Slashdot Mirror
Feds Return Mistakenly Seized Domain
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."
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?
The design, wording and overall presentation of that banner is brilliant. The site appears to have been (hopefully briefly) slashdotted. But they have an emblem for "American Censorship Day" across from one for the "Great Firewall". Fantastic juxtaposition. Bravely and skillfully done all around - to post this just after having gotten the domain back.
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.
They should sue them for as much as possible (I know I will be paying for it as a tax payer), they need to be taught a lesson which will make them more careful and rethink their practices.
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
If you actually knew anything about the Constitution, you'd know that it defines the limited powers of the government, not the rights of the citizens.
Doesn't seizing domains seem counterproductive? Wouldn't be it more productive to seize the server instead?
Good luck seizing a virtual server in Butfukistan.
> 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.
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
Personally I'm not willing to separate communication over a computer network from face to face communication when it comes to freedom of expression or for that matter accountability for fraud, libel, sedition, civil offenses etc. The domain's owner pays a fee to use that identity for his puposes, and the only purpose of computer networking is communication. It *should be cut and dry, the government should have no special powers to censor Internet communications any more than they should be permitted to pepper spray passive demonstrators. This domain was seized without even contacting the owner and witheld for a full year. No offenses were committed and no due process was given. IMO they did conspire to violate US 1st and 4th amendment rights.
This is what happens when domains are seized on the basis of mere accusations. Instead of the government having to prove that a website's operators are guilty of copyright infringement, the claim alone is enough for the feds to seize a domain that will only be returned either as a gesture of "good will" or if the website's operators can prove they are innocent of that which they haven't been formally accused. Those responsible for such a policy should be ashamed of themselves and their perversion of justice.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
To be clear, it wasn't "mistakenly" seized. It was wrongfully seized. ICE knew exactly which domain it had seized, and denied any wrongdoing for more than a year. This wasn't the result of a typo on a list or anything else that could possibly warrant* calling this a mistake.
It's not as if the feds got back from their domain seizing spree and the wife said "Honey, I told you to pick up Diet DaJaz1.com!"
Not the only "warrantless" event in this situation, either.
Yes, they did have a warrant. There was standard due process, that is, an in-house judge rubber-stamped the request.
Article IX also essentially says that just because we might have forgotten something or something new comes up, doesn't mean it isn't a right.
See United States Code, Title 18, Section 242 (18 USC 242).
The person who misrepresented probable cause to the judge CAN be prosecuted. Even if it was mere negligence. In fact, even the judge could probably be prosecuted, for signing a warrant that allowed property seizure without sufficient evidence. That statute has real teeth, and there is no exception in 18 USC 242 for judges. They are government officials like any others.
Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.
They do NOT have the power to seize property or restrict speech without proving that it is justified. Even if you argue that a domain is not 'property', they interfered with the domain owner's ability to disseminate information without cause.
The laws of probability forbid it!
"... they appear to have been wrong about copyright being infringed in this case, but they DO have the power to enforce it."
This is about the most egregious straw-man argument I have ever seen.
Congress has the power to pass enforceable laws, but it does NOT have the power to unconstitutionally enforce laws, or, for that matter, to otherwise constitutionally enforce unconstitutional laws.
Several of the founding fathers opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights for just this reason. If we enumerate a set of rights, somebody is going to come along and assume that those are our ONLY rights.
I think you might have misread what I said. What I meant was that they have the constitutional power to enforce copyright. They do not have the power to do so in a way that violates other parts of the constitution. I do not have enough information to say whether this case was unconstitutional enforcement or not, and don't have the inclination to bother researching it further.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
They are wasting taxpayer dollars on this because big corporations told them to. Did you miss the part about the only "evidence" against that site being unsupported word-of-mouth by an RIAA official?
There is that. But it happens.
In my area, a judge who let another judge get off lightly on a DUI charge, was himself charged with DUI a year or so later. People were so pissed off, they had to throw the book at him or there would have been a riot.
Remember that laws are supposed to represent the will of the people.
Call or contact your Senator!
Senate Contacts
Call or contact your Representative!
House Contacts
Get involved another way?
EFF is a good way