When U.S. authorities shuttered sports-wagering site Bodog.com last week, it raised eyebrows across the net because the domain name was registered with a Canadian company, ostensibly putting it beyond the reach of the U.S. government. Working around that, the feds went directly to VeriSign, a U.S.-based internet backbone company that has the contract to manage the coveted .com and other “generic” top-level domains.
EasyDNS, an internet infrastructure company, protested that 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.”
But despite EasyDNS and others’ outrage, the U.S. government says it’s gone that route hundreds of times. Furthermore, it says it has the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain name because the companies that have the contracts to administer them are based on United States soil, according to Nicole Navas, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman.
Wait, what? -did i wake up on the wrong planet again?
-s
Why/HOW could it be any other way????
Once the decision is made that some activity is ILLEGAL, it makes no sense at all to allow some other secondary legalistic concern trump the more major one.
think of a murder committed in California and the criminal is speeding in his car to get away to Nevada. Are the locals really supposed to stop at the state line and wave good bye?
The harm here, if any, is the initial law itself, not the enforcement of it.
Making things illegal and prosecuting people is our Judeo-Christian-Anti-Woman mindset. See Greg Allen??? You don’t have to be on your knees in prayer to still be a christian. Corruption comes in all fine degrees.
Educate, advise, support, tax, and regulate is the alternative. But who has the time to actually be thoughtful and compassionate.
Yea, verily.
aka chris, national boundaries have legitimacy and a purpose
Canada is still technically another country, although in practice the reality is a bit murky.
Saying that our laws take precedence over the laws of a foreign jurisdiction is very presumptuous. Should everybody submit to the most restrictive laws that any country makes? I’m sure the pope and the mullahs would agree.
Maybe I read too fast but all action taken was within the CONUS? The fact that some part of “the system” was in Canada has nothing to do with the parts that are in the USA.
Whats wrong with the USA government enforcing laws as much as they can within the USA?–or by treaty with other agreeing governments?
Yes – it all comes down to legitimacy. And so should you.
Canada is still technically another country, although in practice the reality is a bit murky.
Not in Québec… 🙂
Suppose the car was a BMW and the driver did something that was legal in the US but broke a driving law in Germany – should they be prosecuted because the car maker is headquartered in Germany?
This was a Canadian betting site that was shutdown by the US because the .com registry was headquartered in the US.
That analogy doesn’t fit the example.
The similarity would be that Germany could refuse to ship spare parts for the car. Not what you fubar’d.
Did the USA act entirely within the USA or not? And if so, whats wrong with that?
not funny …
if this is the new style of operation imagine how many other site could go down for just having .com, .net …
seems you have to choose wise where to put your domain nowadays. i guess we will see more local/international top domains soon …. a renaissance of the good old .co.uk , .ca, …
not to forget the .to ;-D
when did “stupid” become an option on operating the internet ?
br
r.
bobbo: “Are the locals really supposed to stop at the state line and wave good bye?” Of course, not. Police in pursuit are allowed to cross jurisdiction lines.
No, this sounds more like, well, you don’t like the way we do things? Then let’s let the UN take it all over…
This administration will make recess appointments without waiting for a recess, kill US citizens without so much as sneezing on a judge, ignore the freedom of religion and a dozen other things that, if a Republican did them, Eideard would be screaming for impeachment.
Animby–you are plunging head first into partisan politics? Ha. ha.
But let me apologize. After going off on several jags about the chief sin of CONFLATION, i think I have done that with you, or vice versa, or both?
You say you are conservative. So do I. ((Social Lib, Fiscal Conservative==but non-partisan)). On quiet reflection, you and I may be very close but somehow we have both CONFLATED your political philosophies/positions with that of Partisanship?
So, when I say “Why you so dumb?”==I’m not talking about your conservativeness, but rather your thinking voting Puke somehow supports those positions rather than voting Dumbo.
After this recognition, what follows is “mechanical.” EVERY president mostly continues what the previous Presnedent has left him. A little better here, a little worse there, but mostly a smooth continuum which is why Obama’s WORST CRIME/FAILURE to date is failure to prosecute Wall Street Crime and to re-regulate the Banksters. And it doesn’t look like Obama Second Term or Romney First Term will be any different. Being conservative SPEAKS AGAINST the partisanship you demonstrate.
So, I’m forced to ask again: “Why you so dumb?”
So the Swiss have the right to control all US phone calls because the ITU is headquartered there?
NobodySpecial says:
3/6/2012 at 9:38 am
So the Swiss have the right to control all US phone calls because the ITU is headquartered there? /// They have the power to do so as possession is 9/10th of the law? But what are their laws and what treaties have they signed?
Does anyone here claim/think the USA violated any laws, Domestic or International, by acting entirely within the USA boundaries?
Conta, since none of us knows/it will be contested anyway,==why should not a country do whatever it wants to within its own borders?
What do you think sovereignty is all about?
“Does anyone here claim/think the USA violated any laws, Domestic or International, by acting entirely within the USA boundaries?”
No, but Verisign did and they should be liable for damages. Their Canadian subsidiary made a contract with Bodog. If Bodog doesn’t violate terms of service, and Verisign terminates service then Bodog can sue.
Using your reasoning all US drone strikes would be legal under international law, as long as the operator is sitting in the US. You can’t blame the drone, and we signed off on it so…
If this worked against the US it would make very interesting opportunities for non-us companies, especially banks. Somehow I bet there is another loophole for that.
Gee Whiz Chris—AGAIN you miss the basic construct. Flying drones outside of the USA is not an activity completely within the USA.
THAT IS MY POINT!!
Similarly, no international law will state whether a private corporation is responsible for acts beyond its control by countries that have the geographical situ of any of their hardware. How does what happens to Verizon impact the question asked? >>> Whats “wrong” with any country doing whatever they want to WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS!
Jesus crap in my pants. It should not be so hard to stay within the bounds of a fair question::::especially when that is what is happening right in front of your face it the real world.
Buy a clue.
Verisign USA made a voluntary decision that opens their Canadian subsidiary to damages.
The USG can’t be sued at all, at least in US courts. Maybe in a foreign court, but how would you collect? That is not the issue I brought up.
It looks like the USG is leveraging cozy relationships with US corps to advantage US based online gambling operations that are waiting in the wings. So what?
We are always going to piss on anybody we feel like to further a business/moral agenda. No right and wrong involved. Bodog does have a good case against Verisign, but they chose the wrong jurisdiction. The effective sovereignty of Canada has already dissapeared.
Also, Verizon is not involved, the company is Verisign.
Sovereignty is national
Stupidity is personal
You can switch that, and/or have it apply to both, even in various degrees and always according to the specific subject at hand.
Silly child.
How about this for a novel idea, we don’t shut down a site until due process of law occurs.
Because remember, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.
Odds are, the law is being followed. After all the header does mention a court order/warrant was secured. THAT is due process.
Ain’t that a bitch?
Well, I forsee this will lead to a lot of changes. Several nations are talking about how the U.S. has too much power on the internet. So we’re going to see competing foriegn DNS services and possibly duplicate IP addresses depending on your locality, and a mad scramble to obtain Domain names that you thought you already had.
In the “Olden Days”, they used to say: “Want to talk to the CIA (or KGB on the “Other Side”), pick up any phone !!! Now, it is “Just touch a keyboard” !!! And you will probably have a not a few Hackers listening in too !!! So, don’t do any “Cyber” you couldn’t show to your Mother !!!
Animby==well, you put your thumb right on my own cognitive dissonance because I do “feel” that liberal value system in you but I wage all that I have that an “objective” plain language search of your posts shows a heavy republican tilt.
Your response in this very thread demonstrates that: this thread is about USA seizing assets in the USA based on the law that exists now==the grand accumulation of Puke and Dumbo dominated Congresses over the years. More than any other factor, it is THE CONGRESS at fault for all we experience. Any president being more a figure head than anything else. He can only sign or veto whatever Congress does. Key idea: CONGRESS DOES.
You challenge: “No, this sounds more like, well, you don’t like the way we do things? Then let’s let the UN take it all over…/// How do you get the USA acting legally within its own borders to such action amounts to a plea for UN takeover? And who is always bemoaning UN this and that? Not “conservatives” but Republicans.
This administration will make recess appointments without waiting for a recess, /// Yes, in view of unprecedented level of filibustering/killed in committee no vote on the floor action by the Republicans. CONGRESS can respond and defund the department if they don’t like what the Pres did. A power play between two political groups. A conservative would put a pox on both houses, you choose to call the President on it but not the Republicans. This is shilling for the Pukes. Something a Conservative would not do.
kill US citizens without so much as sneezing on a judge, /// just as should be done. Only cases I know of are declared combatants against the USA in a war zone or overseas? What do you want–terrorist free cards for all American Citizens fighting for the enemy? War: even innocents get killed.
ignore the freedom of religion /// being overly obsequious to asstarded religious hypocrites is all I have seen to date. What are you thinking of? That completely secular activities engaged in by a religion should be controlled by that religions dogma? Silly.
and a dozen other things that, if a Republican did them, Eideard would be screaming for impeachment. /// I don’t follow what the Moderators post here that closely. To the degree that is true, the error is not in calling the Pukes on such actions, but in failing to call the Dumbo’s on the same thing. Surely, as you only notice one side of the issue, Eideard might just be completely even handed? And THATS what being partisan is all about. You didn’t talk about conservatives vs liberals. Your complaint is about how unfair Republicans are allegedly treated. All of it off point as well.
Prove me wrong Animby. Watch your words. Replace Republican with Conservative and lets see what happens for the next week or so?
Or not.
Not. Thank you.
If I seem to lean Republican, perhaps it is simply because too many here give an automatic, blind, reflex nod of assent to everything the Dems do.
Or, maybe I troll…
My unreliable understanding of international trade law is that this is entirely legal and the USA has every right to police their own domains. Which in my opinion makes the new fad of “cloud” computing on US based servers doubly dubious.
Sound like people might want to start basing their cloud computing services in SeaLand before the nefarious (il)legals copyright or patent the business process of addition.
Was it really home land security? WTF do they give a shit about someone bootlegging a copy of “The Artist?”
Seized, and they add their own self indulging advertising. Nice touch recording industry lawyers of mmerica. I hope all of your toes fall off someday.
The blog just discussed this – http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2012/02/23/the-u-n-wants-to-control-the-internet/ . Given this development the U.S. can’t say to a country “free trade” when it blocks this kind of site.
QUESTION: What happens when someone just types into a browser “http://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX” – the IP address of a web site. Doesn’t this bypass the DNS system entirely?
Isn’t it time to ban Bobbo?
Is there a way to automatically filter out his numerous posts?
My subconscious does a pretty decent job these days. Any post over 2 paragraphs is automatically skipped because it’s more often than not god awfully attention seeking.
I like arguing with smart people. Nobody has a lock on wisdom. Bobbo is a pointless ass. After thousands of good conversations on DU he’s the reason I don’t post much here anymore. He combines the worst qualities of Homer Simpson and Ned Flanders. A truely condescending moralistic ass.
I still read DU, but bobbo ruins the comment section more effectively than most places intrusive login procedures.
They have the power, they don’t have the right. There is no right to seize the property of others who have not harmed anyone else. And by harm, I mean clearly identifiable victims of force or fraud. But you people keep voting for these clowns and they will continue to take away everything you enjoy.
I’m thinking that it’s just a mater of time before the US government finds out that the servers outside our borders no longer respect what the servers inside our borders are doing.
chris insightfully says:
3/7/2012 at 6:00 am
I like arguing with smart people. /// Yes, always the best kind although humorous has its rewards. How much overlap there?
Nobody has a lock on wisdom. /// True. Best established by wisdom of the group and a winnowing out of the lesser efforts?
Bobbo is a pointless ass. /// Pointless? Just the opposite I would wager. TOO MANY points. Like a porcupine. They have asses too!
After thousands of good conversations on DU he’s the reason I don’t post much here anymore. /// 1000’s? Think of how many people you disappoint? Don’t you care?
He combines the worst qualities of Homer Simpson and Ned Flanders. /// D’oh!!
A truely condescending moralistic ass. /// Yes, both hard to avoid. Your recommendation?
I still read DU, but bobbo ruins the comment section more effectively than most places intrusive login procedures. // Ha, ha. Strange complaint. “My” comments should only interfere with your reading not your own posting. Or is that being condescending and moralistic? And if so—why not/who cares?
Can you see yourself in the mirror at all?
Silly self absorbed hoomans.
If you have a wife I feel very sorry for her.
chris continues down a very worrisome road saying:
3/7/2012 at 12:49 pm
If you have a wife I feel very sorry for her. /// Why?
Gee Whiz Chris. Evidently I have posted some things you don’t like? Probably some detailed refutation of one of your posts??
And rather than come back ON POINT and show me where I am wrong, or to take the LESSON and thank me for making your position stronger, you choose to go all ab hominem?? Its so clear and transparently an over emotional and defective response.
OH–I can see the initial first reaction being yours==but to continue it to writing a post, reviewing it, and posting it? Then again on another post assuming the wifey must be miserable too? Ha, ha.
Poor little Taliban: people don’t agree with you. What to do??? Learn that FREEEEEEDOM means recognizing others will disagree?–or hating them because they do?? Don’t ignore them, make an appeal to have them banned and shunned, stoned and evicted??
Poor Chris. Maybe I’m wrong on a point? Did you come back to show me??? I’m actually pretty good at seeing mistakes especially when pointed out to me. It is indeed why are argue so adroitly—I have passed the salad days of my youth seeing conflict and disagreement as a chance for me to become more skilled rather than simply personally insulted.
Does it make me subject to the charge of being condescending? Sadly Yes. Moralistic?? Not as much in the standard sense but I am proud of my off center minority moral views. We should all be proud of our own morality===and change it when it is shown to be short sighted?
Chris—stop being so immature and petulant. If you can’t hold up your end of an argument, then change your position or ignore your opposition. But avoid the petty and constipated.
Here’s a suggestion: you and Liberty Lover team up. Take an actual issue and ARGUE IT. Put the dolls away and grow up.
Ha, ha. I finally chuckled, so now I can stop.
Bobbo sez:
So, I’m forced to ask again: “Why you so dumb?”… Silly child… being overly obsequious to asstarded religious hypocrites… who has the time to actually be thoughtful and compassionate…avoid the petty and constipated…so clear and transparently an over emotional and defective response…Put the dolls away and grow up…Buy a clue.
I sez:
Who is really being immature and petulant?
Dude, that is ONE thread. Who is on topic here, considering you DIDN’T answer me after I came back directly to your post that ended in “Buy a clue”?
You might think that you set the tone and level of discussion here, and sadly I think that is true. You insult pretty much everybody you talk at here, and I suspect in real life as well.
At least I have the balls to insult you directly, rather than casually while claiming to educate people. The comment about your wife was meant honestly and really was for the others here.
I’m pretty sure they part smiled and part cringed. I’ll take the cringe, but you earn all the smiles.
Out of 40 comments on this thread, Bobbo has posted 11 times totaling 27.5% of all posts.
Its even worse now.
I made this very joke (this blog post’s title) the other day on Security Now, in the chat room. Only I left out “base” ,”.biz”, and “sites”. Coincidence?
Bodog is still running in Canada. You Americans are interesting.
“says it has the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain name because the companies that have the contracts to administer them are based on United States soil”
Too bad this logic doesn’t seem to work for policing the Cruise Ship industry. Even though most have home ports in the US, and the majority of their passengers are Americans. By registering foreign (even Disney Cruise does), they don’t have to meet any US safety regulations, labor laws, or health care laws.
Well I’m sure that whatever kind of transport that US Senators and Congressman use to cross the oceans, its far safer than what the average US citizen can book passage on. After all, they must not have to live in the real world, with the rest of us, that they helped create. So if they’re now making overtures about cleaning up the industry (again). It’s more likely they just rang the dinner bell, for the industry to come bribe them out of doing it (again!). They typically call such legislation “money laws”. Because they expect it to loosen the wallets of lobbyists who’ll bribe them to defeat or dilute the bill that effects their business.
http://tinyurl.com/83664tq
Good point, and cruise lines are the more respectable end of shipping. It is even worse for cargo ships. They can rename and re-flag while at sea in less than a day. The ship never has to go to its flag country and countries don’t even need to have shoreline to run a ship registry.
Who owns a ship can be difficult or impossible to determine. They are often the sole asset of a bearer share corporation or trust administered in a high secrecy jurisdiction. These structures tend to carry lots of debt so nobody can be sued.
Whenever there is a big shipping accident police are quick to grab the captain, because there may be no other method of getting after the actual owners.
It’s freaky. We are talking about something the size of a large building that can travel around and cause a big mess, but it’s easier to track a car’s history.
Same as cruiselines, who gains is very much the issue with online gambling. My guess: Harrah’s and Zynga.
Do you think that this is the same outfit?
http://bovada.lv/.
It pings back to a .ca server.
Hey! If ossama could have talked the canuts out of 50% of the gross as a superfund -!! I mean tax contribution, theyd a jus probably let er happn capn.
Way to encourage hosting in other countries!
chris, who’s comment was lost to me in the inane nested constipated structure of this blog was found to says:
3/8/2012 at 1:49 pm
Bobbo sez:
So, I’m forced to ask again: “Why you so dumb?”… Silly child… being overly obsequious to asstarded religious hypocrites… who has the time to actually be thoughtful and compassionate…avoid the petty and constipated…so clear and transparently an over emotional and defective response…Put the dolls away and grow up…Buy a clue.
I sez:
Who is really being immature and petulant? /// You. The SUBJECT of this thread is whether or not sovereign countries should/can/do have control over assets that are IN THEIR COUNTRY. YOU took the conversation to wondering how wifey could possibly get along with me. I call that being really immature and petulant. I’m here to argue about right vs power, sovereignty vs law, propinquity vs far removed==and you bring up the very tender relationship I have with wifey? A shockingly gross grope for sure. Something only Limbaugh would do. ……. Ha. ha.
Dude, that is ONE thread. Who is on topic here, considering you DIDN’T answer me after I came back directly to your post that ended in “Buy a clue”? //// Now this catches my attention, catches me up. Did you respond directly??? Let’s check:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::OK–there’s my post ending in buy a clue. Then you say: something analogous to Verisign’s Canadian subsidiaries being subject to lawsuit? I didn’t then, and don’t now follow your reasoning at all, so I did not respond to that post. Then in response to someone posting I should be banned you say I am a pointless ass. I then respond to THAT statement and you return with laments for the wifey. ……………………So—-OK—I made NO RESPONSE to your unfathomable post so that justifies calling me an ass and concern for my family members and you call that responding on point? Gee, where I in the same circumstances, I would have reposted my point? It does risk being called a serial monopolistic poster, but thems the dice we have to roll. SO IN CONCLUSION ON THIS POINT: once again we are in disagreement. I don’t think anyone’s discretionary option to not respond justifies an off topic ad hominem attack. But we do our best to rise above it and look to whatever “merit” might have accidental been carried along with it? Oh Sweet Reason, I pity your Sisyphean search for truth. What a sad and rock strewn path you trod.
You might think that you set the tone and level of discussion here, and sadly I think that is true. //// No, I’ve never thought that.
You insult pretty much everybody you talk at here, and I suspect in real life as well. /// No, just the idiots and non-responsive types, and always with a mix so they can make their own true choices.
At least I have the balls to insult you directly, rather than casually while claiming to educate people. /// Balls? It takes “♫..No Balls at All…” to rag on anyone here. Our weapons are just words and hopefully some ideas now and then. Its not my express goal to educate people here, but on reflection, yeah, I can see that claim sticky as defective about it as I am. Thank You. So few recognize it. Ha, ha. Been a year and Liberty Loser is maybe just now finally coming around to see it. Claims that “I” have to chose different bait. Hee, hee–poor lad doesn’t recognize bait is used before the fish is hooked and thrown on land. …… But just because you can learn from an exchange doesn’t mean that is the intent of one party of the other. Maybe some just like balls?
The comment about your wife was meant honestly and really was for the others here. //// haaaaaa, really? And what honestly did you mean??? Lets see: “If you have a wife, I feel sorry for her.” >>>> Again, the only thing that comes to my mind is: “Why?” xxxx and how could such a baseless inquiry be for the benefit of others here? Makes no sense at all. Could you educate me on these two points? Hook, line, and sinker all fully ingested.
I’m pretty sure they part smiled and part cringed. I’ll take the cringe, but you earn all the smiles. //// Ah–nice construction there, but like Watts Tower, doesn’t appeal to me. Mindless word play to mold meaning in any direction wished.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So, back on topic: whats wrong with USA seizing control of assets within its own geographic territory? Wifey did say it was ok for me to ask this question again.
You ever seen one of those westerns where a guys says “I want to see you dance” and then fires a gun at somebody’s feet?
Well you been dancing a mighty jig, Mr. Bobbo. Oh yes you have.
“Mindless word play”
Indeed. I notice that you are a master at the art of projection. Nobody here is as skilled as you are at mindless wordplay(yes, it is one word). I was consciously being an asshole: to you. It might come naturally to you, but it’s a choice for me and that makes me very good at it. A useful craft, and enjoyable to use sparingly when appropriate.
TeaDude’s paens to justifiable political violence disturb me, is he in a supermax yet? You… well sometimes I just like to watch you dance and pretend you are laughing.
So, let’s start anew. Let me speak in simpler terms because my post about the civil liability, in Canada, of Verisign’s subsidiary for breach of contract is “unfathomable” to you.
You ask: “Does anyone here claim/think the USA violated any laws, Domestic or International, by acting entirely within the USA boundaries?”
The USG can’t be sued(sovereign immunity) and it can’t be put in jail. So the question of violating domestic laws is entirely pointless. International law is also unimportant, because who the hell is going to enforce against us? Bush II’s idea of the imperial executive found no serious pushback from the other branches of government. It was effectively proven. Side note: Obama being painted as the extreme one is just silly.
I do think that these actions are wrong, and likely intentionally duplicitous. We are trying to clear the US market for US based online gaming companies. There isn’t a damn bit of morals involved. Here I could be wrong, but that’s what I suspect.
We are also claiming ownership of the internet, in a fashion, and nobody headquartered in another country loses to their domestic audience by pointing that out.
How should Bodog respond? I’d sue the shit out of Verisign’s Canadian subsidiary. Verisign USA voluntarily complied with the request that injured a business that had a contract with their subsidiary.
Whenever a site gets hacked they claim outlandish damages for being out of commission for a few hours. Taking of your web name has got to be worth… what?
A lot, I’d bet.
Hey Chris—you sure the USA can’t violate the law? Seems to me the USA gets sued all the time. Yes, the USA by statute and by custom will not raise sovereignty as a bar and allow certain types of lawsuits to go forward and others not to. But THAT goes to whether or not the USA has been found by a court of law to have violated the law.
The whole point of a forum is for we the people to argue about whether or not the USA has violated the law. Only the sovereignty of a well argued position can win here, and the USA never plays. Just we gallant few here. On this point, just you and me.
Bobbo = 1, Chris = 0. Let us continue.
Oh crap. I went out of order as to what caught my attention and was actually substantive, but let’s regroup and take your points as they come?
1. You want to see me dance? Dance as metaphor for “mindless word play” when there is no need at all for the metaphor? Why interject that unnecessary extra loop? And somehow this is an expression of my own projection? More fog pumped into the forum of smoke and shadows? Lets see what we bump into, not for a moment forgetting that not all word play is mindless, but that may not be a relevant divertisement?
So, the fog reveal that you are indeed intentionally being an asshole? And you place that on a par with or rationalized by claiming I am as well? But I reject that characterization of myself. You claim the status for yourself. So, we have a claim of verses a denial of? Hmmmm. Wonder where the Vegas Money is on that bet? ……. Just how is being an asshole a valuable craft in your estimation? And just when had you decided to portray yourself as one? Where in the thread?
2. Back to what I first took as substantive, and what I do now assume you aren’t being an intentional asshole about, and as I perceived my own constant personality as expressed on this forum to be, you say: “The USG can’t be sued(sovereign immunity) and it can’t be put in jail. So the question of violating domestic laws is entirely pointless. ” /// As I stated, the USG can be and is sued all the time. Its what treaties are all about especially in the area of international trade. Am I dancing, laughing, being asshole, or just informing you when I disagree with you on this objective point? True, the USG can’t be put in jail, but it can lose trade status, points at the World Bank, monetary damages and penalties and so forth. Just like any other and all legal fictions. Most business entities don’t want the USG in jail anyway==they actually want the money. These actions are agreed to/submitted to by the USA for the purpose of establishing/supporting international law and treaties==all supposedly for the mutual benefit of all who sign such treaties. I can go more into this if the simply refutation of your position does not remind you of these simple foundational facts?
3. “I do think that these actions are wrong, and likely intentionally duplicitous. We are trying to clear the US market for US based online gaming companies. //// I don’t know if these actions are wrong or not which is why I asked for what point of law might be involved. You’ll have to be more specific about who “we” are in your formulation as on any issue I can think of there are many and various interest groups contesting for any and every position you can think of. In this case, the USA has had a long position on making on-line gambling illegal. Shutting down on line gambling that orginates from outside the USA is so entirely appropriate and rational an action given this premise that I would want to see some good evidence for this duplicity before I gave it credence. But, whether duplicitous or not==that still doens’t make it illegal or otherwise not appropriate which is the subject of this thread==or actually very close to it.
4. No morals involved? /// Of course there is. Gambling is about morals by definition. Law is always about who’s set of morals become enforceable about all the others. Another basic you trip over. “If” any country believes that xyz is immoral and has made xyz illegal, then it is nothing but proper to stop xyz from being imported from outside the USA. It would be immoral not to. Only the legality would be an open question. Another Fail on your part.
5. “We are also claiming ownership of the internet, in a fashion, and nobody headquartered in another country loses to their domestic audience by pointing that out.” /// Exactly NOT. We only took action against assets physically located within our own country. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? You continue to post nonsense in violation of foundational principles/facts/well accepted precedents and offer only your own bald unsupported conclusions.
Want to go for three strikes?
“The SUBJECT of this thread is whether or not sovereign countries should/can/do have control over assets that are IN THEIR COUNTRY.”
No, it bloody isn’t. Unless you’re JCD or Uncle Dave restating it the topic is: U.S. says: “All your base .com, .org, .biz, and .net sites are belong to us”
You are once again being a pompous ass talking about exactly what you feel like talking about and ignoring everything else. This is the THIRD time I’m making my point, Verisign has broken a contract with Bodog IN CANADA and can be sued IN CANADA.
Also, Bodog can’t sue the USG in this case. First, they aren’t an American company and would have no standing to sue. The damages happened outside the US. Second, you can only sue for negligence and not for policy decisions. If somebody had a fat finger and Boodog, a fictional US company, was blacklisted then THEY could sue.
Please, tell me exactly how Bodog.com can sue the USG. Oh wait, you can’t so you will completely ignore it.
You quoting me: “We are also claiming ownership of the internet, in a fashion, and nobody headquartered in another country loses to their domestic audience by pointing that out.”
Your response: “/// Exactly NOT. We only took action against assets physically located within our own country. ”
How so? Bodog.com was a contract between a CANADIAN registrar and Bodog. What assets are physically located in the US???
From Bodog’s wikipedia page: “Using the Illegal Gambling Business Act and Maryland’s criminal code to satisfy the requirement for the indictment and seizure”
Maryland’s criminal code, I happen to live there, has NO standing in CANADIAN courts. How is Verisign’s subsidiary NOT liable for damages to Bodog?
That might not be the topic you choose to argue, but I’m asking you a direct question. Are you going to step up or continue to piss about?
Me: “No morals involved”
You: ” /// Of course there is. Gambling is about morals by definition. Law is always about who’s set of morals become enforceable about all the others. Another basic you trip over. “If” any country believes that xyz is immoral and has made xyz illegal, then it is nothing but proper to stop xyz from being imported from outside the USA.”
Oh my, but why can’t the Feds stop 47/50 states from “charitable” contests or 17/50 states from commercial operations or 28/50 states from allowing “Indian” gambling.
Morals are so flexible, especially in a down economy. We, the US( in case you’re too dense to pick up the context), are on the cusp of making the forbidden legit. Do you understand how much money is in that?
Weed is the same exact thing. It’s all down to licensing and who profits. Public policy, at the margins of good and bad, is ENTIRELY about money.
You say: “I can think of there are many and various interest groups contesting for any and every position you can think of.”
I’m going to ignore the terrible sentence structure, you literary warrior, and just answer the substance of your thought.
Yes, I agree. That is the game. That’s it. It’s all a calculus about who pays more contributions/bribes. As that changes so goes public policy.
Chris–so you agree you don’t want to talk about the substance of this thread? Instead, you want to interpret the non-specific impact of the Heading and ignore the specifying paragraphs below it and my reiterations of the actual issue at hand?
Ok. fine. Another definition/example of refusing to address the issue.
Whats “wrong” with any country taking action against assets and entities WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS? And the only thing that can make that wrong is a self imposed law or treaty obligation against it. You offer no evidence about that at all.
Silly to stay in your stupid hole when the clear blue sky beckons you so.
Regarding my very poor typing and lack of proofing–thank you for going to the substance. “Atta-boy.” Once again, I don’t know under what theory States are Running their gambling revenue schemes, except generally to keep the money out of the Mafia’s pockets, and I do assume the Indians are allowed to Gamble based on their own “Sovereignty” which dovetails quite nicely to the very point of this thread. Isn’t that a fine coinkydink?
I do assume that the Feds could outlaw all such gambling anytime it wanted to as exampled all over the place on many issues. No Constitutional right to gamble so I think it is totally subject to our overreaching application of the Commerce Clause.
Lets see, since you won’t let go of that bone………ok, Bodog and Verisign in a contract dispute in Canada? I assume boilerplate exists regarding Acts of Government not Controlled by Either Party? A complete and total defense to most claims of contract breach? But that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, your particular and remote understanding of the ambiguous heading notwithstanding.
Four strikes?
Ah ha! You can hear what other people say. It only took repetition and, you still barely bothered. Still, that’s progress.
I guess you’ve dropped the idea that Bodog has any recourse in the US. They don’t.
Now to your chosen topic, are the USG’s actions “wrong”? My short answer: I couldn’t care less. I don’t think Bodog is right or wrong; I don’t the USG is right or wrong.
I do think that Verisign violated its agreement with Bodog in Canada to provide service. Do the actions of a US state stop liability against breach of contract between two Canadian companies? I have my doubts.
So I’ll consider those two issues settled. Now to the other part, which is a whole lot more interesting:
You contend that: ” the USA has had a long position on making on-line gambling illegal … I would want to see some good evidence for this duplicity before I gave it credence.”
and I say there is absolutely no moral aspect to it, this is a pure money play. Looking around on Google news netted me this:
“Ever since then there’s been a growing effort in Congress to actually make online gambling legal again — in part because the big casinos who mostly supported the original ban have now changed their minds and want in on the action.” from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/22460717908/feds-continue-crackdown-poker-seizing-wrong-bodog-domain.shtml
Also, as an interesting example of how non-morality involved it is… I’m assuming you’ve heard of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. One of their deals involved a curiosity in treaties between the USG and American Indian tribes. After being granted reservations the tribes could mostly do what they wanted with those lands. That includes selling them, which many tribes did. They were not allowed to sell 100% of treaty lands, to maintain the other side of the treaty. This might only be an acre. Officially the reservations existed, even if they were gone in practice.
Traditional casino operations saw a mighty business opportunity in this. From the remaining kernel they could buy up adjacent lands and transfer them back to the tribe. Then the lands would regain their extra-territorial status. For compliance reasons, and as a sweetener, most of the casino personnel would have to be tribal members. In other words, the investors still got paid and made a nice end run around state gaming regulations. The tribes got their lands back with a ready made business on it, and good paying jobs to boot!
DeLay and Abramoff got in trouble for other stuff, and these deals were never a public issue. Yes, the party of morals and states rights was generating turn key businesses that violated states rights and many peoples’ morals.
It really is all about money.
Chris–of course MONEY is the water all other issues swim in. But if you can’t handle more than one variable at a time, you will never find dry land on which to build a second floor on your fantasy castle.
In the issue several tangents away from the express issue of this thread, we have therefore money PLUS morality and no doubt 4-5 more depending on which other tangent you want to walk down. I am conversant but not expert in several examples of Tribe Expansion due to this monied interest in gambling but these issues all go to the arrangement of rooms in the second floor.
So, your position is that whether or not Prostitution or Drug Use is legalized is only about money and has nothing to do with morality huh?
Simple and clear although why anyone would want to argue that proposition is beyond me.
Just as most opposing positions are.
Silly Hooman.
Why you so silly?
There are a few people in Washington who really believe in what they say, but they seem to be the outliers. Ron Paul, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, and (maybe) Santorum come to mind. Everybody else is totally interested in mobilizing support by using money, or not pissing off interests that self mobilize.
The unhappy partnership of business Republicans and religious Republicans during Bush II is an excellent example. The business Republicans mocked the religious end of the party as misguided but useful rubes to be called on for free campaign labor and then ignored during the off season. The religious right saw this, and was suitably disgusted. They liked Bush’s use of religion themed language and wars to defect.
I was thinking earlier how Mormons are a very interesting combination of business and religion. That really makes Mitt Romney the perfect candidate for what we think of as the GOP. He is both a plasticy CEO type and representative for the fastest growing faith in America. His trouble, and possible inability, to win the nomination outright points exactly to the mutually distrustful relationship between GOP factions(and also between different flavors of American evangelism).
Your other issues: prostitution and drug legalization only touch on morality because of the voting behavior of morality driven voters. That fear of pissing off the fanatics, plus being viewed as “soft on” some prohibited behavior are all that keep those behaviors legally forbidden.
I think that more harm comes from the prohibition of both drugs and prostitution than the behaviors themselves. To an overwhelming extent.
This holds historically as well. Women gained the vote in the 1860s and became a powerful voice in politics thereafter. Prohibition of alcohol would have never happened without Temperance, which was really a women’s movement. Prohibition continued well after it was obviously a failure because Temperance was a powerful political movement that could mobilize a big chunk of voters for or against candidates.
How excited morals driven voters are about specific issues really determine when it is possible to revisit the legal status of the proscribed behaviors. I think that gambling is viewed mostly as harmless to society, even if many individuals have a problems with gambling. There are just many other more interesting devils to worry about. Funnily enough, gambling as a percentage of Vegas revenue is down as well and appears like it will keep falling. The forbidden is always so much more fun.
So that’s why gambling is a pure money play. The GOP is still all revved up about drugs so that will take longer. Eventually fading prurient fascination will balance out against the very real destruction that drug prohibition brings.
I doubt prostitution will ever be legalized on a Federal level. More states will likely try it.
The only moral propositions I agree with are ‘do not hurt people’ and ‘do not steal.’ The rest is busybodies wrongly involved in others’ affairs.