Comment by heyitsnick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by heyitsnick | Hacker News Reader

The domain seizure is nothing out of the ordinary. At least a dozen have been seized over the last 12 months, including those during the indictments of Black Friday (nb pokerstars.com, fulltiltpoker.com have been handed black) and Blue Monday (at least 10 domains still under seizure including truepoker.com).

The domain itself (bodog.com) was unused. The operation continues under bovada.lv (for US) and bodog.eu/co.uk for European custom.

Nearly all US-facing gambling operations have been moved to non-dotcom domains (dot.eu, dot.co.uk and dot.ag - for Antigua and Bermuda - the most common) for this very reason.

To read more from an industry perspective [full disclosure, i am co-editor of this site]: http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-regulation/undercover-inve...

The domain seizure itself was of interest only as it showed the DOJ/DHS have a continued interest in trying to take down what it sees as illegal online gambling operators; that they can order a dot-com domain name seizure is par-for-the-course these days.

If you read the article, you will discover that the author asserts that this situation is different, because it's the first time that a .com domain registered through a foreign registrar has been subject to seizure by US authorities. I don't know enough about the history of domain seizures to know whether this is true or not, but if so, it definitely represents an increased level of enforcement by US authorities -- if I owned a company operated and registered outside the US, I'd now think twice about using a .com name as my primary address.

"if I owned a company operated and registered outside the US, I'd now think twice about using a .com name as my primary address."

Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way?

Keep in mind that to do what they did there is a level of case preparation required to get the proper signoffs to make this happen.

I think if someone is doing something illegal they have something to worry about, sure. But for 99.9% of the web sites out there why is this a cause for worry?

Edit (since I can't reply to below):

"the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk"

The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US. Speaking as someone in the business who deals with customers of registration domains all the time (and also with people buying valuable domains) at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people.

"Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way?"

I think it's a combination of several factors. One is definitely principle. The other major reason is that if I'm running a business from outside the US, and do not deal with US customers or business partners, why should I waste my time figuring out whether what I'm doing is contrary to some law in one US state, just to ensure that the US doesn't steal my domain from me?

Especially in some industries, there are vastly different notions of what is considered appropriate in the US vs. Europe (see the sports betting example). My opinion is that based on cases such as this, the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk of losing the domain on the whim of the US government.

Exactly.

This can only be a boon for the .EU domain, ccTLDs and all their registers, especially those which allow second-level domain names like .de.

There is simply too much uncertainty with using American-hosted domains already and it is increasing every week.

I think the cause for concern is the mere possibility that you can be drawn in to a legal battle in a foreign country over your domain, without even operating in it.

They weren't doing anything illegal - where they were. Do you think you should be punished for doing something that's illegal anywhere in the world?

The legal argument to this is that they were doing business with people in a jurisdiction where it was illegal (i.e. certain forms of betting in the US). Because they had business transactions in this jurisdiction, they have broken the laws there and can be tried in those courts.

I eagerly await all the Sharia law trials of anyone who's posted a bit.ly link to a pornographic picture, then.

And they're not being tried in those courts. Their domain has simply been seized because that's easier than winning in court.

You are missing the point. Libya can totally trail someone for hosting any porn site under Sharia law. It is completely irrelevant what the TLD is or were the servers are hosted. The only thing that is important is that it is accessible from within Libya. If you want to protect yourself from this you need to block out all Libyan IPs. At least this is the case for many laws in many jurisdictions, I obviously don't know anything the Libyan one. However, if the site is hosted under a Libyan TLD this gives them additional power to block the site. This is a very unfortunate situation for website owners around the world, but this is the way it is.

Don't know why everyone downvoted. I'm only stating the legal reality, not making a comment on whether that's "moral" or "right".

Actually...

If you are in one country, and are clearly and unambiguously doing business with someone in another country -- with written agreements, money/goods/etc. transferring -- then it's simply not a new idea that you may end up subject in some way to the laws of that other country. It also isn't a particularly scary idea.

The idea that "on the internet" is some sort of magical extra-jurisdictional space is the new and scary idea.

It doesn't say anywhere they had business transactions in the jurisdiction. Thats the entire point.

Non-US site, non-US registrar, non-US accounts/transactions.

Still seized by DHS. Because it's illegal in the US. That means you can be put on trial in any country in the world if you break any laws, anywhere. That's what the article is getting at.

(HN makes you wait a few minutes before you can reply. That's why the reply link was missing.)

"The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US."

I know. I was not talking about the US.

"at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people."

I disagree. For anyone who is not in the US (which is the majority of people), having a non-.com domain is probably not a big deal.

It is if you are running an international business, I'd assume that OP meant convenience as in not having to register a domain for every possible country.

I think all those situations are "out of the ordinary". This has only happened in the past couple of years. Not to mention that I don't think US should "own" the .com domain.

More specifically, ten domain names were seized in May [1] including doylesroom.com and truepoker.com, and i think it was 4 or 5 in April's "Black Friday" (domains of pokerstars, full tilt, ultimate bet and absolute poker). The former 2 have been returned.

1: http://pokerfuse.com/features/in-depth/a-whos-who-of-blue-mo...

> full disclosure, i am co-editor of this site

Awesome site. I tried subscribing to your newsletter, and the server responded:

  Forbidden (403)
  CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
  More information is available with DEBUG=True.

Edit: I wonder if the site's trying to detect CSRF with a cookie, which I rejected. I hope not, because that would mean I won't be subscribing to your newsletter.

Woh sorry about that, I will check it out. I guess it's django's CSRF verification not working. Don't think it's cookie-based though so not sure what's going on.

The mailing list is run through mailchimp, you can sign up directly here:

http://eepurl.com/fsyQo

Thanks!

Done. Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com