am

www.atdhe.net
The website www.atdhe.net was a great place to watch sports and I am very disappointed that it was seized by homeland security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Mor Fud, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:39am

ICE's Secret Weapon
As people move their infringing activities overseas, ICE can apply the Patriot Act and track every visitor in real time. They'll be able to find you and knock down your door before you have a chance to finish downloading that torrent of Glee Season 1. The raids will then be announced from the set of American Idol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am

The idea of countries in the age of the Internet is also outdated. No country or entity should control the accesibility of INFORMATION, let alone content. It won't be a country's TLD that eventually hosts x or y content, it'll be the service with the most accesibility, period.

The problem with countries is they have these silly religions and moral and social structures that is incompatible with information that may harm, so fuck the countries and let's move on to decentralized nodes of information.

It's inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  " so fuck the countries and let's move on to decentralized nodes of information."
  
  Its already here, and better stuff is being developed. Its just not that popular yet. Give ICE a couple more months of this and the usage will start going up. Expect calls to see this software outlawed when it goes mainstream.
  
  One thing I saw demo'd recently was an encrypted distributed webserver. Neat stuff, the only way to publish pages was to have the private key. Each client acts as a server web server. Load redistribution. The "DNS" was based on the public key which each page held as a tag. It was really rough around the edges but cool none the less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhiteRose, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:28am

Great article
Thanks for the great article. It's good to read real information that affects each of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sonja (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am

What if?
I am not going to get into the pirate debate right now. What I want to know is where will all this stop? People jump on the pirate bandwagon now. But what if the pirates are gone. What if all this is used to stifle free speech in future ie. We dont like sites by people of a certain race/color/religeous/political view etc? And with no way to question or protect myself? I am not an american citizen but have a .com domain, so what will my options be if it gets taken down? Only throwing lots of money at the problem which I dont have? Registering another domain? But then if everything is controlled by the US, whats the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:48pm

When..
has legality ever stopped the government from doing whatever it damn well pleases. Homeland Security has been changed to just an enforcement group for the Entertainment industry. Such things as terrorists trying to kill American citizens is no longer their priority.

Due process and judicial procedures and constitutional protections have just become a joke to the U.S. government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 2:01am
  
  Re: When..
  Such things as terrorists trying to kill American citizens is no longer their priority.
  Nice segue there though a little too much hyberbole for my taste. Besides statistics would suggest there really aren't that many terrorists trying to attack the US, so they've got to do something to justify all that budget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:48pm

When..
has legality ever stopped the government from doing whatever it damn well pleases. Homeland Security has been changed to just an enforcement group for the Entertainment industry. Such things as terrorists trying to kill American citizens is no longer their priority.

Due process and judicial procedures and constitutional protections have just become a joke to the U.S. government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]