Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Feds Return Mistakenly Seized Domain

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the right-courteous-of-them dept.

Censorship 243

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (5, Insightful)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307780)

U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?

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? (5, Informative)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307838)

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308018)

It's called incompetence.
They where shutting people up for unjustified political reason.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308392)

They where shutting people up for unjustified political reason.

That's "were", not "where".

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308472)

"Shutting people up for unjustified political reasons" is censorship!

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308686)

Just typical government work incompetence. That is why it is normally called "monkey work", it is something any monkey can do, as long as they don't go postal. Just think of all the government jobs that could normally be done by outsourcers, but must be done domestically because of security concerns.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308040)

It's destruction of the freedom of speech and private property. Everything else follows.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (3, Interesting)

akma (22089) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308640)

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? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308942)

If you own it free and clear and don't pay, how long until you are "out on the street"?

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? (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308954)

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? (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309060)

Not sure about most of the world, but googling a random selection of reasonably developed countries suggested that there's some form of tax on property for all of them.

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38307840)

It's a .com, so it's registered in the US.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (5, Insightful)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307910)

It doesn't change the fact that it is outright abuse. .com isn't even meant to be U.S. TLD. Since U.S. seems to abuse their administrative rights for global TLD's, I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like .com, .net, .org and .info. U.S. companies can start using their .us if they can't play by the rules.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308562)

Bad idea. I would not let the UN handle tying someone's shoelaces without expecting them to foul it up and hurt somebody in the process.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308830)

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.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38309004)

Absolutely! Turn it over to the UN. Then not only will the US government censor the internet, but so will China, Iran, Australia, and a dozen countries in the European Union.

By the time all these countries get their hands on it, every single site on the internet will be blocked!

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (5, Informative)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307922)

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? (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307982)

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? (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308350)

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? (1)

pburghdoom (1892490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308730)

Because Americans are conditioned to believe that if they vote for any 3rd party then it will just help the opposing R or D party. Meaning if you vote for a more left leaning 3rd party then those votes do not go to the Democrats and therefore the Republicans will win. Because of this we are stuck with the a - holes we have.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309092)

So, if I vote for Libertarian, which is the opposing Party, (D) or (R)???

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38307884)

Should someone accused of being a serial killer, such as Charles Manson, should be allowed out of jail until he is proven guilty?

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308164)

derp derp derp

It's called "posting bond", retard.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308176)

I'm hereby accusing you personally of being a serial killer. Go sit in a jail cell for a year until they get around to noticing that there was no evidence behind the claim.

Because providing mp3 files for download is totally just as bad (worse!) as killing large numbers of people.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308244)

Is he a flight risk?

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308476)

For crimes that aren't murder and where you're not considered a flight risk, then do let you out of jail before your trial. Where the crime you're accused of is interfering with someone else's business the court will often issue an injunction to prevent you from performing that activity, which is closer to what is going on here. But they do require some indication that the defendant is actually doing what they're accused of, which didn't happen here, and they let the defendant otherwise go about their business which should allow them to keep their domain name.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (2)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307948)

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? (1)

MichaelKristopeit352 (1968160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308188)

Confiscate first, sort it out later.

i'll remember that when confronted with your possessions, and the possessions of any loved ones you may have.

no harm, right?

you're an idiot.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308338)

Well, what are you going to do if I come confiscate your domains, or your house?

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308448)

Well, what are you going to do if I come confiscate your domains, or your house?

Probably fight back and end up a bullet ridden sack of meat on my doorstep. But I can tell you, I won't be depending on our broken court system to vindicate me.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

MichaelKristopeit355 (1968164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308492)

that wasn't me... why are you responded to someone asking me questions anonymous coward?

if you want to find out what i'll do if you attempt to violate my rights, there is only one way to find out.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

MichaelKristopeit340 (1967534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308514)

if you want to find out what i'll do if you attempt to violate my rights, there is only one way to find out, and it doesn't involve asking me a question.

you're an idiot.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308408)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308966)

He wasn't actually promoting that idea, you retard.

Yesterday you claimed that capitalization was a tool to help morons with their reading comprehension. You just inadvertently proved that it doesn't do that at all.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

MichaelKristopeit341 (1967638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309096)

ur mum's face is retard.

they probably see it as, "

starts a quote....

."

ends a quote.

after that, the authore was on a sarcastic rant of ignorance.

you can't prove that capitalization didn't help. you just inadvertently proved that you don't apply logic correctly or don't understand the concept of help.

you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (5, Informative)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307966)

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? (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308540)

They will never apologize. That is against official policy. And that is not a joke.

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308650)

Whatever. Our presidents apologize all the time--for things done by previous administrations.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307968)

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? (1)

MichaelKristopeit351 (1968158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308102)

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

nothing. innocent until proven guilty is an inalienable right. if someone attempts to deny you your rights, resistance becomes duty... not rhetorically questioning "what happened" to your rights... an act that the moderators of this internet web site chat room message board have decreed as the highest level of "insightful".

slashdot = stagnated

"When Injustice Becomes Law - Resistance Becomes Duty"

--Thomas Jefferson

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308166)

Chat room? You're still living the 90's or what?

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

MichaelKristopeit353 (1968162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308306)

ur mum's face're still living in the 90's.

what did this website look like in the 90's? square corners and javascript wasn't required and didn't break half the features.

you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308440)

If the rounded corners bother you so much, why you keep coming back to Slashdot?

Besides, only one of the corners is rounded. The coders gave up after that.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

MichaelKristopeit341 (1967638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308552)

you think i'm bothered? that is very telling.

you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308264)

You know, if you'd drop half of your stupid rhetoric like "slashdot = stagnated", "you're an idiot", and "cower in my shadow", you might actually have some good points occasionally. But I'm probably only saying that because you quoted Thomas Jefferson. Almost anyone can look intelligent by quoting Thomas Jefferson.

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

MichaelKristopeit355 (1968164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308370)

ur mum's face know, you're an idiot.

slashdot IS stagnated. you ARE an idiot cowering in my shadow.

you're also an ignorant hypocrite, but you probably think tom would be proud of you...

"Ignorance is preferable to error."

-Thomas Jefferson

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308990)

Disclaimer: internet tough guy, not to be taken seriously.

(Not the same AC as GP)

Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308886)

But the system worked. It only took a year to get through the courts, and the mistake was rectified. At least, that's what they will say. It worked the way it was supposed to, sadly.

How nice of them (1)

evelo (1786080) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307842)

Sounds like a clear case of conspiring to violate the civil rights of a citizen.

Re:How nice of them (2, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307944)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38307994)

How about you try the rights against searches and seizures (4th amendment) http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/search_seizure.html

Re:How nice of them (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308016)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308518)

The "Bill of Rights" isn't called that without reason.

The fourth amendment to the constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note that the right which is not to be violated is explicitly declared here.

Re:How nice of them (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308636)

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 (5, Informative)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308828)

Several of the founding fathers opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights for just this reason. If we enumerate a set of rights, somebody is going to come along and assume that those are our ONLY rights.

Re:How nice of them (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308664)

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 (4, Insightful)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308776)

Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.

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 (5, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308066)

> 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 (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308694)

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 (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308822)

"... 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 (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308920)

I think you might have misread what I said. What I meant was that they have the constitutional power to enforce copyright. They do not have the power to do so in a way that violates other parts of the constitution. I do not have enough information to say whether this case was unconstitutional enforcement or not, and don't have the inclination to bother researching it further.

Re:How nice of them (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309026)

Then why were you bothering to comment?

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 (4, Insightful)

evelo (1786080) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308214)

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 (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309106)

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...

Brilliant Banner (4, Interesting)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307848)

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.

Re:Brilliant Banner (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308978)

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.

Just Wrong (5, Insightful)

BlastfireRS (2205212) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307880)

It's an absolute travesty that it took nearly a year to have this domain returned. A lot of people make their livelihoods from their websites; domains are brands, and the government erroneously damaged these guys' ability to operate. I'd recommend seeking damages if the website was a source of income; even if it wasn't, something needs to be done to prove the point that a little more thought and due process needs to occur before arbitrarily taking things down.

Re:Just Wrong (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308120)

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.

Good Luck (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308304)

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 (1, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308444)

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 (2)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308556)

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 (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308782)

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.

Re:Good Luck (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308594)

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 (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308766)

See United States Code, Title 18, Section 242 (18 USC 242).

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 (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308834)

And a Judge ends up deciding the case. They're very likely to rule against one of their own.

Re:Good Luck (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308988)

There is that. But it happens.

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 (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308372)

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.)

Hosting domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38307900)

Doesn't seizing domains seem counterproductive? Wouldn't be it more productive to seize the server instead? If you're a pirate network you could keep buying domains, or even changing them. If you had an email list of "subscribers" you could keep shifting the content from domain to domain.

BTW, my own domain is http://www.todaystechdeals.com. Don't seize it you rascally government!!

Re:Hosting domains (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308032)

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 (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308422)

Half the point of this thread is that if the server is in "Butfukistan" as you said, then the US has no jurisdiction and should not legally be able to seize the server.

If the server is not under your jurisdiction then you don't have the legal right to seize the domain.

Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (5, Informative)

magsk (1316183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307912)

They should sue them for as much as possible (I know I will be paying for it as a tax payer), they need to be taught a lesson which will make them more careful and rethink their practices.

Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38307926)

this

Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308064)

ICE's budget will remain intact; it's the public education or science budget which gets the scissors.

Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308402)

How does being sued over someone else's money make you more careful? It doesn't. That's part of the problem with government, penalties against wrong doing are often not against those who've slipped up.

Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308494)

^This

The only real penalty there is against a "public servant" is to fire them.

Like that will ever happen though.

It isn't their money. Firings Needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308608)

Suing them won't matter. It isn't their money.
The people who approved this and their bosses need to be fired as do all the people charged with determining which sites should be "taken." That's at least 3 levels. It is even better if this came from the top.

If fear of losing their job isn't involved, you'll never get the attention of federal employees.

but they won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308620)

Yes this was wrong, and yes, something should be done about it.

But nothing will be done about it. The reason things like this go on is because nothing is ever done about it.

Pound your fist. Shout about how wrong it is, and be as right as right can be. That won't change a damn thing.

Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308626)

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 (5, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308880)

See my comment above. It is not necessary to SUE the government. Government officials can be criminally prosecuted under 18 USC 242. This was a statute passed by Congress that was specifically aimed at government officials who abuse the law, and nobody is immune.

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.

You err in assuming they can think (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309040)

They are government after all, they have little more intelligence than zombies. Haven't you been to DMV?

Already Slashdotted at 20 replies (1)

NXIL (860839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308048)

RTFA, VTFWs (visit the web site?)

That, or ICE took it back again.

Re:Already Slashdotted at 20 replies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38309084)

Slashdotted in Canada

Can I get a ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38308202)

USA! USA! USA!

What about the loss of revenue? (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308474)

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?

Innocent but Guilty (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308482)

"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."

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? (4, Insightful)

Tofof (199751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308484)

To be clear, it wasn't "mistakenly" seized. It was wrongfully seized. ICE knew exactly which domain it had seized, and denied any wrongdoing for more than a year. This wasn't the result of a typo on a list or anything else that could possibly warrant* calling this a mistake.

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.. (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308622)

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.. (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308922)

They are wasting taxpayer dollars on this because big corporations told them to. Did you miss the part about the only "evidence" against that site being unsupported word-of-mouth by an RIAA official?

Compensated too? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38308890)

So were they compensated for the loss of a year of revenue and perhaps 'missing the boat' ?

McAfee flags this site as dangerous (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38309078)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?