Reply With QuoteThanks for posting. 8)
Does anyone have any idea what is the next-best alternative to .com is (or the expected designation that will supersede it)?
Interesting story on The Register about .com domains
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/01 ... _verisign/The Department of Homeland Security has seized a domain name registered outside of the US, by individuals who are not American citizens, and who registered with a Canadian registrar
... the DHS has sent the world exactly one message: anything hosted in the US, registered in the US, or using a domain whose root is controlled by a US corporation is subject to American law.
Thanks for posting. 8)
Does anyone have any idea what is the next-best alternative to .com is (or the expected designation that will supersede it)?
hmmmmm.
maybe i should change my URL to something different.
americansareabunchof overeachingmoronswhocanbiteme.com does have a lovely ring to it though...
That is bad news. The Internet is supposed to be neutral but someone somewhere has to host the root domains whether they are .com, .net, .org or .co.uk.
I have always been annoyed at how the US think that .COM is for them. It is designed for international companies. US should be using .co.us but you will be luck to find any using that.
I haven't checked it but this publication claims you need never lose a domain again.
http://neverloseadomain.com/
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Thanks for the heads up , never realised this , will seek alternatives.
I'd use .co.uk if you're in the UK, and so on. The best thing is to have several domains so that you always have a fallback.Originally Posted by AlphaOmega
Any new non-country TLDs will be under the control of the USA anyway, so there's nowhere to hide except for country TLDs (as long as these are not administered by American companies, are many probably are).
The other thing, of course, is to make sure that you physically host your sites with companies that are not American, do not use US data centres, and have no significant presence in the USA.
A cautionary real world story on this subject that has already happened (in 2004): Indymedia, the well known independent news source hosted some of its websites on the servers of the American company, Rackspace. However, these servers were located here in the UK and were owned by the UK arm of Rackspace, a British-registered subsidiary company. Nevertheless, the FBI entered the UK premises of Rackspace and seized the servers (or at least the drives). US law was effectively applied in the UK. According to the UK government after a question in Parliament, there was no UK state involvement in this. The FBI just did it and Rackspace complied (how could they not comply; they are a USA-headquartered company and could have suffered legal sanctions in the USA if they did not comply).
Here is the relevant story from the Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Media_Center:
A few notes about this story:Seizure of servers by the FBI
On October 7, 2004, the FBI took possession of several server hard drives used by a number of IMCs and hosted by US-based Rackspace Managed Hosting. The servers in question were located in the United Kingdom and managed by the British arm of Rackspace, but some 20 mainly European IMC websites were affected, and several unrelated websites were affected, including the website of a Linux distribution. No reasons were given at first by the FBI and Rackspace for the seizure, in particular IMC was not informed. Rackspace claimed that it was banned from giving further information about the incident. Some, but not all, of the legal documents relating to the confiscation of the servers were unsealed by a Texas district court in August 2005, following legal action by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The documents revealed that the only action requested by the government was to surrender server log files.
A statement by Rackspace stated that the company had been forced to comply with a court order under the procedures laid out by the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which governs international police co-operation on "international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering". The investigation that led to the court order was said to have arisen outside of the U.S. Rackspace stated that they were prohibited on giving further detail. Agence France-Presse reported FBI spokesman Joe Parris, who said the incident was not an FBI operation, but that the subpoena had been issued at the request of the Italian and the Swiss governments. Again, no further details on specific allegations were given. UK involvement was denied in an answer given to a parliamentary question posed by Richard Allan, Liberal Democrat MP.
Indymedia pointed out that they were not contacted by the FBI and that no specific information was released on the reasons of seizing the servers. Indymedia also sees the incident in the context of "numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government", including a subpoena to obtain IP logs from Indymedia at the occasion of the Republican National Conference, the shut-down of several community radio stations in the US by the FCC, and a request by the FBI to remove a post on Nantes IMC containing a photograph of alleged undercover Swiss police.
The move was condemned by the International Federation of Journalists, who stated that "The way this has been done smacks more of intimidation of legitimate journalistic inquiry than crime-busting" and called for an investigation. Criticism was also voiced by European civil liberties organisation Statewatch and the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC).
In Italy, the federal prosecutor of Bologna Marina Plazzi confirmed that an investigation against Indymedia had been opened because of suspected "support of terrorism", in the context of Italian troops in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. The investigation was triggered after 17 members of the coalition government belonging to the right-wing Alleanza Nazionale, including Alessandra Mussolini, demanded that Indymedia be shut down. A senior party member and government official had announced the co-operation with US authorities, and party spokesman Mario Landolfi welcomed the FBI's seizure of the Indymedia servers. Left-wing Italian politicians denounced the move and called for an investigation.
(1) Although the 'Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty' was apparently mentioned by Rackspace, this treaty was not in fact used according to the reply by the British govnment to the question asked in parliament.
(2) The FBI and Rackspace in the UK acted outside of UK law. (That is not necessarily to say that they did so illegally according to UK laws but it's possible).
(3) Even if the 'Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty' has been invoked, it's pretty clear that it would have been an abuse of such a law. (Which, of course, is one of the key problems with the very existence of such laws: They invite abuse and misuse in cases which don't genuinely warrant them. Once they exist they are always over-used).
(4) The FBI's seizure of physical hardware was an over-reaction to the actual requirement for log files.
(5) Do not think that just because you are innocent you do not need to take defensive measures:
(a) Other innocent sites were taken out by the FBI's/Rackspace's actions. (This has happened in other governmental seizures too).
(b) You may be innocent of any crime in the UK but guilty as the USA defines it.
(c) You could be innocent even in the jurisdiction that initiated the action but that won't necessarily help you keep your site running.
**edit**
Fixed typos and added info,
Since my dot coms don't promote terrorism or any other nefarious activities, think I'll sleep fine tonight :lol:
As I said above, innocence is no defence against this kind of problem. Indymedia was innocent too, remember.
Quote from my message above:
You seem to be conflating accusation with guilt. You do not need to be guilty of anything for you or your business to be accused of some kind of 'crime' in some jurisdiction somewhere, with or without good reason, and to have your site taken down or your equipment seized (or to be hit as collateral damage, for that matter). It is the mere accusation (and the actions that follow from it), or even being an electronic neighbour of someone who has been accused, that does the harm here.5) Do not think that just because you are innocent you do not need to take defensive measures:
(a) Other innocent sites were taken out by the FBI's/Rackspace's actions. (This has happened in other governmental seizures too).
(b) You may be innocent of any crime in the UK but guilty as the USA defines it.
(c) You could be innocent even in the jurisdiction that initiated the action but that won't necessarily help you keep your site running.
In short, no matter how innocent you may be, you or your business are at risk from US extra-territoriality if you use a US-administered domain, or host with a US-owned company, or your site is hosted in the USA.
Here is a very recent real world example of a seemingly totally innocent company (just like your sites no doubt) whose site was taken offline wihout warning or explanation by the US government. In this case it is a US company but it could just as easily be a Canadian or British one (if they use US infrastructure for anything).
'Takedowns run amok? The strange Secret Service/GoDaddy assault on JotForm (updated)'
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... mplies.ars
Comment by the company owner: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821
Posting Permissions
