6 ms·

This is the scary part about bills like SOPA. Who cares if they're constitutional, who care if they could stand up in court, who cares if the public supports th

This is the scary part about bills like SOPA. Who cares if they're constitutional, who care if they could stand up in court, who cares if the public supports them? They do their job anyway, even if they don't pass. Glenn Greenwald was right about this - we didn't win the SOPA battle; we lost it. The very next day after all the hullabaloo and protests, the government went ahead and showed that the powers that SOPA would have been redundant - it already has those powers anyway.

pyre 15y ago
> it already has those powers anyway. It didn't take Megaupload down without a trial, without due process. They took them down as part of a 2 year long investigation. While it's possible that they timed the takedown with SOPA, I would err on the side of coincidence. This wasn't an operation entirely within the US. They had the coordination of law enforcement in other counties. This isn't something where they just had a late-night idea that they decided to act on.
- nknight 15y ago
  It doesn't matter how long they run for, how thorough they are, or what they find, investigations are not trials, nor do they constitute due process. Your statement is obviously false on its face.
  - forrestthewoods 15y ago
    due process. noun. "An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual." The law, and due process, were followed to the letter. A grand jury indicted MegaUpload of racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit copyright amongst other charges.
    - disposable1984 15y ago
      A grand jury indicted MegaUpload of racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit copyright amongst other charges. As someone once said, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
      - Angostura 15y ago
        Someone may have once said it. That doesn't make it correct.
        disposable1984 15y ago
        A grand jury hears just one side of the story. Prosecutors use a GJ when they don't have solid proof of wrongdoing, but just think that there's something going on.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    And? Megaupload has only been shut-down temporarily due to a court injunction. If they succeed in court then they could be back online.
    - jann 15y ago
      In a few months/years, while everyone else moved to some other platform ... If this takes more than 1-2 months they will effectively be ruined.
      - a3_nm 15y ago
        This does not mean that "due process" isn't respected, but that it is broken.
    - downandout 15y ago
      This is perhaps the most naive statement I have ever read on Hacker News. Domain seizures don't have temporary consequences, and law enforcement knows this. Once they've seized the domain, they've done all the damage they need to do. Everything else is just window dressing. Tomorrow morning, the feds could release Kim DotCom, give him all of his money, apologize, and immediately return their domains, and it wouldn't matter. The site, and the multi-million dollar business behind it, are dead. As much as prosecutors would love to, we don't put people to death before they are found guilty. We should not allow the equivalent to happen to websites without giving them the opportunity to present counterarguments to a judge. They should be given notice that the domain is going to be seized, and arguments should be scheduled. Domain seizures are far too easy to obtain given that they mean the absolute and total destruction of the target business, without recourse, regardless of the ultimate outcome of any trial. That is hardly fair and certainly not the way the US system of "justice" is supposed to operate.
      - hahaiamatwork 15y ago
        The logic behind unannounced seizures is valid. If announcement was given and MU were violating the law, it's reasonable to believe they would immediately take action to obfuscate and obscure any evidence against them. It is also likely there is little to no physical evidence against them, and as we all well know, electronic evidence can easily be disposed of without trail. Corporations are not people, and by seizing assets and personnel the authorities have committed no murder. If anything MU has now become a household name and I find it very hard to believe their business would simply vanish overnight if acquitted.
- shareme 15y ago
  Investigation is not a TRIAL!
- kragen 15y ago
  It did, in fact, take Megaupload down without a trial. You can argue about whether an indictment represents due process or not, but the Queen of Hearts seems to have set the rule here: sentence first, trial afterwards. The enormous libraries of users' data stored at Megaupload are likely to be burned (in effect) before the trial even begins, and it is very unlikely that the company can return to operation even if found not guilty on every count. Thus it follows in the footsteps of Veoh and Diamond. (Diamond produced the first portable MP3 player, you may recall. It was a huge market success, but defending it in court bankrupted them.) Generally speaking, "due process" does not mean that a lot of policemen came to an agreement. It means the accused had an open trial in court at which they were allowed to defend themselves.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > sentence first, trial afterwards I didn't realize that the Megaupload employees had already been handed sentences. Could you point me towards this information? > It means the accused had an open trial in court > at which they were allowed to defend themselves. All of this 'due process' talk comes across as to me like: "Officer? Why are you arresting me? I haven't been convicted yet! Where's my trial? Where's my due process? I'm not supposed to be arrested before my trial, right?" The Feds seem to be treating this like any other illegal business and busting it up prior to taking it to court. The only difference here is that whether or not the business is illegitimate or not is in a bit of a legal grey area. If the Feds think that you're using your storefront to smuggle drugs, do you think that they'll wait for a trial to bust you up? Busting your business up is part of the process of taking you to trial. > Generally speaking, "due process" does > not mean that a lot of policemen came to an agreement It also doesn't mean, "my life can continue completely uninterrupted until a court hands down a verdict." > It means the accused had an open trial > in court at which they were allowed to > defend themselves. That seems to be the plan. Could you point me towards your sources claiming that the Feds don't intend to bring a trial against MegaUpload + employees?
    - vsl 15y ago
      > I didn't realize that the Megaupload employees had already been handed sentences. The site is down. The company has all its assets seized and is unable to pay hosting bills. FBI "gave permission" to delete the data (never mind it's evidence, BTW), inducing the hosting to get rid of this unpaid-for burden. The damage to their brand is enormous - mainstream media parrot the FBI line and report Megaupload as taken down pirate site, clear-cut case. The trust of legitimate users is forever lost. Even if found not guilty, when the case finally gets to trial in a few years, the company will never be able to recover and restart its business. How do you not call that sentenced without trial?
furyofantares 15y ago
Wasn't btjunkie used primarily to violate copyright? If so, it seems you are mistaken about the outrage regarding SOPA. The outrage was not defending our right to free movies. When Megaupload got taken down I started seeing all these posts that seem to be under the impression that the Internet had rallied around the right to get everything digital for free/cheap against the creators' wishes, which is not the case.
- fsniper 15y ago
  So a knife is an arms. But it does not mean It's unlawful. If you are after copyright violators, go for them. Declaring knives outlaw is not the solution.
  - furyofantares 15y ago
    In this analogy, somebody tried and failed to make knives illegal. Meanwhile, the government has gotten more serious about going after those who willingly supply knives primarily to those who will use them illegally. And one such supplier has ceased business volutnarily
    - fsniper 15y ago
      No it's not an exact analogy. For instance, knives can be made from any substance, and by anybody. This site, btjunkie is not a supplier of knives. It's a place where someone can find who builds and sells knives.
      - furyofantares 15y ago
        The point is, nobody has made file sharing in general illegal. But the government is going after sites that primarily enable illegal file sharing. And some sites that do this are shutting down voluntarily. Where's the injustice?
        fsniper 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
Well yes, they kind of did have those powers, thanks to the passing of the Pro IP act in 2008, which allows them to take town .com, .org and .net websites. SOPA would've just allowed them to take down foreign sites. They already have the power because the Internet wasn't awake enough at the time. But that's alright. What's important is that first we stop this trend - not a single law like this passes anymore. And then we try to reverse the trend - repeal Pro IP, overhaul copyright laws, etc.

pyre 15y ago

> it already has those powers anyway. It didn't take Megaupload down without a trial, without due process. They took them down as part of a 2 year long investigation. While it's possible that they timed the takedown with SOPA, I would err on the side of coincidence. This wasn't an operation entirely within the US. They had the coordination of law enforcement in other counties. This isn't something where they just had a late-night idea that they decided to act on.

nknight 15y ago
It doesn't matter how long they run for, how thorough they are, or what they find, investigations are not trials, nor do they constitute due process. Your statement is obviously false on its face.
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  due process. noun. "An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual." The law, and due process, were followed to the letter. A grand jury indicted MegaUpload of racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit copyright amongst other charges.
  - disposable1984 15y ago
    A grand jury indicted MegaUpload of racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit copyright amongst other charges. As someone once said, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
    - Angostura 15y ago
      Someone may have once said it. That doesn't make it correct.
      - disposable1984 15y ago
        A grand jury hears just one side of the story. Prosecutors use a GJ when they don't have solid proof of wrongdoing, but just think that there's something going on.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  And? Megaupload has only been shut-down temporarily due to a court injunction. If they succeed in court then they could be back online.
  - jann 15y ago
    In a few months/years, while everyone else moved to some other platform ... If this takes more than 1-2 months they will effectively be ruined.
    - a3_nm 15y ago
      This does not mean that "due process" isn't respected, but that it is broken.
  - downandout 15y ago
    This is perhaps the most naive statement I have ever read on Hacker News. Domain seizures don't have temporary consequences, and law enforcement knows this. Once they've seized the domain, they've done all the damage they need to do. Everything else is just window dressing. Tomorrow morning, the feds could release Kim DotCom, give him all of his money, apologize, and immediately return their domains, and it wouldn't matter. The site, and the multi-million dollar business behind it, are dead. As much as prosecutors would love to, we don't put people to death before they are found guilty. We should not allow the equivalent to happen to websites without giving them the opportunity to present counterarguments to a judge. They should be given notice that the domain is going to be seized, and arguments should be scheduled. Domain seizures are far too easy to obtain given that they mean the absolute and total destruction of the target business, without recourse, regardless of the ultimate outcome of any trial. That is hardly fair and certainly not the way the US system of "justice" is supposed to operate.
    - hahaiamatwork 15y ago
      The logic behind unannounced seizures is valid. If announcement was given and MU were violating the law, it's reasonable to believe they would immediately take action to obfuscate and obscure any evidence against them. It is also likely there is little to no physical evidence against them, and as we all well know, electronic evidence can easily be disposed of without trail. Corporations are not people, and by seizing assets and personnel the authorities have committed no murder. If anything MU has now become a household name and I find it very hard to believe their business would simply vanish overnight if acquitted.
shareme 15y ago
Investigation is not a TRIAL!
kragen 15y ago
It did, in fact, take Megaupload down without a trial. You can argue about whether an indictment represents due process or not, but the Queen of Hearts seems to have set the rule here: sentence first, trial afterwards. The enormous libraries of users' data stored at Megaupload are likely to be burned (in effect) before the trial even begins, and it is very unlikely that the company can return to operation even if found not guilty on every count. Thus it follows in the footsteps of Veoh and Diamond. (Diamond produced the first portable MP3 player, you may recall. It was a huge market success, but defending it in court bankrupted them.) Generally speaking, "due process" does not mean that a lot of policemen came to an agreement. It means the accused had an open trial in court at which they were allowed to defend themselves.
- pyre 15y ago
  > sentence first, trial afterwards I didn't realize that the Megaupload employees had already been handed sentences. Could you point me towards this information? > It means the accused had an open trial in court > at which they were allowed to defend themselves. All of this 'due process' talk comes across as to me like: "Officer? Why are you arresting me? I haven't been convicted yet! Where's my trial? Where's my due process? I'm not supposed to be arrested before my trial, right?" The Feds seem to be treating this like any other illegal business and busting it up prior to taking it to court. The only difference here is that whether or not the business is illegitimate or not is in a bit of a legal grey area. If the Feds think that you're using your storefront to smuggle drugs, do you think that they'll wait for a trial to bust you up? Busting your business up is part of the process of taking you to trial. > Generally speaking, "due process" does > not mean that a lot of policemen came to an agreement It also doesn't mean, "my life can continue completely uninterrupted until a court hands down a verdict." > It means the accused had an open trial > in court at which they were allowed to > defend themselves. That seems to be the plan. Could you point me towards your sources claiming that the Feds don't intend to bring a trial against MegaUpload + employees?
  - vsl 15y ago
    > I didn't realize that the Megaupload employees had already been handed sentences. The site is down. The company has all its assets seized and is unable to pay hosting bills. FBI "gave permission" to delete the data (never mind it's evidence, BTW), inducing the hosting to get rid of this unpaid-for burden. The damage to their brand is enormous - mainstream media parrot the FBI line and report Megaupload as taken down pirate site, clear-cut case. The trust of legitimate users is forever lost. Even if found not guilty, when the case finally gets to trial in a few years, the company will never be able to recover and restart its business. How do you not call that sentenced without trial?

furyofantares 15y ago

Wasn't btjunkie used primarily to violate copyright? If so, it seems you are mistaken about the outrage regarding SOPA. The outrage was not defending our right to free movies. When Megaupload got taken down I started seeing all these posts that seem to be under the impression that the Internet had rallied around the right to get everything digital for free/cheap against the creators' wishes, which is not the case.

fsniper 15y ago
So a knife is an arms. But it does not mean It's unlawful. If you are after copyright violators, go for them. Declaring knives outlaw is not the solution.
- furyofantares 15y ago
  In this analogy, somebody tried and failed to make knives illegal. Meanwhile, the government has gotten more serious about going after those who willingly supply knives primarily to those who will use them illegally. And one such supplier has ceased business volutnarily
  - fsniper 15y ago
    No it's not an exact analogy. For instance, knives can be made from any substance, and by anybody. This site, btjunkie is not a supplier of knives. It's a place where someone can find who builds and sells knives.
    - furyofantares 15y ago
      The point is, nobody has made file sharing in general illegal. But the government is going after sites that primarily enable illegal file sharing. And some sites that do this are shutting down voluntarily. Where's the injustice?
      - fsniper 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

Well yes, they kind of did have those powers, thanks to the passing of the Pro IP act in 2008, which allows them to take town .com, .org and .net websites. SOPA would've just allowed them to take down foreign sites. They already have the power because the Internet wasn't awake enough at the time. But that's alright. What's important is that first we stop this trend - not a single law like this passes anymore. And then we try to reverse the trend - repeal Pro IP, overhaul copyright laws, etc.