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

141–150 of 161 posts

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

#141

Post by rhizome »

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…

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

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

#142

Post by [deleted] »

rhizome wrote: post #141
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…

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by anigbrowl »

rhizome wrote: post #141
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…

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

The (apparently) accidental inclusion of mooo.com, and all its subdomains, is not OK. I think that was negligent, and that the domain owners can, should, and will sue. IANAL, so I may be mistaken - if anyone knows better, I'd appreciate an explanation in order to understand the issue better. (The existing sub-thread mentioning the Federal Tort Claims Act seems like the correct interpretation to me, and in several cases a class action against the government has led to a settlement or judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.)

If the writer or my understanding of the story was wrong, and mooo.com was incorrectly included on the domain seizure warrant instead of affected by technical incompetence, then I would have to rethink the question, and know more about what happened to form a better opinion. I think we all agree that the mistaken seizure of mooo.com and the subdomains, whatever the exact nature of the mistake, was unjustifiable, and that the domain owners deserve compensation for any injuries to their personal or business reputations.

But I think what you're really asking is whether it's ever OK for the government to seize a website first and hold the trial later, yes? If so, my answer is yes, and that due process is satisfied if a warrant was correctly issued, based on a demonstration to the court that the website's content consists of illegal child porn. If the owner/operator can't be found, the warrant is issued against the domain used as a distribution point, because it is also a crime to distribute such material.

If property rights took precedence over criminal statute, then the legal system would be expending resources to protect illegal activity. If a cop finds a kilo of cocaine but no dealer steps up to claim ownership, should it be left where it is? If a machine gun were set up on a tripod and rebuilt to fire automatically at random passers-by, should it be left alone out of respect for the absent owner's property rights? If a domain is being employed to serve an illegal purpose, why should its owner expect the legal system to uphold his property rights at the same time?

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

#144

Post by kmfrk »

Kliment wrote: post #138
kmfrk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that the book was sent to the relevant government people to be vetted, before it was published. The first time around, someone in the government must have missed the details. The second time around, I'm sure they combed through it and pointed out the things that they would prefer the author left out. After that, the modified book probably got the green light. I don't see why you would want to be an as…

Since when does the government need to approve books for publication? You want to "be an ass" because as the author, you want those details out, and as the publisher, you know those details are what will sell the book.

Sure, endanger the lives of American and coalition troops, how does that make someone an asshole? As long as you're doing it for PR and profit.

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

#145

Post by count »

Kliment wrote: post #138
kmfrk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that the book was sent to the relevant government people to be vetted, before it was published. The first time around, someone in the government must have missed the details. The second time around, I'm sure they combed through it and pointed out the things that they would prefer the author left out. After that, the modified book probably got the green light. I don't see why you would want to be an as…

Since when does the government need to approve books for publication? You want to "be an ass" because as the author, you want those details out, and as the publisher, you know those details are what will sell the book.

Depending on what kind of security clearance you have/had, you sign some long-term (ie: for life) NDAs and other paperwork that gives the government right of refusal to allow you to publish (in any fashion) any work. Including things like your resume. It's not something normal, regular, average citizens deal with, but for those who are trusted with highly sensitive knowledge, it's par for course.

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

#146

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rhizome wrote: post #141
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…

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

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 one has to take action when a crime appears to have been committed or some wrongdoing appears likely to be occurring. Seriousness is IMO a large factor in appropriate response.

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

#147

Post by rhizome »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #146
rhizome wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

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…

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

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

#148

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

forgive my pedantry, but I'm not sure that having illegal property seized in a civil proceeding counts as punishment.

Well, when talking of doubtful distinction in argument, some may pedantry, others might say sophistry. If I say "I never touched him!" (but rubber hose did a fine job on his kidney), which am I engaging in?

More seriously, how the frickin heck can taking someone's stuff not be punishment? Moreover, given that this is a broad power, the existence of some instance where one can argue isn't punishment doesn't mean that there aren't many, many other instances where it is.

But some things are illegal to possess and thus subject to forfeit in the first place.

Note that civil forfeiture was not historically created or used for taking drugs themselves or other "illegal property". If someone has drugs, you can arrest them for possession and take the drugs as evidence. If you drop the charges, they could come to collect, except they won't since they'll be arrested for possession so you can dispose of the stuff (not that I'm particular in favor of drug laws but that's a different story). Civil forfeiture is for taking money and "instrumentalities".

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

"Asset forfeiture is confiscation, by the State, of assets which are either (a) the alleged proceeds of crime or (b) the alleged instrumentalities of crime..."

IE, it's not used for "illegal property" as such. And the addresses in this discussion certainly aren't "illegal property".

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

#149

Post by joe_the_user »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #146
rhizome wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that it's OK as long as the charges are serious enough?

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.

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

#150

Post by anigbrowl »

rhizome wrote: post #147
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…

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. Although I expect it would be a very unpleasant task, I would have to be prepared to do it as best I could, because that's what 'the right to an attorney' boils down to.

But I really don't think there needs to be any legal protection for the continued operation of a child porn website. The people abused during the creation of such material have rights too, which I think are a lot more important than the porn distributor's property right in a domain name.

Post reply on HN