Slashdot Mirror

LEOs have to worry about that every single time they pull someone over. Is it a soccer mom, a businessman, or a three strikes felon who doesn't want to go back inside? They don't know.

Sorry, but any LEO that gives this line is flat out wrong. Since 1980, there have been only 2 years, 1980, and 2001, where there were more than 200 officer deaths. In 2013, there were 100 deaths, and 51,625 assaults, and 14,857 assaults with injury. Last year, out of over 900,000 sworn officers, there were 117 fatalities (didn't find the assault numbers). Of those dealths, 49 were related to a vehicle crash, 20 of which involved 1 vehicle. It sounds like driver training might be what they are lobbying for.

Top 10 deadliest jobs by death/hr worked include things like logger, fisherman, construction, farming/ranching, powerline techs, miners, and truck drivers.

there's a line of duty death in the United States nearly every day of the week. Statistically speaking law enforcement is safer today than it has been in a long time,

hmmm, the math doesn't seem to add up there. If there was one every day, then total officer deaths should exceed 365, which hasn't happened since...ever. 1930 was the last time the number was over 300.

The War on Drugs also alienates the police from our poorest and most vulnerable communities. The same thing happened during prohibition, this is not a new societal phenomenon. Nor can you blame the police, they enforce the law, legislators write it.

I'll give you the first two, but not "I only enforce the law" part. Police unions, owners of private, for profit prisons, and prison guard unions are the largest contributors to campaigns intended to roll back drug prohibitions. There is also a profit motive, at the department level at least, on the law enforcement side. Civil Forfiture allows police to confiscate personal property with no trial or conviction.

These people are a minority, out of the dozens of LEOs I know I can only name one that falls into this category. Short tempered and thin skinned are bad personality attributes for LEOs.

You have the beginning of a point there. The rest of the point is, the so called "good" officers won't cross the blue line of silence by reporting and testifying against the problem officers. Instead, you get the opposite. Just this week in South Carolina, officer Michael Slager shot and killed an unarmed man, Walter Scott, who was originally accused of trying to take the officers taser. Another officer statement confirmed this report. But wait, independent video later showed that Scott was unarmed, running away, and didn't have the taser. Well, he didn't have it until officer Slager dropped it near the dead body.

Until the LEO community is willing to apply the law to themselves, they will continue to have a reputation as corrupt thugs.

the media and body politic never make a story out of LEOs doing their jobs correctly.

They also never tell a story about a positive outcome from drug use, citizen use of a firearm in self defense, and plenty of other stuff. So how does that make the police shooting case much different?

Law enforcement is a customer service orientated business; unfortunately, all of the customers are assholes."

So LEO have just as many stereotypes as the general public? If your friend doesn't want to deal with types of people and situations that come up in that job, they should look for something di

More info:

http://fear.org/

Nope, you're not alone.

http://fear.org/

Why does http://fear.org/ go to one site while https://fear.org/ go to another called "Vulgar Kitten Studios?"

Because fear.org is not configured for https and therefore you end up on the default site configured for https on this host.

There is no conspiracy, just amateurish system administration.

Why does http://fear.org/ go to one site while https://fear.org/ go to another called "Vulgar Kitten Studios?"

Because fear.org is not configured for https and therefore you end up on the default site configured for https on this host.

There is no conspiracy, just amateurish system administration.

You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?

Why does http://fear.org go to one site while https://fear.org go to another called "Vulgar Kitten Studios?"

You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?

a) Have actually proven that this is not some 'cook something up to to get our ultra conservative readers their daily dose of outrage over their morning coffee' type story made up by a right wing rag.

I can't speak to the specific case, but if you think civil forfeiture is a figment of the right-wing imagination, you're dangerously ignorant about how the government operates.

It's been going on for decades, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. Basically, the state or federal government uses an obscure legal doctrine under which it accuses your property of a crime. Your property doesn't have the same due process and presumption of innocence rights you do, so it usually lose the case. You have to sue the government to get it back. You can guess how well that usually goes.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/civil-asset-forfeiture

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/02/take_the_money_and_run.html

http://fear.org/victimindex.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html

Dateline did a story back in 1997 on the I-10 corridor in Louisiana. http://fear.org/tourist1.html

Get rid of guilty-until-proven-innocent legislature for carrying cash. http://wh.gov/Lu1w

Like you, I think we should oust Congress—and I'm comfortable reversing the presumption of innocence for them.

Haha, yes, though you meant to say "legislation" instead.

Civil asset forfeiture is a travesty and no one can with a straight face argue it is constitutional. You might also consider adding a link to fear.org.

It doesn't matter. Police make money for the town, the town increases the police budget. So they get the money in the end.

As to confiscations of other sorts, generally the police DO get to keep much or all of the proceeds.

http://www.fear.org/

Nice try, but the government already did the end run around that. If you force them into a corner, they'll just charge your property directly. Money isn't a person or a citizen and therefore has no rights.

Yet another wonderful result of the war on drugs.

Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs...

Not necessarily:

http://www.fear.org/chicago.html

http://www.dpeg.org/legal_issues/assetforfeiture.htm

See also http://fear.org/

Some posts downbelow indicate that Gibson may not be squeaky-clean in this matter, but the point still stands -- asset forfeiture is theft under colour of law, without the tedious need to actually *prove* a crime occurred.

As an example of how out of hand the cops are getting, a couple years ago in Kern County CA, a SWAT unit was sent in to bust someone for having too many dogs. Which is a misdemeanor at worst.

More examples in the same arena, long reading but worth it: http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/1941#articles

Of course a lot of this comes out of civil asset forfeiture, which is becoming far more of a threat to American citizens than any amount of kiddie porn or terrorists, or any modern level of crime for that matter.

http://www.fear.org/

What ever happened to being innocent before guilty? In a free society, courts have to prove -you- guilty, not you have to prove your innocence.

Ah, you haven't heard of the glories of civil law. It is, for example, how most drug law forfeitures are done - you have to prove your innocence to get the seized assets back. (I am not a lawyer, and if you have assets seized, you had better get one and not rely on /. for legal advice.)

Why the US Court system bought into this theory is beyond me; I think that they should be ashamed of themselves (but, then, they don't ask for my opinion).

The problem is the civil asset forfeiture process, which confiscates property, or prosecutes property and then confiscates it, all without any proof of wrongdoing. It becomes YOUR job to prove that you didn't commit a crime (rather than the government's job to prove that you DID commit one), and meanwhile the storage costs on your property are mounting up, the damage to your business and propery is being done, the property is being sold to third parties (yes, this does happen, and without ANY due process).

So.. if you're merely ACCUSED of hiring an undocumented worker, your business may be taken over by the enforcement corps until you can prove your innocence, and that means you are OUT of business (probably for good since most businesses cannot survive even a short shutdown period anymore), *whether you were guilty or not*.

http://www.fear.org/

When did jury nullification become actively illegal? Last time I was handed info about it (probably 2-3 years ago) that literature specifically stated that it was NOT illegal, even tho some courts would instruct otherwise.

Combine the loss of this last ditch defense with crap like civil asset forfeiture, and we're in seriously deep shit, even tho we still live well enough to disguise that fact. :(

http://www.fear.org/

That link, I don't think it goes where you think it goes.

The government promised to clean up it's "seize everything!" act back in 2000, I don't know how effective it was (seizing stuff was a good source of income - I heard of cases of large buildings being seized just because drug paraphernalia was present, not even drugs). http://www.fear.org/ is a website dedicated to this stuff.

It costs more to get your property back than the property is worth. This story from 12 years ago is still happening. Category 270 in this pdf is 2005 budget of $96K. This year the budget is $409K and they haven't seized that much money yet so they're going to have to find it somewhere. I wouldn't recommend doing any DWB while passing through that county - their needs grow ever more sophisticated with time, and next year's budget is even bigger. "These monies are to be used exclusively for equipment, personnel, and training as designated by the Sheriff." Gotta love the name of the budget item though: "Law Enforcement Equipment Equitable Distribution Special Revenue Fund". Because the sheriff taking people's stuff and money to spend however he pleases is "Equitable".

Are we winning the war on drugs yet? Or is the war winning us?

Any time there is a broad new (read that as "poorly worded") piece of law drafted people always use it to the poorly worded maximum.

No knock warrants were originally to "fight terrorism" - now they're used as a judicial shortcut to bust drug dealers. Often times with horrific results.

Forfeiture laws were originally to return the goods from a crime to their rightful owners. Now, it's a cash grab by the government. They actually find property guilty. Or sometimes not even that much. Then they find the property (not the person carrying it, mind you) guilty and keep it.

Now we have the DMCA, which is being used to stifle competition and strangle free speech.

Why is anybody surprised?

We had precedents of poorly worded laws and what happens when we pass them into law. But when it's the government that benefits, it's hard to convince them to stop.

If the child is above 13 then the pictures in question could be a free speech issue.

Agreed. If the act itself isn't a crime, then taking a picture of it, especially with the knowledge of everyone involved, should never be a crime. If it was in public, then taking a picture should never be a crime. (Otherwise, you can do some act in front of a security camera and sue the owner of that camera.) IMO, photography in public and security cameras should be treated the same.

Under the age of 13, then the pictures should be destroyed and the child in question should be informed that this is inappropriate for someone of their age.

That might be appropriate, but it would be a bad precident. Private property shouldn't be destroyed or confiscated except as punishment from a successful lawsuit or criminal conviction of the owner of that property. Civil Asset Forfeiture is similar to what you are saying, where something is confiscated because it is "evil" or tainted, ignoring the rights of the owner. Allowing police or courts the legal ability to destroy stuff without any recourse or having to get a conviction of the owner is bad, but we are pretty much there already.

But then this is really a gray area to me and the law.

IANAL, but in general, the age of the photographer doesn't matter, nor does it matter if the photographer is the subject being photographed or legally able to have sex with the subject. So, 40 year old or 16 year old boyfriend could get the same sentence for taking a picture of a consenting 16 year old girl.

http://fear.org/

Assets should only be forfeited when the owner of said assets has lost a case (civil or preferably criminal).

Cases such as "County of X against $10,000" are just wrong and evil, and should be in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Don't forget the "War" on drugs and child pornography. Police can confiscate the property of anyone they suspect of a drug crime. No substantial evidence (habeas corpus) required. It is called the "war" on drugs to justify this lowered standard of evidence, since a similar lowering of the standard has taken place in wartime since Abraham Lincoln.

Anyone accused of child pornography is automatically a pariah, and remains on sex offender lists (not necessarily government endorsed ones), even when the accusation is proved to be baseless. "It is the serious charge. A serious charge indeed." Since real child pornography today often involves downloads via the internet, it is very easy for a sexual predator to use your home internet connection while you are out of the country, and clueless officials blame you for it. You lose your job, marriage prospects, and social life for the rest of your life.

Now the RIAA is using the same suspension of habeas corpus, without even the pretension of "war". Or maybe that is why they insist on calling copyright violators (real or imagined) "pirates".

Seems mostly aimed at what is discussed in the Fake Trade (http://www.channel4.com/video/the-fake-trade/index.html)

I think we can agree people manufacturing fake heart medicine is a bad thing; and that may have been the selling point.

However, "SEC. 511. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS." does the following:

"(a) Authorization- Section 2 of the Computer Crime Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. 3713) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after `computer crime' each place it appears the following: `, including infringement of copyrighted works over the Internet';

I sure hope there aren't any congressmen who are violating the terms of CC or GPL. And can you imagine their outrage when their child downloads some songs and they have to forfeit that fancy new laptop? I mean, if enacted this will apply to congressmen, senators, even presidents, right?

Here are some links an asset forfeiture:

http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf (PDF version)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:57xthSv8mJoJ:www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf+%22asset+forfeiture+law%22+%22supreme+court%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (HTML version)
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp061197.html
http://law.gsu.edu/library/index/bibliographies/view?id=64
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/searchseizure/10303leg19990802.html
http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html

Also, aside from writing your congressperson and senator, stop supporting the RIAA/MPAA and the like. Stop enabling these people by refusing to watch, listen, pay or even discuss any of their products.

Here's my first problem.....the way you're stating this, the majority of cops are cruising around with a trunk full of cocaine just waiting to frame the innocent. Yes, there are cases where evidence has been planted, but in the ones I've heard of there's usually a stonger motive than "I want to confiscate your car". Unless you cite a good source, there's no way I believe it's that rampant.

Blumenson, Eric and Eva Nilsen. " Policing for Profit: The Drug War' s Hidden Economic Agenda." The University of Chicago Law Review 65 (1998): 35-114.

In what jurisdiction does the cop get the proceeds of auctioned property? I've never heard of this being practiced in the United States. The state gets the proceeds, and depending on where, it could go either directly to the police budget, or the general budget. Again, unless you can cite this, I'm having a hard time believing it.

It took 2 1/2 years after concerns were first raised internally for the King County Sheriff's Office to stop allowing employees to use vehicles seized in drug cases. At one point, 21 detectives and officials -- including the budget and accounting director, the legal adviser, a volunteer chaplain and the Asian community liaison -- were driving the cars.

I would suspect that corruption on that level would attract both federal investigations, and media attention.

I get the feeling that what you've got is some half-remembered anecdotes about evidence auctions, and a general dislike for the police.......

/i
Maybe he should go ask someone from New York who was convicted for a DUI and had his car impounded and auctioned off and is now left with no vehicle and a $20,000 car loan /i

This is not a solution. Don't get me wrong drunk driving is a serious problem, and as someone who got caught right on the legal limit once it's no frigging fun on the other side either.

But seizing citizens possessions is not the solution to crime be it drunk driving, prostitution, or drug related, and goes against the original founders wanted.

http://www.fear.org/fposit.html
http://www.fear.org/

/i
Maybe he should go ask someone from New York who was convicted for a DUI and had his car impounded and auctioned off and is now left with no vehicle and a $20,000 car loan /i

This is not a solution. Don't get me wrong drunk driving is a serious problem, and as someone who got caught right on the legal limit once it's no frigging fun on the other side either.

But seizing citizens possessions is not the solution to crime be it drunk driving, prostitution, or drug related, and goes against the original founders wanted.

http://www.fear.org/fposit.html
http://www.fear.org/

Those comparisons are inaccurate. They fail to support your point. If we take wire cutters away from someone accused of vandalizing electrical lines, it's because the wire cutters are evidence. If someone is accused of that crime, we don't remove every sharp object from their house, nor do we forbid hardware stores from selling them new wire cutters. As for someone on in a murderous rage, we don't solve the problem by taking away their gun, no, we put them in jail until their trial. As for drunk driving, if the crime isn't serious enough to justify jailing the driver until their trial, yes, we let them return to driving. Anything less is punishment without a trial, an affront to the foundations of our country.

You can eliminate someone's freedom if you're charging them with a crime and a judge refuses bail, but that's really about limiting a flight risk. We only seize property as evidence, or after a trial as punishment. (There are also forfeiture, but that sickening violation of the fifth amendment has nothing to do with protection (does seizing the car of someone busted carrying some pot really protect us?) and everything to do with profiteering.)

roving wiretaps

Roving wiretaps were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.

Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.

What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?

Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism

Like need more laws making things illegal.

Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack

HAHA!!! Like RICO couldn't have been used for this? If they can use it to pull over someone driving because they fit a profile then confiscate any money found then it should be usable for terrorism as well.

Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border.

You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.

If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like

Such as searching book store and library records? What of sneak and peek search warrants? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was specifically setup so the president could get warrants after Nixon abused his office. Or being barred from talking about what you know like Sibel Edmonds was by a Gag order issued by the admin?

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (F. E. A. R.) has plenty of horrifying evidence (with illustrative anecdotes!) as to the fact that forfeiture is a bad, bad, bad idea.

The legal machinery in this country will always expand upon any new law to the point of lunacy.

Currently the DCMA is being used as a way to stifle competition rather than its original intent of keeping content "safe", as well as other abuses. It's not different than how the Patriot Act is being used to bust drug dealers rather than combat terrorism.

As soon as the law sees a new tool, it will use it to the maximum. When you give them a hammer and tell them it's to pound nails, don't be surprised when they use it as a door opener.

For a really spooky read, do some Google work for forfeiture abuses. Here's a good place to start.

You can't be tried for a law that doesn't exist. IANAL, but if it wasn't against the law when you did it, you can't be arrested for it. Ignorance of the law is one thing, but ignorance of a non-existant law is quite another.

Tell that to this guy.

But what if they aren't being abused and never will be?

It's been the tendency for law enforcement to expand up to the maximum limits of any law or technology. See forfeiture laws for a good example. Or how about Patriot act abuses. Originally meant to stop terrorism, but currently being used for quick-and-easy drug busts.

It's not a question of if they will be abused, it's a question of when. That's why this is the time to put limits in place. Once the genie is out of the bottle, that's that.

Randy Weaver is an interesting case. And just like Waco, their guns ultimately didn't save them. However, their guns provided enough light on the government activities to show how far our country has fallen.

I think the coverage of abusive law enformcement had more to do with it than how many guns they had.

The reason most people don't give a rats ass about either of these today, is because these people were viewed as "wackos" (right-wing, religious). Had these people been left-wing hippies I'm sure the results would have been much different.

You mean like this guy? No national coverage or congressional hearings for him.

Randy Weaver's wife was unarmed holding a child when she was shot. Where was Al Sharpton protesting? Yet when street thugs are shot by police he is all over it.

By "street thug" do you mean "man who panicked when he saw someone pull a gun"?

Oh, and the reason the ATF was going after Randy Weaver was because of his guns. That is the best evidence I have that gun laws are screwed.

They went after him after Weaver after they entraped him and sent him a notice to appear in court with the wrong date on it.

Of a car? Hm, without a name, that specific case is pretty hard, due to the fact that the war on drugs have created plenty of such seizures, probably due to the fact that some percetage of seized assets belong to the cops. There's a pretty nice site here, usually with links to external news sources (when they havent expired): http://www.fear.org/list.html

The comments in this blog post provide plenty of links in the process of the seizures. Basically, the property itself is declared guilty of facilitating some crime, a shady tactic that sidesteps citizens' rights to due process because things are not citizens of this great country. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014502.html

Google: "illegal car seizure sold at auction 60 minutes drugs"

A car seized illegally: http://www.ij.org/private_property/new_jersey/back ground.html

A man KILLED due to an illegal search: http://www.fear.org/scott.html

Years ago there were many stories in the popular press (I used to read them in the Houston Chronicle) about the "War on Drugs" and automatic seizure. People losing their houses, cars, etc., because an erroneous "tip" led to a seizure, and since their stuff is gone they don't have the money to sue to get it back.

There goes your bullshit.

There was no mention of it in the article, so it probably wasn't used in Ralsky's case, but....

In the US, law enforcement working for any level of government can seize whatever they want under the RICO Act. They simply have to say "this object was related to selling drugs" and its their's. Doesn't have to be true. Doesn't require a trial. Doesn't even need evidence to support the statement. It is just gone. And good luck getting it back if it isn't related to drugs. http://www.fear.org

I believe it is unconstitutional, but it happens on a very regular basis. One day I hope someone is able to bring it to the US Supreme Court and have all forfeiture laws abolished. But while it exists, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person if they did permanently seize Ralsky's equipment. Even bad laws can be useful occasionally.

Simple possession based laws, that try to make objects illegal, have inherent logical problems. I like to review this article when I run up against reports of abuse due to such laws. The abuse is inherent in the logical flaws necessary to declare objects themselves against the law.

My understanding is it helps with the addiction (in the sense it subtracts the high and makes Puritanical zealots happy) but unlike (pure) heroin it causes organ damage throughout the body. So, you can be happy and piss off the Puritans or you can achieve permanent organ damage. The only other factor is that you may go to jail, be subject to civil forfeiture, or put to death by the government if you choose to piss off the Puritans.

The first reply to your post lacked references to civil forfeiture informational sites. Here's a good site:
Civil Forfeiture Laws

Unfortunately, what there is to learn about civil forfeiture, you have already surmised: the government has granted itself free license to steal anything you have, with very little justification. If a law enforcement officer thinks you're carrying too much cash, they can take it (on the assumption that the only thing large sums of cash are good for is illegal purchases). They can take your house, your car, your computers, and anything else which might have been involved in a hypothetical illegal transaction.

They need no proof, since technically it is your property which is being accused, and not yourself (I am not making this sh!t up), and while you are not without recourse (some people have actually regained their property, after much hard work and expensive legal action), your chances for recovering anything are slim.

This is just one example of civil rights being in free fall in America, and it all happened years before 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act. Don't bother telling anyone the sky is falling; the sky has fallen, kaput, finis, it's all over.

-- TTK

Sure, just check out:

http://www.fear.org/

especially:

http://www.fear.org/victim.html

Sure, just check out:

http://www.fear.org/

especially:

http://www.fear.org/victim.html

Thank you for the link -- but this doesn't support his statement. I was guessing that that might have been what he was thinking of, but that is not for regular wiretap requests. That is an explicit set of cases that are limited for intelligence use, and such use is subject to oversight.

Furthermore, FISA was just in the news two years ago for denying a request for a wiretap (and criticising Department of Justice people involved with requesting it as being involved with surveillance abuses).

"... Oop, didn't aussie's already give up their guns?..."

And what happens when a freedom lovin' citizen of the good ol' U S of A greets The Man with a gun in his paw?

They kill him anyway and try to steal his house and land

Ain't democracy grand!

T&K.

"... you are still not guilty of anything, but they can confiscate your house and sell it in an auction anyway. Apparantly the legal justification for this is that the house is guilty of a crime or something like that..."

That's about the top and bottom of it. This kind of Civil Forfeiture is known as in rem forfeiture. "In rem" refers to a legal action directed solely against the property based on a legal finding that the property itself is used in an illegal manner.

The act of suing inanimate objects is (to me at least) an utterly bizarre legal fiction. Those who are interested can read more at F.E.A.R, which contains some good stuff, as well as links to "hard" (as in "by lawyers for lawyers") legal background materials.

T&K.

In the BSA cases I've read, the threshold was as low as 5%, not a "significant fraction."

At some point, it doesn't matter whether it was malicious or not, because of the epic scale of incompitence.

"Epic scale of incompitence [sic]"??? Over licenses costing a few hundred dollars?

First of all, most small-scale computer users may not even be aware there's an issue. They paid for their computer, right? Thanks to Microsoft's monopoly, most people don't even think of the software as being something intrinsically separable from the platform. They think of Office as being an option for their PC, like getting automatic transmission. How many car owners are expected to have separate documentation giving them the right to use their automatic transmission?

Second, it is standard practice in most businesses that there is a price threshold below which bookkeeping requirements are far less, because of the expense involved. In my former workplace, anything over $5K was "equipment" and had to have stickers on it and all kinds of tracking; anything less was "supplies." Meals under $10 did not require receipts for reimbursement, because having someone look at them was more costly than the chance that someone might claim his $5 lunch cost $9.99. For most places, the typical cost of software falls in that "supplies" region, and Microsoft's insistence otherwise falls totally outside of normal business expectations.

It's funny that you sneer at anyone whose inventory methods don't meet Microsoft's standards, calling them poor businessmen and "incompitent," but you say nothing about a giant company trying to get out of a legal settlement by whining that they can't track do the paperwork to verify every claim.

Notice, they don't need proof.

Since when was "innocent until proven guilty" banished from our legal traditions? (Other than asset forfeiture?) Note that you are required to carry registration for your car, but if you can't produce it when you're pulled over, you can only be charged with failing to show registration. You can't be charged with stealing the car unless they can actually prove that.

why are they inviting Microsoft in, and agreeing to the diabolical licencing schemes. Either way you want to slice the onion, it's bad business

I would agree that buying Microsoft is bad business, and I warn people about BSA audits as one of the risks of MS software. But many people say it is nearly impossible to do business without buying MS (Word docs or ISVs only writing for Windows or whatever), and their argument was legally validated when Microsoft was declared a monopoly by the same court system they are so willing to use agianst others.

it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence

I won't join in railing against "the government" because I've spent a fair amount of time working for the feds and respect many of the career investigators and prosecutors who bust folks 99% of us would want put away anyway. Some of the best talent in the country works for DOJ, for example; these jobs are coveted despite paying half that of private practice. But with great power comes great responsibility; thank goodness for defense attorneys and civil liberties organization.

Asset forfeiture -- assuming here a domain is an asset -- has been going on for centuries and now practically became a profit center for some law enforcement organizations. It steps from an ancient concept that something used in the commission of a crime is "soiled" and is thus forfeited to the state. (This shouldn't be confused as someone does above with contraband such as illegal drugs, which are always seized and generally have no market value; contraband is by definition illegal to possess.) It doesn't matter whether the value of the item is proportional to the offense or whether the owner has the slightest blame, as with a couple that lost their car after the husband performed received oral sex from a prostitute in it. The lawsuit was brought by the innocent spouse to recover her portion of the car's value. She lost!

Extraordinary cases of forfeiture abuse abound, such as a woman who lost her house because her son grew some pot in the backyard without her knowledge or even her negligence. Yes, asset forfeiture standing alone is frightening enough and has needed reining in for at least a decade. But no one complains too much when it's drug dealers (gasp) getting shafted.

The choices local federal prosecutors make are influenced heavily by what comes out of Washington. If AG Ashcroft sets a priority, the various offices must follow. Ashcroft has set what I'd describe as a "scorched earth" policy to take law enforcement powers to the max in pursuit of specific political objectives. The AG has gone so far as to requiring prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases where they had decided otherwise, reversing practice of many years to respect the prosecutors on the scene, and of offices in non-death penalty states such as Mass to respect the state's practice. Whatever my feelings about the death penlty, I'm concerned by such micromanagement by a central authority that just can't possibly evaluate every case in sufficient detail for this sort of decision.

My point is not to underestimate the power of a few political appointees. What you're reading in this case stems from a philosophy do different from the motivations behind the oddly named Patriot Act, domestic spying, and who knows what else we won't learn about until Congressional hearings some day.

With regard to the present case, whether a domain name is property is not half as disturbing an issue as the possibility the government might use them as a surreptitious vehicle for gathering evidence. As for whether it is property, the answer must be yes -- ask amazon.com if they'd like to change their URL. The conventional is that a domain name is renewable forever and can't be transferred without consent or misconductg of the owner; I think the courts will hold this is a property interest -- subject to forfeiture, naturally.

The process is called 'Asset Forfeiture' and it's covered in much more depth here.

Yes. Look up "civil forfeiture" on Google and you'll find tons of references to people who've had their posessions confiscated by the police. The local police get to keep what they confiscate or sell it if they choose. You'll run across tons of cases where the police confiscated property and never returned it, even after the victims were proven innocent.

The civil forfeiture laws are worse than a lot of the laws we bitch about on here. The War on Drugs opened the door for this, and believe me, they will try to extend it to any area they can. Allowing the police to profit from confiscating property only gives them incentive to manufacture crimes where there are none.

The current civil forfeiture laws are horrible, but law enforcement will fight tooth and nail to keep them in effect. The potential for these laws to be abused makes the DMCA look fairly innoccuos in comparison.

FEAR.org has some info regarding these laws as well.

Don't think that just because you're not a pot-head or a "hacker" that it can't happen to you!