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!

US DOJ Drops Charges Against Two Seized Websites

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the forget-about-it dept.

The Courts 152

angry tapir writes "The U.S. Department of Justice has dropped its case against two Spanish websites that stream sports events nearly 17 months after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the sites and shut them down for alleged copyright violations. In a one-page brief to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the district said his office had dropped the case against Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org. ICE seized the two sites on Jan. 31, 2011, and the DOJ asked the court to order that Puerto 80 Projects, the owner of the sites, forfeit the sites to the U.S. government."

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

Fuck the DOJ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176927)

Fuck Amerika

Re:Fuck the DOJ (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178179)

It's gonna take about 30 minutes for those words to get to Mars to be relayed back to Earth.

Re:Fuck the DOJ (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179357)

That may be flamebait. If so, to bad. The DOJ is not the Department of Justice. ICE is not a government body, either - it's the enforcement arm of Corporate Amerika. Screw 'em.

AND, I'm an American.

No even a "we're sorry?" (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176929)

What about the lost money? Time to sue.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177009)

What about the lost money? Time to sue.

And for damaged reputation and lost customers, due to those went to one of the seized sites, freaked out, then never visited again. Definitely damage was done to Puerto80 Projects (their owner), but can the the DOJ escape liability by claiming the seizure was not unlawful?

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177033)

Better sue them for thousands of dollars for each potential lost customer! I estimate that they owe over 100 trillion dollars.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177087)

...

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177423)

Better sue them for thousands of dollars for each potential lost customer! I estimate that they owe over 100 trillion dollars.

100 trillion dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days, dr. evil.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (2)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177503)

100 trillion dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days, dr. evil.

The *IAAs haven't asked for that much (yet)...

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0, Offtopic)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178739)

100 trillion dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days, dr. evil.

Thanks to our recent Government for the fact that numbers previously almost incomprehensible are now simply part of our daily cultural consciousness...

From the May 19, 2012 - (CBS News) [cbsnews.com] (emphasis mine):

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

Of course, Obama blames it on Bush {roll_eyes}, but that's a little disingenuous, given that at his rate until now he will have eclipsed the Bush spending by well over a factor of 2.5 by the time he leaves office if, Deity forbid, he gets reelected.

Not much Hope, and less Change, is what I've seen out of him and his administration/cabinet during his term in Office. Not that I expected it - politicians of the two parties just tell a different set of lies to get elected.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office." - H.L. Mencken

Let's get the current incompetent boob out of Office and try a new one to see if it can do any better. Maybe things will work better with someone in charge who understands making money, not just taking money...

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178877)

e who understands making money, not just taking money...

You mean the guy of the party that stopped removing the obscene tax cuts of the very rich ?

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178893)

Sure is election time soon over in the US, huh?

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (1, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179587)

Yes, blaming Bush is exactly right in this case. Obama's deficits are the direct cause of the bubble collapse: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/?mobile=nc [thinkprogress.org]

He has failed to cleanup Bush's toxic mess of economy, sure. But large deficits are not his fault.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41180041)

It is not much, but it could balance Portugal budget for a moment or two...
If one infringement costs thousands dollars in punitive damages ....
wouldn't it be fair to grant the same amount for accusing without proof?
Paid directly by MAFIAA ...

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178449)

Use the RIAA sue to $$$ scheme!!!!

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178527)

Yup, it's perfectly legal AND there's tons of precedents!

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (5, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177109)

Sadly, while the US can seize foreign assets, often courts rule that foreign companies do not have standing to sue. The standards for what constitutes having a local presence seem to vary according to which side the government is on....

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177667)

courts rule that foreign companies do not have standing to sue

Standing seems to get in the way of justice quite often. We need to strongly consider removing these loopholes in our justice system that allow the government to commit crimes with impunity.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177907)

Do we really need a law to close the loopholes? Can a judge rule that it violates the spirit of the law? It doesn't seem constitutional to begin.

In my opinion, if the website is owned by an American or is subject to a registrar with an American presence, I think they'd have authority. However, that authority shouldn't be without a court order, and any court order shouldn't be without a hearing or trial involving the parties in question.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178411)

It doesn't matter that it's unconstitutional unless you can demonstrate how it directly harms someone protected by the constitution. I, as a citizen, have no standing to object to the lawless practices of my government unless I am a direct victim of those practicse.

What I am suggesting is that a justice system where lawlessness is tolerated directly affects everyone subject to that justice system. Every citizen should have a right to a government that obeys the law. That is not the case in America today.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177909)

Best of luck getting any real opposition into Congress that will do it. Nothing's gonna change while the voters have their heads up their ass and keep reelecting these buttheads

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (3, Insightful)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178605)

It's difficult to blame the voters when every candidate on the ballot is a butthead.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179121)

Nope, participation in the primaries and write ins are available. The voters are just too lazy and complacent to give damn, and seek out qualified candidates.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179201)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41180061)

They can always go to their court.
And get nice US gov. property located in Portugal.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178165)

It doesn't say anywhere that the US can seize foreign assets.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178451)

Sadly, while the US can seize foreign assets

They cannot. If you meant foreign-owned assets within the US, then yes. Foreign assets cannot be seized unless the country which holds them allows it to happen.

often courts rule that foreign companies do not have standing to sue

And foreign courts do the same. Since such rulings always depend on the specifics of the case, and you haven't offered any citations, I'm going to dismiss your argument as irrelevant.

There's nothing in your post specific to the US. But congrats on the trolling, you've got several idiot mods to put you up to +5 Interesting.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (3, Informative)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178931)

Isn't the .com and .org TLDs American? They only seized the domains and not necessarily the server hardware, as I understand it. Besides if the sites were running off American TLDs and were hosted in the US then it's no wonder that a US agency could seize them.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (3, Interesting)

fliptout (9217) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179477)

IANAL, but I think the proper course of action in this case is to sue the US government in their home country. If successful, they could have US assets there frozen and seized.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (4, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177755)

What lost money?

I used Rojadirecta before I found a better site. It was only when my 'better' site didn't stream a game I was after that I looked back to Rojadirecta.org and saw it was down.

Rojadirecta.se came to the rescue. I see there is a Rojadirecta.me too. When will these ban-hammer organisations learn? How long have we seen the same processes repeated over and over?

I don't give a shit about Hollywood or Poptastic music. I do give a shit about my sports.

If only they'd let me buy the stream on a Saturday afternoon. I only want to watch Tottenham Hotspur play. I cannot afford to travel to the game, even if I could get a ticket - their ground is full most weeks. I can afford a few quid to stream the game.

I pay for Sky Sports. I'm happy to pay for my sport. Let me give you more money, you fucking idiots.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177883)

It's essentially the same as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial, just in a different medium. The DOJ has incredible protection against the use of poor judgement, and the unfortunate victims have little to no recourse.

No expropriation without compensation (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178495)

When the government takes land to build a road they must pay the owner. Taking a website without a court order/criminal conviction is expropriation, not a legal punishment.

Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (1)

Zcar (756484) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179899)

Sovereign immunity. You can't sue the US government unless it says you can. I'm not sure if they could sue over this.

Seizing property (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176957)

Sounds like the sort of thing the American Revolution was supposed to put a stop to. Good thing Brazilians can't 'revolt' against the US - or if they do then they're terrosists and, guess what, no right to trial either! Long live the glorious republic.

Re:Seizing property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176961)

Good thing Brazilians

Er.. I mean Spaniards. Non-US citizens anyway and therefore not created equal, not endowed with rights by their creator etc. etc.

Re:Seizing property (-1, Flamebait)

SteveWP (1845840) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177741)

Good thing Brazilians

Er.. I mean Spaniards. Non-US citizens anyway and therefore not created equal, not endowed with rights by their creator etc. etc.

If only that was true, It would be so nice to exterminate all the roaches infesting our great nation.

Seizure without cause (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176959)

It seems that this tactic has some interesting consequences. The DOJ can seize the website, take it offline and make it unavailable to users. Thus removing all revenue streams. In the mean time, they wait. After a significant amount of time passes they go and "unsieze" the websites which now have lost revenue and users.

Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?

Re:Seizure without cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41176999)

Hmmm. Megaupload next?

Re:Seizure without cause (5, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177007)

It seems that this tactic has some interesting consequences. The DOJ can seize the website, take it offline and make it unavailable to users. Thus removing all revenue streams. In the mean time, they wait. After a significant amount of time passes they go and "unsieze" the websites which now have lost revenue and users.

Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?

I've been saying this for a long time - if you're hosting something, doing it outside the US is a good plan. If you can host it somewhere that's US-hostile, even better (so long as the US doesn't bomb the datacentre).

Re:Seizure without cause (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177029)

Anyone with a .org, .net, .com, etc US controlled domain [slashdot.org] even if their servers are hosted elsewhere in the world won't escape a similar fate.

Re:Seizure without cause (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177337)

Seems like all that should give them is ability to take you DN. What international treaty gives them jurisdiction of your business if you're on foreign soil?

Re:Seizure without cause (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177355)

I don't know. May be Kim Dot Com is wondering the same.

Re:Seizure without cause (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178011)

What international treaty gives them jurisdiction of your business if you're on foreign soil?

This [thenews.com.pk] ! Any more questions?

Re:Seizure without cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41180123)

What international treaty gives them jurisdiction of your business if you're on foreign soil?

This [thenews.com.pk] ! Any more questions?

I can see "small" fault in your logic...
This [widebodyaircraft.nl] should give jurisdiction over WTC...

and nice 2' long two-by-four should give jurisdiction over your wallet ?

No, thank you Sir, I do not agree ...

Re:Seizure without cause (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177295)

Doesn't seem to help much. If anything it looks to me like the US DOJ is more apt and just as able to seize foreign sites.

Re:Seizure without cause (2)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177777)

Only if you're stupid enough to register under an american TLD or with an american registrar.

You need dual hosting (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177585)

Somewhere in a US-unfriendly place for sure. But likely that US-unfriendly place won't be the most free country in the world and may want to shut you down for whatever reason (if you're hosting in Iran and say something bad about Iran, for example). So, you need to host in the US too, because the US will ignore their legal requests for takedown. Get domains from a few different TLDs that can always lead to your site, and you're good.

Re:You need dual hosting (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177805)

Somewhere in a US-unfriendly place for sure. But likely that US-unfriendly place won't be the most free country in the world and may want to shut you down for whatever reason

There are plenty of countries that aren't that friendly with the US that allow more freedom than the "Land of the Free", just involves careful choices.

Re:You need dual hosting (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178383)

"There are plenty of countries that aren't that friendly with the US that allow more freedom than the "Land of the Free", just involves careful choices."

Most such countries are small and therefore more easily "influenced" than "unfriendly" but clearly less democratic countries like Russia and China. Kim Dotcom probaby thought he was beyond the long arm of the DOJ by holing up in Hobbitland. Apparently the US was able to exert enough influence to initiate local police action him. NZ still appears to be a good choice as local judges, the final arbiters of the law, aren't as quick to grant the US request for extradition.

Re:You need dual hosting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41179517)

citation needed.

Re:You need dual hosting (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178811)

Jurisdiction site redundancy. Censorship is damage. Route around it.

Re:Seizure without cause (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177051)

Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?

Intended by who? Somehow I suspect this was exactly what was intended by these kinds of seizure rules.

Winning court cases is hard. So, the solution has been to turn the process of justice into its own form of punishment. If you don't like somebody you accuse them of a crime, and seize half their possessions as evidence. Then you hold onto them for years, or drag them through a long and very expensive process. By the time it is over the person has lost their job, family, home, and is in a mountain of debt. At that point, does it really matter what the verdict is?

And seizure is often even worse - in many cases there may not even be an opportunity to mount a defense. The property is sezied, and the owner need not even be charged with a crime.

Re:Seizure without cause (3, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177121)

Sadly, yep. The laws are functioning 'as intended'. Our legal system was never really designed to be fair or equal access, it has a lot of the 'individualism' mentality built into it, with justice going to those who have the money and power to utilize it. This is generally billed as 'freedom' since more of your fate is in your own hands.. or at minimal if your chances are not good you can blame the victim more.

Re:Seizure without cause (3, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178249)

Winning court cases is hard. So, the solution has been to turn the process of justice into its own form of punishment.

Wasn't this one of the grievencies of the original colonists in America? Arrest someone and take them to England for prosecution, in the process, keeping them under arrest for months/years.

Re:Seizure without cause (4, Insightful)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177069)

What remediation will happen? None. The government has sovereign immunity except under special cases. This would not qualify as you would have to prove they not only did not have a case but could never have reasonably thought they could ever have had a case. That isn't going to happen.

Re:Seizure without cause (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177183)

Why do I picture, if a case did move forward, they would claim national security interests so they did not have to reveal any of their documentation for the cases....

Re:Seizure without cause (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177131)

To make them whole, the site owners need their site, payment for lost revenue, and advertizing to bring back the lost users.

If they got their site back due to a recent court ruling, then it may be hard to show that DoJ acted in bad faith when they first seized the site.

Perhaps the system worked as it was supposed to, which says the system needs adjusting.
      Unfortunately, the content owners are busy 'adjusting' it in the opposite direction.

I don't see how the site owners can be made whole except maybe for some fund reserved for folks convicted and then proved innocent.

Why not? (4, Interesting)

jdev (227251) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177695)

The U.S. government makes an even more bold claim than that. They have argued with Megaupload that the government can continue to seize their servers even if the case is dismissed [arstechnica.com] . I'm halfway surprised that the government bothered to drop the charges against Rojadirecta since they feel they can keep cases like this in limbo indefinitely without any consequences.

Re:Seizure without cause (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178677)

What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?

Hire a cheap Spanish speaking hitman to silence ICE agent that oversaw whole case (Daniel Brazier?).

Misleading headline. (3, Interesting)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41176975)

According to the WhoIs, the .com domain was registered by a company in Arizona (Domain Proxy Company). The .org domain still shows up at the DoJ. Not sure, but looks like these were within the legislation of the U.S., because registered there.

Global jurisdiction (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#41176997)

So USA DOJ, FBI have global jurisdiction it seems, the so called 'sovereign' governments of the world simply do as they are told. Be it Kim Dotcom, Assange or these Spanish websites. Of-course, everybody who is not pro-US-government is a terrorist basically, and this really means that anybody who opposes the corporations that are part of the US government are terrorists.

The solution? You can't handle the solution. The solution is to remove power from the government that it is not authorised to have.

Re:Global jurisdiction (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177269)

Simple solution. Seize President Barack Hussein Obama, current President of the United States of Amerika, and stuff him, shackled, into the bowels of a galley ship destined for Kenya. I know he is a USA citizen but the dramatic effect would be priceless. Upon arrival, if he survives the physical demands of an oceanic voyage, he should be turned over to Kenyan authorities as a terrorism suspect; to appease the Tea party folks. During the voyage the accused shall be deprived of all manner of liberty and security of the person; terrorists have no protection under law according the US DOJ and SCOTUS under the watch of el Presidente.

that is not a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178053)

The solution is to remove power from the government that it is not authorised to have.

you neglected to state that your solution explicitly gives those powers to corporations in the us. that is a terrible, terrible 'solution' to say the least. sure, it means that the us will no longer be pursuing terrorist suspects the world over. however you neglect to mention that in their place those suspects will instead be pursued by exxon-mobil, coca-cola, wal-mart, united defense, and the like. and of course since they hate the legal system just as much as you do, trials - even if you think they are only for show - will no longer be required at all.

Careful with the opposition here (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177003)

OK, we all realize that this is a good opportunity to express our true feelings towards the Department of Justice. However, how many of us are sublimating unacceptable feelings? The DoJ is led by Eric Holder, a black man, who was appointed by Barack Obama, another black man. People who are not racists do not have to explain why they are not racists. Whenever I see a long and exhausting Slashdot post claiming they oppose the DoJ but are not racist, I think: racist. So, let's just all consider our opinions twice before we click that "Post" or "Submit" button. Thank you.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177047)

OK, we all realize that this is a good opportunity to express our true feelings towards the Department of Justice. However, how many of us are sublimating unacceptable feelings? The DoJ is led by Eric Holder, a black man, who was appointed by Barack Obama, another black man. People who are not racists do not have to explain why they are not racists. Whenever I see a long and exhausting Slashdot post claiming they oppose the DoJ but are not racist, I think: racist. So, let's just all consider our opinions twice before we click that "Post" or "Submit" button. Thank you.

Since when did it come to pass that we're not allowed to criticize people and the job they're doing based solely on the colour of their skin?

Re:Careful with the opposition here (-1, Troll)

Outtascope (972222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177137)

Oooooh, it's feeding time!

You think that two black men, Barack Obama and Eric Holder are in charge? You can't be that thick. Holder and Obama are merely agents for Cary Sherman, Chris Dodd, Larry Ellison, Tim Cook, Randall Stephenson, Lowel McAdam, and Brian L. Roberts, all privileged white men. I neglect to mention the bank chiefs here because they are all represented by Tim Geitner (another whiter than white guy) in Obama's cabinet.

You know who will be in charge next January? Cary Sherman, Chris Dodd, Larry Ellison, Tim Cook, Randal Stephenson, Lowel McAdam and Brian L. Roberts. Depending on how the election goes, you might have to add David and Charles Koch to that list.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177351)

Oooooh, it's feeding time!

You think that two black men, Barack Obama and Eric Holder are in charge? You can't be that thick. Holder and Obama are merely agents for Cary Sherman, Chris Dodd, Larry Ellison, Tim Cook, Randall Stephenson, Lowel McAdam, and Brian L. Roberts, all privileged white men.

I can hear the "Yes, massa," uttered by Obama and Holder as their white plantation-owner masters bark commands. Obama seems to forget his alleged heritage or maybe he remembers it perfectly and just wants to please "the white man." Mr. Hope and Change is a fraud and the citizens of the USA should be revolting in the streets demanding his arrest and execution along with their Wall Street conspirators.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177201)

Since many of the problems and complaints people have with the DoJ's behavior have crossed directors and presidents, I do not think race factors in here. These are institutional problems that have been around for quite some time.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (1, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177493)

People who are not racists do not have to explain why they are not racists.

Alas, actually they do.

In the USA today, pointing to a black man (or Native American (by which I mean, early immigrant, since there are no "native americans")) and saying "he did bad things" will invariably produce an outcry of "RACIST!!!".

Not that it matters in the end. A white man accusing a favoured minority of misconduct will be assumed to be racist automatically.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178253)

In the USA today, pointing to a black man ... and saying "he did bad things" will invariably produce an outcry of "RACIST!!!".

[citation needed]

Specifically, I'm going to need a statistically significant number of incorrect accusations of racism for truthful accusations against black men. A couple of high-profile examples won't do the job, because there's numerous high-profile examples of black men completely falsely accused of heinous acts primarily because they were black.

To demonstrate that your "invariably" is an exaggeration is easy: Nobody has accused the ACLU of being racists when they condemned Barack Obama for ordering a drone strike against an American citizen without bothering to indict him for a crime first.

Re:Careful with the opposition here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177601)

OK, we all realize that this is a good opportunity to express our true feelings towards the Department of Justice. However, how many of us are sublimating unacceptable feelings? The DoJ is led by Eric Holder, a black man, who was appointed by Barack Obama, another black man. People who are not racists do not have to explain why they are not racists. Whenever I see a long and exhausting Slashdot post claiming they oppose the DoJ but are not racist, I think: racist. So, let's just all consider our opinions twice before we click that "Post" or "Submit" button. Thank you.

Americans: obsessed with skin colour.
I heard he's also a white guy too, should you call him a grey guy?

"forfeit the sites to the U.S. government" (2)

Elisanre (1108341) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177039)

English not being my first language I read "forfeit the sites to the U.S. government" as U.S government want the domains to be dropped by their owners. Why would they comply when the charges have been dropped? O.o

Re:"forfeit the sites to the U.S. government" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177065)

They asked at the time of the seizure that the domains be forfeited - not when they suddenly decide the sites were innocent.

Moral of the story: Dear world - the USA is not open for business unless you bring your own lubricant.

Re:"forfeit the sites to the U.S. government" (3, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177093)

It doesn't require any action by the owners. The US government (well, DOJ) contacts the registrar, and demands that they point the domain somewhere else. They don't touch the physical hardware (unless they're seizing that too) - the site is still operational, but cannot be accessed by its domain.

Re:"forfeit the sites to the U.S. government" (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177905)

Fun US legal system. You can walk away, but whats next? One day will they forfeit your home, car, boat, savings, passport, voting rights... legal standing to start business.
What can you now lose as you are "dropped" into legal limbo?
So its like your free but not in the way most of the world understands not been charged.

mod 3o3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177111)

propaganda and fly...don't fear 800 w/512 Megs Of and easy - only Everything else may well remain outreach are Problems with

Re:mod 3o3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41179433)

propaganda and fly...don't fear 800 w/512 Megs Of and easy - only Everything else may well remain outreach are Problems with

You must be new here. You forgot to include the link to Goatse.

Time to go back to raw IP addresses (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177147)

Or finally kick the US off the Internet. Seems to me it will do a lot better without them holding things back.

Re:Time to go back to raw IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177193)

that's a dumb idea, what about /.? wait....that's actually a great idea!

Re:Time to go back to raw IP addresses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177455)

No need to use raw IP addresses. The .42 independent TLD registry [42registry.org] (ironically under .org, he) allows you to create your own domain [42registry.org] . They define themselves as "a challenge to the established power".

Re:Time to go back to raw IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41179257)

Yes, why does the US deserve to be on the internet anyway. Its not like they invented it. Oh, wait.

Lazy or corrupt? (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177169)

DOJ: We don't want to bother or can't prove they broke any laws but you should just give us everything they have now that we've wrecked their business.

Re:Lazy or corrupt? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177627)

I once owned a computer repair store. I got a call from the bank, my account had been frozen and all assets drained by the IRS. No notice, no call, nothing.
The IRS claimed I owed taxes. I did not, I didn't even make close to enough to owe the amount they took. Three months later, it was found the IRS made a mistake. Did I get my money back? No. They refuse to refund me the money they STOLE, even after they admitted making a mistake. They offered a tax credit. Which did me no good as I was forced to shut the store down later that year. The government thinks nothing of destroying small businesses.

Re:Lazy or corrupt? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41178623)

The fact that you were unable to hire an attorney and get compensation tells me there's a lot more to your story you aren't telling us. As does the fact your assets were seized suddenly and without you having any prior notice.

Re:Lazy or corrupt? (2)

the biologist (1659443) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179547)

The IRS was once known for pulling this kind of crap all the time, rather than being the generally nice to work with organization you see today.

Gee... oops... sorry about that! (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177267)

Hey Slashdotters, I wonder if we can get the Federal Government to protect us from terrorists? I was thinking we hire a lobby group together, start our own SuperPAC, stuff like that. I figure if we give "donate" enough money (more than the RIAA is giving Biden) maybe we can shift their law enforcement efforts to things like stopping is from getting killed. As opposed to stopping Spaniards streaming sports.

Re:Gee... oops... sorry about that! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177327)

Sure. Got a few million dollars to spare?

Re:Gee... oops... sorry about that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177333)

Stopping us from getting killed???? That would require too much work from the government. They will just stick to seizing domains from the comfort of their climate controlled offices, no matter how much money you give them.

Re:Gee... oops... sorry about that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177347)

Hey Slashdotters, I wonder if we can get the Federal Government to protect us from terrorists?

They already do 'protect' us; see: TSA, Patriot Act, etc. That's the result of that nonsense.

No need to protect us from a nearly nonexistent threat.

Re:Gee... oops... sorry about that! (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177697)

What terrorists? You're more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than to die by a terrorist attack.

Re:Gee... oops... sorry about that! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178325)

You're also about 40 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver. Terrorism is basically a non-existent threat.

This... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41177577)

It is THIS kind of behavior by the US government that is going to force the hand of the UN and convince all the members to want to take over control of the internet. Just because the US have a majority of the control doesn't mean we should be exploiting it to appease our own greedy corporate ends.

I'm torn on this. (3, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41177661)

Part of me wants to yell "Sue those fuckers for the lost time!"
But i know the money is just going to come out of our pockets while the DOJ members sit happily sipping their overly expensive tea.
Government officials have no consequences, and that really needs to end.

Re:I'm torn on this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41179015)

Neither do corporate officials. They both needs to change.

DNS = FAIL (2, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41178149)

This is one more reason to abandon DNS and make up something a bit more robust. The whole internet seems much more frail than it was supposedly designed to be. Whatever happened to all that 'redundancy' and 'routing around damage' thing? You drop anchor on a single cable and can knock entire countries offline. How convenient is that for our authoritarian friends we so eagerly reelect time after time?

Re:DNS = FAIL (4, Informative)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#41180047)

Yes, the hierarchical nature of DNS invites exactly this kind of abuse. However, to be fair: designers of the DNS never expected [cnet.com] this kind of lawfare. They thought about cities being nuked etc..., not about a rogue government controlling the top-level of the DNS hierarchy.

As to countries going offline when a submarine cable is being cut, it's their problem: they were supposed to provide some levels of redundancy by connecting to multiple international backbones in the first place.

so when is spain bending over to copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41179019)

is spain gonna bend over ?

What should the outcome be? (1)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 2 years ago | (#41179799)

I am not certain there will be much recourse for rojadirecta; ideally the outcome of this should be that the burden of proof to allow seizure be raised, unfortunately I doubt anyone of note cares as these sites were ran by 'damned foreigners'.

The more I watch this side show the more I think imperialism lives on, except the borders are all virtual.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?