Domains Blocked By US Treasury 'Blacklist' 525
yuna49 writes "Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports today about the plight of a Spanish tour operator whose domain names have been embargoed by his domain name registrar (eNom). They pulled his domains after they discovered the tour operator's name on a US Treasury blacklist. It turns out he packages tours to Cuba largely for European tourists who can legally travel there, unlike Americans. The article cites '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.' The only part of the operator's business in the United States is his domain name registration; all other aspects of his business lie outside the United States."
Before everyone starts going crazy... (Score:5, Informative)
Do you also realize that it was made law in 1992 under the title of Cuban Democracy Act [wikipedia.org] by U.S. Congressman Robert Torricelli (D) [wikipedia.org]?
Once again, those who seem historically ignorant are quick to condemn the current administration for something that has (arguably) been in place for over 40 years...
How about blocking Saudi travel firms (Score:5, Informative)
Well what about the billions in military aid given to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world?. Cuba is Disney Land compared to Saudi Arabia. What about all that money going towards oppressing the Saudi people? Imagine some big democracy movement started in Saudi Arabia and tried to overthrow the dictatorship. The Saudi government would no doubt use all the weapons we have been selling them against their own people.
US policy toward Cuba is not about the dictatorship. The US has supported and created many dictatorships in that part of the world. The US policy towards Cuba is based on anger over losing control of the country. It's like Britain banning citizens from travelling to the US because the US had the cheek to declare independence.
The fact there is a US base in an 'enemy' country is a little clue as to how Cuba has been treated in the past. Don't expect the mainstream media to talk about it though. The US occupied Cuba after independence from Spain and refused to leave unless the Cubans agreed to a list of items (the Platt Amendment). Among that rather imperialistic list of requirements was a permanent military base at Guantanamo bay.
Of course if Castro had been a business friendly right-wing dictator, it could have been a smooth transition from Batista's rule. You wouldn't be hearing the US making big noises about the lack of democracy at all.
Re:And yet... (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdot stories about Godaddy: (Score:5, Informative)
GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [slashdot.org]
MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [slashdot.org]
Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [slashdot.org]
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? [slashdot.org]
One Slashdot reader's experience: What needs to change [slashdot.org]. Quote: "... the catch was that it'd cost $80, as opposed to the $10 it normally costs."
Illegal in the EU. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:3, Informative)
Cuba is considered different because of its strategic value (closeness to the US). No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard. Many argue, and very reasonably so, supporting Cuba is paying your enemy to subvert your own country. They decided Cuba was the line in the sand and it would be the example held high to ensure no other threats surface. They prop it up as a human rights argument (and it) but that's only because few really understand the strategic value (hint, hint...Cuban Missile Crisis) Cuba has for enemies of the United States.
Those that beckon to strengthen the Cuban economy are perceived by the US as ignorant dupes, serving to undermine the security of the United States. And it has been perceived that way for the last 40 years (so people don't think this is a Bush-ism). By in large, those that are in a hurry to open trade with Cuba are usually completely lost as to what it means to national security.
And when you have a country like the US keeping the hatches secure, and when Cuba is not strategic threat to you, you can easily afford to trade with that country. Most children understand that just because you know someone that doesn't like another person, doesn't mean you have to hate them too. Likewise, not every ally country shares the same priorities (no threat) as the US, and as a bonus, it works as an economic benefit.
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what exactly is the difference (Score:3, Informative)
Just because their cost of living, and thus production, is much lower than in the US doesn't mean they can only make junk.
eNom are MAJOR scumbags (Score:4, Informative)
This is further supported by taking a glance at data from the URIBL "Realtime URI" feed for Abused/Abusive Registrars. A glance at their website [uribl.com] shows they rank second out of 250 registrars for hosting blacklisted domains.
It is not democracy they are interested Jim (Score:2, Informative)
They turn a country, a nation into a military camp. What liberties, what democratic process can be in a military camp?
For example they put the embargo for Zimbabwe and then cry bitterly over the hunger there. They criticize the lack of new democratic ideas in Cuba and at the same time restrict travel of people who could bring and exchange these ideas.
Why they still do it? Look into a history for an answer. 1953. The leader of Iran, Mossadek, dared to demand from British Petroleum part of the oil revenue - 50%. Looks like a fair deal. But he was chased out for this and replaced by a puppet shah. By the way that is the real reason of the Islamic fundamentalism of today.
It is not a democracy they are interested in Cuba. They want somehow to overthrow the government and get hold of its country resources, to receive them for free.
They use for these the systematic approach. Institutions, agencies, think tanks of thousands and thousands specialists in political technologies are busy day and night, analyzing situation, studying local politicians, suggesting actions which could be taken to destabilize the situation, to prevent any improvements in the target country, to prevent the democratic process.
There are departments for every country which has got any resources worth taking: Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, etc. They just use the words "democracy", "freedom" to disguise the real targets - getting an unrestricted access to resources. This tactic was invented by Napoleon who used the ideals of French revolution as a propaganda disguise to conquer the world.
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:5, Informative)
Cuba could have been an ally after that revolution, but Castro nationalized the major factories and plantations. With cause: the Americans running them had been very involved in Batista's corruption, and the many poor in Cuba were starving and under threats from the corrupt government every day. They needed the money, and they needed control over their own economy. And then that amazingly incompetent Bay of Pigs assault was tried, and it was clear to many, not just Castro, that he had no chance of cooperation with the USA. So he cooperated with the Soviets, who helped provide foreign currency and trade as a showpiece of Communism in the Western hemisphere, and as a critical military base.
So, historically, the US priority is hardly one of "no threat". It's one of "Castro out" and "we want control back" as well.
In Iran it IS legal to be Jewish (Score:3, Informative)
That is plainly false. Iran, for all its faults, legally recognises Jews and has the middle east's largest Jewish community outside of Israel. Some 25000 Jews [bbc.co.uk] live there. Iran, while being rabidly anti-Israel, makes a distinction between Jews and Zionism (not that that justifies their policies in any way)
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:3, Informative)
Claims that the South African Apartheid regime collapsed due to pressure from sanctions are a whole bunch of popycock.
As a white South African (emphasis needed only for this article), I can ensure you that for most of my Apartheid South African life I was completely unaffected by sanctions. I kept a journal, so I can say with certainty that I was 15 before I even realised that there was such a thing as apartheid. As for sanctions, they didn't affect me.
The problem with things like sanctions is that they hurt the people they are trying to help. Sanctions caused price increases in most items - increases that barely affected my family, but hurt the poorer (mostly black) population. My parents, and other adults of the time (myself included) complained about high prices on all sorts of items, but we had access to them and bought them in any case. Most of us didn't really know any better. About the only thing that I can remember happening that actually hurt us was the move away from the gold standard. There was a time when the South African Rand was one of the strongest currencies in the world due to the vast number of gold mines in the country.
What would have been a better strategy would be to flood the market with products that exposed more people to the fact that there were differences between whites and blacks. More of an effort to help people to recognise that they COULD do something would also have been useful.
A lot of people outside of the country don't realise that for most of their lives during the Apartheid regime, white South Africans could choose to vote either for the Conservative Party (who were for taking away more black rights) or the National Party (the "liberal" party, and the party that was eventually responsible for the process that ended Apartheid). Through my entire childhood, the National Party was in power. The people I spoke to were scared of blacks coming to power (the ANC was a terrorist organisation that regularly bombed civilian targets*), but were against the current situation. We didn't see how the situation could change.
What ended Apartheid was the then president of the country (FW de Klerk - who won a Nobel Piece Prize for it) giving the country a choice - vote yes to end Apartheid, vote No to keep Apartheid. It was my first election, and I voted to end apartheid, with the majority of the country. Because the majority of South African's didn't believe it was a good system, and we finally had a choice with a plan that seemed viable. We were still scared, and with good cause, but we did it. The very fact that we were so scared and yet did it in any case should indicate that this was a decision that was motivated by a belief in what was right and not simple economics. People don't trade safety for money. You give up safety for ideals.
The only argument that can counter this is that we actually had nothing to fear. The easiest way I know to discount that is to point to this website [friendsofjz.co.za]. It's a website dedicated to Jacob Zuma, president of the ANC, and most likely the next president of South Africa. These are his supporters, and more of a concern, the comments are moderated. I.E. This is what he is comfortable with pepole seeing his supporters as.
There is another problem. If you're interested check out what I've started saying [net-za.com]about these things.
Jason
(* Yes, they did. I was there. In fact, many of the dustbins and other container type items found in the streets in major cities were specially designed to turn to powder instead of shrapnel when they exploded - necessary because bombs were regularly placed inside container type items around popular civilian attractions - shopping centers, movie theaters, etc...)
Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... (Score:3, Informative)
The Union embargo (at times backed up by a low-key blockade) was extremely effective at pressuring other countries into not cutting deals with them. Unable to sell cotton and other local goods, the CSA was more or less broke after a while.