49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Uncle Sam wants YOU -- and your .com URL

by MoneyMagnetMagnate
38 replies
Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable

58 mins ago
​The U.S. government can take out your .com (or your .net, .biz or .org) domain any time it darn well pleases -- even if said domain is registered through another country. According to a chilling Wired article, a loophole allows Uncle Sam to shutter sites using these top-level domains because VeriSign, the company that manages them, is U.S-based.
EasyDNS, an Internet infrastructure company protesting this power to pilfer URLs at will, blogs that "this is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat. It just happened." The online exodus has already started: The Pirate Bay recently dumped its .org domain and switched over to the Swedish ".se" suffix to escape Big Brother-esque interference.


Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable | Threat Level | Wired.com
#sam #uncle #url
  • Profile picture of the author newseller
    Banned
    Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

    Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable

    58 mins ago
    ​The U.S. government can take out your .com (or your .net, .biz or .org) domain any time it darn well pleases -- even if said domain is registered through another country. According to a chilling Wired article, a loophole allows Uncle Sam to shutter sites using these top-level domains because VeriSign, the company that manages them, is U.S-based.
    EasyDNS, an Internet infrastructure company protesting this power to pilfer URLs at will, blogs that "this is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat. It just happened." The online exodus has already started: The Pirate Bay recently dumped its .org domain and switched over to the Swedish ".se" suffix to escape Big Brother-esque interference.


    Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable | Threat Level | Wired.com
    Are they taking it under the law ofiminent domain or because you may or may not have broken a law? And, keeping with the spirit of this thread, by 'you' I mean anyone, not you personally.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5772621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

    Just running with the Story from WIRED Boys...
    Nothing personal on any front. I don't have a problem with any of the people in this discussion... just the ideas.

    The particular idea that annoys me here is the constant and insistent whinging that the United States, horror of horrors, expects to enforce United States laws on the internet.

    So... what's the alternative? Anarchy? Which of us wants that?

    It just annoys the crap out of me how frequently someone will come in here and go "oh my God, did you know that this illegal thing is illegal on the internet, too?!"
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5772634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RySpencer
      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      Nothing personal on any front. I don't have a problem with any of the people in this discussion... just the ideas.

      The particular idea that annoys me here is the constant and insistent whinging that the United States, horror of horrors, expects to enforce United States laws on the internet.

      So... what's the alternative? Anarchy? Which of us wants that?

      It just annoys the crap out of me how frequently someone will come in here and go "oh my God, did you know that this illegal thing is illegal on the internet, too?!"
      People are always defensive when it comes to any type of monitoring or control of the internet.

      In the budding years, the internet was a free place to come and share your thoughts and feelings without being censored, and for the most parts it still is. Anytime a law or regulation is created to police the internet, people automatically think that it is censorship.

      If all we did was share a few personal messages back and forth here on WF, I wouldn't want any regulation. Unfortunately, I run a business online and perform financial transactions, so it can't be the wild west, we need some protection.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I'm not worried about it. I don't use my sites for illegal activity.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5772699].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      I'm not worried about it. I don't use my sites for illegal activity.
      But what happens if they, at a future date, they change the law and deem that your sites are being used for illegal activity?

      And no, I am not against enforcement of the law, but it also needs to be kept in check.

      Go ahead and shut down the pirates, hackers, and other miscreants, but please make sure that you don't start expanding the definition of what constitutes illegality.

      It's a fast-paced world, and regulations are having a hard time adjusting. Unfortunately, this can sometimes cause lawmakers to go too far in how they handle it.

      All the best,
      Michael
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5772967].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

        But what happens if they, at a future date, they change the law and deem that your sites are being used for illegal activity?
        This is one of the reasons I don't like any long-term business model which involves thousands of web sites making tiny amounts of money.

        I had about twenty blogs on Blogger.com running AdSense. Google changed the AdSense guidelines. I had to look over all twenty of my blogs to make sure they complied. It was a massive pain in the arse.

        I thought about having two hundred, or two thousand, blogs which needed to be checked.

        I don't do that crap anymore.

        It's reasonably simple to stay up to date with changes in policies and laws on a half-dozen sites or so. That's how I'm building my business now - a small quantity of sites offering a small quantity of products and services. Because scaling up is preferable to scaling out.

        It doesn't matter how honest and ethical you are, changing laws will frequently require some kind of action on your part to comply. And with our industry squarely in the FTC's crosshairs, the businesses that survive will be the ones that take this into account.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773223].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

        But what happens if they, at a future date, they change the law and deem that your sites are being used for illegal activity?

        And no, I am not against enforcement of the law, but it also needs to be kept in check.

        Go ahead and shut down the pirates, hackers, and other miscreants, but please make sure that you don't start expanding the definition of what constitutes illegality.

        It's a fast-paced world, and regulations are having a hard time adjusting. Unfortunately, this can sometimes cause lawmakers to go too far in how they handle it.

        All the best,
        Michael
        Personally, I'm against all these Homeland Security/ICE laws that allow them to do anything without due process. Due process is one of the foundations of this country. Without it, no one is safe.

        Did I cry when a criminal site like MegaUpload was taken down? No.
        But then they took down the "wrong bodog"
        Feds Continue Crackdown On Poker... By Seizing The Wrong Bodog Domain | Techdirt

        and I'm not against online poker or online casinos. That's where due process should come in ... same law for everybody and no heavy-handed seizures without due process.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Birdi
    lol ... the internet is always changing, laws are always being enforced, policy's always being introduced, doesnt mean it can not stop you, where there is a problem you will always find a solution simple

    to many winging in here about this law and that law, why worry so much about it, just crack on with your business in an ethical way and you will be fine. Just have your wits about you, your business head and you will find solutions to any obstacle that will face you with the internet
    Signature
    Click Here To Learn How To Generate Your First PayCheck Online!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    The AMERICANS ARE COMING, RUN!!!!!!!!! *runs off screaming like a girl, hands flailing wildly in the air*

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AlphaWarrior
    In the New Hartford case a couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that any level of government can take your property under imminent domain and even give your property to another private entity.

    The US Constitution says that government can take property only if it is going to be used for the public. Well, the US Supreme Court ruled that an increase in tax revenue is sufficient and took people's homes and gave the land to a private entity because New Hartford claimed that it would receive more tax money.

    So, right now, whether you are doing anything illegal or not, any level of government can take your website (property) and give it to someone else if the government thinks that it can receive more tax revenue from whomever it gives your website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior View Post

      In the New Hartford case a couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that any level of government can take your property under imminent domain and even give your property to another private entity.
      1. You can't even spell eminent domain.

      2. Eminent domain applies to real property - land and structures - as opposed to personal property like money or vehicles.

      3. Calling internet sites "virtual real estate" does not make them subject to the laws regarding real property.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773304].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        1. You can't even spell eminent domain.

        So are you arguing that a person who misspells words is incapable of having an intellectual discussion?
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773367].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

          So are you arguing that a person who misspells words is incapable of having an intellectual discussion?
          No. I'm arguing that if you can't spell something, you probably do not know very much about it.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773383].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author davezan
        Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

        The AMERICANS ARE COMING, RUN!!!!!!!!! *runs off screaming like a girl, hands flailing wildly in the air*

        -Chris

        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        2. Eminent domain applies to real property - land and structures - as opposed to personal property like money or vehicles.

        3. Calling internet sites "virtual real estate" does not make them subject to the laws regarding real property.
        All it takes is a little creativity to make that happen, depending on how much
        determination. Anywho, I somewhat remember a case involving precisely that
        scenario that was (un)fortunately rejected. (the un- part for those objecting
        to domains being held and supposedly not being used...)

        Two questions I have for this is what got the U.S. government's attention in
        the first place, and if it's something that one can actually avoid. From what I
        gathered since then, it supposedly started from Bodog's violating a state law
        rather than Federal law, and was later expanded.
        Signature

        David

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773472].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AlphaWarrior
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        1. You can't even spell eminent domain.

        2. Eminent domain applies to real property - land and structures - as opposed to personal property like money or vehicles.

        3. Calling internet sites "virtual real estate" does not make them subject to the laws regarding real property.
        Yes, I will never win a spelling bee, but I do know what I am talking about.

        The US Constitution says "private property" and "public use". It does not say "real property" or "personal property" and I do not know of any Supreme Court decision that limits "private property" to "real property". Do you?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773931].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior View Post

          I do not know of any Supreme Court decision that limits "private property" to "real property". Do you?
          Nope.

          Now show me an exercise of eminent domain that wasn't on real property.

          It's never been used that way. It's never been understood to include any and all seizure of anything whatsoever that the government wants. As I said from the start: it doesn't apply. That's groundless conspiracy theory garbage.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5774095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author XBloggerX
    I can see both sides of this argument. Both make at least some sense on some level.

    However, each time I hear/read about something like this, I can't stop the thought that runs through my head that the government is trying to make money from the internet like the rest of us. Maybe they just want their piece.

    Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure.....
    Signature
    Two Women. A Lot Of Weight To Lose.
    VegetablesMakeMeStupid.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773432].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      I have a couple of imminent domains. I'm thinking of using WordPress when I build them.

      I hope that's legal...:p

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773467].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 1byte
        Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

        I have a couple of imminent domains. I'm thinking of using WordPress when I build them.

        I hope that's legal...:p

        ~Bill

        Ha ha, "imminent domains" now that's funny!

        This whole conversation got me curious about the difference in meaning between the words "eminent' and "imminent," so I had to go look it up...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776758].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

    No. I'm arguing that if you can't spell something, you probably do not know very much about it.
    The old ad hominem logical fallacy rears its head again.

    So if an illiterate man from Kentucky, who's an expert in making moon shine, is willing to teach me how to set up a still, I shouldn't pay attention because he can't spell "moon shine"?

    I'll wait and base my opinion on how well someone knows the subject, not their spelling or typing skills. In this case CD may be right, but it won't be because of someone's spelling ability.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773462].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      The old ad hominem logical fallacy rears its head again.

      It is not ad hominem to say that someone cannot spell something he has in fact spelled incorrectly.


      So if an illiterate man from Kentucky, who's an expert in making moon shine, is willing to teach me how to set up a still, I shouldn't pay attention because he can't spell "moon shine"?
      Not if he offers to write it down for you, because - as you said - he's illiterate.

      I'll wait and base my opinion on how well someone knows the subject.
      He doesn't. Look it up.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773628].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        It is not ad hominem to say that someone cannot spell something he has in fact spelled incorrectly.
        But it is ad hominem to say someone doesn't know anything about a subject if they can't spell it. Nice straw man fallacy.

        Not if he offers to write it down for you, because - as you said - he's illiterate.
        I said "teach". There's no reason for you to infer that it will be written.


        He doesn't. Look it up.
        Yep. I agree. This is how to judge his knowledge on any particular subject and not by his spelling (unless we were judging his spelling).
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5777208].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AMiRU
    This should not affect me but still, I disagree with such law.
    Signature
    Domain Name Registration & Web Hosting - Accepts Perfect Money, PayPal & Payza
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773654].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TopBackBuilder
    Wow! So that explains why pirate bay went to .se! Thanks for posting this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5773733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
    Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

    Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable

    58 mins ago
    ​The U.S. government can take out your .com (or your .net, .biz or .org) domain any time it darn well pleases -- even if said domain is registered through another country. According to a chilling Wired article, a loophole allows Uncle Sam to shutter sites using these top-level domains because VeriSign, the company that manages them, is U.S-based.
    EasyDNS, an Internet infrastructure company protesting this power to pilfer URLs at will, blogs that "this is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat. It just happened." The online exodus has already started: The Pirate Bay recently dumped its .org domain and switched over to the Swedish ".se" suffix to escape Big Brother-esque interference.


    Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable | Threat Level | Wired.com
    If the domain is registered through another country but you are resident in the US then the law should apply to you. Registering elsewhere is just trying to attempt to evade the law. You can moan about it all you like but it is the law of the country where you live - you can always emigrate.

    But if you are non-resident and the website is hosted outside the US, the US government should not have the right. The .com domain is for everybody, worldwide. If I choose to setup a gTLD website that is hosted in my own country, and the activities are legal in my own country, then what right does the government of any other country have to interfere? Would the US government tolerate the Chinese government seizing US-hosted .com websites supporting a free Tibet?

    The US government should restrict its overseas activities to .us domains.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5775999].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author eskimoto
    well, it almost seems like that the american law exists only to please big corporations. I would like to see more of European touch in international affairs. And what gives USA right to think they are the world police? We didnt ask you to be our sheriff, yankee style democration isnt what we fancy really!



    Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dcristo
    Yep it's take down sites first, ask questions later. **** all the U.S. players that have their entire bankrolls on the sites. What's more important is killing the competition so when online poker is regulated the brick & mortar casinos have fewer competitors.
    Signature

    Are you wanting to learn all the poker lingo?

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776237].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CyberSEO
    Get your own TLD for $185k "only"
    Signature
    CyberSEO Pro - the ultimate all-in-one autoblogging WordPress plugin, powered by OpenAI GPT-4, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini Pro, Midjourney, DALL-E 3 and Stable Diffusion XL
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776253].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author quickcontent
    if your work is legal, no body can touch your site. for example recently i read that Megaupload.com was shut down by some federal agency on several counts one of which is piracy. So if your business model touches along those lines, only then do you have to worry...
    Signature
    Buy Articles and Buy Blog Posts for $5 Only!
    Buy Ebooks for $6 per page!
    Order 10 articles get One FREE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776292].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TinManJuggernaut
      Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

      When's the last time you heard of the US seizing a domain from a legitimate business?
      February 16th.

      http arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/secret-service-asks-for-shutdown-of-legit-website-over-user-content-godaddy-complies.ars

      A major problem is lack of due process. ICE, SS and other government bodies believe they have ultimate authority. None of them are business owners so think nothing of shutting down a business in a heartbeat so they can check a task off a list of their tax payer funded job without considering their heavy hand may be irreparably destroying a business and the livelihoods of people. Prior communication and notices with the business owner would solve a lot of problems like this. It's not like most websites are so urgent that they need to be shutdown RIGHT NOW as opposed to in a couple days or next week or month.

      Cory
      Signature
      Learn About Computers - ComputifyMe.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776403].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
        Originally Posted by quickcontent View Post

        if your work is legal, no body can touch your site. for example recently i read that Megaupload.com was shut down by some federal agency on several counts one of which is piracy. So if your business model touches along those lines, only then do you have to worry...
        Unfortunately no. If it's legal in your country but not in the USA your site is not safe with a gTLD.

        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        <sigh>

        Let's stop for a moment and take a reality check - this isn't something new...the US has had this ability since day one and it wasn't a "Loophole". In fact, it's much more difficult for the US to do it today because they privatized the management of this system.

        Any TLD, including country specific TLD's can be seized by the government controlling it. Based on what we've seen in the Middle East, China, etc., some governments do it for political reasons. As least the US is genuinely pursuing seizure of domains used to break the law.

        I find it somewhat ironic that whenever these topics come up, they invariably reference sites that are openly known to be involved in criminal activity to be hurt by it. From where I'm sitting, that's a good thing.

        When's the last time you heard of the US seizing a domain from a legitimate business?

        The reality is that you're at much greater risk with country level domains than you are with .com, .org, etc. - and I suspect that Pirate Bay will find that out sooner or later.
        Breaking American law, but unfortunately this could include people who do not live in America, with a site that is not hosted in America, breaking American law.

        Originally Posted by Roan View Post

        it's kind of ridiculous though. However if it's illegal stuff that you put on your website I guess it should be stopped.
        If it's legal in your country and the website is hosted in your country, but it's illegal in USA?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776670].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Roan
    it's kind of ridiculous though. However if it's illegal stuff that you put on your website I guess it should be stopped.
    Signature

    Are You Looking For a High Quality Shopify + FB ads Course? PM me. - Only available for ONE person. Be Quick.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776293].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Well...

    Thank GOD the US of A haven't created the oxygen.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    This is the impression I am getting ove rthe past 6 months or so. Sems big bizz wants its monopoly back and are fighting hard!

    well, it almost seems like that the american law exists only to please big corporations. I would like to see more of European touch in international affairs. And what gives USA right to think they are the world police? We didnt ask you to be our sheriff, yankee style democration isnt what we fancy really!
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    America is now saying if you break a USA law against US citizens then we might come and get you to face the US legal system.

    The case of the UK guy facing trial for shippnig "batteries" to Iran or the kid who ran a downloading site etc...Although this looks purely one way!

    Year ago criminlas hid behind "I am not in the US" but that semes to have gone now.

    Good...in a way.
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    and that about sums up every big monopolistic company on the Net these days.

    G, Facebook, p.p. Ebay...you name it.

    A major problem is lack of due process. ICE, SS and other government bodies believe they have ultimate authority. None of them are business owners so think nothing of shutting down a business in a heartbeat so they can check a task off a list of their tax payer funded job without considering their heavy hand may be irreparably destroying a business and the livelihoods of people. Prior communication and notices with the business owner would solve a lot of problems like this. It's not like most websites are so urgent that they need to be shutdown RIGHT NOW as opposed to in a couple days or next week or month.
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5776745].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
    Personally I find it a bit frightening that the government is making a power grab like this.

    It would be one thing if they could get to these domains through due process, but getting to them through simply grabbing what they consider their own property to manage? Terrible.
    Signature

    No signature here today!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5777224].message }}

Trending Topics