Homeland Security Working Hard To Make Sure No One Wants To Use .com Or .net Domains
from the are-they-insane? dept
Remember Erik Barnett? He's the deputy director of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit, who seems to have a way with words. He's the guy who admitted that Homeland Security was censoring websites because entertainment companies asked them to. He's also the guy who lied about whether or not anyone was challenging domain seizures when he knew those challenges were underway.Now he's out trying to defend the ridiculously short-sighted decision by the US government try to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK, for running the site TVshack, despite it almost certainly being legal in the UK. According to Barnett, none of that seems to matter, because O'Dwyer was using a .net.
"The jurisdiction we have over these sites right now really is the use of the domain name registry system in the United States. That's the key."That's the key, but it's also ridiculous and stupidly self-damaging for the US. On a jurisdictional basis, there are a variety of different factors that people use to determine what the proper jurisdiction is, and relying solely on the registry, thus making all .com and .net (among other) domains US property, is simply ridiculous. Almost anyone thinking about it would realize that if a site is run by someone in the UK and hosted on servers in the UK, it's silly and counter-factual to claim that it's really US property.
The only necessary "nexus to the US" is a .com or .net web address for which Verisign acts as the official registry operator, he said.
Of course, the end result of this will be to drive more and more foreigners away from using US domain names. None of this will do anything to stop infringement, which Barnett seems to think is his job. But it will harm American companies (the ones he claims he's trying to help) by getting foreign internet users to stay away from them due to the liability that some hotshot in the Justice Department suddenly decides he or she wants to pull someone from their home and ship them to the US to face criminal charges on something that may have been completely legal where they're from.
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: domains, erik barnett, extradition, homeland security, ice, nexus
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Silver lining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silver lining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because you would secretly like our free discussion here to be illegal? Or whether or not illegal, you would like to use your private police force to harass this site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this may be my favorite comment of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, I propose that
* a foreign citizen,
* with a site on foreign soil,
* with no connection to the US,
* doing something perfectly legal in his home country,
* NOT using a US domain name (eg, .com)
would still be extradited on some trumped up notion of jurisdiction if he did anything that upsets a dinosaur business in the US. That US business would use its tax funded private police force and make up some new notion of jurisdiction.
The domain name creating jurisdiction is just an excuse. A stretch that was desperately grasped for at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt doesn't need to move. We are all fairly tech savoy here and have already placed Techdirt in our Hosts files. No need waste your time trying to stifle our speech here, we have already rerouted around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No reading comprehension is a terrible affliction to have. I would suggest some bed rest and maybe seeing a doctor.
No one has said that .coms are bad. We're saying that the US government's interpretation of jurisdiction is bad. And that may drive *foreign* website owners to go with different domains.
None of that applies to us. And you know that. Or you're incapable of understanding basic concepts. I don't know which is worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean hey, why not be a shining example of standing up for your foreign friends, rather than just pointing the finger and then continuing to pay for the system to exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You: "Yes, but you are missing the point. If .com and .net are so bad..."
Must we say anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD: "No one has said that .coms are bad."
ShillTroll: "Yes, but you are missing the point. I am trying to make MY point and have YOU defend its opposite even though you clearly and repeatedly state you didnt say such a thing. So to continue, If .com and .net are so bad..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think that this is wrong, and that the system is being abused, why are you continuing to support .com by renewing your domains and paying them?
You have written posts here discussing alternate DNS and whatnot. Why not be a leader instead of just a voice and leave the .com system behind? If you dislike what it is coming to stand for, and how the US government is using it, why not move away from it?
Can you answer that without playing word games?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the ones playing word games.
If you think that this is wrong, and that the system is being abused, why are you continuing to support .com by renewing your domains and paying them?
I didn't say that the .com system was wrong or being abused. I said that the US gov't's interpretation was wrong and would do more harm than good. That has nothing to do with the .com system.
You have written posts here discussing alternate DNS and whatnot. Why not be a leader instead of just a voice and leave the .com system behind?
You do realize that alternative DNS and the .com TLD are not the same thing, right?
If you dislike what it is coming to stand for, and how the US government is using it, why not move away from it?
When did I say I dislike .coms? I didn't. As I explained to you. Already. Twice (oops, make that three times).
Can you answer that without playing word games?
Can you just admit that I caught you showing a near total lack of reading skills? It's not hard. Here, we'll help:
"Mike, I fucked up. I read something into your post that wasn't there. When caught, rather than just admit I made a mistake, I doubled down and pretended you still said something you did not say. When called on that again, I pretended it was you playing word games. That's all wrong. I was wrong and I'm sorry. I'll now go to another post and do the same thing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, I read your post very, very carefully. Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly.
You express that .com is being used in a bad way (the ICE takedowns and intent to continue). I understand that the harm is only to people outside of the US, because you are a US citizen are subject to the laws regardless of your domain tld.
My question remains: If .com is being abused, why are you not stepping away from it yourself? I know it doesn't change your legal standing, but wouldn't it be the right thing to do to take a stand against .com abuse and stop using .com yourself? Perhaps you can lead the masses to .td or some other tld so they can be safe. Why are you not leading a revolt against .com?
I know and understand that it doesn't effect you directly. But I felt like if you are against what ICE is doing and you think that .com is being used in a bad way, why not step away from it and go somewhere else with your site? I mean, you could make a big press conference out of it, spew it all over the net, and really make a big stink out of it.
Can you imagine? "While I am a US citizen and subject to the laws of the US no matter what tld I use, I feel that the abuse of power by ICE, it's abuse of the .com and .net namesapce, and their overall disregard for international law makes .com and .net into the buggy whips of a generation. As such, I am moving my maing site, techdirt.com, to techdirt.kp effective immediately. I invite everyone online to join me in dropping their .com domains, their .net domains, and ending all relationship with a tld which is being used by ICE to chase after innocent people outside of the US".
You could use better words, but I think you get the gist of the idea. It isn't that is effects you directly, it's that you have the power to make a stand and start the shift away from .com and on to something more relevant. Maybe you can get a .techdirt tld and give everyone a domain there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You express that .com is being used in a bad way (the ICE takedowns and intent to continue)
Neither Mike nor any other poster I read here is saying that the .com tld is being used the wrong way. I believe the intention and meaning behind Mike and other Americans here posting is about saving the .com tld, not boycott it.
Why would it need to be saved?
Well, I'm not an US-American and I will certainly avoid .com .net and such, don't want to be liable in the US for something legal in my country. (Same apply to the use of any other US company not only VeriSign, but that's another story) Non US residents will most probably do the same, and so .com will be the playground of US and US alone.
I, of course, do not care about that scenario, It's not my country economy (and legitimacy) suffering. If US wants to disconnect itself from the world, good for them, they can play withing their own net.
I believe some US residents are quite fearful of that scenario (they are right to be), and that's what they intend to prevent, not boycotting .com but saving it from the actions of a few misguided government agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pot, kettle.
Mike, I read your post very, very carefully. Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly.
No. You expressed yourself clearly. You expressed yourself clearly on a false assumption.
My question remains: If .com is being abused, why are you not stepping away from it yourself?
Because, as clearly stated throughout this whole thing, it's not .com that's the problem. It's ICE.
Ok. Let's clarify a little further for you:
(1) A guy named Alex is kicking a puppy.
(2) I point out that Alex is abusing the puppy and he should stop.
(3) You come along and say to me, "Mike, why don't you get rid of your own puppy, since you claim Alex is abusing that other puppy."
Can you see why everyone on this thread notes that the logic does not make sense here. The problem here is Alex. Not my puppy.
I know it doesn't change your legal standing, but wouldn't it be the right thing to do to take a stand against .com abuse and stop using .com yourself? Perhaps you can lead the masses to .td or some other tld so they can be safe. Why are you not leading a revolt against .com?
Because the problem is not .com. Which we've said. Over and over again.
Can you imagine? "While I am a US citizen and subject to the laws of the US no matter what tld I use, I feel that the abuse of power by ICE, it's abuse of the .com and .net namesapce, and their overall disregard for international law makes .com and .net into the buggy whips of a generation. As such, I am moving my maing site, techdirt.com, to techdirt.kp effective immediately. I invite everyone online to join me in dropping their .com domains, their .net domains, and ending all relationship with a tld which is being used by ICE to chase after innocent people outside of the US".
I don't see how that would make one lick of difference.
You could use better words, but I think you get the gist of the idea. It isn't that is effects you directly, it's that you have the power to make a stand and start the shift away from .com and on to something more relevant. Maybe you can get a .techdirt tld and give everyone a domain there?
That only makes sense if the problem is with .coms rather than ICE.
The problem is with Alex, not my puppy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike is not saying that there is anything wrong with .com or .net. He's saying there is something wrong with ICE.
His argument is that ICE should stop what it's doing or risk having foreign companies abandon .com and .net.
Do you understand now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC is not bright
This would be a system where the government uses power to take domains?
>why are you continuing to support .com by renewing your domains and paying them?
Way to show your lack of understanding AC.
How does not using .com address the overreach of Government power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
U S A!
U S A!
U S A!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so you're one of those idiots? Those people who think that if you criticise the practices of the USA you must immediately be a communist and therefore an enemy of capitalism? That puts your posts into context but it doesn't make you look like any less of a moron.
The cold war ended a long time ago, and many of the countries categorised by Fox as socialist are in fact as far away from communism as you can get. try education, it helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...because the only way to fight oppression is to run... *sigh* Why do you people seem to hate free speech so much?
Oh, and the criticism here is that the moves will make the domains less desirable for non-US sites, with no real return. How does this affect a US-based site like Techdirt, exactly? Should Mike not state his opinion on the massive mistakes being made because he has a stake in it, or because he doesn't, I'm confused here...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too bad you haven't made any point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would know this if you had bothered to not only read, but also comprehend the article. Me thinks Mike needs to start dumbing down his posts for the low IQ folks, or perhaps he just needs to type slower. :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah I would enjoy hand puppets and articles written in large letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second ... it doesn't make sense to move techdirt to an alt TLD. 875,000 people using RSS readers would have to change their links. Economically it would be a hit. If you really want techdirt shut down you can always pay the 100 million USD to do that. I mean thats a rounding error with the $550 million USD that the spanish collection society stole from its artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This isn't about things being *actually* illegal, it's about pissing off the wrong lobby organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That exactly points out why .com or .net domain names are so bad. A foreign site, hosted on foreign soil, that says anything that upsets a dinosaur US business, even if perfectly legal in its home country, is in danger of having its admin extradited to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay away
It looks like the United States is going to be like the former Soviet Union, at least in regards to all things internet - free thinking, creative people will just stay away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stay away
Seriously, as an American I'm dumbfounded to see this crap happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stay away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stay away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stay away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stay away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
If he had used a .uk domain, would dinosaur US businesses have merely contrived a different excuse to have their private police force extradite a foreign citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
Too many questionable sites play the jurisdiction game, ignoring that the internet is available in all of those jurisdictions. Having a .com domain and making the material available in the US means that you not only have one prong, but now you have potentially have two.
If it was on a .UK domain, they still could push on the issue of making the site available to US consumers (especially if he accepted payments from Americans, or if he sold advertising to American companies, example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
So if a company makes it site available to US consumers, they should fall under US jurisdiction? Are you a complete idiot? The internet is global, with few exceptions, and using your logic, anyone could potentially fall under almost any jurisdiction.
If something that you post here on TD is illegal in France, and what you wrote is available in France, then you should have to answer to the French authorities (If they happen not to surrender to you)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
You almost get it here.
The internet is global, with few exceptions, thus everyone fall under All jurisdiction with the only limit of power being the various jurisdictions ability to catch and if you do not agree with this and believe that you have more power than a government, any government that is, then you are seriously delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
I guess we then have to send everyone connected to Playboy.com, Penthouse.com and all the employees and models of every other adult site, to the middle east to face charges of violating their morality code, since they make the sites "available" to the people in that area.
I wonder how well this idea of global prosecution will go over when they start stoning American women having made their x-rated images "available" in countries like Iran.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
Want to try? I dare you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
Lets become like Iran.
Also I heard Iran is going to trial U.S. government officials ex-part, maybe they could issue a extradition note and make the U.S. comply then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
> ISPs to block access.
And yet those sites are still seen by people in those countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
The domain name should not be, but will be twisted to be.
So that being the only issue, what straw will you grasp for if the site had not used a .com domain?
> making the material available in the US
Oh, here we go with that again? When you put something on the internet, it is available to the world. The site owner can restrict visitors, but any requirement to do so is imposed by his home country, not by the US (or China, Iran, etc).
Example: an MPAA spokeswoman makes a video of something official. It is put on MPAA website. You've now made it available in Iran, and -- gasp! -- she's not wearing a veil. The website owner(s) should be extradited to Iran to face charges.
What I'm saying: just because Iran doesn't like it doesn't mean the MPAA website would have an obligation to block it by country. If Iran doesn't like what's on the Internet, they can block it at their borders. If the US doesn't like what's on a UK website, then we should create a great firewall of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
> of making the site available to US consumers (especially if he
> accepted payments from Americans, or if he sold advertising
> to American companies, example).
So basically if you put up a site on the internet which discusses the Nazis and the Holocaust in a way the Germans don't like, none of your 1st Amendment protections apply and you can be shipped off to Germany to stand trial?
Or is this a case of "one set of rules for Americans, and another set for everyone else in the world"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
It has Never occured as far as I know from research, and never will due to your constitution.
I challenge anyone to provide a fully case referenced example to the above, when all those criterias have been met.
when you come back empty of qualified examples you will see how when it comes to extradition the USA is extremely hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is domain name really a jurdiction issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say one world government?
If all you have to do is use a domain name that a foreign country is the registrar for in some way that is illegal in the foreign country to subject yourself to that countries laws, then we are creating a very slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm. Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
domain names is just a start...
Welcome to great wall of Orwellian USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make me wonder if crowdsourcing communication satellites is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Gwiz on Jul 5th, 2011 @ 12:46pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:re:re:re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA has become..
With the DOJ now riddled with lawyers from the entertainment industry (after all, the entertainment industry expected payback for the millions in "campaign contributions") the trend is likely to continue.
DOJ cares less about the lives of american citizens than it does about profits for executives who already earn millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA has become..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoe on the other foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*damn-army.deviantart.com/blog/35143962/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
;)
Yep, us Aussies get it earlier than you USA muggles.. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
> run by someone in the UK and hosted on servers in the UK, it's
> silly and counter-factual to claim that it's really US property.
The idea that the government believes that anything created in the US is US property should scare any sane person to the bone.
Even if they have jurisdiction over Verisign, that doesn't make every domain created by it the property of the government. And if it were US property, that still doesn't matter when we're talking about charging the guy criminally, because the *actions* constituting the alleged crime itself happened in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
The big picture of the United States of today should not be confused with the old "land of the free, home of the brave...". It has become a socialist country: the land of the ruling elite and the entitled to everything that is yours or mine, the home of the distracted. Distracted by our own self interest.
BTW, I just got a notice that I'm being taxed on the amount of curb and gutters my house has. Why? Because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought .us was the US domain
I was under the impression that .com, .net and the other big seven TLDs are for use world-wide (not country defined). Isn't .us the United States domain?
As a non-US based person it really bugs me when I see tiny US companies use .com domains instead of the obvious .com.us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My book was written and printed in China and owning it is a crime. I'm making my flight arrangements to China to turn myself in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]