4 ms·

> This is literally a form of government censorship of speech. Even if some speech is "illegal" (I don't think even pirate spreading domains are illegal, though

> This is literally a form of government censorship of speech. Even if some speech is "illegal" (I don't think even pirate spreading domains are illegal, though there is a good civil case against them) the act of speaking is protected, and this right is acknowledged by the first amendment. No it's not. It's analogous to the police acting on a warrant to close a store front selling counterfeit goods. This is something that occurs constantly in large cities all over the country. If a judge would ever issue a warrant to remove a DNS name based upon speech, and it's upheld, we have bigger problems than seizing DNS names.

18pfsmt 15y ago
I'm not sure what a "DNS name" is exactly. DNS stands for Domain Name Service, and I can't figure out for the life of me what it is you are referring to. The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued warrant, which is the problem with which most of _us_ are concerned. Slowly eroding constitutionally protected rights reminds me of the boiling frog that never jumps out of the pot as the temperature is raised ever-so-slightly.
- pantaloons 15y ago
  I think he meant DNS zone.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued warrant Meaning what, exactly?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wavephorm 15y ago
It's analogous to the police acting on a warrant to close a store front selling counterfeit goods There is no warrant. This is not a civilian police force acting legally. This is an arm of the federal government acting unilaterally implementing authoritarian control over public communications and information. I'm amazed that Americans are comfortable with their leaders going down this road. It's been done before and has rarely ended well.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  There is no warrant. Yes, there is. The issue is whether anybody should have the power to grant such a warrant, not that warrants were not obtained.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    What warrant? Nobody is being charged with a crime. The government is just shutting down websites it wants to without any due process.
    - GHFigs 15y ago
      What warrant? A seizure warrant, as signed by a judge. (Compare "search warrant", "arrest warrant"). Nobody is being charged with a crime. That's not what a warrant is. Warrants are issued on the basis of probable cause. You probably understand this already with regard to search warrants: a prosecutor doesn't have to have filed charges against a person before the police can obtain a search warrant in the course of investigating the crime. The police only need to show that there is cause to conduct the search. But more to the point of people not being charged: I'm not conversant in every relevant detail, but I presume the reason nobody is being charged in these cases is that the owners of these domains are unknown and outside of the US, besides. But again: nobody being charged doesn't mean warrants weren't issued for the seizures. The two are not the same thing.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    It confuses me that this particular comment was found objectionable by at least six people. You guys are weird, sometimes. Here is an example of a warrant of seizure issued by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York to "Any Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent or any other law enforcement officer authorized by law" to seize certain domains: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf I apologize for not expending the energy to produce a copy of every warrant for every domain ever seized, but I am not personally burdened with such indomitable doubts as to their existence that others seem to be.
GHFigs 15y ago
This is something that occurs constantly in large cities all over the country. From the horse's mouth: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110316washington.pdf http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110316washingto... 19,959 seizures in FY2010, with an average value[1] of $9,425. In addition to things you might expect (footwear, pharmaceuticals, watches, optical media) this includes things like cigarettes and ball bearings. The report cites a 42% increase in seizures at express consignment/mail facilities due to "continued growth of websites that sell counterfeit and piratical merchandise", which goes some distance toward explaining why these domain seizures are being brought. (Incidentally, there's plenty of ammo for "government gone wild" arguments in the report, but people that expect it to be about torrents will be surprised and/or bored. There's more to the world than the Internet.) [1]:"Domestic Value", by which they mean the something like the street price, rather than the MSRP of the non-counterfeit good.

18pfsmt 15y ago

I'm not sure what a "DNS name" is exactly. DNS stands for Domain Name Service, and I can't figure out for the life of me what it is you are referring to. The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued warrant, which is the problem with which most of _us_ are concerned. Slowly eroding constitutionally protected rights reminds me of the boiling frog that never jumps out of the pot as the temperature is raised ever-so-slightly.

pantaloons 15y ago
I think he meant DNS zone.
GHFigs 15y ago
The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued warrant Meaning what, exactly?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wavephorm 15y ago

It's analogous to the police acting on a warrant to close a store front selling counterfeit goods There is no warrant. This is not a civilian police force acting legally. This is an arm of the federal government acting unilaterally implementing authoritarian control over public communications and information. I'm amazed that Americans are comfortable with their leaders going down this road. It's been done before and has rarely ended well.

GHFigs 15y ago
There is no warrant. Yes, there is. The issue is whether anybody should have the power to grant such a warrant, not that warrants were not obtained.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  What warrant? Nobody is being charged with a crime. The government is just shutting down websites it wants to without any due process.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    What warrant? A seizure warrant, as signed by a judge. (Compare "search warrant", "arrest warrant"). Nobody is being charged with a crime. That's not what a warrant is. Warrants are issued on the basis of probable cause. You probably understand this already with regard to search warrants: a prosecutor doesn't have to have filed charges against a person before the police can obtain a search warrant in the course of investigating the crime. The police only need to show that there is cause to conduct the search. But more to the point of people not being charged: I'm not conversant in every relevant detail, but I presume the reason nobody is being charged in these cases is that the owners of these domains are unknown and outside of the US, besides. But again: nobody being charged doesn't mean warrants weren't issued for the seizures. The two are not the same thing.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  It confuses me that this particular comment was found objectionable by at least six people. You guys are weird, sometimes. Here is an example of a warrant of seizure issued by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York to "Any Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent or any other law enforcement officer authorized by law" to seize certain domains: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf I apologize for not expending the energy to produce a copy of every warrant for every domain ever seized, but I am not personally burdened with such indomitable doubts as to their existence that others seem to be.

GHFigs 15y ago

This is something that occurs constantly in large cities all over the country. From the horse's mouth: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110316washington.pdf http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110316washingto... 19,959 seizures in FY2010, with an average value[1] of $9,425. In addition to things you might expect (footwear, pharmaceuticals, watches, optical media) this includes things like cigarettes and ball bearings. The report cites a 42% increase in seizures at express consignment/mail facilities due to "continued growth of websites that sell counterfeit and piratical merchandise", which goes some distance toward explaining why these domain seizures are being brought. (Incidentally, there's plenty of ammo for "government gone wild" arguments in the report, but people that expect it to be about torrents will be surprised and/or bored. There's more to the world than the Internet.) [1]:"Domestic Value", by which they mean the something like the street price, rather than the MSRP of the non-counterfeit good.