Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Return Mistakenly Seized Domain

Posted by timothy on from the right-courteous-of-them dept.

bs0d3 writes "Just over a year ago, Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized dozens of domain names as part of Operation in Our Sites. Among them was DaJaz1.com, a site from which Special Agent Andrew Reynolds said he'd downloaded pirated music. But there was a problem. Persistent reports suggested that the songs had been legally provided to the site by record labels for the specific purposes of distribution to fans, a point later raised by Senator Ron Wyden. One 'leak' even came from a boss at a major music label. Today, a year later, their domain was returned. The reason was because there was no probable cause and the site had never actually broken any laws or warranted a seizure. They are back in business and are displaying an anti-censorship, anti-PROTECT IP, and anti-SOPA banner on their website."

7 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?

    If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?

    1. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't change the fact that it is outright abuse. .com isn't even meant to be U.S. TLD. Since U.S. seems to abuse their administrative rights for global TLD's, I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like .com, .net, .org and .info. U.S. companies can start using their .us if they can't play by the rules.

    2. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a .com, so it's registered in the US.

      So does that mean the US government can seize your US-registered car because someone says they saw it speeding? Or your US-registered house because someone says that you weren't recycling your garbage?

    3. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Shutting people up for unjustified political reasons" is censorship!

      The fact that they were also incompetent at it would be pretty much irrelevant, except that now we all know.

    4. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In France, it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust, and even discuss about numbers of victims. You know, I used to agree with that (partly maybe because of my grand-father who was deported to Nazi camps because he was hiding weapons, which fills this subject with emotions). Now, since very recently, I don't anymore. Let me explain why.

      Then, recently, I wanted to listen Robert Faurisson denial theories, just to know what he was talking about, and to make my own idea about it. After watching, and in all honesty, his thesis aren't only shocking, it's also completely absurd with very little to no valid evidence for supporting his ideas. He barely shows few maps, talks about how (now destroyed) buildings were made, and that's about it. When he's making comments about what he sees as healthy prisoners (he says they aren't starving, by showing a picture of a bunch of new prisoner just arrived), which is shocking and disgusting. I was very happy that it wasn't censored in Youtube, so I could see it for myself, and have points to make when someone is talking about this subject. If it was removed from Youtube, I would have nothing to tell to someone talking about Faurisson and the fact he is censored and could be seen as a victim of an imaginary Jewish cabal. Now, I know for a fact this is all bullshit.

      So at the end, I now strongly feel like it's better to allow free speech, even the most disgusting ones, and fight against them, rather than censoring and make them seen as victims. There's no such thing as justified censorship, and it ALWAYS leads to abuse, and controversy of the worst kind used both ways.

  2. Just Wrong by BlastfireRS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's an absolute travesty that it took nearly a year to have this domain returned. A lot of people make their livelihoods from their websites; domains are brands, and the government erroneously damaged these guys' ability to operate. I'd recommend seeking damages if the website was a source of income; even if it wasn't, something needs to be done to prove the point that a little more thought and due process needs to occur before arbitrarily taking things down.

  3. Re:How nice of them by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...

    No offense, but you want to try READING the amendments buddy. Specifically ...

    X Rights of the States under Constitution

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.