Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Music Piracy The Courts The Internet

DHS Seized Domains Based On Bad Evidence 235

An anonymous reader writes "Back over Thanksgiving, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit (ICE) made a lot of news by seizing over 80 domain names. While many of these involved sites that sold counterfeit products, five of the domains involved copyright issues. Four of them involved hiphop-related blogs — including ones that hiphop stars like Kanye West and others used to promote their own works, and the last one was a meta search engine that simply aggregated other search engines. Weeks went by without the owners of those sites even being told why their domains were seized, but the affidavit for the seizure of those five sites has recently come out, and it's full of all sorts of problems. Not only was it put together by a recent college graduate, who claimed that merely linking to news and blog posts about file sharing constituted evidence of copyright infringement, it listed as evidence of infringement songs that labels specifically sent these blogs to promote. Also, what becomes clear is that the MPAA was instrumental in 'guiding' ICE's rookie agent in going after these sites, as that appeared to be the only outside expertise relied on in determining if these sites should be seized."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Seized Domains Based On Bad Evidence

Comments Filter:
  • Andrew T. Reynolds (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday December 20, 2010 @06:16PM (#34621768) Journal
    What are you blind? It's all over the affidavit document [nytimes.com]. Andrew T. Reynolds swears that it's all true. First line of the document.
  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @06:29PM (#34621934) Journal
    Your anger is directed in the wrong direction. You should be looking at the judge who signed the court order. The various police forces are expected to make mistakes on occasion, that's why they have to go to a judge to get a court order before this kind of action. The judge failed to do his job, and so should be disbarred and possibly subject to other penalties.
  • Seriously, it's right there on the affidavit. On top of that you can let the court know in a (circa 1993) web form [uscourts.gov] what you think or contact Nagle's Deputy Courtroom Clerk yourself [uscourts.gov]. Case number 10-2822M for your reference since the affidavit seems to be unable to be viewed by some.

    You're an American citizen and you have the right to know who these people are that are making these decisions whether it be a judge or special agent. And they shouldn't have any fear of putting their name on these documents if they think it's right. I agree with you though that maybe it's not within their capacity to serve this position should they get something so painfully wrong.

    I want countersuits and I want liabilities awarded to the defendants that rival the bullshit astronomical numbers that the court sends out to NASA for computation when the MPAA/RIAA wins. I hate that if the MPAA/RIAA wins it's eighty billion dollars but if the individual is exonerated it's a benjamin tops for having their webserver down. That is bullshit.
  • Re:Healthcare (Score:2, Informative)

    by Schemat1c ( 464768 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @06:43PM (#34622120) Homepage

    Can't wait until the same heros are in charge of my healthcare. Oh wait, they already are...

    Damn, these teabaggers are worse than roaches, just can't seem to get rid of them...

  • Re:Healthcare (Score:1, Informative)

    by Dishevel ( 1105119 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:06PM (#34622426)
    Yeah. The CDC has no political spin in their statements about evil, nasty, gonna destroy the world, flus that are almost as deadly as the normal one.
    Let me say this just one time. Listen well and learn. Hang onto this knowledge and think of it every time you hear anything about the government.

    The Government is here to get more power. More power from the Evil Corporations that prey on the poor and from the Evil unions that run up the cost of everything, from the people who can't choose what their children should be watching on TV and from evil wall street bastards making money off the our suffering. They are here to gain power. Gain Control. They take freedom piece by piece. Always for a good cause. Think of the Children, Poor, Workers, Middle Class, Third World Countries, Environment, Minorities, Women, Gays, Nerds, Mentaly Ill, whatever. They take freedom. When was the last time you saw a law passed that increased your freedom. NEVER. Will not happen. The Democrats are not your friends the Republicans are not either. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives give one fuck about you and your problems. Only about what they can point to in order for your dumb ass to give up more of your freedoms.

  • by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:13PM (#34622496)
    Aren't there criminal charges for providing false evidence?
  • Re:Healthcare (Score:2, Informative)

    by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:21PM (#34622564) Homepage

    In 1918 we had a flu go through the world. About a 1/5th of the world's population caught it and 50 million people died in a matter of months. In the USA it cut 12 years off the life expectancy that year, and 1/4 of the population got it.

    That's what a flu can do that gets out of hand.

  • by sexybomber ( 740588 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:35PM (#34622682)

    No, you can't sue the DHS, or the government in general, because of a most pernicious doctrine called "sovereign immunity." Since the government created the courts and endows them with legitimacy, you can't use its own courts against it, except in very limited circumstances. (It's like dividing by zero, sort of.)

    However, if an agent of the government uses his/her position to commit a crime, you can sue the agent him/herself, but not their employer. (Of course, that's no guarantee that the suit won't get tossed, only that you can, in fact, proceed with it.) Also, if they use the apparatus of the government for purposes of racial discrimination, they can also be sued. But generally, no, you can't sue.

    WIkipedia explains it in more detail: linky [wikimedia.org]

  • Re:Healthcare (Score:3, Informative)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:58PM (#34622934) Homepage Journal

    And even if it were true, there are ways for the government to provide universal health care that do not involve the government controlling that care. For example, the government provided power for millions in the Tennessee Valley, but does not run TVA. They just paid the bill for getting the organization started. There's nothing preventing the government from similarly creating a nonprofit corporation for health care and leaving management in the hands of their board.

  • Re:Healthcare (Score:4, Informative)

    by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @07:59PM (#34622946)

    The law allowing gun carry in national parks.

  • Re:Healthcare (Score:3, Informative)

    by camperslo ( 704715 ) on Monday December 20, 2010 @08:16PM (#34623130)

    The "they" that removed credit card interest rate limits was the supreme court.

    Not exactly. What they did in 1978 was to make it permissible for the laws of the state where the lender was chartered to apply instead of those of the state the customer resides in.

    Where they are:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/map.html [pbs.org]

    General info:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/eight/ [pbs.org]

    Beware of credit of the last resort
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Card_(The_New_Twilight_Zone) [wikipedia.org]

  • You're commenting psuedo-authoritatively on an American case on an American website - why ever would anyone think you're not British? I mean American?!?
    I fail to detect any obvious clues from this thread that you're British. Perhaps your true colours are centred on some other postings?
    Okay, you're spelling and grammers are swell, that's a clue your not American, but come on, you could have also been Jamaican or Canadian.
    Canada FTW!
  • by davide marney ( 231845 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @09:25AM (#34627208) Journal
    The agent lists the basis for the forfeiture on page 66 of the affidavit. U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2323 [openjurist.org] allows the U.S. government to seize "Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of [the following offenses]:" 506 [openjurist.org] of title 17 [openjurist.org], or section 2318 [openjurist.org], 2319 [openjurist.org], 2319A [openjurist.org], 2319B [openjurist.org], or 2320 [openjurist.org], or chapter 90 section 2318 [openjurist.org], 2319 [openjurist.org], 2319A [openjurist.org], 2319B [openjurist.org], or 2320 [openjurist.org].

    I found the affidavit to be pretty sound, and the evidence was fairly damming. I don't think this will ultimately stop the pirates, however, as a close study of the affidavit will give you all the ideas you need to run a pirate site that obeys the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...