The FBI should not apply American rules on a global populatioj. .com and other top level extensions are not us country domain extensions they are global.
The US (and many other governments) claim jurisdiction over crimes committed against their citizens as well as crimes committed by their citizens no matter the physical location.
If you think a country protection its own citizens is "abuse," well, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> The FBI should not apply American rules on a global populatioj. .com and other top level extensions are not us country domain extensions they are global.
I'm pretty sure they went through ICANN, which would absolutely (and should) support taking down criminals and criminal services from the internet, that they control. There are international laws and treaties. I don't think you'll find too many countries who would agree that it's ok to sell DDoS services. There is no legitimate use for them. Are you suggesting that that position is strictly an American one? I tend to think it's a global one...
You may agree today with how that attack is being used, but history is a good indicator that you'll likely not always agree with what the government does or how it misuses it's power.
Long term I expect decentralized domain name solutions to replace the currently vulnerable ones.
In the absence of any international organization with the power to remove criminal sites, the U.S. government has every obligation to act. Provided, of course, that there is a demonstrated and ongoing crime involved.
This is a good illustration of why the top-level DNS naming structure should have been aligned with legal jurisdictions (basically the two-letter country codes) and not some quasi-global-legally-ambiguous-originally-american global namespace.
