Nt super specific to cigars but I still feel concerned about this.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/
Just going to leave this here....
- Thread starter Abhoe
- Start date
thejavaman
BoM December 2012
That is a sureal thing to think about. Almost "imminent domain", if you will, for any .com or .net site on the internet.
AlohaStyle
BoM Sept '12 & Aug '13
Although I don't agree with how they are taking over sites, it's definitely not "any" site that they are taking. It's companies that allow online gambling and downloading copyrighted media. Far from imminent domain for any site on the net.
Well. Online gambling is (still) legal in some countries, so it's kind of spooky that US agencies would shut down sites that are operating in accord of local laws.
That's pretty much on the level with shutting down sites of non-US based cigar retailers because they sell CCs.
AlohaStyle
BoM Sept '12 & Aug '13
I agree
I know a few people who lost significant sums of money when the US gov shut down FTP and Stars back in April. People who had money on Stars were lucky, FTP not so much.
The reason I posted the link is because I believe the Feds are setting a frightening precedent in their handling of online companies in accordance with their local laws. The system was essentially set up to cement the Internet in reach of Us courts. It will be interesting how the courts process and decide on these cases but never the less I am concerned about this precedent
Well put! Not liking where this is going.
Herfin' Harg
BoM March 2012
This isn't precedential...
This has been business as usual for a long time, and nothing reported here expands on or restricts the jurisdictional prerequisites for a US court to effect a takedown. To me, this is analogous to picking a state in which to incorporate (or otherwise register) a business. You're going to get to take advantage of some of their protections, but you're subject to their restrictions and regulations as well.
At the end of the day, this process still requires an offended party to go out and get a court order, and that's the part you need to be worried about changing. With a few caveats, US Law already works this way (no order needed) with respect to copyrighted works posted online, so long as the host is subject to the jurisdiction of a US court. That sort of system is much more prone to abuse.
EDIT: Also, I doubt very much that this would at all impact the importation of habanos. The US Government isn't going to be able enforce its embargo as against a foreign merchant through a takedown of a .com site. It's illegal for US citizens to import/possess CCs, not for a foreign vendor to ship them to the US - excepting some sort of treaty and/or other regulation in play in that country which provides otherwise. (I'm not aware of any such treaty, but if there was one, it'd probably be with Canada or the UK, and that's clearly not the case.)
This has been business as usual for a long time, and nothing reported here expands on or restricts the jurisdictional prerequisites for a US court to effect a takedown. To me, this is analogous to picking a state in which to incorporate (or otherwise register) a business. You're going to get to take advantage of some of their protections, but you're subject to their restrictions and regulations as well.
At the end of the day, this process still requires an offended party to go out and get a court order, and that's the part you need to be worried about changing. With a few caveats, US Law already works this way (no order needed) with respect to copyrighted works posted online, so long as the host is subject to the jurisdiction of a US court. That sort of system is much more prone to abuse.
EDIT: Also, I doubt very much that this would at all impact the importation of habanos. The US Government isn't going to be able enforce its embargo as against a foreign merchant through a takedown of a .com site. It's illegal for US citizens to import/possess CCs, not for a foreign vendor to ship them to the US - excepting some sort of treaty and/or other regulation in play in that country which provides otherwise. (I'm not aware of any such treaty, but if there was one, it'd probably be with Canada or the UK, and that's clearly not the case.)
Last edited:
thejavaman
BoM December 2012
Never knew that...
njstone
BoM January 2010
I hear you. However, the US Justice Dept. just seized a very large sum of money that a man from Denmark paid to a Habanos dealer for Cuban Cigars.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2012/03/04/us-confiscates-policemans-cuban-cigar-cash/
A man from Denmark buys Cubans ... the US seizes the money (I think the bank involved used a US transfer agency at some point or something). Sketchy at best!
From one point of view, the US invented the internet so we have some leeway over how it's governed. If a site is managed in the US, I can see how the government feels that's jurisdiction. Even so, I don't like where this is headed.
Palmettoguy
42-28'48'' N
How can the US continue funding for SCHIP and other federally funded programs?
Let's see, they raised cigarette taxes, enacted PACT, and may increase alcohol tax since the last time it was raised was in 1991.
What's another way? Hmmm....
Fines...That's it.
All it would take would be a huge bust of illegal tobacco entering the country to bring attention to the fact that untaxed tobacco is entering the country everyday. Didn't that happen???
Now, since the Internet is apparently owned by the US and the Patriot Act expanded the Secretary of the Treasurys authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities, is it really inconceivable that the US is recording every transaction of illegally purchased tobacco over the world-wide-web? With the sole intent to recoupe lost revenue???
What's one arm of the US Department of the Treasury? That's right...OFAC.
And didn't OFAC fine ppl a while back for making illegal purchases of tobacco from an overseas source? Even though they had made the purchase YEARS previously???
Sorry for my ramblings... My tin foil hat fits nice and snug :stretchgr
Let's see, they raised cigarette taxes, enacted PACT, and may increase alcohol tax since the last time it was raised was in 1991.
What's another way? Hmmm....
Fines...That's it.
All it would take would be a huge bust of illegal tobacco entering the country to bring attention to the fact that untaxed tobacco is entering the country everyday. Didn't that happen???
Now, since the Internet is apparently owned by the US and the Patriot Act expanded the Secretary of the Treasurys authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities, is it really inconceivable that the US is recording every transaction of illegally purchased tobacco over the world-wide-web? With the sole intent to recoupe lost revenue???
What's one arm of the US Department of the Treasury? That's right...OFAC.
And didn't OFAC fine ppl a while back for making illegal purchases of tobacco from an overseas source? Even though they had made the purchase YEARS previously???
Sorry for my ramblings... My tin foil hat fits nice and snug :stretchgr
We invented it....duh!
I'm pretty sure Verisign bought the company that owned the domains .com, .org, and .net. Thus since Verisign is a US company the US gov has jurisdiction over Verisign. Most sites i frequent use one of those three domains.
I'm pretty sure Verisign bought the company that owned the domains .com, .org, and .net. Thus since Verisign is a US company the US gov has jurisdiction over Verisign. Most sites i frequent use one of those three domains.
Apparently just .com and .net, .org is owned by Afilias (Ireland).
I gotta say that this prospect is even scarier - internet owned not by the US but by companies (US or not). In which case the US goverment agencies do the dirty work on behalf of the companies but have little or no say in what the owners do with the part of the internet they own.
But still, if the only thing that puts your site under US jurisdiction is using a .com or .net domain, why not use a different one?
