5 ms·

Feds Seize 307 Sports-Related Domains Ahead of Super Sunday

46 points by FredBrach 15y ago

neilparikh 15y ago
"Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes." That seems a bit backwards to me. I thought people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  People are presumed innocent. To get around this, legal action is taken against the assets. Edit: This document contains some information about asset forfeiture http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf
  - pyre 15y ago
    Which is how you get stuff like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
    - JeffL 15y ago
      Nice. Another lesson in never talk to cops, and never consent to a search.
    - beedogs 15y ago
      Wow, brilliant explanation of the reversal decision by the appellate court in that one. "We reverse."
      - slapshot 15y ago
        Wikipedia quoted only the first paragraph of the opinion. The full thing is here: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf
- mindslight 15y ago
  Sorry, that's just what the advertising materials say. Government interprets rights as damage and routes around them.
- gareim 15y ago
  I seem to remember reading in a business law textbook that the "innocent till proven guilty" only applies to criminal law. A quick Google search managed to pull up a Hacker News comment that's interesting to read as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 EDIT: Upon further reading, I'm wondering if this would fall under criminal law. But in the sentence, it mentions "civil forfeiture laws" and wouldn't that imply tort? I'm not a lawyer and have almost no experience in this. I hope a real lawyer will chime in because it's pretty fascinating.
  - Retric 15y ago
    I don't think the founding fathers would have allowed the government to use "civil" laws lower standards at any point in time. But, our current systems has a lot of terrible precedent IMO. Which has enabled a huge end run around the constitution to continue with just a wink and a nod.
- AJ007 15y ago
  Despite the wonkiness on the global warming front, the Wall Street Journal has had really good coverage of civil forfeiture article coverage: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651.... There are at least 400 federal statutes allowing civil forfeiture and new ones are being added all the time. So yes, since it is backwards, it means if you have something of value an individual is holding for you, it can be seized. In the above article's case, it was an armored car company holding his small business's cash. http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS_20110821181226.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS... Asset forfeiture along with plea bargaining coercion (say you did this, or else you just might go to prison for decades) have truly turned the United States government in to nothing more than an organized mafia in which the participants hardly need to prove anything in a court of law in order to get their way.
- erichocean 15y ago
  Pursuing learning in this area will only make you extremely angry. Government at its worst.
bruce511 15y ago
I get what they're trying to do, but a) there are a lot more TLDs in the world than .com, .net, .org. So sites with a following, and a way to reach that following (twitter, Facebook etc) will quickly, and easily fall outside their grasp. b) perhaps more concerning is the lack of due process. I get why they're frustrated, so because the owners are either outside their jurisdiction, or because they can't actually find the owners of the site, it's easiest to kill the DNS entry. Ineffective maybe, but at least they're seen to be doing _something_. c) it's clearly better that 100 innocent sites should be closed than that a guilty one should keep its DNS entry. While I get where they're coming from, I wonder where it ends? How long before they become a bug that needs to be worked around....
- beedogs 15y ago
  > I wonder where it ends? How long before they become a bug that needs to be worked around.... Judging by the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/whatever-they-call-it-next-week mess, that time is almost upon us...
- nodata 15y ago
  > c) it's clearly better that 100 innocent sites should be closed than that a guilty one should keep its DNS entry. Did you mean to write this?
  - Animus7 15y ago
    Sarcasm, I'm sure.
ck2 15y ago
Gotta protect those billionaire team owners and millionaire players - what would they do without their safetynet? Once again law enforcement using their massive budget and "terrorist level" tools to help the 1% I don't see any mention of a warrant or judicial review? Meanwhile Nevada has nearly 13% (published) unemployment.

46 points by FredBrach 15y ago

"Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes." That seems a bit backwards to me. I thought people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

anonymoushn 15y ago
People are presumed innocent. To get around this, legal action is taken against the assets. Edit: This document contains some information about asset forfeiture http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf
- pyre 15y ago
  Which is how you get stuff like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
  - JeffL 15y ago
    Nice. Another lesson in never talk to cops, and never consent to a search.
  - beedogs 15y ago
    Wow, brilliant explanation of the reversal decision by the appellate court in that one. "We reverse."
    - slapshot 15y ago
      Wikipedia quoted only the first paragraph of the opinion. The full thing is here: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf
mindslight 15y ago
Sorry, that's just what the advertising materials say. Government interprets rights as damage and routes around them.
gareim 15y ago
I seem to remember reading in a business law textbook that the "innocent till proven guilty" only applies to criminal law. A quick Google search managed to pull up a Hacker News comment that's interesting to read as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 EDIT: Upon further reading, I'm wondering if this would fall under criminal law. But in the sentence, it mentions "civil forfeiture laws" and wouldn't that imply tort? I'm not a lawyer and have almost no experience in this. I hope a real lawyer will chime in because it's pretty fascinating.
- Retric 15y ago
  I don't think the founding fathers would have allowed the government to use "civil" laws lower standards at any point in time. But, our current systems has a lot of terrible precedent IMO. Which has enabled a huge end run around the constitution to continue with just a wink and a nod.
AJ007 15y ago
Despite the wonkiness on the global warming front, the Wall Street Journal has had really good coverage of civil forfeiture article coverage: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651.... There are at least 400 federal statutes allowing civil forfeiture and new ones are being added all the time. So yes, since it is backwards, it means if you have something of value an individual is holding for you, it can be seized. In the above article's case, it was an armored car company holding his small business's cash. http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS_20110821181226.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS... Asset forfeiture along with plea bargaining coercion (say you did this, or else you just might go to prison for decades) have truly turned the United States government in to nothing more than an organized mafia in which the participants hardly need to prove anything in a court of law in order to get their way.
erichocean 15y ago
Pursuing learning in this area will only make you extremely angry. Government at its worst.

bruce511 15y ago

I get what they're trying to do, but a) there are a lot more TLDs in the world than .com, .net, .org. So sites with a following, and a way to reach that following (twitter, Facebook etc) will quickly, and easily fall outside their grasp. b) perhaps more concerning is the lack of due process. I get why they're frustrated, so because the owners are either outside their jurisdiction, or because they can't actually find the owners of the site, it's easiest to kill the DNS entry. Ineffective maybe, but at least they're seen to be doing _something_. c) it's clearly better that 100 innocent sites should be closed than that a guilty one should keep its DNS entry. While I get where they're coming from, I wonder where it ends? How long before they become a bug that needs to be worked around....

beedogs 15y ago
> I wonder where it ends? How long before they become a bug that needs to be worked around.... Judging by the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/whatever-they-call-it-next-week mess, that time is almost upon us...
nodata 15y ago
> c) it's clearly better that 100 innocent sites should be closed than that a guilty one should keep its DNS entry. Did you mean to write this?
- Animus7 15y ago
  Sarcasm, I'm sure.

ck2 15y ago

Gotta protect those billionaire team owners and millionaire players - what would they do without their safetynet? Once again law enforcement using their massive budget and "terrorist level" tools to help the 1% I don't see any mention of a warrant or judicial review? Meanwhile Nevada has nearly 13% (published) unemployment.