Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#151

Post by anigbrowl »

joe_the_user wrote: post #149
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's saying that sometimes it is necessary to take action before a conviction in a court of law. If I see you about to stab someone I'm not going to get a police office to review the case, pass it on to a legal team to assess and bring before a judge, wait for a subpoena, wait for legal representatives to make submissions and then have you arrested. Instead I'd do my best to stop you stabbing them. Sometimes…

I suppose he's saying a number of things... But none of them relate to your example. Statutes exist to allow people to take emergency action when a crime is in the process of being committed - but they have no relation to civil forfeiture, which isn't about stopping an action but to remove peripheral resources permanently.

Why do you keep going on about civil forfeiture? That is not what I have been talking about at all. So you are opposed to it, so am I in many respects.

Shutting down hott_kiddie_porn_pix_4_free.com is quite different from impounding someone's car or putting a lien on a bank account. Please stop arguing with me about the latter when I have only ever been talking about the former.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#152

Post by rhizome »

anigbrowl wrote: post #150
rhizome wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at his example A, he's describing an accusation of distributing child pornography to justify removing domains from the internet.

I was not. I was describing evidence of distribution being offered to justify seizing control of the domain from whence child porn was being distributed. If I were a defense attorney, it's possible I could find myself having to represent someone on trial for that kind of crime. In fact, I have spent quite a bit of time thinking over that very issue in the last year, and the complex ethical responsibilities involved.…

Yes, but someone has to determine whether the evidence is real Typically this is a judge's job, isn't it?

Of course there isn't and shouldn't be protection for the continued operation of a child porn website, but shouldn't it be found to be one first? You seem to be saying "yes," but that the evidence should be given to I don't know...a dude at Comcast or wherever? I'm fuzzy on this last part.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#153

Post by anigbrowl »

rhizome wrote: post #152
anigbrowl wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not. I was describing evidence of distribution being offered to justify seizing control of the domain from whence child porn was being distributed. If I were a defense attorney, it's possible I could find myself having to represent someone on trial for that kind of crime. In fact, I have spent quite a bit of time thinking over that very issue in the last year, and the complex ethical responsibilities involved.…

Yes, but someone has to determine whether the evidence is real Typically this is a judge's job, isn't it? Of course there isn't and shouldn't be protection for the continued operation of a child porn website, but shouldn't it be found to be one first? You seem to be saying "yes," but that the evidence should be given to I don't know...a dude at Comcast or wherever? I'm fuzzy on this last part.

??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above.

Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action.

When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator, that would be the person implementing the DNS changes under ICE supervision AFTER being presented with the warrant authorizing the domain seizure. The warrant which the ICE staffers got from a judge, who had first examined the evidence thoroughly.

One more time, in chronological order:

Someone in the DoJ/ICE finds a child porn website, and begins collecting evidence by making screenshots or downloading content or whatever methodology they use.

Everything known about the website is written up in an affidavit (ie a statement), and along with the evidence it is taken to the local District Court.

A judge reads the affidavit and examines the evidence - maybe as collected, maybe by going to the website directly to verify the statements made by the DoJ agent.

If the judge is satisfied that it is the real deal, then she issues a warrant authorizing the seizure.

The warrant is taken to ICANN or InterNIC or wherever it is easiest and fastest to patch the DNS, and is shown to the staff there as proof of legal authority. This is called executing the warrant.

A technician then redirects the domain name of the porn site(s) to point at an ICE server. On this occasion, mooo.com was accidentally redirected as well, which should never have happened. Exactly who screwed up and how is still a mystery.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#154

Post by rhizome »

anigbrowl wrote: post #153
rhizome wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but someone has to determine whether the evidence is real Typically this is a judge's job, isn't it? Of course there isn't and shouldn't be protection for the continued operation of a child porn website, but shouldn't it be found to be one first? You seem to be saying "yes," but that the evidence should be given to I don't know...a dude at Comcast or wherever? I'm fuzzy on this last part.

??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above. Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action. When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator,…

You're right, I haven't read all of your posts. I only have time to read 20,000 words a day and just couldn't fit it in. That said, it appears your stance is either shifting with time or you're playing piggy-in-the-middle while you sit on the fence. It was bad, but hey, mistakes happen, and what's qualified immunity?

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#155

Post by joe_the_user »

anigbrowl wrote: post #153
rhizome wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but someone has to determine whether the evidence is real Typically this is a judge's job, isn't it? Of course there isn't and shouldn't be protection for the continued operation of a child porn website, but shouldn't it be found to be one first? You seem to be saying "yes," but that the evidence should be given to I don't know...a dude at Comcast or wherever? I'm fuzzy on this last part.

??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above. Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action. When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator,…

Despite their excess length, I'm fairly sure I've got an idea of what you're aiming at.

You're noting that the large web site shutdown was probably a mistake but are using that argument to defend the basic mechanism. Seems like a reversal of the principle "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" into "better a thousand innocents get hit with accidental collateral damage than one guilty man get away with having something really dangerous on the Internet".

Yes, it was probably a mistake. The point is when it gets easy for repressive measures to happen, they get sloppy and hurt innocents. And when a cop has the luxury not having to have a trial, things will be easy whether there's a judge involved or not.

Constitutional guarantees really do exist to "make the cops job hard". The urge for the good citizen to agree with the cops is too great.

And also, these action were carried out as "civil forfeiture" (in this case "virtual property") so my comments on this seem entirely justified - indeed, I don't think anything I said was specific to physical as oppose to "virtual" property.

Edit: It's not really the judge's "job to interpret evidence" fairly. There really aren't ANY uncorruptable experts on fairness. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY thing that keeps the justice system honest is the public, adversarial institution of the trial itself (it's kind of like the market that regard - two would-be monopolists can be very honest with enough daylight on them). The trial system hasn't done a terribly good job lately but if it is entirely absent, you get really bad things.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#156

Post by brg »

anigbrowl wrote: post #130
joe_the_user wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture in and of itself makes a mockery of due process. Indeed, once you make once exception to due process, you can argue ten more through. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial . The final result is the "Judge Dred scenario". Merely a trial called "United States v. $250,000 in cash" should be a rather bald statement that what is g…

So basically you want to hold the trial before any warrants are issued. Whether civil forfeiture is done by a judge or cop, it involves the justice taking stuff from you without a trial. This is simply not true. Here's a recent case where the government's claim was rejected and it was ordered to return the seized money to the owner, plus legal costs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3005668348588117...

No part of a criminal investigation which involves disabling a DNS entry. A warrant is required for the transfer of goods or freedom from an entity to the government. This is simple destruction.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#157

Post by brg »

anigbrowl wrote: post #139
joe_the_user wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A). I want to hold a trial before any punishment can be meted out. Yes, I think that concept has a long history in common law. Warrant for evidence are a different story. B) Read my statement again. Your example doesn't contradict it at all. The fact that some people sometimes get some relief after the fact doesn't prove that doing things this is fair or that it involves anything like the spirit of due-process. You c…

A) forgive my pedantry, but I'm not sure that having illegal property seized in a civil proceeding counts as punishment. Distributing child porn is very illegal, and I don't see any benefit in allowing the domain to stay up while the trial proceeds. B) I am not a fan of ever-expanding civil asset forfeiture policies either. But some things are illegal to possess and thus subject to forfeit in the first place. The con…

I don't see any benefit in allowing the domain to stay up while the trial proceeds.

So you believe in guilty until proven guilty?

The content of 83990 sites was taken down, none of which had any disturbing or illegal content. There is great benefit in allowing this to stay up while the trail proceeds.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#158

Post by anigbrowl »

brg wrote: post #157
anigbrowl wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) forgive my pedantry, but I'm not sure that having illegal property seized in a civil proceeding counts as punishment. Distributing child porn is very illegal, and I don't see any benefit in allowing the domain to stay up while the trial proceeds. B) I am not a fan of ever-expanding civil asset forfeiture policies either. But some things are illegal to possess and thus subject to forfeit in the first place. The con…

I don't see any benefit in allowing the domain to stay up while the trial proceeds. So you believe in guilty until proven guilty? The content of 83990 sites was taken down, none of which had any disturbing or illegal content. There is great benefit in allowing this to stay up while the trail proceeds.

Quite, but none of them from mooo.com on down should have been included in the first place - the error appears to have taken place during the change to the DNS records, not inside a courtroom. As I said before, if that domain had erroneously been included on the warrant itself, there would have had to be another hearing held before that could be cleared up. There is no mention of such in the story; instead work began to restore the DNS records almost immediately (but propogation time means that's not an instant fix).

A technical error like that could have occurred just as easily following a trial as following a warrant. It was negligence which was to blame, not a lack of due process.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#159

Post by anigbrowl »

rhizome wrote: post #154
anigbrowl wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above. Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action. When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator,…

You're right, I haven't read all of your posts. I only have time to read 20,000 words a day and just couldn't fit it in. That said, it appears your stance is either shifting with time or you're playing piggy-in-the-middle while you sit on the fence. It was bad, but hey, mistakes happen, and what's qualified immunity?

I have not changed my opinion about this at all. Obviously I need to work on my communications skills. I do not think qualified immunity will apply here.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#160

Post by anigbrowl »

joe_the_user wrote: post #155
anigbrowl wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above. Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action. When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator,…

Despite their excess length, I'm fairly sure I've got an idea of what you're aiming at. You're noting that the large web site shutdown was probably a mistake but are using that argument to defend the basic mechanism. Seems like a reversal of the principle "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" into "better a thousand innocents get hit with accidental collateral damage than one guilty man ge…

Joe, a properly issued search warrant is not a writ of assistance, and you are not James Otis Jr. Nor are there any property rights in contraband.

I'm sorry that I have done such a bad job of explaining it.

Post reply on HN