Slashdot Mirror
DHS Seized Domains Based On Bad Evidence
An anonymous reader writes "Back over Thanksgiving, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit (ICE) made a lot of news by seizing over 80 domain names. While many of these involved sites that sold counterfeit products, five of the domains involved copyright issues. Four of them involved hiphop-related blogs — including ones that hiphop stars like Kanye West and others used to promote their own works, and the last one was a meta search engine that simply aggregated other search engines. Weeks went by without the owners of those sites even being told why their domains were seized, but the affidavit for the seizure of those five sites has recently come out, and it's full of all sorts of problems. Not only was it put together by a recent college graduate, who claimed that merely linking to news and blog posts about file sharing constituted evidence of copyright infringement, it listed as evidence of infringement songs that labels specifically sent these blogs to promote. Also, what becomes clear is that the MPAA was instrumental in 'guiding' ICE's rookie agent in going after these sites, as that appeared to be the only outside expertise relied on in determining if these sites should be seized."
What are you blind? It's all over the affidavit document. Andrew T. Reynolds swears that it's all true. First line of the document.
My work here is dung.
Your anger is directed in the wrong direction. You should be looking at the judge who signed the court order. The various police forces are expected to make mistakes on occasion, that's why they have to go to a judge to get a court order before this kind of action. The judge failed to do his job, and so should be disbarred and possibly subject to other penalties.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Seriously, it's right there on the affidavit. On top of that you can let the court know in a (circa 1993) web form what you think or contact Nagle's Deputy Courtroom Clerk yourself. Case number 10-2822M for your reference since the affidavit seems to be unable to be viewed by some.
You're an American citizen and you have the right to know who these people are that are making these decisions whether it be a judge or special agent. And they shouldn't have any fear of putting their name on these documents if they think it's right. I agree with you though that maybe it's not within their capacity to serve this position should they get something so painfully wrong.
I want countersuits and I want liabilities awarded to the defendants that rival the bullshit astronomical numbers that the court sends out to NASA for computation when the MPAA/RIAA wins. I hate that if the MPAA/RIAA wins it's eighty billion dollars but if the individual is exonerated it's a benjamin tops for having their webserver down. That is bullshit.
My work here is dung.
Aren't there criminal charges for providing false evidence?
No, you can't sue the DHS, or the government in general, because of a most pernicious doctrine called "sovereign immunity." Since the government created the courts and endows them with legitimacy, you can't use its own courts against it, except in very limited circumstances. (It's like dividing by zero, sort of.)
However, if an agent of the government uses his/her position to commit a crime, you can sue the agent him/herself, but not their employer. (Of course, that's no guarantee that the suit won't get tossed, only that you can, in fact, proceed with it.) Also, if they use the apparatus of the government for purposes of racial discrimination, they can also be sued. But generally, no, you can't sue.
WIkipedia explains it in more detail: linky
The law allowing gun carry in national parks.
The agent lists the basis for the forfeiture on page 66 of the affidavit. U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2323 allows the U.S. government to seize "Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of [the following offenses]:" 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90 section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320.
I found the affidavit to be pretty sound, and the evidence was fairly damming. I don't think this will ultimately stop the pirates, however, as a close study of the affidavit will give you all the ideas you need to run a pirate site that obeys the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday