12 ms·

Feds Mistakenly Shut Down Popular Blog For Over A Year

560 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

lhnn 15y ago
Someday, perhaps populists and socialists will realize that the very structure of American government combined with our culture leads to complete incompetence in government. We are better off with every power we take away from them.
- wpietri 15y ago
  Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this.
  - SkyMarshal 15y ago
    Indeed. We've been giving the US government all the wrong powers, and stripping it of all the right ones. Heckuvajob, us.
  - kiba 15y ago
    Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. Our civilization relies on extreme specialization and deep division of labor, not that everyone knows everything. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this. Regulatory capture means that regulatory framework aren't necessary free of corruption. It just means we ought to be smarter how we devise regulations or lack thereof, as sometime doing nothing is better than corporations gaining control of the law. If anything, the government are in bed with the bankers.
    - quanticle 15y ago
      The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. So you would rather live under an absolute monarchy? An enlightened dictatorship? Oligarchy? Theocracy? Which form of government, extant or extinct, would you prefer over the western democratic republic?
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        I vote for a Constitutionally-limited republic. We were supposed to have one of those, but the Constitutional limitations seem to have atrophied. See, for example, the overuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause"; the rotting of the 10th Amendment; Kelo, Raich, and so forth...
      - shasta 15y ago
        As long as we're fantasizing, why limit to extant or extinct governments? Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? Your parent post is absolutely correct about the major flaw in a democracy, and despite your insinuation, this is not, I believe, an unfixable problem.
        quanticle 15y ago
        >Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? The problem with every "clean slate" redesign I've ever seen is that it runs into bootstrapping issues. If bootstrapping a new form of government was so obvious or easy, it'd have been done by now.
        shasta 15y ago
        By "bootstrapping issues" you mean that the people in power aren't in a hurry to give it up, right? Obviously they're not and that's why I used the term "fantasizing". :)
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets This isn't going to be rehashing the Glass-Steagall myth, is it? See, e.g., [1] regulation of campaign contributions Isn't this in itself a repudiation of democracy? We're not talking here about Blagojevich-style corruption in the election process. If you're worrying about campaign contributions, that boils down to how much advertising a campaign can buy. If you're worried about a candidate advertising a lot, that's pretty much a vote of no-confidence in your fellow Americans' ability to weigh options and vote rationally. Also, if you're one of those people horrified that corporations can now contribute to campaigns, can you tell me where the line should be drawn? I'm sure you don't object to my right to contribute to a campaign, nor my right to pool money with a friend to do so. If two of us can do so, why not, say, my whole club (e.g., my hypothetical flying club wants to have elected the guy who promises to grant a permit to expand the airport in town)? As this scales up, at some point we need a formal structure to organize things, which is legally recognized by a corporation; why can't my incorporated flying club make a contribution? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/ http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Heritage Foundation...really?
      - civilian 15y ago
        Attack their argument, not the source.
        onemoreact 15y ago
        Ok, corporate donations are not linked to what everyone inside a corporation decides but rather a small set of people whose interest don't necessarily align with the shareholders or the workers at large. Handing disproportionate power to middlemen breeds corruption without the counterbalance of risking large personal fortunes or publicity. This same argument also disproves the idea of giving personal tax breaks on large incomes as apposed to corporate tax breaks for small businesses. AKA middle management don't create jobs so tax breaks targeting 'job creators' that include them are misnamed. Edit: The above is a position piece just like those people at the Heritage Foundation are paid to create. There is nothing wrong with suggesting you find credible sources that are not simply spouting propaganda.
  - sbov 15y ago
    The real problem is the government is afraid to police the markets like they police the people. There are all sorts of things that are legal for people to do absent the harm of others. However, when you throw in harm to others in there, you may become criminally liable for your otherwise legal actions - I'm speaking of negligence. This is what's missing. Without this concept, the government will always be several steps behind the market "innovators".
  - lhnn 15y ago
    The authority we grant to the government to make laws that regulate financial markets, currencies, and (you wish) campaign contributions gives them the authority to make bullshit laws sponsored by the RIAA. A public that isn't engaged with the political process because our central bureaucracy is to distant to interact with personally: THAT'S why we have this trash happening today. Glass-Steagal would only be good because it keeps FDIC-insured money from being used for gambling, which is what securities trading is. One could argue we don't need FDIC insurance, and in fact, we shouldn't have regulation and monopoly of currency by the government. As far as campaign contribution regulation, it's a violation of free speech to tell me how I can spend my money to talk. I can go on if you really care to know how CFR is a bad idea. I want this country to "not suck" and respect the freedoms of its citizens. Several simple, yet fundamental things need to change: -Repeal the 17th amendment -Our voting system for the legislature -The scope of federal government needs drastically reduced.
- andylei 15y ago
  this type of thinking is just lazy. the government did something bad? government can't work! take away as many powers as possible! or maybe, we need to figure out a good solution. problem is, that's not easy and requires domain knowledge and critical thinking. its a lot easier just to say, well i have this one solution that will solve all the problems.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    That, and half of US political society wants to murder the entire concept of government.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      No they don't. They just say they do so they can get elected and expand government. Those of us who actually believe in small government* across the board are as likely to be in the Occupy Wall St. movement as the Tea Party, and we realize that neither party is anywhere near our views. * I mean this in a literal way, that government should be no larger than necessary and no more intrusive than required. The goal is to get to a point where we can engineer intrusive, large government structures out of the picture. For example, if we were to have state and local governments running the last mile telephone network but allowing services to be provided by a host of competing businesses, we'd have a freer market with less regulation. But it would require some use of eminent domain to achieve in a way that neither party would support.
      - rhizome 15y ago
        "Oh, that's just rhetoric" is not a realistic critique. Actual people shape their perspectives based on what messages come from a) people in power, and b) people they agree with. They aren't just words.
        einhverfr 15y ago
        But the words and actions are entirely out of sync. The fact is that very few running for federal office have any interest in limiting federal power. Additionally one thing I have found interesting is how folks who supported Obama during the campaign when he promised to reduce the impact of state secrets, create a more open executive, etc. have more or less continued to follow him (more often than not) as he has done the near exact opposite of his promises. Sure we can argue why Gitmo is still operating as a prison, but the executive has made an about face on the "war on terror" (after about a day in office) which quite astounding, though not as surprising as the willingness of Democratic supporters to go along with it. Of course the excesses of the Bush and Obama years are probably why we have both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St, but that's a discussion for another time.
- ryandickherber 15y ago
  I think it's the fact that there exists an organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force that is the problem. The structure of this organization matters a little less. That's why these sorts of problems happen with every government. What the government has done in this case is criminal. But now we just have to hope that they prosecute themselves. If there were no monopoly on force, it would be possible to use a competing court system to prosecute.
- emmett 15y ago
  This kind of political bombast doesn't belong on Hacker News. Please don't drag us into a war of the Blues and the Greens.
  - lhnn 15y ago
    Frank discussion on the failure of powerful central government in America is appropriate when it's central to the topic that is posted. The fact that the US government did this, for a year, without any backlash, is a symbol of how far gone the US government is.
- phillmv 15y ago
  Get your memes right. This is an example of government corporatism, acting at the behest of a single entity. Socialists are supposed to hate business, right?
eykanal 15y ago
The techdirt article repeatedly makes reference to seizure laws as they apply to confiscated PROPERTY. Is there legal precedence for the blog to immediately assume that such laws apply to digital domains, where nothing physical was confiscated?
- Natsu 15y ago
  Well, what law do you think the government invoked and why? Litigating an entire case ex parte and sealing the record so that the accused never even finds out what they were accused of should be quite troubling to anyone who believes in due process.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >Litigating an entire case ex parte and sealing the record so that the accused never even finds out what they were accused of should be quite troubling to anyone who believes in due process. seems like definition of due process has been changed, secretly to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the public peace and enjoyment.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Digital media is not physical property, but i can still download a song and be accused of stealing somebody's property.
  - chc 15y ago
    Legally speaking, no, you can't. If you download a song illegally, you might be accused of copyright infringement, which ironically carries stiffer penalties than just stealing the record would in many cases, but you will not be charged with theft unless they also suspect you stole something physical.
    - sp332 15y ago
      Downloading songs usually isn't charged that way. Usually the uploaders are charged with violating copyright.
rkudeshi 15y ago
If you're not familiar with hip-hop music blogs like the one cited in the article, please visit http://nahright.com http://nahright.com or http://missinfo.tv http://missinfo.tv to get a better idea of what they look like (since dajaz1.com doesn't seem to be back up yet, understandably). Almost every track posted to sites like these are released by the artists themselves (or by their labels). Many hip-hop blogs (including the two I linked) will not post songs if they weren't legitimately authorized by the artists (e.g. if a track was stolen and leaked on the web). Something you won't ever see are full albums. These sites aren't designed to replace album sales, they actually encourage them. They will only link to individual songs or freely released mixtapes. (Also, you'll note that a lot of the music posted is from unsigned artists. A lot of newer rappers actually rose to prominence after having their music posted on these sites.) There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. This was not one of them. PS. For more information on how music gets released to these blogs, read this excellent piece, also by Techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-b...
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. Or maybe, the notion of copyright police is stupid. Have we caught all the bad-guys and evil-doers in this world, and all that's left is COPYRIGHT abuse? I mean, what about all those terrorists who hate us for our freedom. Yet, we have enough resources left over to shut down some poor dudes blog? I feel safer all-ready!
  - hamoid 15y ago
    If terrorists hate you for your freedom, maybe that's the reason why your government is getting rid of them. Getting rid of the freedoms, I mean. Then the terrorist will not have a reason to hate you anymore. Sorry for the sarcasm.
    - 15y ago
wisty 15y ago
Weird, the way the government said they had a secret court extension, but couldn't even give a redacted copy. It almost sounds like they didn't have a court extension, and were lying that they did, and eventually had to hand the domain back out of sheer embarrassment.
- angelbob 15y ago
  Sure. Usually if you give embarrassing people the runaround, they eventually go away. It was, admittedly, way too optimistic for the government to assume every seized domain would work this way. But for them to assume this one specific one would work that way is actually depressingly likely. Governments illegally seize stuff all the time, especially when investigating anything drug-related. They can seize and auction off your stuff basically even on suspicion of it being bought with drug money. What happens if it wasn't? Well, they owe you money back if your lawyer is good enough to make that happen.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  My reading was "they lied. They never planned to do anything." I dunno, if it was my site, I would ask that my lawyer sue to the government to get the site back, and make the government prove that another judge was already handling it.
speleding 15y ago
IANAL, but this sounds like they didn't have a very good lawyer.
- davidu 15y ago
  Not the case. Andrew Bridges was at the Stanford Law Center's SOPA talk last night. He knows his law inside and out and was all over this. The government messed up here and tried to bury it. Because he didn't go away that this is coming out.
  - speleding 15y ago
    I'm not sure if I'm happy to hear he is indeed good. That is even more troubling. I would expect lawyers to have some kind of recourse if things obviously are not going the way the law intended them to, instead of simply getting "no" for an answer. But IANAL.
    - davidu 15y ago
      It just takes time, unfortunately. This story is still developing. The domain owner needed to get his domain back first, and foremost.
aero142 15y ago
What I don't understand is why a meeting with the government lawyer was the final action and why what they say matters? What prevents the blog owner from filing a suit to get the property returned? The government failed to provide proof that they were legally in possession of the property. File a suit to get the property back and then they have to produce the legal order allowing them to keep it. I know money might be a major factor in this but the article's author acts like there was nothing else that could have been done.
- ajross 15y ago
  It seems like lawsuits work on about a ~1 year latency scale too, so I don't see how that would improve the situation. The site owner had counsel, and they chose the best mechanism they could see to get the result they wanted. And ultimately they did. The courts don't work quickly, sadly.
  - zecho 15y ago
    There's also a good chance that after the lawyer was first stonewalled, he saw a bigger lawsuit opportunity down the road if it persisted. And it did. I still expect civil action against the government to be on the way.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      I doubt the government can be sued, but maybe the attorney involved?
      - DasIch 15y ago
        Of course you can sue the government, the question is for what?
ck2 15y ago
And remember, there is a document advising you might be a terrorist if you have more than seven days of food onhand. Oh that guideline would never be abused, would it?
- cbr 15y ago
  [citation needed] Brief searching online only turns up people talking about this document, but I can't seem to find it. Are you sure it exists?
  - jleader 15y ago
    That's one of the less obvious reasons that secret proceedings, secret rules, and the like are bad. They make it harder to discredit conspiracy theorists. "Well, if they kept the seizure proceedings secret for a year, maybe the seven days of food rule is secret too".
unreal37 15y ago
Serious question. This article seems to be about censorship and the First Amendment. The opening paragraph equates this to a magazine being shut down and the printing presses seized. But I don't think this hip-hop blog was saying something the government wanted to stop. I don't get why the prevalent "bad thing" the government did is being called censorship. Isn't the real story the government put a company out of business for no reason? They took a "top 10" website in a category and shut it down for a year, allowing their competitors an unfair advantage. No due process, no communication, not even a case number. They picked a random company and put it out of business. I guess that's not protected by the constitution.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- wanorris 15y ago
  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment
  - dpe82 15y ago
    We abandoned the plain meaning of the constitution a long, long time ago. Sadly.
- jleader 15y ago
  The point is that under the First Amendment, the government shouldn't be able to do this for any reason (aside from the usual "fire in a crowded theater" or "disclosing state secrets" kinds of exceptions). Basically, if only "speech criticizing the government" were protected by the First Amendment, then the government could just claim "but this wasn't really criticism". So the Founders made the First Amendment broader than that. And under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, taking away property without due process is forbidden.
brc 15y ago
It's obvious to me that as time goes by, governments are going to want to shut down more and more internet services for whatever reason. It seems to me that the thing that is needed most is an even-more distributed internet system, so that things like DNS and ISPs cannot be controlled by governments. A peer-to-peer DNS system and someway of easily setting yourself up as an ISP would mean that this type of intervention would be impossible.
- kinghajj 15y ago
  P2P DNS exists. One implementation is Namecoin. I've heard of ideas of making a large mesh network with people's Wi-Fi routers, but there are many technical hurdles to overcome there, though it should be workable, if excruciatingly slow.
- DasIch 15y ago
  Even if you find a solution at the DNS level, the government will just go a level deeper. There are really not that many ISPs and fewer yet you would have to control.
zmmmmm 15y ago
It always amazes me how quickly abuses of power seem to occur once such power is enabled. I always expect that at first the recipients of the power will be very cautious, bound by the social norms and expectations set by the previous situation, and it will take many years or even decades for the abuses we complain about to actually happen. However it doesn't seem to work like that. Abuses seem to happen almost immediately the minute it is possible for them to occur. It's almost comforting in a way - at least truly terrible laws don't just slip in unnoticed and get established without us noticing. Their bad effects get manifested almost straight away.
- TillE 15y ago
  > Their bad effects get manifested almost straight away. And then nothing changes anyway. Telecoms immunized, torturers not prosecuted, etc. Yay?
- gameshot911 15y ago
  The system is so very large, and it only takes one person to make one decision - in this case, a single federal prosecutor or his boss who decided he wanted to charge this case - to decide to utilize their power. You don't hear about the thousands of other prosecutors who use appropriate discretion, and don't file inappropriate charges/motions.
  - khafra 15y ago
    If the system were constructed such that it took two persons to make the decision to commit an abuse of power, perhaps it wouldn't be such an abusive system.
    - pi18n 15y ago
      You are very cute and innocent, like a child.
      - khafra 15y ago
        Heh. It wouldn't be perfect. But if the system of N people has C < N people who will make or approve corrupt decisions, and each person had to have 1 randomly chosen person sign off on each possibly corrupt decision, you go from C/N chance of a randomly chosen decision being a corrupt one to a (C/N)^2 chance. If the system has a relatively low percentage of corrupt people, that could be a big win. If C is too large, you could improve the scheme by adding another sign-off to increase it to (C/N)^3, as well as by punishing the original requester and anybody who approves along the way when a corrupt decision is caught.
davidu 15y ago
This is outrageous. If you aren't doing something about it, you are tacitly approving of it. You could, quite literally, have your domain taken away tomorrow.
loopdoend 15y ago
Mistakenly implies that it wasn't a direct result of policy and an inherently malicious protocol of operations. This, in my opinion, was not a mistake, but rather the result of systemic incompetence and technical illiteracy on the part of the US government. The ladder climbers that pulled this off are headed straight to a nice private job just as soon as they get done making a name for themselves.
click170 15y ago
And people wonder why we have no faith in The System..
dshanahan 15y ago
This happened in a different way to me. They didn't take my domain; they threatened my ISP and they deleted everything on my domain, include six other sites that lived there - the music blog was a subdomain. The thing I couldn't believe was that I'd never posted a track I hadn't gotten approved by the artist; I'd estimate 70% was sent to me by promoters, artists, or the label themselves. If it wasn't, it was likely found on another blog and I only let readers download content that was available for free from the artist themselves. Totally ridiculous. Trying to get a response for their grounds was impossible, and I eventually had to switch ISPs and rebuild all my sites.
- felipeota 15y ago
  That's awful. What kind of response did you get when trying to prove them wrong? Did you talk only to your ISP or someone from the government?
  - dshanahan 15y ago
    Yeah, it was a pretty huge pain in the ass. I hammered the CEO of the ISP and he gave me some boiler plate response. Honestly, I'm running a startup and the music blog is a fun side project so I didn't pursue it. I sent word to some of the other bloggers that I know have high traffic like I did and that I know share downloadable content. I wanted to know if I was behaving differently than they were, and I wasn't. They were all pretty nervous about the whole thing. Music blogger in general are huge proponents of driving money to artists; either by putting them on the map or literally driving sales. If you're lucky enough to collect attention on the aggregators you can be pretty sure that your posts will get traffic, so finding a young band with little exposure is hugely gratifying. Then the record label gorilla lawyers get in the way. Really sad state of affairs.
neilparikh 15y ago
The right to innocence until proven given guilty is quite fundamental to our legal system, and laws like SOPA and Protect IP go against that very ideal. Right now these laws that take away these fundamental freedoms are only in the copyright domain, but if these laws stand, I'm assuming they could be used as a precedent and used to justify other laws that take away the presumption of innocence. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what these laws seem to be heading towards.
crististm 15y ago
I'd like to see a peer-2-peer DNS system take over. Now go and shut this down.
nidennet 15y ago
I am really shocked and disturbed by this article. From reading it I believe that this is a total violation of the trust towards the Government and the whole legal system. The lack of due process is what is most disturbing. Someone (the Government in this case) can accuse one of a crime, but they have to prove it. Hijacking a domain and not producing evidence on why it was hijacked and not following the proper procedure which is outlined by the law and finally hiding behind the Government blanket of 'no' is simply wrong and must not be allowed to happen again. To me this read as abuse of power by certain employees of the Government. Not allowing due process is illegal and I hope that Dajaz1's lawyers will get to the bottom of this.
Nelson69 15y ago
Is there a complete lack of quotes on the record in that article? I see the lawyer's name for dajaz1.com but no quotes from him, no owner is named, no quotes from him... Just sayin'. Everything is not right here. This is pretty basic stuff though, an accused man deserves to face his accusers, who is accused? The whole story is just better when there is an actual victim of the government tyranny. I expect it has something to do with payola but .... the feds will never defend themselves and who knows how much traffic this site is going to get now.
mariuolo 15y ago
"Mistakenly"?

560 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

lhnn 15y ago

Someday, perhaps populists and socialists will realize that the very structure of American government combined with our culture leads to complete incompetence in government. We are better off with every power we take away from them.

wpietri 15y ago
Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this.
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  Indeed. We've been giving the US government all the wrong powers, and stripping it of all the right ones. Heckuvajob, us.
- kiba 15y ago
  Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. Our civilization relies on extreme specialization and deep division of labor, not that everyone knows everything. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this. Regulatory capture means that regulatory framework aren't necessary free of corruption. It just means we ought to be smarter how we devise regulations or lack thereof, as sometime doing nothing is better than corporations gaining control of the law. If anything, the government are in bed with the bankers.
  - quanticle 15y ago
    The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. So you would rather live under an absolute monarchy? An enlightened dictatorship? Oligarchy? Theocracy? Which form of government, extant or extinct, would you prefer over the western democratic republic?
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      I vote for a Constitutionally-limited republic. We were supposed to have one of those, but the Constitutional limitations seem to have atrophied. See, for example, the overuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause"; the rotting of the 10th Amendment; Kelo, Raich, and so forth...
    - shasta 15y ago
      As long as we're fantasizing, why limit to extant or extinct governments? Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? Your parent post is absolutely correct about the major flaw in a democracy, and despite your insinuation, this is not, I believe, an unfixable problem.
      - quanticle 15y ago
        >Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? The problem with every "clean slate" redesign I've ever seen is that it runs into bootstrapping issues. If bootstrapping a new form of government was so obvious or easy, it'd have been done by now.
        shasta 15y ago
        By "bootstrapping issues" you mean that the people in power aren't in a hurry to give it up, right? Obviously they're not and that's why I used the term "fantasizing". :)
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets This isn't going to be rehashing the Glass-Steagall myth, is it? See, e.g., [1] regulation of campaign contributions Isn't this in itself a repudiation of democracy? We're not talking here about Blagojevich-style corruption in the election process. If you're worrying about campaign contributions, that boils down to how much advertising a campaign can buy. If you're worried about a candidate advertising a lot, that's pretty much a vote of no-confidence in your fellow Americans' ability to weigh options and vote rationally. Also, if you're one of those people horrified that corporations can now contribute to campaigns, can you tell me where the line should be drawn? I'm sure you don't object to my right to contribute to a campaign, nor my right to pool money with a friend to do so. If two of us can do so, why not, say, my whole club (e.g., my hypothetical flying club wants to have elected the guy who promises to grant a permit to expand the airport in town)? As this scales up, at some point we need a formal structure to organize things, which is legally recognized by a corporation; why can't my incorporated flying club make a contribution? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/ http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Heritage Foundation...really?
    - civilian 15y ago
      Attack their argument, not the source.
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        Ok, corporate donations are not linked to what everyone inside a corporation decides but rather a small set of people whose interest don't necessarily align with the shareholders or the workers at large. Handing disproportionate power to middlemen breeds corruption without the counterbalance of risking large personal fortunes or publicity. This same argument also disproves the idea of giving personal tax breaks on large incomes as apposed to corporate tax breaks for small businesses. AKA middle management don't create jobs so tax breaks targeting 'job creators' that include them are misnamed. Edit: The above is a position piece just like those people at the Heritage Foundation are paid to create. There is nothing wrong with suggesting you find credible sources that are not simply spouting propaganda.
- sbov 15y ago
  The real problem is the government is afraid to police the markets like they police the people. There are all sorts of things that are legal for people to do absent the harm of others. However, when you throw in harm to others in there, you may become criminally liable for your otherwise legal actions - I'm speaking of negligence. This is what's missing. Without this concept, the government will always be several steps behind the market "innovators".
- lhnn 15y ago
  The authority we grant to the government to make laws that regulate financial markets, currencies, and (you wish) campaign contributions gives them the authority to make bullshit laws sponsored by the RIAA. A public that isn't engaged with the political process because our central bureaucracy is to distant to interact with personally: THAT'S why we have this trash happening today. Glass-Steagal would only be good because it keeps FDIC-insured money from being used for gambling, which is what securities trading is. One could argue we don't need FDIC insurance, and in fact, we shouldn't have regulation and monopoly of currency by the government. As far as campaign contribution regulation, it's a violation of free speech to tell me how I can spend my money to talk. I can go on if you really care to know how CFR is a bad idea. I want this country to "not suck" and respect the freedoms of its citizens. Several simple, yet fundamental things need to change: -Repeal the 17th amendment -Our voting system for the legislature -The scope of federal government needs drastically reduced.
andylei 15y ago
this type of thinking is just lazy. the government did something bad? government can't work! take away as many powers as possible! or maybe, we need to figure out a good solution. problem is, that's not easy and requires domain knowledge and critical thinking. its a lot easier just to say, well i have this one solution that will solve all the problems.
- rhizome 15y ago
  That, and half of US political society wants to murder the entire concept of government.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    No they don't. They just say they do so they can get elected and expand government. Those of us who actually believe in small government* across the board are as likely to be in the Occupy Wall St. movement as the Tea Party, and we realize that neither party is anywhere near our views. * I mean this in a literal way, that government should be no larger than necessary and no more intrusive than required. The goal is to get to a point where we can engineer intrusive, large government structures out of the picture. For example, if we were to have state and local governments running the last mile telephone network but allowing services to be provided by a host of competing businesses, we'd have a freer market with less regulation. But it would require some use of eminent domain to achieve in a way that neither party would support.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      "Oh, that's just rhetoric" is not a realistic critique. Actual people shape their perspectives based on what messages come from a) people in power, and b) people they agree with. They aren't just words.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        But the words and actions are entirely out of sync. The fact is that very few running for federal office have any interest in limiting federal power. Additionally one thing I have found interesting is how folks who supported Obama during the campaign when he promised to reduce the impact of state secrets, create a more open executive, etc. have more or less continued to follow him (more often than not) as he has done the near exact opposite of his promises. Sure we can argue why Gitmo is still operating as a prison, but the executive has made an about face on the "war on terror" (after about a day in office) which quite astounding, though not as surprising as the willingness of Democratic supporters to go along with it. Of course the excesses of the Bush and Obama years are probably why we have both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St, but that's a discussion for another time.
ryandickherber 15y ago
I think it's the fact that there exists an organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force that is the problem. The structure of this organization matters a little less. That's why these sorts of problems happen with every government. What the government has done in this case is criminal. But now we just have to hope that they prosecute themselves. If there were no monopoly on force, it would be possible to use a competing court system to prosecute.
emmett 15y ago
This kind of political bombast doesn't belong on Hacker News. Please don't drag us into a war of the Blues and the Greens.
- lhnn 15y ago
  Frank discussion on the failure of powerful central government in America is appropriate when it's central to the topic that is posted. The fact that the US government did this, for a year, without any backlash, is a symbol of how far gone the US government is.
phillmv 15y ago
Get your memes right. This is an example of government corporatism, acting at the behest of a single entity. Socialists are supposed to hate business, right?

eykanal 15y ago

The techdirt article repeatedly makes reference to seizure laws as they apply to confiscated PROPERTY. Is there legal precedence for the blog to immediately assume that such laws apply to digital domains, where nothing physical was confiscated?

Natsu 15y ago
Well, what law do you think the government invoked and why? Litigating an entire case ex parte and sealing the record so that the accused never even finds out what they were accused of should be quite troubling to anyone who believes in due process.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >Litigating an entire case ex parte and sealing the record so that the accused never even finds out what they were accused of should be quite troubling to anyone who believes in due process. seems like definition of due process has been changed, secretly to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the public peace and enjoyment.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Digital media is not physical property, but i can still download a song and be accused of stealing somebody's property.
- chc 15y ago
  Legally speaking, no, you can't. If you download a song illegally, you might be accused of copyright infringement, which ironically carries stiffer penalties than just stealing the record would in many cases, but you will not be charged with theft unless they also suspect you stole something physical.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Downloading songs usually isn't charged that way. Usually the uploaders are charged with violating copyright.

rkudeshi 15y ago

If you're not familiar with hip-hop music blogs like the one cited in the article, please visit http://nahright.com http://nahright.com or http://missinfo.tv http://missinfo.tv to get a better idea of what they look like (since dajaz1.com doesn't seem to be back up yet, understandably). Almost every track posted to sites like these are released by the artists themselves (or by their labels). Many hip-hop blogs (including the two I linked) will not post songs if they weren't legitimately authorized by the artists (e.g. if a track was stolen and leaked on the web). Something you won't ever see are full albums. These sites aren't designed to replace album sales, they actually encourage them. They will only link to individual songs or freely released mixtapes. (Also, you'll note that a lot of the music posted is from unsigned artists. A lot of newer rappers actually rose to prominence after having their music posted on these sites.) There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. This was not one of them. PS. For more information on how music gets released to these blogs, read this excellent piece, also by Techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-b...

smokeyj 15y ago
> There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. Or maybe, the notion of copyright police is stupid. Have we caught all the bad-guys and evil-doers in this world, and all that's left is COPYRIGHT abuse? I mean, what about all those terrorists who hate us for our freedom. Yet, we have enough resources left over to shut down some poor dudes blog? I feel safer all-ready!
- hamoid 15y ago
  If terrorists hate you for your freedom, maybe that's the reason why your government is getting rid of them. Getting rid of the freedoms, I mean. Then the terrorist will not have a reason to hate you anymore. Sorry for the sarcasm.
  - 15y ago

wisty 15y ago

Weird, the way the government said they had a secret court extension, but couldn't even give a redacted copy. It almost sounds like they didn't have a court extension, and were lying that they did, and eventually had to hand the domain back out of sheer embarrassment.

angelbob 15y ago
Sure. Usually if you give embarrassing people the runaround, they eventually go away. It was, admittedly, way too optimistic for the government to assume every seized domain would work this way. But for them to assume this one specific one would work that way is actually depressingly likely. Governments illegally seize stuff all the time, especially when investigating anything drug-related. They can seize and auction off your stuff basically even on suspicion of it being bought with drug money. What happens if it wasn't? Well, they owe you money back if your lawyer is good enough to make that happen.
einhverfr 15y ago
My reading was "they lied. They never planned to do anything." I dunno, if it was my site, I would ask that my lawyer sue to the government to get the site back, and make the government prove that another judge was already handling it.

speleding 15y ago

IANAL, but this sounds like they didn't have a very good lawyer.

davidu 15y ago
Not the case. Andrew Bridges was at the Stanford Law Center's SOPA talk last night. He knows his law inside and out and was all over this. The government messed up here and tried to bury it. Because he didn't go away that this is coming out.
- speleding 15y ago
  I'm not sure if I'm happy to hear he is indeed good. That is even more troubling. I would expect lawyers to have some kind of recourse if things obviously are not going the way the law intended them to, instead of simply getting "no" for an answer. But IANAL.
  - davidu 15y ago
    It just takes time, unfortunately. This story is still developing. The domain owner needed to get his domain back first, and foremost.

aero142 15y ago

What I don't understand is why a meeting with the government lawyer was the final action and why what they say matters? What prevents the blog owner from filing a suit to get the property returned? The government failed to provide proof that they were legally in possession of the property. File a suit to get the property back and then they have to produce the legal order allowing them to keep it. I know money might be a major factor in this but the article's author acts like there was nothing else that could have been done.

ajross 15y ago
It seems like lawsuits work on about a ~1 year latency scale too, so I don't see how that would improve the situation. The site owner had counsel, and they chose the best mechanism they could see to get the result they wanted. And ultimately they did. The courts don't work quickly, sadly.
- zecho 15y ago
  There's also a good chance that after the lawyer was first stonewalled, he saw a bigger lawsuit opportunity down the road if it persisted. And it did. I still expect civil action against the government to be on the way.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    I doubt the government can be sued, but maybe the attorney involved?
    - DasIch 15y ago
      Of course you can sue the government, the question is for what?

ck2 15y ago

And remember, there is a document advising you might be a terrorist if you have more than seven days of food onhand. Oh that guideline would never be abused, would it?

cbr 15y ago
[citation needed] Brief searching online only turns up people talking about this document, but I can't seem to find it. Are you sure it exists?
- jleader 15y ago
  That's one of the less obvious reasons that secret proceedings, secret rules, and the like are bad. They make it harder to discredit conspiracy theorists. "Well, if they kept the seizure proceedings secret for a year, maybe the seven days of food rule is secret too".

unreal37 15y ago

Serious question. This article seems to be about censorship and the First Amendment. The opening paragraph equates this to a magazine being shut down and the printing presses seized. But I don't think this hip-hop blog was saying something the government wanted to stop. I don't get why the prevalent "bad thing" the government did is being called censorship. Isn't the real story the government put a company out of business for no reason? They took a "top 10" website in a category and shut it down for a year, allowing their competitors an unfair advantage. No due process, no communication, not even a case number. They picked a random company and put it out of business. I guess that's not protected by the constitution.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wanorris 15y ago
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment
- dpe82 15y ago
  We abandoned the plain meaning of the constitution a long, long time ago. Sadly.
jleader 15y ago
The point is that under the First Amendment, the government shouldn't be able to do this for any reason (aside from the usual "fire in a crowded theater" or "disclosing state secrets" kinds of exceptions). Basically, if only "speech criticizing the government" were protected by the First Amendment, then the government could just claim "but this wasn't really criticism". So the Founders made the First Amendment broader than that. And under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, taking away property without due process is forbidden.

brc 15y ago

It's obvious to me that as time goes by, governments are going to want to shut down more and more internet services for whatever reason. It seems to me that the thing that is needed most is an even-more distributed internet system, so that things like DNS and ISPs cannot be controlled by governments. A peer-to-peer DNS system and someway of easily setting yourself up as an ISP would mean that this type of intervention would be impossible.

kinghajj 15y ago
P2P DNS exists. One implementation is Namecoin. I've heard of ideas of making a large mesh network with people's Wi-Fi routers, but there are many technical hurdles to overcome there, though it should be workable, if excruciatingly slow.
DasIch 15y ago
Even if you find a solution at the DNS level, the government will just go a level deeper. There are really not that many ISPs and fewer yet you would have to control.

zmmmmm 15y ago

It always amazes me how quickly abuses of power seem to occur once such power is enabled. I always expect that at first the recipients of the power will be very cautious, bound by the social norms and expectations set by the previous situation, and it will take many years or even decades for the abuses we complain about to actually happen. However it doesn't seem to work like that. Abuses seem to happen almost immediately the minute it is possible for them to occur. It's almost comforting in a way - at least truly terrible laws don't just slip in unnoticed and get established without us noticing. Their bad effects get manifested almost straight away.

TillE 15y ago
> Their bad effects get manifested almost straight away. And then nothing changes anyway. Telecoms immunized, torturers not prosecuted, etc. Yay?
gameshot911 15y ago
The system is so very large, and it only takes one person to make one decision - in this case, a single federal prosecutor or his boss who decided he wanted to charge this case - to decide to utilize their power. You don't hear about the thousands of other prosecutors who use appropriate discretion, and don't file inappropriate charges/motions.
- khafra 15y ago
  If the system were constructed such that it took two persons to make the decision to commit an abuse of power, perhaps it wouldn't be such an abusive system.
  - pi18n 15y ago
    You are very cute and innocent, like a child.
    - khafra 15y ago
      Heh. It wouldn't be perfect. But if the system of N people has C < N people who will make or approve corrupt decisions, and each person had to have 1 randomly chosen person sign off on each possibly corrupt decision, you go from C/N chance of a randomly chosen decision being a corrupt one to a (C/N)^2 chance. If the system has a relatively low percentage of corrupt people, that could be a big win. If C is too large, you could improve the scheme by adding another sign-off to increase it to (C/N)^3, as well as by punishing the original requester and anybody who approves along the way when a corrupt decision is caught.

davidu 15y ago

This is outrageous. If you aren't doing something about it, you are tacitly approving of it. You could, quite literally, have your domain taken away tomorrow.

loopdoend 15y ago

Mistakenly implies that it wasn't a direct result of policy and an inherently malicious protocol of operations. This, in my opinion, was not a mistake, but rather the result of systemic incompetence and technical illiteracy on the part of the US government. The ladder climbers that pulled this off are headed straight to a nice private job just as soon as they get done making a name for themselves.

click170 15y ago

And people wonder why we have no faith in The System..

dshanahan 15y ago

This happened in a different way to me. They didn't take my domain; they threatened my ISP and they deleted everything on my domain, include six other sites that lived there - the music blog was a subdomain. The thing I couldn't believe was that I'd never posted a track I hadn't gotten approved by the artist; I'd estimate 70% was sent to me by promoters, artists, or the label themselves. If it wasn't, it was likely found on another blog and I only let readers download content that was available for free from the artist themselves. Totally ridiculous. Trying to get a response for their grounds was impossible, and I eventually had to switch ISPs and rebuild all my sites.

felipeota 15y ago
That's awful. What kind of response did you get when trying to prove them wrong? Did you talk only to your ISP or someone from the government?
- dshanahan 15y ago
  Yeah, it was a pretty huge pain in the ass. I hammered the CEO of the ISP and he gave me some boiler plate response. Honestly, I'm running a startup and the music blog is a fun side project so I didn't pursue it. I sent word to some of the other bloggers that I know have high traffic like I did and that I know share downloadable content. I wanted to know if I was behaving differently than they were, and I wasn't. They were all pretty nervous about the whole thing. Music blogger in general are huge proponents of driving money to artists; either by putting them on the map or literally driving sales. If you're lucky enough to collect attention on the aggregators you can be pretty sure that your posts will get traffic, so finding a young band with little exposure is hugely gratifying. Then the record label gorilla lawyers get in the way. Really sad state of affairs.

neilparikh 15y ago

The right to innocence until proven given guilty is quite fundamental to our legal system, and laws like SOPA and Protect IP go against that very ideal. Right now these laws that take away these fundamental freedoms are only in the copyright domain, but if these laws stand, I'm assuming they could be used as a precedent and used to justify other laws that take away the presumption of innocence. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what these laws seem to be heading towards.

crististm 15y ago

I'd like to see a peer-2-peer DNS system take over. Now go and shut this down.

nidennet 15y ago

I am really shocked and disturbed by this article. From reading it I believe that this is a total violation of the trust towards the Government and the whole legal system. The lack of due process is what is most disturbing. Someone (the Government in this case) can accuse one of a crime, but they have to prove it. Hijacking a domain and not producing evidence on why it was hijacked and not following the proper procedure which is outlined by the law and finally hiding behind the Government blanket of 'no' is simply wrong and must not be allowed to happen again. To me this read as abuse of power by certain employees of the Government. Not allowing due process is illegal and I hope that Dajaz1's lawyers will get to the bottom of this.

Nelson69 15y ago

Is there a complete lack of quotes on the record in that article? I see the lawyer's name for dajaz1.com but no quotes from him, no owner is named, no quotes from him... Just sayin'. Everything is not right here. This is pretty basic stuff though, an accused man deserves to face his accusers, who is accused? The whole story is just better when there is an actual victim of the government tyranny. I expect it has something to do with payola but .... the feds will never defend themselves and who knows how much traffic this site is going to get now.

mariuolo 15y ago

"Mistakenly"?