5 ms·

The underlying issue there is 'civil forfeiture' in general. My view is that this practice is unconstitutional for any sort of property, and it's causing a lot

The underlying issue there is 'civil forfeiture' in general. My view is that this practice is unconstitutional for any sort of property, and it's causing a lot of problems with the motivation of individuals in law enforcement. Automobiles, cash, and real estate have been being seized with no due process, no warrant and even no arrest for years. Domain names are just a new twist in that story.

dailyrorschach 15y ago
Indeed the entire statute around these things needs to be re-thought out. And even if you are eventually acquitted the property can still remain the property of the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture#Asset_forfeiture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture#Asset_forfeitu... Just traveling with "an unusual amount of cash" can get your money taken from you on a traffic stop even if they don't find any evidence of you selling narcotics.
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
I have never understood how those seizures could not be unconstitutional. The laws shouldn't exist, but if they do, the people enforcing them should not be receiving the benefits for enforcing them.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
The underlying issue there is 'civil forfeiture' in general. My view is that this practice is unconstitutional for any sort of property, But property -- cars, domain names, cash, etc. -- is not human, and therefore is not protected by our Bill of Rights. Your domain name does not have the right to a trial, and so, when it is accused of being an accessory in a crime (e.g., the domain name was a person who set up the meeting between the customer and the purveyor of stolen IP), the government is within its authority to detain it and keep it locked up for as long as is deemed necessary. (Not that I buy this bizarre logic, but that's the rationale for asset forfeiture.)
- Natsu 15y ago
  You're right about that logic being dangerous. The sad thing is that I can think up similar reasoning that would allow them to sidestep the Constitution with respect to the internet entirely too easily and to derail any opposition with meaningless partisan bickering. The more I think about it, the more I think that we need to extend the Bill of Rights.
- chc 15y ago
  But doesn't the Fifth Amendment explicitly protect property? (I'm not saying you're wrong about their rationale, but the rationale doesn't seem based in reality to me.)
- code_duck 15y ago
  The 4th amendment regards "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure". That appears to cover seizure of property fairly well, though I suppose the key word is 'unreasonable'. It's also unclear how this is applied to civil matters vs. criminal. Though forfeiture is usually hand-in-hand with criminal charges, they claim it's a civil matter. The 5th amendment says citizens shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the US, police can currently take your car, money, or other possessions without even placing you under arrest. This seems to me to violate the spirit of this amendment as well as the 4th.
  - palish 15y ago
    And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. (I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I hope I lose.)
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    Things are never easy, when you start to break things down to the atomic level. For example, if my wife were to commit a crime, they'd take her away from me without giving me any kind of hearing to protect my interests in her. And believe me, my interest in her is much stronger than in any domain name, or a car. The only difference in this hypothetical is that she, being human, gets to have her own hearing. But with inanimate objects (or intangibles), there's not even an obligation to give the object a hearing. Disclaimer once again: I disagree with my own logic here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, illustrating the course that an argument might take.

dailyrorschach 15y ago

Indeed the entire statute around these things needs to be re-thought out. And even if you are eventually acquitted the property can still remain the property of the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture#Asset_forfeiture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture#Asset_forfeitu... Just traveling with "an unusual amount of cash" can get your money taken from you on a traffic stop even if they don't find any evidence of you selling narcotics.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

I have never understood how those seizures could not be unconstitutional. The laws shouldn't exist, but if they do, the people enforcing them should not be receiving the benefits for enforcing them.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

The underlying issue there is 'civil forfeiture' in general. My view is that this practice is unconstitutional for any sort of property, But property -- cars, domain names, cash, etc. -- is not human, and therefore is not protected by our Bill of Rights. Your domain name does not have the right to a trial, and so, when it is accused of being an accessory in a crime (e.g., the domain name was a person who set up the meeting between the customer and the purveyor of stolen IP), the government is within its authority to detain it and keep it locked up for as long as is deemed necessary. (Not that I buy this bizarre logic, but that's the rationale for asset forfeiture.)

Natsu 15y ago
You're right about that logic being dangerous. The sad thing is that I can think up similar reasoning that would allow them to sidestep the Constitution with respect to the internet entirely too easily and to derail any opposition with meaningless partisan bickering. The more I think about it, the more I think that we need to extend the Bill of Rights.
chc 15y ago
But doesn't the Fifth Amendment explicitly protect property? (I'm not saying you're wrong about their rationale, but the rationale doesn't seem based in reality to me.)
code_duck 15y ago
The 4th amendment regards "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure". That appears to cover seizure of property fairly well, though I suppose the key word is 'unreasonable'. It's also unclear how this is applied to civil matters vs. criminal. Though forfeiture is usually hand-in-hand with criminal charges, they claim it's a civil matter. The 5th amendment says citizens shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the US, police can currently take your car, money, or other possessions without even placing you under arrest. This seems to me to violate the spirit of this amendment as well as the 4th.
- palish 15y ago
  And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. (I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I hope I lose.)
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Things are never easy, when you start to break things down to the atomic level. For example, if my wife were to commit a crime, they'd take her away from me without giving me any kind of hearing to protect my interests in her. And believe me, my interest in her is much stronger than in any domain name, or a car. The only difference in this hypothetical is that she, being human, gets to have her own hearing. But with inanimate objects (or intangibles), there's not even an obligation to give the object a hearing. Disclaimer once again: I disagree with my own logic here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, illustrating the course that an argument might take.