Feds Return Mistakenly Seized Domain 243
Posted
by
timothy
from the right-courteous-of-them dept.
from the right-courteous-of-them dept.
bs0d3 writes "Just over a year ago, Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized dozens of domain names as part of Operation in Our Sites. Among them was DaJaz1.com, a site from which Special Agent Andrew Reynolds said he'd downloaded pirated music. But there was a problem. Persistent reports suggested that the songs had been legally provided to the site by record labels for the specific purposes of distribution to fans, a point later raised by Senator Ron Wyden. One 'leak' even came from a boss at a major music label. Today, a year later, their domain was returned. The reason was because there was no probable cause and the site had never actually broken any laws or warranted a seizure. They are back in business and are displaying an anti-censorship, anti-PROTECT IP, and anti-SOPA banner on their website."
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
it's called censorship
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called incompetence.
They where shutting people up for unjustified political reason.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they were also incompetent at it would be pretty much irrelevant, except that now we all know.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to give an example for a justified political reason for censorship?
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Censorship is always justified, just ask the Censor.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, recently, I wanted to listen Robert Faurisson [wikipedia.org] denial theories, just to know what he was talking about, and to make my own idea about it. After watching, and in all honesty, his thesis aren't only shocking, it's also completely absurd with very little to no valid evidence for supporting his ideas. He barely shows few maps, talks about how (now destroyed) buildings were made, and that's about it. When he's making comments about what he sees as healthy prisoners (he says they aren't starving, by showing a picture of a bunch of new prisoner just arrived), which is shocking and disgusting. I was very happy that it wasn't censored in Youtube, so I could see it for myself, and have points to make when someone is talking about this subject. If it was removed from Youtube, I would have nothing to tell to someone talking about Faurisson and the fact he is censored and could be seen as a victim of an imaginary Jewish cabal. Now, I know for a fact this is all bullshit.
So at the end, I now strongly feel like it's better to allow free speech, even the most disgusting ones, and fight against them, rather than censoring and make them seen as victims. There's no such thing as justified censorship, and it ALWAYS leads to abuse, and controversy of the worst kind used both ways.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Double edged sword. Censorship is the blocking of information someone (anywhere) does not agree with.
The US had their own war propaganda. Currently politicians are pushing their own propaganda so they'll get elected. I don't agree with any of it so should it be censored? Or should we just have a debate about it and see who wins?
There is NO reason WHATSOEVER to censor anything, anywhere. If you do, you'll only bolster the propaganda method of us vs. them which makes it even harder to track until it's too late.
Hitler was censored in a way too when his putsch failed, he was jailed and both him and his books were banned in that area. He practically became a martyr to the 'oppressed'.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's destruction of the freedom of speech and private property. Everything else follows.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is truly no such thing as personal property anyway.... particularly real estate. Fail to pay property tax and you'll be out on the street same as if you fail to pay rent. They may call it something different, but it is the same in effect and result: don't pay your rent, out you go.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
And you being too stupid to buy what you want (Allodial title) doesn't change the fact you knew what you were buying when you bought it. Find a place with the title you want, and buy it. I own my fee simple land, even if subject to eminent domain and taxes, it's still not "rent."
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Well, in USA and Canada and some other countries, but most of the world doesn't have property taxes.
It's just in US the individual and property rights have been destroyed.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
And why should here be absolute rights to land? It was previously a shared resource. One person is monopolising it. If he's going to do that then he's responsible for making sure that the land is put to good use for the people he'd depriving of it.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Why should there be absolute right to land? For the same reason why there should be any law that protects personal liberties and rights.
It's because any possession is an expression of work of an individual and that's what individuals want to protect - fruits of their own labor. USA is on the wrong track. Most of the world does not in fact have property taxes, in Germany we don't pay any, but in fact in Germany it depends from locality to locality, but there are no federal level property taxes and people prefer to buy where there are no local property taxes either, which basically mostly removes them. There are land TRANSFER taxes. In Switzerland we have a canton tax on 'wealth', it's negotiable with the canton, just like the income tax, which is not a federal issue either (and we are making it go away soon completely).
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it wasn't taken away for not paying the "rent" for the domain. It was taken away for an alleged crime.
The parallel of having the domain hijacked for alleged copyright infringement with having your home taken away for not paying property tax doesn't work out. Even if you cook up crack in your garage they don't take away your home. Not even if you are convicted. And let's not even go into how much of a suspicion is needed 'til they can actually come and take a look into your garage.
What happened here was a police raid because they overheard your neighbor complaining about your crack, not knowing that they were just commenting on your negligence when it comes to keeping your pants up.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
> Even if you cook up crack in your garage they don't take away your home.
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
The government CAN AND DOES take away any of your property they want just based on their SUSPICION that you were involved in a crime.
They call it 'civil asset forfeiture', and with some twisted logic fueled by greed and a total disregard of the rule of law they CHARGE YOUR PROPERTY with committing a crime. The cases have names like: "United States vs. one 1998 Mercedes Benz," and "California vs. 1711 Main Street,"
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture [wikipedia.org]
Asset forfeiture in the United States
There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.
The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.
A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such funds. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.
The number of federal statutes giving the government the right to confiscate citizens’ assets has nearly doubled since the 1990s, by one count. More than 400 federal statutes allow for forfeiture for a wide range of reasons, including violations of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.
Also read:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml [newsmax.com]
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Actually, a more reasonable comparison would be that someone reported your marijuana grow-op, and the feds came in and confiscated your property for a year... without first checking and verifying that you actually had a license to grow medical marijuana.
The sad thing is that this *shouldn't* be a reasonable comparison, as marijuana is a controlled substance, whereas MP3s shouldn't be. No license should be needed to prove you can host MP3 files; it should be* more like the following:
Someone reported your cornfields as containing illegal Monsanto derivative corn. The feds came in and stopped all sales of your crop, confiscating your current crop, without first checking your corn and discovering that it actually is derived from heritage seed (and yes, this happens too).
*once again, it shouldn't actually be, but based on interpretation of current laws, it should be.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Funny)
In the monsanto case the evidence could even have been planted.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
I agree with you, but they probably see it as, "No harm, no foul." No one's dead, right? No one got shot, right? What are we peons complaining about?
Confiscate first, sort it out later - maybe much later - at the behest of their no-sarcasm-intended corporate masters. Isn't it clear who they're "serving and protecting" in this case? Did any Joe Citizen ask for this type of action? You can't even say, "Think of the children!" because kids certainly aren't being hurt if I upload any old mp3 for them to download. Goatse, maybe, but that isn't this.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
How about we compromise, and require seizures to be backed by affidavits signed under penalty of perjury?
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he was being sarcastic and framing it from their view.
Seize $5k worth of computers and return $100 worth of depreciated hardware two years later. What harm has been done? Maybe you can find somebody else who would be willing to charge you $100 for a replacement server today and take it back for $5k two years later. :)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
That's judicial, this executive. They aren't bringing you to court, they're just taking your stuff... which they 'physically' can do. Whether or not they're _allowed_ to do that is certainly a question, but one that needs to be settled in court before you can get it back. And good luck with that.
Think: It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission (especially if you can claim that no one has standing to make you apologize)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apologies can be construed as confession of wrongdoing. So law enforcement and government officials are instructed to never apologize. For anything.
Which is why they never do it, unless a court makes them.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Informative)
We have in our province an Apology Act that passed in 2009. It removed this very misconception, so an apology could no longer be used later in court as admission of guilt or wrongdoing.
A lot of reactionaries panned the law, but it makes perfect sense, for exactly the reason you brought up. There's definite merit in the thinking that being able to apologize up front for a mistake can avert or at least reduce the likelihood and severity of a drawn out court battle.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
cook the frog slowly, my friend. that way you don't realize what's been done to you until its too late.
there is a firewall in place; but its not physical.
yet.
btw, so much of our nation gets its 'news' from tv and mass media, there IS, in effect, a firewall going on. the lack of real reporting and truth is a kind of information firewall.
so, yes, we have firewalls of a kind, in the form of a filtered reality. fox leads the way, but the others are also owned by big media and they are also being filtered. at many levels, there is filtering going on. the only way to stay current is to go from the bottom up (blogs, forums, etc) where there is (currently) less control over free speech. all official news outlets, though, stopped being free for longer than I can remember (I'm a greyhair, too, fwiw).
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
If they didn't even have probable cause then the domains wouldn't be seizable even under CIVIL forfeiture laws.
You know the powers that be are too arrogant for our good when they don't even keep up their own pretenses.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
I would not let the UN handle tying someone's shoelaces without expecting them to foul it up and hurt somebody in the process.
But How is the US Government any better at that? They Bleed money out of every government agency any chance they get and still screw stuff up.
Let's put it this way: Suppose you're walking down the street and notice your shoelaces are untied...
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
an US judge just ruled that having a .com doesn't necessarily mean it's under US jurisdiction:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/11351416992/facebook-fails-its-argument-that-faceporn-is-under-us-jurisdiction-using-com.shtml [techdirt.com]
Facebook argued in its filings that Faceporn targets a United States audience by using a ".com" address, and by virtue of the fact that Faceporn is an interactive website with 250 users in California and 1000 users in the United States. The court says that these allegations alone are not sufficient to satisfy the standard for personal jurisdiction.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a .com, so it's registered in the US.
So does that mean the US government can seize your US-registered car because someone says they saw it speeding? Or your US-registered house because someone says that you weren't recycling your garbage?
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they can kill you because someone says you're a Terrorist? (answer is sadly .. YES).
Voting (D) or (R) results in the same thing. Why anyone votes these two parties any more is beyond me
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
So, if I vote for Libertarian, which is the opposing Party, (D) or (R)???
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
The opposing party is whichever one ends up winning.
This, incidentally, is why Libertarians can never win. Whenever they win, they become their own anti-particle and explode.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem [wikipedia.org]
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
So the US government can seize your taxi or truck (or any other thing you use to make a living), for a year, just because someone said "the vehicle doesn't seem legal"?
I mean, if their seize your car, you can probably take the bus to work, if they seize your house, you can probably stay somewhere else. But if they seize the place you get your income from, you seem to be in deeper trouble.
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
.com is not the domain you are looking for. .com means commercial, the US domain is .us. (Central registrar might be in the US right now, but .com TLD does by no means belong to USA).
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:2)
Is he a flight risk?
Reverse onus (Score:2)
Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3)
Brilliant Banner (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brilliant Banner (Score:2)
The design, wording and overall presentation of that banner is brilliant. The site appears to have been (hopefully briefly) slashdotted. But they have an emblem for "American Censorship Day" across from one for the "Great Firewall". Fantastic juxtaposition. Bravely and skillfully done all around - to post this just after having gotten the domain back.
The video is pretty cool too. Not only is it informative but hopefully the graphics help the average person that doesn't understand.
Not that I think it will work, or that I think the average american will do anything other than just shrug when one of us talks about copyright reform.
Re:Brilliant Banner (Score:2)
Well, brave... I guess they can be quite brash right now, I guess it would cause a shitstorm if they had their domain hijacked AGAIN.
Re:Brilliant Banner (Score:2)
Just Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Wrong (Score:2)
Indeed, the first thing I wondered was if they have a method to seek damages or if it falls under some law that gives the government immunity against lawsuits where they plain get it wrong - like here.
Re:Just Wrong (Score:2)
What if they do? Let's ponder for a moment, what would change if they sued (and let's even imagine they won).
Nothing. They would still hijack domains at will, they would still be at the beck and call of the RIAA. Why? Well, duh, why not?
When you sue me (successfully) for damages when I fuck up, I have to cough up dough. That hurts me. And hence I'll do my best not to fuck up again. Why should they? Does it hurt them? Umm... do you think the compensation for the wronged party would come out of their budget? Or out of your pocket?
Suing a government agency with the goal to make them stop fucking up doesn't work, plain and simple. They don't lose money that way. Government agencies have a budget for ... well, everything. And that's calculated according to (perceived) need, not depending on what "revenue" that agency creates. Fuck, if government agencies had to be profitable, 99% of them would have been shut down before your grandparents were born. And the rest would have never been created.
So if they have a budget of X and now get sued for Y, they won't have a budget of X-Y next year. They'll have a budget of X, and you, along with the rest of the taxpayers, have to cough up Y bucks.
Good Luck (Score:2)
I agree with you that this is a complete travest. However, I would be very surprised if they got any results in court.
The courts have long held that as long as the government has a warrant they can seize any property, freeze any bank accounts, and demolish anything they want in the course of an investigation and don't have to provide any compensation if it turned out you were innocent. Even if you were never suspected of a crime, your property was only tangentially related to the investigation, and seizing it will make you destitute they can still take it, hold it for as long as they want and not pay you a dime. Thank you war on drugs.
Re:Good Luck (Score:2, Informative)
but here they didn't have a warrant - and there wasn't any probable cause.
This was taken with zero due process - therefor should not fall under previous court rulings.
Re:Good Luck (Score:3)
Yes, they did have a warrant [arstechnica.com]. There was standard due process, that is, an in-house judge rubber-stamped the request.
Re:Good Luck (Score:2)
sorry missed that - kept seeing the lack of due process and didn't see that they had a warrant.. although it might be questionable if the warrant should have ever been given.. but i doubt a judge would rule against another judge on that.
Appeal (Score:2)
but i doubt a judge would rule against another judge on that.
A judge ruling against a judge is the definition of an appeal.
Re:Good Luck (Score:2)
Yup. Even if the prosecutor did it just to get back at you for sleeping with his wife good luck getting anywhere with it. Google prosecutorial immunity...
Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Informative)
The person who misrepresented probable cause to the judge CAN be prosecuted. Even if it was mere negligence. In fact, even the judge could probably be prosecuted, for signing a warrant that allowed property seizure without sufficient evidence. That statute has real teeth, and there is no exception in 18 USC 242 for judges. They are government officials like any others.
Re:Good Luck (Score:2)
And a Judge ends up deciding the case. They're very likely to rule against one of their own.
Re:Good Luck (Score:3)
In my area, a judge who let another judge get off lightly on a DUI charge, was himself charged with DUI a year or so later. People were so pissed off, they had to throw the book at him or there would have been a riot.
Remember that laws are supposed to represent the will of the people.
Re:Just Wrong (Score:3)
Oh, I completely agree that it's wrong, and I'd argue that in such cases that the website owners and employees should all be entitled to compensation equal to industry-typical (for the area they're operating from) wages for a year plus typical bonuses and other profits.
My fear is that the government will successfully claim sovereign immunity on the grounds that the seizure was done by a government employee on government time for purposes the government considered at the time to be correct. (Malicious, perhaps, senseless, definitely, but correct according to their way of thinking.) Sovereign immunity is used way too much in these sorts of cases and there should be serious consideration to revoking it entirely. Sadly, since it is the sovereign power that gets to decide whether or not it has immunity, that doesn't strike me as a likely proposition. (Sovereign Immunity is a relatively modern legal convenience that has no rational basis in a free society.)
Re:Just Wrong (Score:2)
Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:2)
Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:2)
Two words: sovereign immunity. It's almost impossible to prove the conditions required to successfully sue the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.
Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:5, Interesting)
So far in 2011 there have been 41 prosecutions under 18 USC 242, and of those, there have been 39 convictions.
By the way, I should also point this out: although not long, the wording of the statute can be a bit confusing. What it says is that depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights for any reason falls under the law, PLUS treating people differently due to race or alien status. The law does not just apply to discrimination cases.
Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:4, Informative)
Sovereign Immunity wasn't an impediment in the canonical example of a lawsuit about technology-related unlawful seizure: Steve Jackson Games v. United States Secret Service [wikipedia.org]; The Federal Tort Claims Act [wikipedia.org] probably provided the rationale to waive sovereign immunity in this case, since it was the tortuous actions of agents of the Secret Service which were the heart of the case.
This case was the genesis of the EFF.
To recap: SJ Games was raided in early 1990 on unsubstantiated claims of possession of stolen proprietary "telephone system hacking" information. (i.e., interstate theft and wire fraud). The affidavit [sjgames.com] supporting the warrant was sealed at the request of the Secret Service until October of that year, so SJ Games didn't even know what it was really being raided for.
Some of the seized goods (hardware, documents) were returned within that year, but not all; I'm not sure if all of it ever was.
SJ Games filed suit to "to redress violations of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq and 2701 et seq; and the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution." in May of 1991 and won the judgment in March of 1993.
To borrow the central conceit of the Battlestar Galactica retread series: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."
You err in assuming they can think (Score:2)
Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (Score:2)
So, essentially, you're saying that you want to pay more taxes?
You don't think that them suing (and possibly winning) would put a dent into their budget, do you? You foot the bill, you just pay more. Or we cut back on healthcare, social services, education or any other unnecessary tidbits.
What about the loss of revenue? (Score:2)
Can't they sue for the loss of business and or freedom of speech?
Could the federal government put you in Guantanamo and then release you a year later and just say... sorry
Where is the compensation for undeserved and unreasonable abridgement of you life, liberty and property?
Re:What about the loss of revenue? (Score:2)
Yes, they can.
But they won't.
Say "sorry, I mean. They might put you in Gitmo for a year, but they won't say sorry afterwards.
Innocent but Guilty (Score:3)
This is what happens when domains are seized on the basis of mere accusations. Instead of the government having to prove that a website's operators are guilty of copyright infringement, the claim alone is enough for the feds to seize a domain that will only be returned either as a gesture of "good will" or if the website's operators can prove they are innocent of that which they haven't been formally accused. Those responsible for such a policy should be ashamed of themselves and their perversion of justice.
Mistakenly? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as if the feds got back from their domain seizing spree and the wife said "Honey, I told you to pick up Diet DaJaz1.com!"
Not the only "warrantless" event in this situation, either.
Worst part is.. (Score:2)
While they killed a legitimate domain and business for a year. If it had actually been an illegal site, it would most likely have been up and available on another domain/site/host within 24 hours.
I don't know why they are wasting tax payer dollars on any of this.
Re:Worst part is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Compensated too? (Score:2)
So were they compensated for the loss of a year of revenue and perhaps 'missing the boat' ?
McAfee flags this site as dangerous (Score:2)
Gives me a massive warning in my browser. Seems the antivirus companies just accept what they're told? Time for them to update their definition for this site.
Just to get this straight: (Score:2)
The feds can cash in any domain and if it was "by mistake", they just say "whoopsie, sorry" a year later?
With this strategy, you can silence any kind of webpage. In the world of the internet, a year is an eternity. Something that was gone for a year can as well start over with a new domain name. The only difference is in the point of time when they can start rebuilding, instantly with a new domain name vs. a year from now with the old one.
If you really care - DO SOMETHING! (Score:2)
Call or contact your Senator!
Senate Contacts [senate.gov]
Call or contact your Representative!
House Contacts [house.gov]
Get involved another way?
EFF is a good way [slashdot.org]
This is a big LOST, not a win (Score:2)
Re:How nice of them (Score:3, Informative)
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
Re:How nice of them (Score:5, Informative)
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
If you actually knew anything about the Constitution, you'd know that it defines the limited powers of the government, not the rights of the citizens.
Re:How nice of them (Score:2)
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Oh hey look at that.
I have read the Constitution, TYVM. Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.
Re:How nice of them (Score:5, Insightful)
They do NOT have the power to seize property or restrict speech without proving that it is justified. Even if you argue that a domain is not 'property', they interfered with the domain owner's ability to disseminate information without cause.
Re:How nice of them (Score:2)
Re:How nice of them (Score:2, Insightful)
Article IX also essentially says that just because we might have forgotten something or something new comes up, doesn't mean it isn't a right.
Re:How nice of them (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How nice of them (Score:5, Insightful)
> I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
No offense, but you want to try READING the amendments buddy. Specifically ...
X Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re:How nice of them (Score:2)
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Posted in reply to another comment, but it bears repeating. Again, they appear to have been wrong about copyright being infringed in this case, but they DO have the power to enforce it. Right there, in the main body of the US Constitution. Article I, section 8 if interested.
Re:How nice of them (Score:3)
"... they appear to have been wrong about copyright being infringed in this case, but they DO have the power to enforce it."
This is about the most egregious straw-man argument I have ever seen.
Congress has the power to pass enforceable laws, but it does NOT have the power to unconstitutionally enforce laws, or, for that matter, to otherwise constitutionally enforce unconstitutional laws.
Re:How nice of them (Score:3)
Re:How nice of them (Score:2)
Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be a smartass, I am just curious. Why engage in the conversation at all, if you don't know the situation and won't look it up?
Re:How nice of them (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
Personally I'm not willing to separate communication over a computer network from face to face communication when it comes to freedom of expression or for that matter accountability for fraud, libel, sedition, civil offenses etc. The domain's owner pays a fee to use that identity for his puposes, and the only purpose of computer networking is communication. It *should be cut and dry, the government should have no special powers to censor Internet communications any more than they should be permitted to pepper spray passive demonstrators. This domain was seized without even contacting the owner and witheld for a full year. No offenses were committed and no due process was given. IMO they did conspire to violate US 1st and 4th amendment rights.
Re:How nice of them (Score:2)
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
You have a right to everything, unless denied in the Constitution. Where is it denied in the Constitution? Then that's proof you have the right. There's much you don't remember from the Constitution...
Re:Hosting domains (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't seizing domains seem counterproductive? Wouldn't be it more productive to seize the server instead?
Good luck seizing a virtual server in Butfukistan.
Re:Hosting domains (Score:2)
If the server is not under your jurisdiction then you don't have the legal right to seize the domain.
Re:Hosting domains (Score:2)
And this, dead kids, is why you don't use .com domains for critical infrastructure. You cannot rely on a country that sells laws to the highest bidder.
Re:Can I get a ... (Score:2)