|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 10 2012 @ 10:22 AM EST |
You missed my point. The server that the domain name itself resides on IS in
the US. As far as seizing the domain name is concerned that is the only server
whose location legally matters.
The legal requirments would be the same as for seizure of any other type of
property.
I don't know the exact requirments but the drug war made them absurdly loose.
Basically all the government needs is a acusation that the property was used in
the commision of a crime or was obtained using the profits from a crime. It
isnt necessary for the owner to have been convicted or even charge with the
underlying crime that is used to justify the seizure.
There is a motel in the US where the owner has diligently cooperated with the
police for decades in cases where third parties were using the motel for
conducting drug deals. The government is now trying to seize the motel on the
grounds that it is a nexus for drug crimes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 10 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST |
And that is just what the ITU proposals would allow. Ultimately
for each country to "control" its own internet, the internet
would Balkanize, and no longer be an internet.
Great choice ain't it. Leave the root servers where they are and
be subject to arbitrary domain name seizure by the US; or
let the ITU hand control to individual governments and
end up with 192 rule sets.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
