Dirty Hypocrits. US Blacklists Websites

[GroobySteven]

How can the US criticize other governments for blocking websites - yet they go above that by simply removing them from the net completely. Dirty Bastards.

What is that thing you have in the US? Free Speech?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04bar.html?_r=1


Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and he sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including Cuba (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/cuba/index.html?inline=nyt-geo). In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the United States government.




The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com (http://www.cuba-hemingway.com/), were literary. Others, like www.cuba-havanacity.com (http://www.cuba-havanacity.com/), discussed Cuban history and culture. Still others — www.ciaocuba.com (http://www.ciaocuba.com/) and www.bonjourcuba.com (http://www.bonjourcuba.com/) — were purely commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists.
“I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all,” Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. “We thought it was a technical problem.”
It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall’s Web sites had been put on a Treasury Department blacklist (http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/prgrmlst.txt) and, as a consequence, his American domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall said eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; the company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a blog.
Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall’s sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain names to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. His servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along.
Mr. Marshall said he did not understand “how Web sites owned by a British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected by U.S. law.” Worse, he said, “these days not even a judge is required for the U.S. government to censor online materials.”
A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. It said Mr. Marshall’s company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was “a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people.” It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do.
Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. “They can’t go anyway,” he said.
Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in Florida who has studied the blacklist — which the Treasury calls a list of “specially designated nationals” — said its operation was quite mysterious. “There really is no explanation or standard,” he said, “for why someone gets on the list.”
Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control “over a great deal of speech — none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or conflicting with any U.S. rights.”
“OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear,” Professor Crawford said.
The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect “information or informational materials.” Mr. Marshall’s Web sites, though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not clear why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and many do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said the Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall’s case.
“The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. citizens in Cuba,” Mr. Sims said, “but it doesn’t properly have any jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and which are lawful under foreign law.”
Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to ask for a review of his case. “If they want to be taken off the list,” Mr. Rankin said, “they should contact us to make their case.”
That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. “The way to get off the list,” he said, “is to go back to the same bureaucrat who put you on.”
Last March, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights issued a disturbing report (http://www.lccr.com/03%202007%20OFAC%20Report.pdf) on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: “How a Treasury Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers.”
The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on the list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless and serious problems of mistaken identity.
“Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car dealerships, health insurers, landlords and employers,” the report said, “are now checking names against the list before they open an account, close a sale, rent an apartment or offer a job.”
But Mr. Marshall’s case does not appear to be one of mistaken identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with his business.
That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. “The way we communicate these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department should not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere with telecommunications lines.”
Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. Marshall’s .com sites. You can still find, for now, www.cuba-guantanamo.com (http://www.cuba-guantanamo.com/).

[danthepoetman]

Scary.

[Willie Escalade]

Damn...is this what the world is coming to?

My URL has a .net, but it's American. Hope mine don't get blacklisted...

[Jericho]

Land of the free, home of the brave! :shrug

[GroobySteven]

Land of the free, home of the brave! :shrug

Tell me about it. They should just threaten to storm an embassy against international law. That takes real balls.

[Jericho]

Tell me about it. They should just threaten to storm an embassy against international law. That takes real balls.

Don't remind me, it's a fucking disgrace!

[GroobySteven]

Don't remind me, it's a fucking disgrace!

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a head roll for this one. Hague?

[Jericho]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a head roll for this one. Hague?

Hopefully!

[TatianaSummer]

The US Gov brain washes its people since they are born. Thats why when people talk to me about Russia and its government I tell them that here they are not far away from us. As you mentioned where is the freedom of speech? Its only there when they want, I feel sorry for the American people having to deal with its gov trying to control everything, even who you marry and how you have sex with them, now this?
I thought I was living in the land of the freedom. :yingyang:

[Stavros]

The obvious solution is for the USA and Cuba to grow up and normalise relations. In the Politics and Religion thread our Republican friend Erika suggested it could not happen before the human rights situation in Cuba improved, an argument that doesn't get very far when Cuba is replaced with the word China, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. I can understand why some in Cuba might be wary of American money 'flooding' the country if economic restrictions were lifted, but in the end, in spite of its size, Cuba is just an island off the coast of Florida, it doesn't pose a threat to the US, and the US doesn't pose a threat to Cuba. Just as daft is that Canadians can go to Cuba anytime they like -the ones I know have gone back because they like it and the people so much. So much to be positive about Cuba -and not just a proud record of producing attractive transexuals!

[GroobyKrissy]

Tell me about it. They should just threaten to storm an embassy against international law. That takes real balls.

Been meaning to look this up but just haven't had the time. Is there something special about Ecuador? Just seems like a rather small and insignificant player in world politics to go to for asylum so I was wondering why that one was chosen?

[SammiValentine]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a head roll for this one. Hague?

but, but, but.... he can drink 13 pints on a night out, iirc? :ignore:

rofl.

[brickcitybrother]

Just part of the 'secrets' most Americans (hell most people) don't know about. Just like FISA.

[onmyknees]

Tell me about it. They should just threaten to storm an embassy against international law. That takes real balls.



Storm the embassy >>>>>>>>? Get hold of yourself Seanchai ! Light a big fat Cuban and take a deep breath. Let's hope you were speaking metaphorically !
Far be it for me to defend this Administration, and this Treasury Department in particular on anything, and this is probably not the place to start given these circumstances as we know them, and as the NY Times reports. I don't fancy any kind of "creep" on any of The Bill of Rights, but that doesn't stop government from trying. I don't like being groped when getting on an airplane either...that too seems like an over reaction. I know a Purple Heart recipient with a mid eastern sounding last name that made the no fly list while still on active duty....so we may be dealing with the inefficiency of a government agency.When we're dealing with all matters Cuba, one has to understand the irrationality of our Cuban policy since the 60's.From immigration to export/imports, travel, to communications, we're still in JFK mode. My guess is some mid level Treasury Department bureaucrat made the decision, and it certainly appears on the surface to be a bad one. But let's chill on the Russia/US comparison, and waxing nostalgic over Cuba. Spend an hour in South Florida and talk to people who actually escaped Castro's tyranny for some much needed prospective. That's not to suggest our policy toward Cuba is always rational or productive, but it's not the land of the free as some might like you to believe. What makes this case surprising is this Administration is far more sympathetic towards Cuba than any in the past....that proves nothing other than it is a mitigating factor. But I digress....Obviously the Treasury Department will not disclose why they acted in this fashion, I wish they would, so we're left with this curious,, troubling decision.....however wronged Mr. Marshall and the rest of you feel.....he does have recourse and in political and legal system....and it made the NY Times so hopefully he'll receive a fair appeal.
This is part of the reason for the complexity of the US-Cuba relationship.....


<Human rights violations. In March 2003, the Cuban government arrested seventy-five dissidents and journalists, sentencing them to prison terms of up to twenty-eight years on charges of conspiring with the United States to overthrow the state. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a Havana-based nongovernmental group, reports that the government has in recent years resorted to other tactics besides prison --such as firings from state jobs and intimidation on the street-- to silence opposition figures. A 2005 UN Human Rights Commission vote condemned Cuba's human rights record (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm),

[BBaggins06]

How can the US criticize other governments for blocking websites - yet they go above that by simply removing them from the net completely. Dirty Bastards.

What is that thing you have in the US? Free Speech?

Thank you for opening my eyes. I was not aware of the fact that the US is not perfect. I'm going to immediately listen to my Pussy Riot album and then go to a screening of The Dark Knight Rises and yell "He's got a gun!".

I must renounce my citizenship and emigrate to a country that's perfect in every way. Hope it doesn't take all weekend ...

[GroobySteven]

Storm the embassy >>>>>>>>? Get hold of yourself Seanchai ! Light a big fat Cuban and take a deep breath.

I won't even read the rest of the rubbish you posted as life is too short when you clearly don't understand. Take a deep breath and read a newspaper, not everything is about the USA and reality shows. Specifically look up the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.

[GroobySteven]

Ok I read it anyway OMK ... seriously??? What about Thailand's human rights? The Philippines? (oh no, hang on they're friendly and let us land ships) ... ok how about ... Russia's? China's? (Oh no, they're too big and powerful!) Most of the countries in the Middle East? (Oh no, they have oil ... we need it).
Human rights are not the reason the US has an embargo on Cuba. That would just be too sensible ... and talking to ex-Cuban's in Florida is like talking to Taiwanese about China, Hawaiian's about the US illegal takeover of their islands from the USA or many Irish about the NI situation, pointless.

[onmyknees]

I won't even read the rest of the rubbish you posted as life is too short when you clearly don't understand. Take a deep breath and read a newspaper, not everything is about the USA and reality shows. Specifically look up the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.

Cancel

[onmyknees]

Rubbish ? Reality Shows? Storming the Embassy? Clearly it won't be you storming anything. Does someone only "understand" when they agree with you and share your outrage? Pretty condescending dude. You're right about life being too short.....too short to take you too seriously.

[GroobySteven]

Rubbish ? Reality Shows? Storming the Embassy? Clearly it won't be you storming anything. Does someone only "understand" when they agree with you and share your outrage? Pretty condescending dude. You're right about life being too short.....too short to take you too seriously.

Why did you start a rant about the embassy storming thinking it was about the US - and saying how unrealistic it was. Read a paper or the news to see what that was refering to. You take me seriously because you keep responding even when you were clearly wrong.

[Lovecox]

A government's policy is at odds with their actions? How shocking!
Man, how naive are you? It's how all big governments work. Get over it.
Or maybe you could protest by not doing business in the U.S.A. and pulling your websites from all U.S. markets.

[GroobySteven]

A government's policy is at odds with their actions? How shocking!
Man, how naive are you? It's how all big governments work. Get over it.
Or maybe you could protest by not doing business in the U.S.A. and pulling your websites from all U.S. markets.

Wow what a brilliant response. Naive, not at all.
Obviously it's how many Government's work, I was always "over it", and clearly I'm not going to stop doing business in the US (or Cuba). The point is, it's newsworthy story, if they can simply close this website they can close any they're at odds with.

[onmyknees]

Sorry Dude...I can't let this go. The first amendment as we know it here is not coming to an end. This is a unique case in which Treasury felt US law and policy was violated. It does seem rather draconian, and an over reaction, but so did your response. You told me to "go read a newspaper"....frankly I think that's your problem. You did read ONE. The NY Times. They're hardly going to give you a balanced story on matters such as these given their cozy relationship with Wiki and other leakers. So I do read a newspaper, then reach for the antidote. Had you read my post rather than dismiss it as rubbish in a first amendment hissy fit, it doesn't address international law on these type issues....something you're more literate in than most, but rather the unique and often times irrational US policy toward Cuba (something you may not be as literate in) which in the end is the reason Mr. Marshall got caught up in. I'm amazed a guy with 80 websites didn't understand that, and have the domain registered in Spain rather than Washington State....then he could have given away free trips to Havana and there wasn't a thing the US could have done.Telling people they don't understand a particular issue is not going to sway people to your point of view. Look...there are times G.B. has offended us deeply....like for example releasing Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi the CONVICTED Pan Am bomber, but no one was talking about storming your embassy.
For those who are who are both interested and concerned about the US being called dirty hypocrits, here's a more reasoned balanced discussion on the matter than you'll get from Seanchai or the NY Times. .
John Berryhill writes...
US law prohibits US companies from engaging in direct or indirect commerce with Cuba. These and other domain names were put on the OFAC list some time ago, and in fact I notified Enom and other registrars by posting the update to the ICANN Registrar Constituency list.
IMHO, the US embargo is ineffective and silly, but that doesn't change the very straightforward and widely known fact that a US company is going to be subject to that embargo.
The North Korean government used to have its domain name - korea-dpr.com - registered through Enom as well. The former Iraqi government had its domain - uruklink.net - registered through Register.com. Those domain registrants were invited to take their business elsewhere, since neither Enom nor Register.com could provide service to them.
This is not an unusual feature. If, for example, one were to run a pro-Nazi or holocaust-denier website, then there are several European countries in which the use of technical support providers would result in a shutdown.
Similarly, in Canada, there are laws governing the disclosure of information about pending legal matters which have, in the past, resulted in shutdowns of Canadian-hosted content about them.
The internet is borderless, but in situations where specific activity subject to national laws takes place in a relevant country, then the relevant national law will be applied to that specific activity within its borders.
The "speech" at issue here is the conduct of commercial activity, which is not subject to strict principles of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As it stands, like it or not, commerce with Cuba or in support of Cuba is not legal in the United States, Enom is located in the United States, and that's that.
response...
John I couldn't agree with you more. There is a big difference between censoring speech in violation of the First Amendment (referred to as pagewaxing) and enforcement of United States laws regarding commercial activity. There seems to be a definite trend by those labeled spammers, cybersquatters, and the wrongfully censored to fight back. However, just as intellectual property owners must be prudent and selective in choosing which matters to pursue, those "counterclaiming" must in turn be selective. We all now know that not all domain name and website take-downs are pagewaxing, reverse domain hijacking, or generally wrongful. Regardless, debates such as these tend to clarify which cyberuses and tactics are in fact misuses (the Cuba example) or abuses (pagewaxing (http://www.circleid.com/posts/udrp_liabilities_corporations_lawyers/)).

response...

I have no comment on the US embargo of Cuba, or US laws as regards free speech and its lesser status in the commercial space. From a political perspective, the important note that you should take away from this article is that the US Treasury Department is able to effect this action unilaterally, without judicial oversight or approval, and the only avenue of appeal is through the same bureaucrat who made the decision to take action in the first place. I think you should be concerned about the complete lack of checks and balances in this scenario.
The other thing to note in this particular case, as relates to US interference in foreign affairs via the DNS, is that the registrar was not only ordered to disable the domain names in question, but also prevent the registrant from transferring them elsewhere. If this had been a simple matter of preventing US businesses from dealing indirectly with Cuba, it would have been sufficient to order the relevant registrars to cease doing business with Steve Marshall. By also ordering that the domains be locked, the US Treasury Department effectively extended its reach beyond its borders, preventing the foreign operation from resuming business as usual under non-US registrars.
In an ideal world, Steve Marshall would be able to appeal this situation further up the chain of DNS authority, either to the TLD registry, or the masters of the DNS root, but it's currently US jurisdiction all the way to the top. Such an appeal may have worked if the shoe had been on the other foot: that is, if he were a US citizen, and the order had been effected by a government other than the US. If a non-US registrar locks a domain, a US citizen can request that a US court order a US registry to override that action. Such appeals should ultimately end with the IANA, the master of the DNS root, and this is one of the reasons why that function should be performed internationally. Without such international positioning, the rest of the world is effectively subject to US law as regards the DNS, to the extent that the US decides to make it so."

And Now I can let it go.

[thx1138]

There is no rhyme or reason to Fascism. Just destruction.

[Stavros]

Look...there are times G.B. has offended us deeply....like for example releasing Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi the CONVICTED Pan Am bomber, but no one was talking about storming your embassy.

I have no comment on the US embargo of Cuba

Well you say that having admitted you think the US attitude to Cuba is daft or words to that effect -perhaps you should be lobbying your Senator/Congressional Rep to create the mechanisms that would normalise US-Cuba relations, or if the human rights issue -and the persecution of, say, homosexuals- are issues that concern you, lobby same reps to review the USA's relations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, China, Pakistan....and so on,

GB/Great Britain did not release Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, he was released from prison in Scotland, under Scottish law -I thought you would know by now that Scotland has its own judicial system (and its own currency, its own education system, its own parliament etc).

You don't need to read one paper or 10 but should you read the book that Megrahi published before he died, written with his legal researcher John Ashton, and called Megrahi: You Are My Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence you would at least come to the conclusion that the guilty verdict was not safe, that there were numerous flaws in the gathering of evidence, that a key witness changed his story numerous times before and after receiving several million of your $$ for aiding in the investigation of a man found guilty; quite apart from the nonsensical result which acquitted one man but not another, all on the same evidence! You would also know that the evidence pointing to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -General Command, working for the Islamic Republic of Iran, is far stronger -why, there is even a motive! Do some reading now and then, and try books if the NYT is too much for you.

[Prospero]

Tell me about it. They should just threaten to storm an embassy against international law. That takes real balls.

Yeah - but it's only a little embassy. Now if we really want to kick-ass we should pick on someone our own size like Belgium.

[natina]

they actually do not remove the website

they just do not allow the DNS to translate the name into an IP ADDRESS


you can still reach the website if you know the ip address