Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Crime The Courts The Internet United Kingdom United States Your Rights Online

US, UK Targeting Piracy Websites Outside Their Borders 214

Posted by timothy
from the let's-call-them-corsair-sites-instead dept.
nk497 writes "The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is going after piracy websites even if they aren't hosted in the U.S., by targeting those with .net and .com domain names, which are managed by U.S. company Verisign. Meanwhile, a lawyer suggests even that [kind of connection] isn't needed to take a site to court in the UK, saying as long as the content is directed at UK users, that's connection enough to ensure jurisdiction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US, UK Targeting Piracy Websites Outside Their Borders

Comments Filter:
  • by cgeys (2240696) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:12PM (#36653800)
    I suggest that other countries start doing it too. Break any French law, face extradition. Break any Chinese law, face extradition. Break any North Korean law, face extradition. It doesn't matter that you have nothing to do with them. If US is doing it, why not others?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because the US has more guns.

      • by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:43PM (#36654068)
        Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.
        • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:51PM (#36654146)
          We wear cowboy hats?
          • by das3cr (780388) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:01PM (#36654252) Journal

            White ones !

            And our belt buckles say Good Guys right on em.

          • All I can say is: Which country popularized the phrase "Stetsons are cool"?

          • We wear cowboy hats?

            The cowboy hat is a practical piece of headgear, suitable for people doing hard work outdoors. It keeps the rain off your head, the sun off your face, and the sweat out of your eyes. Since it is American kit connected with hard work and sweat, it is easy to understand why many people feel no connection with it. There is also little mystery that many of those who despise America, and cowboys for that matter, (including too many Americans) generally have a clown hat as their primary headgear.

        • What are you saying 'nope' to?
          • by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:08PM (#36654294)
            The US having the most guns. Nope. The US might have the biggest military budget. It might have expensive toys. However it does not have "the most guns". Russia has 21 million conscripts under arms at any time. North Korea has 9 million troops. South Korea has 8 million. India and China each have about 5 million troops. The US has about 3 million. While you might argue that the US soldier is better equipped, yada yada yada, but what it comes down to is that an American soldier costs much, much more than any other soldier. Actual effectiveness against a real, similar sized army has yet to be tested, and honestly I wouldn't want to live long enough to see that. Be assured that Russia or China aren't pushovers like Iraq and Afghanistan, even if you consider their troops to be "inferior". Lots of little ants can kill and carry surprisingly big critters.
            • There are estimated to be over 200 million guns in the U.S. [answers.com] Not counting military and police. America is armed to the teeth.
              • by Dunbal (464142) *
                And how does this affect foreign policy (what was originally being discussed) again? When you're trying to wriggle out of the frying pan don't forget that if you wriggle hard enough you end up in an entirely different context, ie the fire. Wait, I get it. Now you're just trolling.
                • Nope. You tried to be smart about the U.S. not having more guns and it turns out you meant active troops. Oh we're talking about foreign policy? How many Russian and Chinese troops are deployed in combat around the world currently? Wait, what were you saying 'nope' to again?
                  • Your comment about the number of the guns in the US was in the wrong context and your response didn't exonerate you. Sorry. I suggest you bow out gracefully.

                    • The original post was that the U.S. could do it because it has more guns. The response was a pedantic nope that the U.S. does not have more guns it just uses its guns. The original post was a might is right sarcastic statement. The reply was pedantic and wrong.

                      In context the U.S. has more might with any measure. If we are going to go redefine what the context is that's fine. If we are talking about active standing troops the US is not #1, but that's not what was originally said. If we're talking a
                    • How does 9 million North Korean troops sitting in N Korea prove N Korea has more guns than the U.S.?

                      We're not going to invade NK with 200 million guns.

                    • The U.S. wouldn't need to. On the flip side, NK is certainly not invading the U.S. anytime soon. Nor is any other country for the matter. The U.S. has 'more guns' for all intents and purposes in any context. The U.S. is in three engagements and has troops stationed in nearly every country in the World. Its Navy spans the globe. All with a volunteer military.

                      The United States is so well armed that in a debate about the validity of the statement 'Because the U.S. has more guns', 200 million guns sho
            • The US can deliver lethal force remotely more effectively than any other country can deliver their foot soldiers to our soil.

              Disagree? Predators, Reapers, Global Hawks, and that's just the unmanned variety. Rule the air and you rule (most) of the ground.

            • by tsotha (720379)

              Russia has 21 million conscripts under arms at any time.

              Not even close. The Russian Federation has 1.2 million men under arms, with another 750k in reserve. 21 million men under arms would be 2/3 of the entire cohort of military age Russians. That kind of mobilization couldn't be sustained without wrecking the economy. Most of the Russian air force is obsolete, the Russian navy is rusting at the docks, and aside from a few elite units the Russian army is poorly trained and woefully under-equipped. T

        • by jimicus (737525) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:13PM (#36654350)

          Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.

          The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life. Not on a personal level, not on a national or international level. Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

          Hell, Osama bin Laden seemed pretty convinced that what he stood for was right. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as far as anyone can tell Hitler honestly thought that attempting to rid the world of the Jews was the right thing to do. And I bet you Kim Jong Il thinks he's doing a pretty damn good job of keeping his country well looked after.

          • Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

            No! They are factually the bad guys. My morals are factually correct and not subjective in the least.

          • by Belial6 (794905)
            Given that he did not belong to the uber-race that he was promoting as the ideal, it seems pretty likely that he did in fact think he was doing the right thing.
          • by barq (1194291)

            The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life. Not on a personal level, not on a national or international level. Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

            Hell, Osama bin Laden seemed pretty convinced that what he stood for was right. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as far as anyone can tell Hitler honestly thought that attempting to rid the world of the Jews was the right thing to do. And I bet you Kim Jong Il thinks he's doing a pretty damn good job of keeping his country well looked after.

            It is the 'Banality of Evil' argument. Hannah Arendt popularised the term after watching Eichmann in court. The question of how apparently ordinary people can do extraordinarily evil things was a central issue for social psychology after WWII (e.g. Stanley Milgram's 'electric shock' obedience experiments). The headlines focused on the surprisingly high levels of obedience, but the more interesting story is in the accounts given by participants afterwards. In short, the majority of people rationalise their a

          • by russotto (537200)

            The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life.

            I strongly [wikipedia.org] disagree [wikipedia.org].

          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2011 @04:24PM (#36655290)

            The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life.

            Of course not. it was Goldfinger who said that, and it was Blofeld who stroked the white cat. Two completely different people.

            Geez.

        • by jjeffries (17675)

          You there! Call us "the good guys" or we'll shoot you with our many guns! Choose!

          I thought so.

        • Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.

          It really depends on the use the arms are put to, doesn't it? Kuwaitis were pretty happy when US led coalition forces removed Saddam's army from Kuwait in 1991. Of course there were many Europeans that protested against the US for planning to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait, but virtually none when Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait, thus demonstrating the moral bankruptcy of the "Peace" movement.

          The French (practically no oil) were pretty happy when the mainly US and British forces of the Allies remove

        • by lexsird (1208192) on Monday July 04, 2011 @06:05PM (#36655912)

          We haven't been the good guys for a long time. The American government has long been the puppets of multinational corporations. I am trying really hard to think of how corporate interests aren't always being served in every damn thing we touch as Americans. America fights to privatize everything it can, it's sickening. They have so many brainwashed into this bullshit "American Dream" which is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

          Locally, I watched as our municipal water supply which was working just fine and had been for years, was shut down so that our community would have to switch over to privatized water, which ironically comes from a public lake. Our city lost control of our own water, and a way to generate revenue which it desperately needs. They almost sold the town reservoir to land developers, so they could shut down the park around the reservoir which is a park for the people. It was to be a gated community. Thankfully some citizens found out and went nuts on them at city counsel meetings, so they have backed off of that for now.

          The point is, America is teaming with filthy crooked bastards that will fuck us all over. We see this on a local level and we have to watch the fuckers like hawks. Now imagine how fucked up this becomes at a State and Federal level where there are no "town counsel meetings" for people to hold these bastards accountable. It doesn't help with a dipshit American public that utterly refuses to do its civic duty of keeping these crooked cocksuckers in check by keeping tabs on them. America is too wrapped up in epic bullshit like American Idol or sports to pay attention to anything that is REAL or MATTERS.

          This has been going on for decades here. The world had better wake the fuck up and realize that the American people aren't going to wise up and stop any of this horseshit. America is brain locked by corporations, they will be slaves forever or until the entire system crashes to the ground and they are fighting in the streets for a crust for bread. By the way, the rest of the world; you are next.

          • by Burz (138833)

            America is brain locked by corporations, they will be slaves forever or until the entire system crashes to the ground and they are fighting in the streets for a crust for bread.

            IMHO, most of that brainwashing (the corporatism and jingoism) emanates from two places: Talk radio and Hollywood (two very corporate, Wall-St. linked enterprises). Hollywood isn't just a source of distraction anymore and even their 'nicest' shows are saturated with odious consumerism and anti-democratic assumptions.

            The corporate jingoist crook mentality isn't just a feature of the USA, its the MO throughout the English speaking world now and Hollywood's appeal has been significant factor in that developmen

    • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:26PM (#36653916)

      It doesn't matter that you have nothing to do with them.

      Except that .com, .net, .org and .edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.

      The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations.

      Does that mean Amazon should be held liable for any naughty things entering Indonesia, for example? No, because although they'll ship things there, they're not targeting them. If they were to start offering their site in Indonesian and clearly marketed things to Indonesians, then perhaps they would.

      This is really not much different from a bunch of Russians setting up a poker site on the Seychelles and then advertising specifically to Americans, require bets be made in U.S. Dollars, etc. You've probably already read on the crackdown operations on those.

      Whether it is just is another matter entirely.

      So while your comment is on the mark somewhere down the slippery slope, it's not particularly relevant as in fact people do have something to with 'them'.

      • "Meanwhile, a lawyer suggests even that [kind of connection] isn't needed to take a site to court in the UK, saying as long as the content is directed at UK users, that's connection enough to ensure jurisdiction"

        No your honor. Clearly, we were targeting American's because our website only uses American spelling and grammar. And you're all wankers.

      • by hitmark (640295)

        If they where .com.us and so on, that would make sense. As it is, USA have at best a "historical" claim on the jurisdiction of .com and the rest.

        • If they where .com.us and so on, that would make sense. As it is, USA have at best a "historical" claim on the jurisdiction of .com and the rest.

          No, at best the following is true: .com registry holder: VeriSign .net registry holder: VeriSign .org registry holder: Public Interest Registry (operated by: Afilias) .edu registry holder: Educause (operated by: VeriSign)

          VeriSign headquarters: 21355 Ridgetop Circle, Dulles, Virginia, USA

          Afilias US office: Afilias USA, Inc., Building 3, Suite 105, 300 Welsh Road, Ho

          • But for .com and .net, the U.S. very much has jurisdiction over the main registry and by extension the data registered with them.

            The data registered with them is an address which is not necessarily in the US. By all means delete the pointer of any site you don't agree with, but how does holding a pointer to an address give you rights over a citizen of another country?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Except that .com, .net, .org and .edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.

        Which is precisely why other countries have pushed for ICANN to not be under US regulation because it's absurd that .com, .net, .org, and .edu should be US regulated or more generally that it's under US authority to create/destroy new TLDs.

        The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regula

      • by hedwards (940851)

        The reason why the fall into the domain of the US is that historically we were the least likely to pull this sort of crap. But, I don't think it'll last long if we continue abusing that privilege.

        • by digitig (1056110)

          The reason why the fall into the domain of the US is that historically we were the least likely to pull this sort of crap. But, I don't think it'll last long if we continue abusing that privilege.

          Which universe's history was that in? Show me any country that historically and currently wouldn't pull any dirty tricks they thought they could get away with to further the interests of those in power.

        • by mwvdlee (775178) on Monday July 04, 2011 @04:07PM (#36655190) Homepage

          Not to be pendantic, but "least likely" according to whom?
          Most certainly not according to pretty much every country except the USA.
          US has never been the most well-behaving country in the world.
          They've been on the good side of "playing nicely with other countries", but only by a small margin.

          • Historically (I mean if you go back a ways), the US went to a great deal of effort to be as neutral as it could... the whole "friends with all, entangling alliances with none" idea.

            Of course that didn't last forever, and -- especially since the 20th Century -- our "leaders" have gotten us involved in a lot of boondoggles that "The People" did not want.

            Yes, I think it is obvious that in recent times the US has become somewhat imperialist... but that is largely due to a government that has gotten out of
        • "Which is precisely why other countries have pushed for ICANN to not be under US regulation because it's absurd that .com, .net, .org, and .edu should be US regulated or more generally that it's under US authority to create/destroy new TLDs."

          "The reason why the fall into the domain of the US is that historically we were the least likely to pull this sort of crap."

          No, the reason they are under US regulation is that they were created here, and originally regulated here.

          Regardless of who "invented" it, or first promoted it, I'm glad you like the network system that (for all practical purposes) the USA originally built with its own effort and money. In the beginning, of course. But if you want to talk about absurdity, then how absurd is it that you think you can adopt the network system that we built, then demand control over it? Methinks thou dost protest a bit too

          • No, the reason they are under US regulation is that they were created here, and originally regulated here.

            back then, it was technically impossible to sniff at even wire speeds and do it on more than 1 wire at a time. core and edge routers did NOT have gov spy access shit built into them. users were mostly trusted techie types. AOL was not even a dream at that point.

            things change. the net, now, is nothing at all like what it was even 15 yrs ago. the US didn't ruin things because 'things' had little val

            • "you can't apply 'we created it' as any kind of reason for maintaining it."

              I'm not. I'm simply saying that's the way it happened. And that I am tired of others bitching about it, as though that would somehow change history. If they want control, let them ask nicely. Because in fact we did create it and do own it, regardless of whether that is a "good thing". All this shrill whining about "it's not fair" is simultaneously incorrect, childish, and irrelevant.

              "we started it. great. now, lets find someone else to maintain it. but it has to be outside any one (or group) of government meddling."

              I don't disagree. But let them ask nicely, instead of trying to whine or bully their way into it.

        • exactly. I can now believe (as a US citizen) that we no longer deserve to be the internet police. we fuck up our own local affairs and spy on our own people. hell, given this bad behavior we should not even have ANY control over ANY backbone core routers (nsa is laughing at this very post. hi right back at'cha!)

          however, its too late. we are embedded in the backbones and we can even choose to play unfairly if we want.

          other countries are RIGHT to not trust us. hell, I don't trust us and I live here.

      • "The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations."

        Doesn't matter. That idea (in the context of the internet) breaks so many basic legal principles that it is just unworkable.

        The only workable scheme is to treat sites like residences or businesses: if you visit that site, you are visiting that physical location. NOT the other way around. And so you are bound by the legal standards of that location.

        That is the only way it can work and be consistent. Sites are not responsible for your decision to access them, so they can't be visiting you. You are visit

      • "The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations."

        I should also point out, specifically when it comes to targeting, my scheme of associating the laws with the specific site location makes the point moot: I can set up a tourist shop in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and advertise heavily in the USA. That doesn't make my store subject to the laws of the US (although the advertising itself might be).

        So my system also makes it consistent with existing laws regarding trade.

    • then any US corp needs face US labor law for China work.

      So apple you better look out as the I-stuff factory does not comply.

    • by Blue Stone (582566) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:11PM (#36654342) Homepage Journal

      The thing is, for that to happen, a citizen's leaders (what we like to mistakenly call 'representatives') have to sell them out to the foreign powers concerned.

      Tony Blair and the Labour Party were the ones who entered into the agreement to ship British citizens over to the USA on the merest of pretexts, without any UK judicial oversight.

      Without a political leader willing to sell you and your countrymen out - or commit an act of treason against the people of his or her country, if you like - you're relatively safe.

  • But I'm pretty sure most states in the US have the same targeting rule. That's how the assert jurisdiction over sites like Craigslist, Yahoo Local, and others. Of course, proving that the site is geographically targeted at one place or another is going to be tenuous with something like this.

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      Local prosecutors have been successfully pulling this very sort of crap since the BBS days. It is really nothing new.

  • Sad ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:27PM (#36653924) Homepage

    It really is sad to see US and UK companies playing this territorial-creep card ... oh well, maybe when their citizens start getting called for extradition to other countries they'll either explicitly acknowledge the double standard, or live with it and start making their citizens subject to laws from random places.

    Mostly, I find it sad that copyright is the thing that these countries are most interested in protecting ... who needs liberty and democracy when we need to be sure nobody is ripping off some lame boy band that Sony has decided needs to be protected by the full brunt of the us DoJ.

    And, I guess the UK only require that they "feel" they have jurisdiction ... that's a brilliant legal standard. Nice to know you can be extradited with a lower standard of proof for doing something which is entirely legal within your own country. The kid in question linked to stuff, and didn't even host it from what I read.

    This is truly sad, and it means American laws have been totally taken over by corporate interests.

    • American? I think that could be said of most countries.
    • I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents. Communication, globalization, and information access has dissolved the imaginary walls we earthlings once put up. One world democratic order is a good and welcome thing; and once we cooexist it will be comical to learn of the trivial differences people once had.

      • Either you're trolling or I want a hit of whatever you're smoking!
      • You talk shit like this because you live in the so caled developed world. For us others these walls will continue to be very real. They only weaken when it is for the benefit of the powerful.
        • I'm talking about reality, and your third world existence *will* integrate either at first by duress or desire, it will. Its not shit talk, its simply reality. I could write pages of facts to show you the trend, or you can look to your participation on slashdot, use of english, and your digital relationships as blatant tells of our future. Borders will dissolve, uncomfortably.

      • Re:Sad ... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:53PM (#36654170)

        I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents.

        I'm not so sure. That same fervor that drives religion, politics and sports fanaticism is what drives nationalism. I think this (misplaced) feeling of pride about what someone else is doing or saying or playing so long as he a) goes to the right church, b) plays for the right team, c) belongs to the right party or d) lives in our neighborhood is hard wired into our minds. Just like dogs have a mechanism that makes them prefer to live in organized packs, we humans love to form little tribes, clans or cliques. Yes the country may become less important, values may shift, but at the end of the day if you're not from [insert your town here] then you're a damned foreigner. It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it. Most people just aren't that smart.

        • It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it.

          It does? I feel nothing about any of the things that you listed. Are you sure it actually takes that much intelligence, or do "most" people just not try?

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents.

        I believe you have that backwards. Internationalism was our parents' thing with wonderful organisations like the EU and UN supposed to eliminate nationalism; now the younger generations are seeing the problems 'globalisation' brings and the EU is on the verge of collapse as Germans don't want to pay higher taxes so Greeks can retire early and spend the rest of their lives drinking at a beach-side cafe.

        • Your analysis is very short sighted or naive. You do realize that we will globalize more, not less, than our parents... those so-called lessons you think people learned are miniscule in comparison to common ground and respect that has been found with international communications and social relationships. I think your cave is limiting your perspective...

          • by 0123456 (636235)

            You do realize that we will globalize more, not less, than our parents..

            No you won't.

            The Age of Big Things is over. Western governments are mostly bankrupt. The EU and UN are jokes. I won't be at all surprised to see the US break into a number of individual states or small groupings of states over the next few decades.

            That doesn't mean that you won't have Facebook friends in Wherethehellamiistan or buy ebooks from China, but it does mean that you won't be getting told what to do by bureaucrats thousands of miles away who have nothing in common with you. The future is local, not

    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      here is a hint, do not use a us domain

      its like living at 123 elm street and killing some one then bitching that its not illegal to murder in your own country, thats fine go the fuck back and murder all you like, and similarly go get your blah.co.ch and pirate all day long without fear of the US interfering with your operations

    • by houghi (78078)

      The double standard is explicitly acknowledged several times already.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's mostly here in the US were corporations have corrupted the rule of law to the point where their interests come first. And unlike most other countries, we have laws now that have turned Civil cases into criminal cases.

      If you or I had a copyright infringement case, we'd have to sue - it wouldn't be a criminal case. We'd have to find the person, sue in their courts, and cross our fingers if we can actually get any damages.

      Someone infringes on Disney's (or any other large corporation) copyright, they can

    • by brit74 (831798)
      > "It really is sad to see US and UK companies playing this territorial-creep card ... oh well, maybe when their citizens start getting called for extradition to other countries they'll either explicitly acknowledge the double standard, or live with it and start making their citizens subject to laws from random places."

      Most of the time, when someone does some action, it only affects the local people. For example, if some country wants to legalize drugs, then it's the local population who is most affe
    • by tsotha (720379)

      You're understating the scope of the problem by concentrating on copyright, which is only one slice of a very big pie. The US government has greatly extended its reach to an extent that previous generations (of Americans, let alone people in other countries) would have considered outrageous. In the last decade or so Congress has decided US laws apply to US citizens everywhere and even citizens of foreign countries in many cases. Drug laws, gambling laws, tax laws... did you know a US citizen who moves ab

  • To be fair, every place on the internet is accessible from everywhere. In that sense, there is no "here" or "there". Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses? Should it make a difference whether or not those websites were hosted inside the US/UK?
    • Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses?

      It would still be bad. Governments should not be filtering Internet communications, nor should they be enforcing their laws in other countries.

  • What the hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:54PM (#36654172)
    Why in the world is the The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency going after piracy websites, how in the world does something on the internet fall into their jurisdiction? I'd like to know in who's mind their job has anything to do with Piracy websites located outside the USA. Anyone?
    • by couchslug (175151)

      The Party of Disney is in the White House, and even moderate Republicans like Obama tend to be welded at the lips to the Great Media Sphincter.

      What's horrible is the above should be a troll, but it's true.

      The Department of Mission Creep (excuse me, "Homeland Security") is also wasting resources in pursuit of IP violations. All well and good until someone loses a Trade Center.

    • Re:What the hell! (Score:5, Informative)

      by westlake (615356) on Monday July 04, 2011 @03:11PM (#36654810)

      Why in the world is the The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency going after piracy websites, how in the world does something on the internet fall into their jurisdiction

      The shrort answer is that crimes that cross our international borders tend to fall under the jurisdiction of those responsible for protecting our borders.

      Cyber Crimes Center:

      C3 brings the full range of ICE computer and forensic assets together in a single location to combat such Internet-related crimes as:

      Possession, manufacture and distribution of images of child abuse.
      International money laundering and illegal cyber-banking.
      Illegal arms trafficking and illegal export of strategic/controlled commodities.
      Drug trafficking (including prohibited pharmaceuticals).
      General Smuggling (including the trafficking in stolen art and antiquities; violations of the Endangered Species Act etc.)
      Intellectual property rights violations (including music and software).
      Immigration violations; identity and benefit fraud

      US Immigration & Customs Endforcement: Ctber Crimes [wikipedia.org]

    • by bjwest (14070)

      Why in the world is the The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency going after piracy websites, how in the world does something on the internet fall into their jurisdiction? I'd like to know in who's mind their job has anything to do with Piracy websites located outside the USA. Anyone?

      Customs enforcement means goods import control. In their minds, they're responsible for controlling the importing of data.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:58PM (#36654218) Homepage Journal
    Then anyone can. So do you want your internet held to the same free speech standards that you'd find in China or, let's say, Libya? Do you want some Muslim cleric sentencing US or UK site-owners to death by stoning because of their depictions of women? Do you want China issuing arrest warrants on some guy in Minnesota because he was talking about Tibet? Do you want some totalitarian United States regime arresting Soviets and... Oh wait we already did that. Well anyway, that's where this is leading us.
    • Then anyone can. So do you want your internet held to the same free speech standards that you'd find in China or, let's say, Libya? Do you want some Muslim cleric sentencing US or UK site-owners to death by stoning because of their depictions of women? Do you want China issuing arrest warrants on some guy in Minnesota because he was talking about Tibet?

      Libya is a bad example, since the population is in the process of overthrowing their dictator, who thinks nothing of killing the people of his country to hold on to power a little bit longer.

      But fact is that it would be quite possible for a US site-owner to be convicted to death by stoning if what they are doing is bad enough according to the law of some country, and if that country feels it has jurisdiction. If that happened, it would be unlikely that the site owner would be extradited if the problem wa

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:59PM (#36654224)

    ... makes the rules. America is set up purely so that the strong can prey on the weak. It's as American as guns and apple pie.

    How better to demonstrate that (on the 4th of July), by showing that powerful moneyed corporate interests can reach out and grab you from the other side of the world, even on the flimsiest of pretexts, merely because their outdated and broken business models are threatened.

    It's breathtaking how short-termist and self-interested this thinking is. Of course, Russia, China and Iran won't be allowed to extradite Westerners who 'injure' them in imaginary ways -- only US Big Media can, because they bribe and lobby US lawmakers and have good access to the Obama administration.

    • by t2t10 (1909766)

      Of course, Russia, China and Iran won't be allowed to extradite Westerners who 'injure' them in imaginary ways -- only US Big Media can,

      Well, that's a relief!

      I still prefer Disney's lawyers to Putin.

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:02PM (#36654256)

    All they're really going to do is hasten the death of the centralised DNS system. Which isn't a bad thing.

    Shame it's taken a bunch of law-breaking pirates to really demonstrate the flaws of such a system.

    • Expect torrent/gray area DNS to move towards things like distributed hash tables, most likely signed asymmetric keys. Torrent clients and sites are already using DHT for magnet links and finding other clients. It's not rocket science to keep moving down the OSI stack.

  • by Random2 (1412773) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:09PM (#36654312) Journal

    For those who don't know what the Berne Convention is, it's a treaty where the signatories treat the copyright of one country as if it is copyrighted in theirs. Most of the countries in the world have signed this convention.

    So, regardless of what one may thing of pirating, the US and UK are well within their rights by doing this. So are many other countries, which either do not or are not making headlines.

    I thought this was Slashdot, not Slanderdot?

    • by gl4ss (559668)
      well, the arguing would then be about where the crime took place, if it's indian site and pakistan user, wouldn't it be up to the pakistan and indian auhorities to do the investigation and court proceedings? and is uk willing to make the court happenings and take the stand that the crimes happened on UK territory? if that would be a sure fire way to get into a warm meal in the uk I bet a lot of people would start doing hard core copyright infringing.
  • by jeek (37349) <jeek@je[ ]net ['ek.' in gap]> on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:10PM (#36654320) Homepage

    Let's get this idea out so that it gets implemented and leads to the decentralization of the DNS process...

    How about the U.S. starts seizing domains everywhere at the request of a U.S.-led cabal that has, as a condition of entry, the requirement that members agree to a U.S.-centric policy on copyright infringement?

    After the inevitable collapse of the current centralized DNS process, a couple of browser plugins and people will go on doing what they were already doing.

  • Corporate America (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Giantmoth (2262718)
    Doesn't the Immigrations and Customs department have better things to do than the bidding of corporate lobbyists?
  • by michelcolman (1208008) on Monday July 04, 2011 @02:42PM (#36654588)
    First page of piracy site: are you a citizen of the UK? Yes/No. If you click "yes", you will not get access. Wink wink...
  • Here's a link from an old website from 2006: http://humorix.org/10384 [humorix.org]
  • this could end up with the UN/ITU taking over the TLD domain system if your not careful

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...