It's hard to tell from the article if this was jack-booted thuggery, or if some kind of due process was followed to shut down an organization causing actual harm. Anybody?
As I've said again and again and again and again and again:
If you are engaging in what is undeniably a business relationship (money/goods/services/written agreements/etc.) with people who are in a country, then it doesn't matter where you are; you can quite easily end up subject to the laws of that country. This is not a new idea. This is not a scary idea.
bodog got their domain seized because they thought they could engage in that sort of relationship with US customers despite offering services which were illegal in the US. This is downright mundane, and the amount of ignorant hyperbolic OMG FASCIST IMPERIALIST JACKBOOTED THUGS TRAMPLING ALL OVER ME hysteria it's generated frankly disgusts me.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you ought to be able to break US laws when dealing with US customers. The question here is what sort of process is used to seize these domains. Notice how you alleged something about Bodog? Are these allegations proven in court? Was some kind of open hearing made? Did Bodog have a chance to respond to the allegations before their domain was seized?
I don’t speak for anyone except me, but I think it’s quite reasonable to (a) Agree with you that when dealing with US customers you ought to comply with US laws, while simultaneously (b) Asking tough questions about how the US government chooses to “enforce” its laws.
I completely disagree. I guess we have different philosophical views and will never agree, but I will still try to present my point of view, for the sake of the debate.
In any kind of business relationship, there are two parties involved, usually a seller and a buyer. In this case, it's the business and a costumer. If a transaction is illegal, both are equally responsible and thus liable, not just one of them (e.g. rape is not a business relationship, so the victim cannot be blamed, but prostitution is (as long as it's not forced), so the prostitute is breaking the law as well).
If the US makes some business relationships illegal, when one of the parties is in the US, it should go after that one party, not after the other one. E.g. copying DVDs is illegal in the US, but legal in most of Europe. Should I be punished for offering the service of making backup copies of DVDs for EVERYONE, or should the US punish the US customer that was using a service that is illegal?
In a way, what the US did is disrespect and ignorance of Canadian national sovereignty. Canada seems to be OK with that, but I hope that other countries won't be...
just so you know prostitution isnt illegal everywhere, so here's something to think
If an US citizen pays to prostitute at overseas can US sue the prostitute for offering the service to united states citizen where it isnt illegal?(assuming states finds out about it somehow)
Because this is basically the same, a serviceprovider offers a service thats legal in the country the company and hosting is based on for customers of said country.
When someone not from the said country finds out about the service and starts to use it the company is doing something illegal?
Internet is global and it is nearly impossible to make a service that ISNT ILLEGAL SOMEWHERE (see china & citizenrights/laws)
What makes this controversial is that most people aren't going to see on-line gambling as such a horrendous activity that the US government needs to go to such lengths to stop it. That such activity should be a crime at all is already so controversial that the governments heavy-handed means of enforcing this law makes many of us nervous.
Further, the use of such trickery is the result not of passionate seekers of justice, but ambitious federal agents and prosecutors who see a fairly easy, high-profile target. It is a bad sign of the way the machine of justice runs these days, and doesn't bode well for freedom for the US or the internet.
I have never seen a report about the US government seizing a domain that also happen to include what most US citizens would consider due process. It's literally you wake up one day and your website is gone. In some cases people found out from a third party, such as the media asking for comment.
Sports betting. It probably does cause actual harm to some, but that's debatable. And should all occasionally harmful things (like say, guns and vodka) be outlawed? Liquor stores and betting shops in poor neighbourhoods: are they harmful? Should they be outlawed?
What this company does is legal many places, though not in the USA. Were some of the people who chose to use the site located in the USA? Yes. Is the site merely a front for enabling US citizens to break their country's law? Harder to say what the percentages of users are.
This seems similar to closing down a betting shop located in Canada, on the grounds that a lot of the patrons had crossed the border to go there and break US law.
I'd say it's more like, having a betting shop in Canada, but the only entrance is via an underground tunnel whose entrance is in the US. The US have said "the only use of this tunnel is to disobey US law, and so we're closing down the tunnel."
That analogy leaves me with a few questions: (1) is a "tunnel to Canada" a good analogy for "a .com domain hosted in Canada"? (2) Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction? (I think this is the case, but shouldn't be).
The problem arises because, unfortunately, .com domains are based under US jurisdiction. Given that, there's an option for US-local lawmakers to apply for a takedown.
> Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction?
it may be a historical fact, but it's not a general perception. The internet is global, and I (and probably many people) read ".co.uk" as "A UK-based business", for example. And ".com" reads as "a business on the net". ".com" has prestige as a top-level domain, even for companies that don't do much business in the USA. it says "worldwide" - like the internet.
I don't think the actual lesson is about .com domains, it is about doing online business with U.S. citizens, this, it turns out, might risk your website. And if you happen to be on a .com, .org or .net domain, it would simply make it easier for U.S. law authorities to persecute you.
