4 ms·

The problem here is absolutely the law. (disclaimer: IANAL) You're viewing it from a sympathetic light from the start. While one might argue that domain names

by koko775 16y ago

The problem here is absolutely the law. (disclaimer: IANAL) You're viewing it from a sympathetic light from the start. While one might argue that domain names are property, the seizure of an access point to an online service means that the seizure can effectively act as an injunction against a business. Moreover, this is publicly-visible "property". It's like going to your house and turning it into a strip club and putting up a sign saying "We employ minors" (regardless of whether you are a strip club or employ minors). Sure, your house still exists, but the address that it used to be at now showcases something that can damage your reputation irreparably. So while you might consider the actions legal using an interpretation favorable to law enforcement, if you view it from a different lens of "A harmless business owner's livelihood was suspended without warning by ICE and his reputation untruthfully damaged by said action", then it's clear that some level of legal protection (whether it already exists as a part of due process or not) is missing and that ICE was criminally negligent in its handling of the situation. Of course, this is a favorable viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum, as not everyone whose domain was seized is necessarily a business owner or a highly-trafficked site. However, it is a viewpoint that assumes innocence, rather than guilt, before proven otherwise.

anigbrowl 16y ago
I'm confused. I spent 3 of the last 4 paragraphs talking about the potentially life-changing consequences for all those website owners whose domains were mistakenly tagged with child porn warnings, and why I expected it to result in a big class action lawsuit, and how irresponsible and unacceptable it was for ICE to make such a mistake. Did you just not read that part? I know I'm long-winded, but you're basically agreeing with 95% of what I wrote. Where we differ is that I'm saying the seizure warrant and the legal procedure before and after are OK. Most of the time they work as intended. The court didn't issue a warrant for the shutdown of 84,000 subdomains due to laziness or ignorance on the part of law enforcement or the judge. They issued a warrant for 8 or 10 specific domains, and when it was executed someone accidentally ran the same process on mooo.com, which was never included in the warrant to begin with (unless I am very badly mistaken, in which case I'll eat humble pie when that comes to light). The website owners whose reputations and blood pressure were put at such grave risk have a claim on ICE for the needless trouble they were caused. Which will get resolved in a court. I appreciate that you would like to see someone prosecuted for criminal negligence, but that usually happens only in cases involving immediate loss of life.

by koko775 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

I'm confused. I spent 3 of the last 4 paragraphs talking about the potentially life-changing consequences for all those website owners whose domains were mistakenly tagged with child porn warnings, and why I expected it to result in a big class action lawsuit, and how irresponsible and unacceptable it was for ICE to make such a mistake. Did you just not read that part? I know I'm long-winded, but you're basically agreeing with 95% of what I wrote. Where we differ is that I'm saying the seizure warrant and the legal procedure before and after are OK. Most of the time they work as intended. The court didn't issue a warrant for the shutdown of 84,000 subdomains due to laziness or ignorance on the part of law enforcement or the judge. They issued a warrant for 8 or 10 specific domains, and when it was executed someone accidentally ran the same process on mooo.com, which was never included in the warrant to begin with (unless I am very badly mistaken, in which case I'll eat humble pie when that comes to light). The website owners whose reputations and blood pressure were put at such grave risk have a claim on ICE for the needless trouble they were caused. Which will get resolved in a court. I appreciate that you would like to see someone prosecuted for criminal negligence, but that usually happens only in cases involving immediate loss of life.