Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada United States Your Rights Online

US Shuts Down Canadian Gambling Site With Verisign's Help 354

Posted by samzenpus
from the long-arm-of-the-law dept.
First time accepted submitter ausrob writes "Domain seizures are nothing new, but this particular case is interesting. The Department of Homeland Security has seized a domain name registered outside of the U.S., by individuals who are not American citizens, and who registered with a Canadian registrar. From the article: 'The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Shuts Down Canadian Gambling Site With Verisign's Help

Comments Filter:
  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:07AM (#39207191)
    At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

    Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

    Also, first.
    • by ddtracy (2565031) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:19AM (#39207257)

      Yeah, and they say "terrorists" hate "our freedom"...

      • by Jawnn (445279) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:52AM (#39207505)
        They do. No argument there, but the real shame is how easy it is for them to manipulate our leaders into destroying those very freedoms for them. Again, "...the terrorists win."
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Ihmhi (1206036)

            Jeez, don't just post a link - quote the article.

            On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[53][54] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages to rid the Ummah from all forms of oppression:

            1) Derka derka US.

            2) Derka derka civil liberties.

            3) Derka derka collapse of US economy.

            4) Derka destroy themselves they will, derka derr.

            5) Derka derka MUHAMMAD JIHAAAAD!

        • They do. No argument there, but the real shame is how easy it is for them to manipulate our leaders into destroying those very freedoms for them. Again, "...the terrorists win."

          No they do not. They hate you because you are destroying their countries, bombing their children, raping their women, and doing unspeakable horrors to their livestock. They hate you because you are using them as pawns in your bid for global domination. If it was about freedom, well, there are lots of closer, less well armed, freedom loving countries on the planet.

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:19AM (#39207875) Journal
        So the DHS plan makes sense:
        1. Terrorists attack America because they hate it.
        2. If they don't hate you, they won't attack you.
        3. They hate you because of your freedoms.
        4. If you remove your freedoms, they won't hate you.
        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          As true patriot, I shall rob bank so that I can stay in glorious American gulag. Is like resort town and makes me feel safe!

    • by tgd (2822)

      At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

      Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

      Also, first.

      DHS is the parent organization over all the US federal law enforcement agencies, so any federal crime is handled by the DHS.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:38AM (#39207399)
      If you RTFA, you'll see why. This was done by ICE, because it involved a movement of money across US borders and abroad that violated customs regulations by violating the laws of one of the states the money originated in.

      The scary thing here is that this move is actually an attack on the Internet itself -- it is an attack on a global, borderless network. If every website is forced to follow the laws of every country whose citizens might connect to that website, or in other words the laws of every country in the entire world, it will be impossible to run a website. What will happen is an increase in the number of website that refuse to provide service to people from certain countries, and eventually an Internet that is fractured and divided into regulatory domains and whatnot. Not that people in the government have a problem with that; from TFA:

      Many of the harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation

      It is not hard to guess what these people want to do to the Internet.

      • by JosKarith (757063) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:49AM (#39207475)
        So if I set up a website and someone in a US state spends money on it then it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of that state? No matter where it's hosted? Wow - that's an insane level of power grab.
        • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:53AM (#39207517)
          Welcome to the new, not-free, not-open Internet. To your left, you will see China trying to attack your servers as part of an effort to spy on Chinese opposition movements and to download your trade secrets; to your right, you see the US trying to apply its laws to other countries by seizing domain names and promoting national firewalls.
          • by msobkow (48369) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:35AM (#39208125) Homepage Journal

            This kind of abuse would be why the rest of the world is demanding that internet control be transferred to an INTERNATIONAL organization like the UN and ITU. WE'RE TIRED OF US JACKBOOTING ALL OVER OUR LAWS AND PROCEDURES.

            In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers. But there are CHANNELS for taking the sites down through CANADIAN law, and that was circumvented and ignored for the sake of American convenience.

            Again.

            Fuck the United States of Lobbyists.

            • by BLKMGK (34057) <morejunk4me@noSpAM.hotmail.com> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:49AM (#39208287) Homepage Journal

              I'm sorry but I disagree. The site should NOT have been taken down simply because a citizen decided to break the law and use the site if indeed they weren't supposed to. The site itself shouldn't have to police users to the extent that implies, suppose some state or country somewhere had a law that stated gambling could only occur on Sundays - would they be expected to follow that too?

            • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:57AM (#39208403) Homepage

              In this case, the site SHOULD have been shut down, because they have evidence they were taking US customers.

              So what? I can shop from Amazon.com instead of Amazon.ca ... I've bought stuff from Japan and Europe over the internet as well. If I buy something illegal, my government can charge me, but charging the vendor with breaking Canadian laws would be absurd.

              So why does the fact that Americans don't want their citizens gambling place any legal obligations on a company not operating in the US?

              But there are CHANNELS for taking the sites down through CANADIAN law

              The site it perfectly legal according to Canadian law. So why on Earth do you believe there would be a way for it to be shut down by using Canadian law?

              This is a case of someone saying "waaah, you didn't stop our citizens from doing something we didn't want them to".

              Should it be possible for, say, Iran to shut down a US web site because it didn't prevent Iranian citizens from accessing something it deems illegal? Of course not, because Iran are the "bad guys".

              If you don't see this as the US applying their laws to external entities, you're missing the entire point. Because the business was operating legally within Canada. If the Americans want to be sure their citizens can't access sites on the rest of the internet ... well, then I suggest implementing the Great American Firewall, and give up the pretense that you're in favor of freedom. It's not up to other countries to implement your laws.

            • by Ihmhi (1206036)

              You really think it's a good idea to let the UN have control of it? This was just talked about on Slashdot yesterday [slashdot.org].

              Look, as bad as the US might be, the UN will be far, far worse. We will have Qaddafi 2.0 (whoever that may be) using the UN to track down dissenters. We will have China using deep packet inspection in order to "maintain security" when they'll really be stealing as much data as they can get their hands on. Think of the worst thing a country would do if it had sole control of the Internet, and

              • by anagama (611277)

                I don't know how it would work, but what we truly need is a DNS system that is hosted by NO country. One that is beyond the control of countries all together. It would plainly need to be distributed and unreliant on a central master list -- maybe a P2P type system. The really hard part though, would be maintaining integrity of the results so spam/spoof sites don't take over while having no central authority to ensure that doesn't happen.

              • in this day and age, there is not one single trule neutral nation left. if you think so, lets discuss it, but the powerful US's influence reaches where the sun don't shine..

                sad but true. if the US wants you, no matter where you are or what you are doing, they can get at you. its the horror that we were taught, as kids, about the 'evil commies'. but its all true and it proves that with massive power comes massive corruption.

                I don't think there was anything inherent in the US but that they did have massiv

        • The quickest and best way for us non-USians to protect ourselves is simply to disallow all connections coming from the US to our websites.
          • by AGMW (594303) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:26AM (#39208775) Homepage

            The quickest and best way for us non-USians to protect ourselves is simply to disallow all connections coming from the US to our websites.

            Possibly that might be the sensible thing to do, 'cos next time you land in the US you could find yourself arrested, but as other posters have said, it's not OUR fault the US has stupid laws and it's certainly not up to us to police them.

            If I have a non-US gambling website and someone from the US wants to come spend their $$$'s then I say good luck to 'em 'cos it's none of my business where you are as long as what we're doing is legal where I am! It's the US citizen that's broken the law, not the website.

            Really getting fed up with the US continually forgetting they're just ONE COUNTRY amongst many. You want to make online gambling illegal - go right ahead! Make Intelligent Design part of the science curriculum ... fill ya boots! Legislate Pi = 3 ... whatever! Just don't think you can bully the rest of the World into doing it too!

            ... and Rest Of The World: Wake UP and grow a pair! Tell the US to take a hike!

      • by lexsird (1208192) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:03AM (#39207621)

        It seems like a full court press on the Internet lately. Too much freedom of information to suit the powers that be I guess. Agree with or not, the censorship of Occupy Wall Street should have a chilling effect on anyone breathing "free air". Note how this kicked into high gear after OWS and the fact we have probably the most polarized elections in recent history coming.

        • by dcollins (135727) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:23AM (#39207945) Homepage

          You know, when I first saw the web circa 1994 or something I actually mumbled to myself, "Wow, this is just too cool; they totally can't allow this to continue". If anything, I'm a bit surprised it remained free & open for almost 20 years.

          • by lexsird (1208192)

            How can I forget those very old days of Dial Up AOL and a $189 dollar bill for using it with wild abandon. AOL should be like a giant fat tick filled with money STILL from those days. We should roll them around like a giant beach ball and see if any money falls out. We can roll out a few crop circles while we are at it for giggles.

            Btw, how do you spell S.O.S. in alien?

        • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:56AM (#39208393) Journal

          we have probably the most polarized elections in recent history coming.

          No we don't. We have a corporatist versus a corporatist. If there were going to be a polarized election, we'd actually have to have candidates with, you know, different policies.

      • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <{taiki} {at} {cox.net}> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:50AM (#39208313)

        Err, no. Vib.ly was shut down by the Libyan Government for violating it's local laws.

        Bodog was advertising itself in the US, in fact, it was hard to drive down I-15 in Vegas with out seeing a dozen tasteless bodog billboards. They were doing this intentionally to skirt federal online gambling laws.

        To those who don't see a problem with unregulated gaming, read up on the history of organized crime and gambling. The Nevada Gaming Commission exists for a goddamned reason.

        • by nedlohs (1335013) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:18AM (#39208667)

          To those who don't see a problem with unregulated gaming, read up on the history of organized crime and gambling. The Nevada Gaming Commission exists for a goddamned reason.

          Which is why it makes so much sense to refuse to regulate them.

    • In case it isn't clear to you by now, the "war on terror" is just an excuse to attack the few remaining holdouts from the massive economic clusterfuck that is the privately-owned, centrally monopolized Federal Reserve money-printin'-and-brown-people-bombin' system. For his "axis of evil" countries to attack, Bush picked a few mid-sized, ideologically pure (yet otherwise disparate) alternatives to his preferred globalist technocratic inflation-targeting consumptionist wage-slavery -- Stalinist socialism, Is

    • by tqk (413719) <s.keeling@mail.com> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:15AM (#39208613)

      Either that, or they are just trying to spend money and justify their existance and vast budget somehow.

      "Mr. President, I have an idea. How's about we just piss off the whole world to the point that they come and invade us, instead of us invading them? We can't afford to keep on offshoring war. We should bring that market home to the USA mainland. Just think what that would do for your poll ratings if the whole world was against us. The Sheeple would love you for it."

      "Brillant [sic]!"

    • bodog was operating contrary to both Canadian AND American law.

      So, while in Canada, domain names are considered property, don't break Canadian law and expect the Canadian government to protect you when the Americans say "hey, we're going to do what you should have been doing yourself."

      This is like that stupid guy who wrote stuff against the Koran, then fled to another sharia-law muslim country for asylum. Or the crackhead who went to the cops to complain that they got only half a rock from their dealer.

  • United Nations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:07AM (#39207193)

    This is why we should move the control over the internet infrastructure to UN. United States is, once again, abusing their privileges. Even China acts nicely and only censors within their border. US does everywhere and for other nationals. In my opinion, US is much worse than China in terms of censoring.

    • Re:United Nations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@gmail. c o m> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:37AM (#39207397) Journal

      Yes give control to the UN so that you can suffer the censorship and control of ALL countries instead of just the US. You'll get the same pro-culture-theft and US-interest bullshit, PLUS you won't be able to post pics of Allah, download whatever kind of porn Britain's latest serial killer happened to be into, or talk about Tiananmen Square.

      • s/Allah/Mohammed/g (although I imagine if they don't like pics of Mohammed, they won't like pics of Allah either...)

      • Re:United Nations (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Whibla (210729) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:00AM (#39207591)

        I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)

        What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.

        I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...

        • If international gridlock should ensue, then why did ACTA so heavily favor US media interests over Russia's fine hosting services and China's quality replica goods?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tao (10867)
            ACTA isn't a treaty that has its origin in the UN (or any other forum where there's more than one party with veto). The ACTA is a trade "agreement" dictated by the US. It's pretty much a case of "If you want to be able to trade with us, you better sign this, or we'll impose tariffs on you". If you check out who the signatory nations are, you'll notice that Russia, China, etc. aren't part of the agreement. Why? Because the US doesn't have enough leverage on them.
        • by Fulminata (999320)
          The UN as a whole does not work the same way that the UN Security Council does. Veto power only works on decisions of the Security Council. Decisions of the ITU would not be subject to veto should they gain power over the internet.
      • You mean that we'll see the same sort of international authoritarian control that we've seen grip the telephone networks as a result of ITU control?
        • Oh please those are hardly comparable. The POTS system is a useless old relic compared to the Internet and never had anywhere near the capabilities.

    • Re:United Nations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:40AM (#39207407)
      So, instead of the United States deciding who gets free speech who doesn't, we'll let Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc... decide?

      The solution isn't "different" control... the solution is "no control"
      • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:19AM (#39207869) Journal

        If the UN was in control, NOTHING would get censored because NOBODY could agree on it. Just like there is no resolution against Syria because China and the USSR doesn't want it. The US could veto ANY UN censorship attempt, so could the UK and a host of other nations.

        Now the US has total control and the US has shown to be far worse at it then the countries you list, none of them have tried to censor outside their own borders.

        • Unfortunately, what would happen is that everyone would agree to the lowest common denominator of censorship: censor everything everywhere.

      • by msobkow (48369)

        Guess what?

        I TRUST them more than the US government and it's blatant pandering to lobbyists.

        They may have "missions", but at least they're understandable socially driven missions, not blatant selling out to the highest bidder.

    • ...because the ITU would have some kind of a problem dividing the Internet into national networks, connected by checkpoints that ensure compliance with national laws, and compel nations to pass laws making it illegal to use the Internet to communicate with people in countries whose governments object to such communication (that last one is one of ITU's rules about amateur radio).

      The Internet needs less regulation, and more user control. We need to deploy more P2P systems, more cryptography, more wireles
      • Re:United Nations (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheNinjaroach (878876) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:53AM (#39209225)

        making it illegal to use the Internet to communicate with people in countries whose governments object to such communication (that last one is one of ITU's rules about amateur radio).

        Holy crap, my friend who's into HAM radio big time was talking to me about this just yesterday. It blows my mind that it's against US law to use amateur radio to talk to someone in another country if that country doesn't want me talking to him. How bizarre, I thought. And here you're telling me it's related to the buffoons at ITU? Slashdot just gave me a rather valuable lesson (also yesterday) on them in the UN story.

        We need to deploy more P2P systems, more cryptography, more wireless links and mesh networks, and so forth.

        Here you've touched on the exact reason why I was talking to my HAM friend yesterday to begin with. He burst that bubble real quick: in the US, it's also illegal to use encryption over amateur radio.

    • by lexsird (1208192)

      No, it' just needs to be completely left alone by governments. They need to take care of the pipes, but what goes through it, is none of their concern. I can remember when the Internet declared it's Independence and told governments to keep their hands off of it, or that there would be a price to pay. It was a citizenship in a different realm, outside of the BS that we have built over the years, and it was to be the new hope of the information age.

      What a dream. This cookie jar has a lot of hands in it now,

  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:10AM (#39207209)
    Thanks, DHS! I have long been worried that terrorists could gamble online and somehow infringe my safety and freedom.
  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:21AM (#39207275)

    This isn't new... even Slashdot has covered stories like these before.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/04/1439246/us-uk-targeting-piracy-websites-outside-their-borders [slashdot.org]

    The summary can say not-American for a billion things, at the end of the day the domain TLD was com, over which the U.S. firmly asserts jurisdiction as the companies that run them are all U.S.-based.

    Besides fighting 'The (U.S.) Man', people would do well to realize this and register somewhere a bit more friendly (in addition to any .com, .net, .org, etc.). In the case of this Canadian business, perhaps .ca? Oh wait, they did. And that ( bodog.com ) in turn redirects to a .co.uk .

    • haha - I meant, bodog.ca .. redirects.. to.. yes.
      ( This, of course, being the reason people want a .com domain. Oh iro.. wait, where's Alanis? Have to verify proper usage... )

    • by Xest (935314) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:33AM (#39207367)

      It doesn't matter if US firms run those domains and so they're under US jurisdiction, the fact is .com, .net and .org have long been recognised as the domains for international organisations as opposed to organisations content with a single specific nationality or set of nationalities, and so if the US can't be trusted to maintain them for that purpose then it's time the US handed them over to somewhere like the UN where they genuinely can be managed to a standard they're intended for.

      You're right that this isn't new, but it only serves to reaffirm the urgency that the US must give up control of these international domains. With it's escalating seizures now affecting legitimate international businesses enough is enough.

      • by msauve (701917) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:32AM (#39208881)
        No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains, although registration of domains under them has never been restricted. When you create something, you get to make certain choices, and the US government funded DARPA Internet development came up with those domains.

        You want your own national domain, then co.countrycode, and similar seem to be popular choices. If you want the UN to control DNS - let them administer a *.un hierarchy.

        Having said that, I have two points to make - first, no web site was shut down, this was just a removal of DNS entries. Second, I believe that this, although ordered by a US court, is in violation of the US Constitution's free speech protections. A DNS request is analogous to looking up someone's number in a phonebook. Publishing a phone number (or DNS entry), even for a criminal, should be protected free speech.
        • No, your completely wrong. .com, .net, .org are, and always have been, US domains

          RFC 1591 [ietf.org]:

          Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two are restricted to use by entities in the United States.

          World Wide Generic Domains:

          COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
          companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
          concern about the administrative load and system performance

          • by msauve (701917)
            Your quote is a red herring. RFC 1591 is not a normative reference, as it freely admits: "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

            It's clear that there have been international organizations under those TLDs for a long time, and that makes sense, since they existed prior to the CC ones. As I already said, registration under those TLDs has never been restricted to only US organizations. 1591 is just informing of that practical reality. That in no way implies that those TLDs somehow "b
      • Well, they are supposed to be for international organisations, but in reality ".com" has always been shorthand for ".co.us". That's not the way it's supposed to be, but in practice that's pretty much the way it is. How many ".us" sites do you know? Compare with ".co.uk", ".be", ".fr",... Americans just take .com because the other countries on the internet don't matter anyway.
    • by automandc (196618) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:09AM (#39207715)

      What is scary here is the cooperation of Verisign. In this case, Verisign maintains the registry for .com. But Verisign also still operates the 0 Root servers under contract to the Dept. of Commerce. So, if they wanted to (or were ordered to by the U.S. Govt) they could "technically" take out an entire TLD, including a ccTLD like .ru or .cn.

      "Technically" is in quotes because the realities of the root servers would make it easy for the rest of the world to tell the U.S. to go screw at that point, and stop syncing the dozens of root servers that are distributed around the world off of the Verisign "corrupted" servers. However, it would be the end of the canonical DNS system as we know it.

      AFAIK, the engineers at Verisign who handle root server issues try very very hard to stay out of any type of corporate shenanigans, but at the end of the day Verisign operates those servers, and Verisign is a U.S. Company, on U.S. soil, with executives who are very much subject to the immediate coercion of the U.S. Government.

      • by rioki (1328185)
        Oh yea, don't forget, is is a US company that must obey US law. If they have a court order saying to seize all *.ru domains, they must comply with it or be forced out of business. Sure it will have a detrimental effect on diplomatic relations, but it is technically possible. The good news is though that (hopefully) courts will recognize that other than com, net, org, edu, gov and us are they don't have jurisdiction.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:28AM (#39207319)

    This was a Maryland law, which makes it illegal to run a gambling site anywhere in the world that the guy was convicted of, the US is enforcing with this domain.

    So if one of those religious US nut-job states (you know the kind that think the world was created 5000 years ago by Adam and Eve, Santorum voters) decides that pornography is a crime, even if the sex took place in Japan, then likewise, the US will prosecute those Japanese and will shut down their websites.

    I think the USA can't be trusted with the Internet.

    • by dcw3 (649211)

      Well, let's think about this. You're picking on the far right, but the left has had control for over three years. This incident occurred on their watch, and in a very (by most measures) liberal state. So, let's get one thing straight...there are plenty of idiots on both sides, and maybe you shouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black.

  • If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      I think that's all part of the problem. Most likely, they were serving US customers. They probably made no attempt to turn away customers from other jurisdictions where the website may not have been legal. To operate within the law, they should probably do like all the media sites (like Hulu and Netflix) and assure that all payments are done on credit cards within countries that have legalized online gambling, and that traffic is coming from proper IPs. sure there are ways around this stuff but if they we
      • The people who want to gamble are going to to do it. This is just going to push legit gambling sites out of business and make it easier for fraudsters to run off with peoples money. Credit cards are a crappy solution because they make everything more expensive, just like a tax, except the money goes somewhere else.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

      And Eastern, Western, and Northern neighbors too.

    • by liamevo (1358257) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:41AM (#39207423)

      erm, no it's not it was intended for commercial entities world wide. You have .us to use.

    • by Albanach (527650) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:43AM (#39207433) Homepage

      If you're a Canadian company with Canadian customers, use .ca, eh? .com makes it seem like you're targeting your southern neighbors.

      You mean in the same way as US firms with US customers use .us?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hawleyg (803592)
      Could you cite your source that .com is only for US? I've certainly never perceived that way.
  • by schwit1 (797399) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:33AM (#39207361)

    Or any TLD that's managed by a US company. Verisign manages .tv and .cc.

    http://www.firstrowsports.tv/ [firstrowsports.tv]

    They moved to http://www.firstrowsports.eu/ [firstrowsports.eu]

  • by mauriceh (3721) <mauriceNO@SPAMharddata.com> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:36AM (#39207377) Homepage

    In the old days of commerce by ships, they labelled this kind of behaviour as "Piracy on the high seas"

    The punishment was generally hanging, I understand.

  • by travdaddy (527149) <travo AT linuxmail DOT org> on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:39AM (#39207405)
    Bodog.com saw this coming from a mile away and switched their domain name to Bovada.lv in November 2011. Bodog.com was just a redirect site when it was seized and Bovada.lv is still up and running.

    No telling how long it will take the US to get to Bovada.lv, but I wouldn't feel safe playing there. I think they had been trying to do something about Bodog for 5 years!
    • by PhillC (84728)
      Wonder why they chose a Latvian domain name. Seems a bit random.

      Anyway, I think this has to be about more than just a bookmaker using a .com domain name. They were probably actively targetting US customers, which may have been the issue.

      There are loads of bookmakers with .com domain names, that are still quite happily trading (none of these are linked as I'm just making the point)

      williamhill.com
      ladbrokes.com
      bet365.com
      betvictor.com
      boylesports.com
      paddpower.com
      betfair.com
      etc

  • It's not just .com and .net. Once the US Government decides that ICANN itself is in the US, what happens when they want to revoke "bodog.ca"?

    • by Dog-Cow (21281)

      Nothing. The .ca servers are not in US control. I suppose the US could exert political pressure, but that's it.

  • by Viol8 (599362) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:50AM (#39207487)

    "federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country,"

    Newsflash - a company registered outside the US and not doing business in the US is not bound by ANY type of US law, federal or otherwise. Perhaps someone should remind the US authorities that they don't run the world just yet.

    They probably only did this because they think canada is a soft touch. I'd like to see them try it with a chinese or russian company.

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:35AM (#39208131) Homepage

      Newsflash - a company registered outside the US and not doing business in the US is not bound by ANY type of US law, federal or otherwise. Perhaps someone should remind the US authorities that they don't run the world just yet.

      Apparently if it's .com, .biz, .net, and a bunch of other common TLDs they do.

      It does highlight a little hypocrisy, because when other countries mess with the internet the US is the first to say the internet should be free so it can foster the things they believe in.

      Just don't have a gambling site.

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:50AM (#39207491)

    Sovereignty, who's got it anymore? It seems Canada sold us theirs at a garage sale.

  • by sohmc (595388) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:51AM (#39207495) Journal
    A source link in TFA goes to the actual warrant [bit2host.com]. The way it reads, a Maryland detective in addition to a DHS task force "officer", have a warrant to retrieve property, in this case "the Internet domain name bodog.com".

    I haven't read my TOS when I registered my domain, but I believe that the domains belong to me and don't belong to the registrar. The warrant makes it sound like the domain belongs to Verisign. I am not a lawyer and I'm probably reading this incorrectly.

    I have many questions regarding this, namely WTF is a local detective involved in this case. What was his role? Was there some sort of crime in Maryland (specifically Anne Arundel County) that started this investigation?
  • by cardpuncher (713057) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:06AM (#39207655)

    The issue of Internet jurisdiction really ought to have been sorted out by now. At present it's shoot first and ask questions later.

    It's hard to make a case for any online business if the mere fact of its availability outside the country in which it is domiciled can render it (and its staff) potentially liable for criminal, privacy, libel, patent and other legal processes in countries where it may not even know it has customers - or indeed can have its service disrupted by actions against upstream providers with whom it has no contractual relationship. The Internet is as precarious as the Pony Express.

    The US, in particular, seems particularly resistant to international discussion on any aspect of the Internet - witness the bizarre conspiracy theories spouting forth from FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell which prompted the wonderful headline in the New American "Obama Quiet as UN & Dictators Push to Control Internet" [http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10953-obama-quiet-as-un-a-dictators-push-to-control-internet].

    Unfortunately, if there isn't some progress on the subject of jurisdiction we're going to have a series of discrete regional networks (US, Europe, China, ...) and a distributed Great Firewall of Protectionism.

    In the meantime, if you're looking for a new business idea, I'd suggest whittling might be fairly safe, provided you produce no rectangles with rounded corners.

  • by dcollins (135727)

    I guess we're going to get Internet-screwed by the U.*. one way or the other.

    (Either U.S. or U.N.)

  • legalities (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:39AM (#39208179)

    If you host the domain name in Ontario Canada
    It is considered property due to a recent ruling by the Ontario supreme court , one might argue that this site is legal in Canada and might get A similar judgement as long as it was hosted in canada.

    NOW all we have to do is start a class action lawsuit and then take a trade suit to the WTO and get sanctions against the usa.
    The last time this happened an entire nation was allowed free patents and copyrights when the USA lost.

    DO not kid yourselves here...THIS IS GONNA NOW START GETTING REALLY UGLY.

  • From here [ycombinator.com]:

    Today's sysadmin todo list:

    0. Get corporate membership with EFF.

    1. Identify all applications with user-generated content.

    2. Move all associated domains to a non-US based registrar.

    3. Migrate DNS, web serving and other critical services to non-US based servers.

    4. Migrate yourself to a non-US controlled country.

    I'm sorry for US sites and users. Your government is hell-bent on turning the internet into a read-only device like TV, easily regulated and controlled. The population will be required to sit

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...