ICE claims all .com/.net in US jurisdiction

[enlytend]

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has stated that they can take down .com/.net sites for copyright infringement, even if the sites are hosted on foreign servers.

They claim these sites fall under US jurisdiction because all .com and .net domains go through Verisign, which is located in VA. This according to Erik Barnett, asst deputy director of the agency, in a statement to the UK Guardian.

Guardian Article: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-piracy-extradition-prosecution

While I'm definitely against copyright infringement, and things like the FBI seizing servers in the US as evidence in a case doesn't concern me, this has far-reaching implications which are very worrisome...

 

[the_poet]

British website owners could face extradition to the US on piracy charges even if their operation has no connection to America and does something which is most probably legal in the UK

.com is proving to be less secure than some obscure ccTLDs...

 

[enlytend]

@the_poet, what you just cited is what concerns me the most. I think it is seriously overreaching and very dangerous.

Once a precedent is set, it would be easy for some whacko to extend it to even less appropriate situations (censorship, anyone?) ICE needs to chill, IMO.

Could have some minor effect on overall perception/trust of various extensions if genuinely dodgy businesses move to other tld's.

 

[the_poet]

Once a precedent is set, it would be easy for some whacko to extend it to even less appropriate situations (censorship, anyone?) ICE needs to chill, IMO.

Agreed. History teaches that everytime a precedent is set, things more than likely evolve in one direction. .com is officially a gTLD, but we know which country fully controls it, which actually makes it a ccTLD with no nexus required for registration. Some big (and small) domain investors that usually question the safety of ccTLDs like .IN vs the good ol' .com should really wake up.

 

[exsedo]

It is up to countries like the UK to defend their citizens, if something is legal in the UK, then extradition by the US should be over-ruled. There are other options open to them in such a case, such as restricting the domain at the US end. No single Country or Entity should have overall control over the internet, that is not what the Brits invented it for, and it appears that the US have that goal in their sights.

 

[the_poet]

It is up to countries like the UK to defend their citizens, if something is legal in the UK, then extradition by the US should be over-ruled.

Exactly. The US is really acting like a major dictatorship here.

 

[alien51]

US having control over domains under Verisign, makes sense. So that's not surprising.

However, extraditions are not automatic. Most countries have their own piracy laws, so if you break them, you're most likely going to jail in your own country.

Even some serious cyber hacking crime committed in the UK like the one below, is having a hard time pushing through with extradition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8177561.stm

 

[HeyNow]

If You're Worried ...

If you're worried, then:

1) Don't cybersquat.
2) Don't infringe on existing trademarks.
3) Try .us instead of .com or .net.

 

[DU]

If you're worried, then:

1) Don't cybersquat.
2) Don't infringe on existing trademarks.
3) Try .us instead of .com or .net.

You left off

4) Curate websites that allow you to profit from illegal activity

Which is the issue here. I think this is a move done purely to instigate the world to move to an international body of regulation to support the US motives... kind of like the International Criminal Court (only the US runs it instead of not being part of it).

Something needs to be done to prevent simple profiteering from illegal activity. If ICE can keep control and only shut down sites that are obviously in breech of laws then I don't care... but what is "obviously"?

Providing links in a curated way is "aiding and abetting". I think this is similar to being a lookout for a drug dealer... watching the street and making phone calls isn't in itself illegal but you know it's illegal.

The precedents being created are scary - but at the same time, you don't have much to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong. Whether linking is wrong or not legally - I think it's clear that it's not "right".
Putting mp3s unlicensed up is wrong.

I'm sure there are grey areas but I doubt these are at issue. I wonder how much this kid made from his dodgy site. I went to Sheffield Uni Comp Sci too.. lol

 

[exsedo]

I agree with what is being said, and I don't condone any illegal or unethical activity, but the bigger issue is the US trying to impose their laws onto the rest of the world. If an activity is legal in your own country, it is not up to the US to try to impose punishment because they do not agree with it. They should protect their own citizens by restricting access for US citizens to the offending sites. Where internet activity is universally illegal then each country should take action in their own jurisdiction, with help, if requested, from other countries.

 

[enlytend]

I agree with what is being said, and I don't condone any illegal or unethical activity, but the bigger issue is the US trying to impose their laws onto the rest of the world. If an activity is legal in your own country, it is not up to the US to try to impose punishment because they do not agree with it.

Agreed - that's what bothers me.

Let's apply this to something more "gray" than copyright violations - online gambling. Perfectly legal in many parts of the world. Could a site with a .com, running a clean, legal operation in their country and not accepting US players still be subject to being confiscated by the US ? From what Mr. Barnett said, it sounds like that door is open...

 

[alien51]

Could a site with a .com, running a clean, legal operation in their country and not accepting US players still be subject to being confiscated by the US ?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

US-registered companies are bound to comply with US laws, even to those operations that extend outside the US. Otherwise, their business license can be revoked by the US government.

For example, if money laundering is legal in Libya, Libyans engaged in money laundering cannot deposit their money in a Citibank branch in Libya (if there is one there) without their money being confiscated/seized/frozen by the US government. It doesn't matter if Citibank Libya-branch is only accepting money laundering from Libyan nationals.

If there is nothing to confiscate, the US government can apply stiff penalties on US companies that break US laws even outside the US.

Example, some Silicon Valley computer company found to be hiring sweatshop factory workers in China can be levied with stiff fines in the US and their export license revoked-- eventhough sweat shops "could" be acceptable labor practice in China.

The private US military contractor Blackwater was fined by the US government for selling illegal weapons outside the US. It doesn't matter if the weapons sale was legal in the country where they were sold.

Verisign is no different. It doesn't matter whether it is online gambling. It's not a question of whether it is legal in your country. It's a question of whether the US company is complying with US laws.

Verisign can keep the seized domains and resume hosting online gambling. But they have to move their business offshore and have their US business permit cancelled.

 

[enlytend]

There are an awful lot of foreign, online casinos running on .com's and .nets ... like most of them. Just sayin ...

I would bet that most offshore site owners (all types of sites), hosted in their own country, maybe even using a registrar in their own country, are completely unaware that running on a .com or a .net puts them at risk if they run afoul of some US-specific law because of the nexus created by the parent registry.

 

[DU]

There are an awful lot of foreign, online casinos running on .com's and .nets ... like most of them. Just sayin ...

I would bet that most offshore site owners (all types of sites), hosted in their own country, maybe even using a registrar in their own country, are completely unaware that running on a .com or a .net puts them at risk if they run afoul of some US-specific law because of the nexus created by the parent registry.

There would likely have to be some "harm" in the US for the reach to be valid in the US Court's eyes. If you operate gambling in Europe there is no harm being done to the US if you prevent the US populace from gambling.

If you violate TM or Copyright then there is harm done. If you slander or violate someone's privacy you may have an issue (though interestingly libel laws in the US vs UK are opposite of each other).

There's also usually some level of international treaties that come into affect. In this instance the UK and US both recognize copyright/TM protections - the question of linking is a wrinkle (serious one) that needs to be addressed; however, I think long term the curation of illegal links will be deemed illegal by a lot of countries who are unified behind a UN-like body.

The threat of removing a site does nothing because I could simply re-register and move along so some punishment is in order - the question is simply who has jurisdiction in this case?

If the stolen material was from the US then their needs to be consequences from a US perspective..but if you change the names it's still true. If I stole information from a French company (say a car company) on their latest technology and posted it online I can't claim immunity by being American/English/Pakistani can I?

Whatever.. I'm sure the legal bodies will get together and remove porn, gambling, moving images and text from the internet soon.

 

[alien51]

Because computer crime can cross bounderies, the question on "jurisdiction" is often disputed.

I think in the news article posted here, the US was merely saying it was filing an extradition request simply to "coerce" the UK government to prosecute the copyright infringer. The UK government will still have the say whether they will be willing to extradite its own citizen to the US. So again, it's not automatic.

"Legal options" are tools available for disposal. So naturally, people can use it. It's not like you can stop anyone from suing anybody. But just because you get sued, doesn't mean you "will" be punished.

Sometimes powerful entities use legal moves simply to drain the resources of those they are accusing, eventhough they believe their case will not prosper.

 

[duceman]

sounds like those who own great ccTLD gaming names will have to adjust their expectations of sell price upward.

 

[scithe]

The problem is beauracracy is slow. If ICE decided to shut down GoldenPalace.com or another site even if only for a week or a month, the damage could be permanent.