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."

15 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 galaad2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      it's called censorship

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    2. 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.

    3. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by galaad2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      an US judge just ruled that having a .com doesn't necessarily mean it's under US jurisdiction:

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/11351416992/facebook-fails-its-argument-that-faceporn-is-under-us-jurisdiction-using-com.shtml

      Facebook argued in its filings that Faceporn targets a United States audience by using a ".com" address, and by virtue of the fact that Faceporn is an interactive website with 250 users in California and 1000 users in the United States. The court says that these allegations alone are not sufficient to satisfy the standard for personal jurisdiction.

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    4. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by Artraze · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's judicial, this executive. They aren't bringing you to court, they're just taking your stuff... which they 'physically' can do. Whether or not they're _allowed_ to do that is certainly a question, but one that needs to be settled in court before you can get it back. And good luck with that.

      Think: It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission (especially if you can claim that no one has standing to make you apologize)

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. Re:What happened to innocent until proven guilty? by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Even if you cook up crack in your garage they don't take away your home.

      You haven't been paying attention, have you?
      The government CAN AND DOES take away any of your property they want just based on their SUSPICION that you were involved in a crime.
      They call it 'civil asset forfeiture', and with some twisted logic fueled by greed and a total disregard of the rule of law they CHARGE YOUR PROPERTY with committing a crime. The cases have names like: "United States vs. one 1998 Mercedes Benz," and "California vs. 1711 Main Street,"

      From Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

      Asset forfeiture in the United States

      There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

      The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

      A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such funds. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

      The number of federal statutes giving the government the right to confiscate citizens’ assets has nearly doubled since the 1990s, by one count. More than 400 federal statutes allow for forfeiture for a wide range of reasons, including violations of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.

      Also read:
      http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    8. 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. Sue ICE for its 1 year budget by magsk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Sue ICE for its 1 year budget by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See my comment above. It is not necessary to SUE the government. Government officials can be criminally prosecuted under 18 USC 242. This was a statute passed by Congress that was specifically aimed at government officials who abuse the law, and nobody is immune.

      So far in 2011 there have been 41 prosecutions under 18 USC 242, and of those, there have been 39 convictions.

      By the way, I should also point this out: although not long, the wording of the statute can be a bit confusing. What it says is that depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights for any reason falls under the law, PLUS treating people differently due to race or alien status. The law does not just apply to discrimination cases.

  4. Re:How nice of them by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. Re:How nice of them by residieu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.