Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seizes All Servers In Dallas Data Center
1sockchuck writes "FBI agents have raided a Dallas data center, seizing servers at a company called Core IP Networks. The company's CEO has posted a message saying the FBI confiscated all its customer servers, including gear belonging to companies that are almost certainly not under suspicion. The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but there are reports that it's related to video piracy, sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."
When a police officer seizes computer hardware from a business in the course of an investigation, they can be held civilly liable for any loss or damage caused to the business by their actions.
At least thats how it is for Pennsylvania State Police.
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
This is exactly why we relocated to Chile six months ago. We had already moved to the end of a dirt road in the mountains of Mexico, but that wasn't far enough away. Now we're at the end of a much, much nicer dirt road in a country that is not ruled by mad-dog copyright censors. (And where you can rent a furnished, 5-bedroom house with cedar paneling on 2 acres of land for US$400.)
Not that we are into downloading copyrighted material; far from it, we generate our own material and publish it under a Creative Commons license. But there are such things as principles...
om namo bhagavate vasudevaya
Eldred v Ashcroft holding was that a copyright law (in that example the one that extended Mickey's copyright protection) is presumed constitutional if it doesn't explicitly say it's for "infinite length" and if it maintains the distinction between idea and expression.
Although your reading -- that a copyright law is unconstitutional if it does not promote Science and the Useful Arts -- makes a lot of common sense, it just isn't the case.
In America, I mean. As presently Constituted.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Bottom line is people need to hold Obama accountable for these things (he sets the tone for things in the Fed gov just as Bush did before him) and stop putting him on some kind of plinth.
this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job). Guy then breaks contract by taking a copy of the movie and then either uploads it or is careless with it and it gets uploaded.
Sure, there is some punishment in order but the guy who leaked a work print probably isnt responsible for the "billions of dollars" that the industry will say the leak cost them...he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated).
Bottles.
would a company be able to sue FBI if it had it's stuff on one of those confiscated servers but was totally unrelated to the case? or can FBI legally take them all down, sort them out later?
We, The People, already revoked copyright laws. As Robert Heinlein once wisely wrote:
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."
("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)
Nothing like easily broken laws and internet anonymity to set a man free...
So who's the judge who signed the warrant allowing them to take all servers?
So, this justifies pulling the 911 service servers in what way?
You see, search warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored to those areas where it is more likely than not that they will find the evidence they are looking for. Pulling 50+ servers without even checking to see who is using those servers (we don't know how many servers, we know that 50 companies were affected) seems to be blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is worth noting that the 4th Amendment was included partly in response to the common law larger-area search warrants which would allow police to search a string of houses because they were pretty sure that the evidence they were looking for was SOMEWHERE in that range. We require a tighter level of control than that.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Before we let run wild our confirmation biases...
We might wait on news of what the raid is actually about? Man, trotting out the partisanship at this point is pretty ugly.
Speaking of jerky behavior, the agent in charge of the raid was reported by the CEO to have said:
Geez, the CEO must be a real criminal to merit that treatment. Better pre-emptively pull out his toenails.
Politicians love power, and what President would want to limit his own? Look for Obama to amend such laws late in his first term, when it looks better, if that even comes.
But don't you think it's a bit early in his term, one encumbered from the start with heavy baggage, to begin dealing with the myriad problem laws that have been passed during the last half century?
FWIW, RICO was passed in 1970, and the Feds love its vagueness to death. Easy prediction: Obama will receive no recommendations from his cabinet or federal appointments to crimp or change it. Between RICO and Patriot, we're not going to see the end of fracked-up warrantless situations like Core IP, not until a President alters the makeup of the Supremes, and subsequent legal challenges bring down the over-broad aspects of those laws.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.