5 ms·

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,

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.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
It's strange how so many people find this logic insane when applied to a domain name or physical property [1], but accept it wholeheartedly when applied to a corporation. [1] This logic is often used by police departments to rob people of cash/cars on the theory they are somehow involved in drugs.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to applying to to a corporation. Can you expand that a little?
  - code_duck 15y ago
    The basis of corporate law is that a corporation is considered to be an individual in certain respect - hence the root of the word. A corporation is given certain rights and responsibilities that a natural person would have.
    - palish 15y ago
      I never noticed that "corporation" is so close to "corporeal".
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    One example: people often advocate for restrictions on "corporate" speech (or more precisely, the right of the corporations owners to use their property for expressive purposes) on the grounds that a corporation isn't a human and therefore doesn't deserve freedom of speech.
    - SamReidHughes 15y ago
      But of course corporations don't deserve freedom of speech. They use their speech to influence the electoral process. When G.E. runs ads supporting candidates, they undermine the principles of democracy. Except for the New York Times, NBC, the ACLU, and all the others whose speech I often agree with, corporate rights should be tightly controlled and regulated, and you should only be able to create corporations that create speech that legislators can deal with.

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.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

It's strange how so many people find this logic insane when applied to a domain name or physical property [1], but accept it wholeheartedly when applied to a corporation. [1] This logic is often used by police departments to rob people of cash/cars on the theory they are somehow involved in drugs.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to applying to to a corporation. Can you expand that a little?
- code_duck 15y ago
  The basis of corporate law is that a corporation is considered to be an individual in certain respect - hence the root of the word. A corporation is given certain rights and responsibilities that a natural person would have.
  - palish 15y ago
    I never noticed that "corporation" is so close to "corporeal".
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  One example: people often advocate for restrictions on "corporate" speech (or more precisely, the right of the corporations owners to use their property for expressive purposes) on the grounds that a corporation isn't a human and therefore doesn't deserve freedom of speech.
  - SamReidHughes 15y ago
    But of course corporations don't deserve freedom of speech. They use their speech to influence the electoral process. When G.E. runs ads supporting candidates, they undermine the principles of democracy. Except for the New York Times, NBC, the ACLU, and all the others whose speech I often agree with, corporate rights should be tightly controlled and regulated, and you should only be able to create corporations that create speech that legislators can deal with.