10-20-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#51 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Global
Posts: 1,921
|
Very disturbing how US authorities define the reach of US law. Based on the US Supreme Court's decision in "International Shoe" for there to be personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have some reasonable connection to the place he's/she's being sued. The Internet poses serious challenges to this concept and prosecutors have blown this concept wide open... Scary shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinny lingo
The problem is similar to the one that British guy in Spain had a while back. He was/is a travel agent type guy, and had several dot com domains he was using to promote travel to Cuba. He is not a U.S. citizen, had never been to the U.S. and didn't deal with any U.S. citizens in his business. Thus he was not violating any trade embargos or travel restrictions. Yet he woke up one morning to find out that just about all, if not all, of his domains associated with Cuba were seized by the U.S. federal government.
I don't clearly remember how they were able to do it. But the jist is his registrar(s) were U.S. based, and furthermore, the article I read said something about how dot com domains (like .us) are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. So I guess even if you use an offshore registrar, they can still snag your dot com domains if they don't like what you're doing.
Is there any validity to that, or was it simply because he was using American registrars?
|
|
|
|