Slashdot Mirror
Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status
pbuxton writes "Here's a CNN story about the confiscation of domain names by law enforcement. An interesting dilemma noted in the story is that a domain name is either a mere service, which would let Verisign, et al., off the legal hook for mismanagement, or it is property which can be siezed by police and judges." This story mentions (and adds some perspective) to the recent seizure of ISOnews.com.
You're right to be concerned about asset forfeiture, and I just complained about it a moment ago elsewhere. A couple of clarifications I'd add here -- there is due process in forfeiture, meaning notice of the proposed seizure and an opportunity to be heard. What's odd, though, is that the proceeding centers on the property, kind of as if *it* were guilty. So the owner can't protest their own innocence of the illegal conduct, only whether the item is properly subject to forfeiture -- which doesn't require a criminal conviction but a less burden of proof more-likely-than-not civil proceeding. So the due process may not do you much good, but it is there.
In some ways the concept makes sense -- you seize the priceless antique gun that was used as a murder weapon (in old English law sometimes called a deodand), the farm used t grow pot, the Learjet used to import drugs, and so on. But wow, it gives the state some fearsome power, and is especially pointless when used against innocent owners whose property is misused without their knowledge or consent. Unlike restitution or fines, proportionality is simply not an issue. But Ashcroft did not invent it, I think forfeiture has been pretty hot since the 80's, and its use dates back in one form or another such as the deodand over centuries (if you think our gov't is greedy, you should check out what the Crown was like).
It was publicly announced that it was too late to allow an alternate on the ballot, but if Mel Carnahan won, his wife, Jean Carnahan, would be take his place. This action, in itself, was arguably illegal.
Well, it came to pass that Ashcroft lost by a very narrow margin, 49% to 50%. It turned out that the opposition used the courts to extend voting hours in the city of Saint Louis, giving the strongly Democratic area additional strength.
Yeah, the whole national election was screwed that year. But, because of this, President Bush, threw Ashcroft a bone in the form of AG. At the time, I thought it was a fair shake. I was leary of Ashcroft, but figured that he would make a good cop. 9/11 changed all of that.
If he had not been cheated out of his Senate seat, he would be barking, not biting. Enough said...