Dot Com Insanity

[FreeDomme]

I won't pretend to know who controls the Internet (is it Google yet?) but judging by the ease at which the US DOJ seems to be able to take over any DotCom domain I'm amazed that more casinos have not at least mirrored and redirected to safer havens.

Am I missing something? Couldn't they just shoot all the fish in the barrel some night as we sleep?
I realize most games are not served from web pages, it just seems odd that any casino accepting new US players would leave themselves vulnerable like that.

Thoughts?

 

[lots0]

NO one entity controls the www, Internets are a different beast.

The doj are incompetent storm troopers. They don't understand the basics.

And if they don't understand the basics.. they can't do much but scratch the surface.

The doj clowns were able to seize the domain names... because they scared the Registrar that actually controlled the .com names with legal threats and jail... The Registrar is under doj/homeland security orders not to speak abut this or go to jail. Homeland Security at it's best...

 

[takethemoney]

The United States Government has full care, custody and control of the world wide web. That said, should it surprise anyone that when they decide to pull the plug on a casino or ewallet they can and do?

 

[nisosbar]

If I were forced to make a prediction about the future, it's likely that casinos will simply change domains, as we see them doing now in response to this. For example, the .eu or even .ag domains. So while some big entities in online gaming were taken down, it remains to be seen whether that action was sufficient to have a long-term impact.

 

[jetset]

And the Kentucky attempted domain hi-jack has still to resolved, too.

As iMEGA points out, “The matter now lies in the hands of Franklin County circuit court Judge Thomas Wingate, who issued the original seizure orders on the behalf of Kentucky.”

That doesn't sound too hopeful....and after years of bouncing through various Kentucky courts.

 

[rainmaker]

I won't pretend to know who controls the Internet (is it Google yet?) but judging by the ease at which the US DOJ seems to be able to take over any DotCom domain I'm amazed that more casinos have not at least mirrored and redirected to safer havens.

Am I missing something? Couldn't they just shoot all the fish in the barrel some night as we sleep?
I realize most games are not served from web pages, it just seems odd that any casino accepting new US players would leave themselves vulnerable like that.

Thoughts?

Just one comment,

WIPO- The World Intellectual Property Organization, has the authority to "control" the internet.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[FreeDomme]

Just one comment,

WIPO- The World Intellectual Property Organization, has the authority to "control" the internet.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And I am the last Queen of Normandy.

Certainly the WIPO didn't spank the DOJ and insist they get their meddling hands off of previously 'disabled' domains? Or did they?

 

[rainmaker]

And I am the last Queen of Normandy.

Certainly the WIPO didn't spank the DOJ and insist they get their meddling hands off of previously 'disabled' domains? Or did they?

It was just a comment to "who controls the internet". WIPO under normal conditions do have the authority to transfer domains to complainants, confiscate etc.

So WIPO are the closest authority I know that "controls the internet".

I did not mean to say that WIPO had something to do with these seizures.


Anyway, It will be interesting to see how DOJ legitimizes their right to take over these dot.com sites. On the other hand, DOJ do seize for example child pornography sites all the time. So they probably have valid grounds to seize dotcom sites that they have reason to believe are violating US laws.

 

[rainmaker]

And as an addition,

This is an interesting article about domain seizures. It is really about “Counterfeiters” and "Pirates"- sites, but the principles are the same.

Link Removed (invalid URL)



Questions raised in the article: (By Senator Ron Wyden)



1. How does ICE and DoJ measure the effectiveness of Operation In our Sites and domain seizures more broadly — how does the government measure the benefits and costs of seizing domain names?

2. Of the nearly 100 domain names seized by the Obama Administration over the last 9 months, how many prosecutions were initiated, how many indictments obtained, and how were the operators of these domain names provided due process?

3. What is the process for selecting a domain name for seizure and, specifically, what criteria are used?
a. Does the Administration make any distinction between domain names that are operated overseas and those that are operated in the U.S.
b. Does the Administration consider whether a domain name operated overseas is in compliance with the domestic law from which the domain name is operated?
c. What standard does the Administration use to ensure that domains are not seized that also facilitate legitimate speech?
d. What standards does ICE use to ensure that it does not seize the domain names of websites the legal status of which could be subject to legitimate debate in a U.S. court of law; how does ICE ensure that seizures target on the true “bad actors?”

4. Does the Administration believe that hyperlinks to domain names that offer downloadable infringing content represent a distribution of infringing content, or do they represent speech?

5. Does the Administration believe that websites that facilitate discussion about where to find infringing content on the Internet represents speech or the distribution of infringed content? What if the discussion on these websites includes hyperlinks to websites that offer downloadable, infringing content?

6. What standard does DoJ expect foreign countries to use when determining whether to seize a domain name controlled in the U.S. for copyright infringement?

7. Did DoJ and ICE take into account the legality of Rojadirecta.org before it seized its domain name? If so, did DoJ and ICE consult with the Department of State or the United States Trade Representative before seizing this site in order to consider how doing so is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and commercial objectives

8. In an affidavit written by Special Agent Andrew Reynolds, he uses his ability to download four specific songs on the domain name dajaz1.com as justification for seizure of this domain name. According to press accounts, the songs in question were legally provided to the operator of the domain name for the purpose of distribution. Please explain the Administration’s justification for continued seizure of this domain name and its rationale for not providing this domain name operator, and others, due process.

9. Can you please provide to me a list of all the domain names seized by the Obama Administration since January of 2009 and provide the basis for their seizure?

10. Do ICE and DoJ keep a record of who meets with federal law enforcement about particular domain names? If not, would you consider keeping such a record and making it publicly available, to ensure transparency in government and that Operation in our Sites is not used to create competitive advantages in the marketplace?

 

[FreeDomme]

I just don't understand, except under War Powers, how the hell any agency of the US Govt can do anything to anyone outside of Territorial Waters, which last time I checked were seven miles from shore. Should I have purchased a different education so I could understand and believe all these things?

I guess the casinos who are still on dot com know something we don't or the left hand doesn't talk to the right hand. I'm either confused, baffled or ignorant I suppose.

 

[NicolasJohnson]

.com along with several other top level domain names, commonly referred to as TLDs, including .net .name and .tv are managed by Verisign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN)

As a publicly traded US company based out of Virginia, they must obey court orders that are relevant to their jurisdiction.

Hence, the move of some operators to stop using these top level domains. This is not unique to the gaming industry though. Wikileaks was forced to move to .ch

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager

 

[lots0]

.com along with several other top level domain names, commonly referred to as TLDs, including .net .name and .tv are managed by Verisign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN)

As a publicly traded US company based out of Virginia, they must obey court orders that are relevant to their jurisdiction.

Hence, the move of some operators to stop using these top level domains. This is not unique to the gaming industry though. Wikileaks was forced to move to .ch

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager

Like I said....

The doj clowns were able to seize the domain names... because they scared the Registrar that actually controlled the .com names with legal threats and jail... The Registrar is under doj/homeland security orders not to speak abut this or go to jail. Homeland Security at it's best...

Verisign is a recipient of a "National Security Letter" over this issue. Or at least that is what the all those Fly's on the wall are saying...

By using a

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

the doj and their boss Homeland Security don't need a court order or "Due Process" to make seizures... they can take what ever they want, whenever they want... and anyone that receives a NSL and talks about it in public, goes to jail.
Don't ya just love it?

 

[Webzcas]

Thanks for the link Lotso. I didn't know about that. From reading that wiki page, all links back to the beloved Patriot Act. Now there is a surprise

 

[lots0]

Yup the "Patriot Act".

Odd how they named the law that turned America into a Totalitarian State...

The VAST majority of Americans wanted the Patriot Act to go away... But the powers that be... extended it for four more years.
Thanks Republicans...