Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Shuts Down Canadian Gambling Site With Verisign's Help

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the long-arm-of-the-law dept.

Canada 354

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).'"

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Insightful)

ddtracy (2565031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207257)

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

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207289)

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

Maybe they just hate fat stupid Americans?

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208141)

lol, nice try at a stab at us ... but you missed the context - "they" are our own DHS, who claim they fuck us out of our freedoms to protect them. but good try - maybe give reading comprehension a go before trying to act high and mighty next time.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (1)

ddtracy (2565031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207607)

I'm not going to argue with you, but your self-importance and naivite is astounding. I do not think they bother about "our freedoms" that we have and live with ourself. Only when we try to force "our freedoms" and value system upon them in their own countries and cultures they will fight back and criticize, just like we are criticizing them. The screaming and burning flag matches are childish and should not end up with war. But it is obvious that we get way more upset when some backward oil rich kingdom thinks we suck than when some backward canadian holed up in some mountain hole. Everyone says their country is better and that the others are backwards and losers.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208143)

When you say "terrorist", I'll assume you mean Exxon, Monsanto, Sony...

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207875)

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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207309)

...it's like casino royale, except with pizza and underwear instead of caviar and tuxedos...

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207335)

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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (4, Interesting)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208125)

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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (4, Insightful)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (4, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207945)

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.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208113)

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?

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (2)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207811)

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, Islamic fundamentalism, and Juche.

The other one on the list, and the one they can't mention openly for obvious reasons, is individualist libertarianism, which the globalist neo-cons, who control both Republicans and Democrats, have been quietly preparing to move against. Part of this preparation has been a concerted effort to wage "war on the internet" by seizing control of key infrastructure, demonizing privacy and encryption, putting legal precedents in place to centrally manage the free flow of information, and propping up "hacker" boogey-men as a new terror threat. Another (vital) part of this preparation is the demonization of de-centralized financial centers such as precious metals trading, alternative currencies and small-scale gaming.

But it's wrong to assume they are even remotely against gambling. In fact, gambling is central to the casino gulag state model, which replaces free markets, capitalism and true economic progress with a mad rush towards resource depletion and endless make-work in the name of equal-opportunity servitude. Neo-cons own and operate plenty of major casinos. Hell, look at Wall St. -- it's the worlds biggest gambling operation, and it's state-subsidized. What they're against, of course, is competition.

As for DHS, it was obviously created as a new police state bureaucracy in order to shuffle around the cronies, and to stifle growing internal dissent with new blood and new funding. They're probably involved only because they are currently the top layer in the pyramid cake of corruption, and no other agency would stoop to the ridiculous level of waging economic warfare on Canadians of all things.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207839)

Gambling is a common way to launder money. Other than that, I got nothin'.

Re:GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207905)

GAMBLING FUNDS TERRORISM!!!11!
At least, I assume it does, otherwise why would the DHS be involved in closing down gambling sites?

DHS wouldn't care if that were the case. The only reason bodog.com got taken down (not a gambling site btw) got taken down is because US citizens can gamble there. That does not comply with US casino business plans...

United Nations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207397)

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.

Re:United Nations (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207437)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207447)

download whatever kind of porn Britain's latest serial killer happened to be into

Isn't that only problem in the US? As far as I know US is the only country that has some stupid "obscene" porn laws. Which is kind of funny considering violence on TV is otherwise accepted.

Re:United Nations (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207499)

I'm at work but look up "female ejaculation" on Wikipedia and search for "legal" on-page and it should point you in the right direction.

Also, remember that porn featuring women with small breasts is considered child porn in Australia.

Re:United Nations (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208257)

this biggest problem that I have with sex on TV is losing balance and falling onto the floor. Things are even worse now with the flat panels.

Re:United Nations (5, Interesting)

Whibla (210729) | more than 2 years ago | (#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...

Re:United Nations (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208115)

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:United Nations (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207773)

It's not all countries. North Korea wouldn't have enough power by itself to vote a censorship of the Internet. It would need a majority of countries to agree. I prefer that to a single country (in that case the US) being able to censor at will.

Re:United Nations (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207931)

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?

Re:United Nations (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208207)

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 (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#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"

No you blithering idiot (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207869)

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.

Re:United Nations (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207461)

...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 wireless links and mesh networks, and so forth.

Re:United Nations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207549)

To be clear, China does not "act nicely"; it censors everything within its power to censor. Right now this happens to stop more or less at its borders, give it more scope and it will gladly use it. The US is obviously abusing its power, but the only thing stopping China from the same is the lack of power to abuse.

Re:United Nations (2)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207783)

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, and it's proving to be yet another yoke about our necks instead of freeing us of crusty old paradigms. I keep thinking of the movie Space Balls and Dark Helmet saying "Evil wins because Good is dumb." I feel like we the people are the dumb ones for some reason anymore.

USA, USA, USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207199)

So glad we're not letting those slimy UN people take control over the DNS system, look at the awesome job we are doing!

Gambling taxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207201)

jo_ham/bonch was spotted attending a gay pride parade. he was sucking the cock of a large, black man.

Re:Gambling taxes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207215)

OK, we've got it. He broke your heart.

My homeland feels much more secure now! (4, Funny)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207209)

Thanks, DHS! I have long been worried that terrorists could gamble online and somehow infringe my safety and freedom.

Re:My homeland feels much more secure now! (2)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207803)

Obligatory addition: ...for the children!

lol (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207217)

US federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet).'"

Yeah because Canadian, Australian and UK, etc lawmakers are just so clueful and evenhanded. Seriously, can we cut out this nonsense anti-American bullshit?

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207237)

Sure, the moment America's clueless lawmakers stop trying to push their cluelessness on the rest of the world.

Re:lol (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207391)

Keep insulting the USA and I promise, I will write to my senator to ask that Canada be invaded next.

Re:lol (4, Funny)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207825)

Send him a check and I'm sure it will happen.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207881)

Keep threatening Canada and God will smite you.

Re:lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208107)

Maybe that will work out better this time ? You tried that once before.

You know, when the Canucks burnt your White House to the ground after handing your asses to you on a platter.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208253)

I'm American and as of late I hate our damn country for its recent internet bs. Also, you should'n make blind threats.

Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (4, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 .

Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207349)

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... )

Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207449)

The fact of the matter is that the US won't give up control of those domains, so perhaps it is in the best interests of international organizations to move to different TLDs.

Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207983)

This will never be given up voluntarily. A more likely scenario is a splintered internet. It's not like you can't set up your own domain service, many already exist.

Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207427)

Maybe this is being done on purpose. Maybe the USA is making things bad enough that the UN should step in and take over the Internet. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/29/1840252/eric-schmidt-un-treaty-a-disaster-for-the-internet

Re:Not new: .com, .net, .org? U.S. jurisdiction (5, Interesting)

automandc (196618) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Er (1)

dissonant03 (2586139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207281)

"Whatcha doin' over there eh? Don'tcha know aboot our border?"

Verisign is evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207301)

Verisign is evil? Who would have thought!!

It's impossible that an organisation that controls practically all of both DNS and SSL, that charges up to $1000 for a certificate would ever abuse that power! Well, except everyone who ever had a clue: http://www.webdesignsnow.com/news/091703a.html

The Time Has Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207307)

For years, a few people have been screaming for domain registration/DNS to be handled by an international body like the U.N. While the risk with the present system seemed obvious, the U.S. had not performed any action to establish distrust. This made me feel ambivalent towards any action and opposed to the U.N.

I remain opposed to the U.N. running the internet! But, the time has come for a distributed P2P like registrar/DNS system. The internet needs to be ungovernable.

Re:The Time Has Come (2)

hawleyg (803592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207425)

Ungovernable = Pure chaos = Too risky for business

Re:The Time Has Come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207525)

Ungovernable = massively decentralised with no need for central infrastructure =/= too risky for business

FTFY

So next, all porn sites (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

The U.S. should have a gambling site. (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207321)

With all net profits used to help cut down taxes. If people want to gamble, at least make sure their money is going back into their country instead of out of the country.

Re:The U.S. should have a gambling site. (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207365)

It has several, here is an example. [powerball.com]

Re:The U.S. should have a gambling site. (2)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208033)

They do. It's called Wall Street. All the profits are siphoned out of the country into pointless foreign wars and offshore banks. In fact, that's where all of your taxes go too for that matter, so it's exactly what you ask for.

Alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207327)

Ok. Can someone suggest an out-of-the-U.S. registrar that provides a relatively safe harbor?

Are there ANY non-country domains not US controlld (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207347)

Are there ANY non-country domains that are NOT controlled by the US?
sure registering a ".ca" is cute, but doesn't really say "world class"... even Tuvalu's ".tv" is kinda lame.
I guess ".co.uk" has a certain niceness about it, but looks too much like ".cock"

are there ANY top-level domains that are like ".com" but not controlled by the US???

Nobody remembers .com is for USA (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207355)

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

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207409)

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 were making an effort to block US traffic, I'm sure they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207809)

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.

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207413)

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.

quick! , samsung is targeting us all (1)

Torvac (691504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207513)

evil anti us/apple www.samsung.com

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (5, Insightful)

liamevo (1358257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207423)

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

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (5, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207433)

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:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (3, Interesting)

hawleyg (803592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207477)

Could you cite your source that .com is only for US? I've certainly never perceived that way.

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207479)

Well then, by your logic, american companies should use .us .com is the de facto standard top domain for pretty much any website in the world. As an open TLD it doesn't have any restrictions even though it was originally inteded for for-profit organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Nobody remembers .com is for USA (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207737)

What's the problem with targeting other countries?
You think international web sites such as slashdot target only a single country in particular? Do you think slashdot would change its content if it was not allowed in say, North Korea? Of course not. Why would it be any different for the US? It's still just one country out of about 200.
It it fine to run an international web site as .com and not having to pander to stupid domestic laws of a few countries. If they were specifically targeting US customers, they would use .us anyway isn't it?

Piracy - the real kind (3, Interesting)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207377)

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.

Bovada (2)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 2 years ago | (#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!

Re:Bovada (2)

PhillC (84728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207473)

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

Re:Bovada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207823)

.LV because it sounds like Las Vegas

It's all a problem (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207483)

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"?

Re:It's all a problem (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207661)

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

Federal law? So what. (5, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Federal law? So what. (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208131)

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.

All your base are belong to USA (4, Insightful)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207491)

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

Seizer warrant is slightly confusing (4, Interesting)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207495)

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?

IP caching history? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207529)

If all they have taken is the DNS record, the website is still there at the IP address it always has been.

If browsers / DNS servers were configured differently they would cache the different values and present some interface to allow users to go to the old one when they are presented with a takedown page. Or warn the user that the IP address has changed, and that the new one might be an imposter, showing the old page as well as the new page to allow you to choose.

It is interesting how U.S. corporations and govern (2)

ddtracy (2565031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207543)

It is interesting how U.S. corporations and government is doing all it can to destroy their market for business and influx of money for the sake of shortsighted economical benefits. They are setting up themselves and their corporations to be strong armed by other jurisdictions who will use this as an excuse to protect their markets and businesses. And what about scaring off foreign investors all ccTLDs that are under U.S. companies are going now to be avoided. The U.S. brand is dying slowly because of stupidity and greed. Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:It is interesting how U.S. corporations and gov (5, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207867)

The manufacturing sector has been hounded out of the US and now it is the turn of the most vigorous replacement industries (those based on the internet).

The reason the internet has been such a phenomenal success, with the most amazing record of growth ever, is that up to now the government has, perhaps unwittingly, kept its hands off. But there is nothing that the government can't improve, and they are going to improve the hell out of the internet.

I know I am picking on the USA. Up to now freedom has been greatest there, and Americans have reaped the benefits. Now Americans have the most to lose. Like gun and abortion rights, this is going to be a never-ending battle against the forces of darkness.

Support the EFF!

Welcome to the Wild West (3, Insightful)

cardpuncher (713057) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207665)

What's wrong with governments trying to shut down everything good these days? Can't they just leave us live?

Cyber-bullying or Cyber-criminal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39207871)

If this was done without the consent of the Canadian government (can't read TFA until after work) then this likely violates international law and could be construed as an act of war. With the united states military talking about hacking US sites being an act of war, what is going to happen when a foreign country fights back? Will we go to war against Canada because of political stupidity and corporate greed?

U.*. (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39207879)

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

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

Re:U.*. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208215)

The only advantage to being screwed by the U.N. is there is so much bureaucracy that they can't ever get anything done.

legalities (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Keep it up and Antigua with just get more free IP (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39208245)

http://www.antiguawto.com/ [antiguawto.com]

why don't these sites just use their ip? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39208285)

I mean if you're running an illegal site you might as well just have people link directly to your sites ip. sure, it's a little awkward but less awkward than getting your dns switched to one of those tacky "HACKED BY FBI" signs the feds like to put up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?