3 ms·

The source of this news is amusing - as they allude to in one sentence of the linked article, their own domain was siezed by US authorities for over a year, and

by bri3d 15y ago

The source of this news is amusing - as they allude to in one sentence of the linked article, their own domain was siezed by US authorities for over a year, and eventually given back after legal wrangling. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaki... gives a horribly biased overview of the events behind the dajaz1 seizure.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago
I guess I'm not too familiar with what happened, are there any "unbiased" overviews of the events? I doubt the feds would give any information period.
- sehugg 15y ago
  Well, you can read what the RIAA thinks about it, along with an informationless non-statement from ICE: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-admits-to-returning-domain-while-riaa-threatens-dajaz1-with-more-legal-actions.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-ad... Or you can read the almost-totally-redacted FOIA document dump: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedom-information-document-dump-ice-about-domain-seizures-almost-totally-redacted.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedo... The court case is under seal, so I can't point you to any relevant court documents. Heck, even Senator Wyden raised a fuss about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizure/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizur... I don't have much reason to doubt the accounting of events described in the TechDirt article -- although it does contain a fair amount of editorializing. If the government would remove the seal and speak up instead of remaining mum, we'd have another side to the story, and maybe we could eliminate this perceived "bias".
pyre 15y ago
Which parts are biased? Things like whether or not the government allowed the domain owner to contest the extensions should be pretty easy to verify. I'm sure that the lawyer probably has some record of a number of the communications he/she had with the government. I realize that there's a bit of hand-waving with respect to 'holding people responsible,' but most of the things in that article that are verifiable are pretty damning of the government if they are true.

by bri3d 15y ago

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

I guess I'm not too familiar with what happened, are there any "unbiased" overviews of the events? I doubt the feds would give any information period.

sehugg 15y ago
Well, you can read what the RIAA thinks about it, along with an informationless non-statement from ICE: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-admits-to-returning-domain-while-riaa-threatens-dajaz1-with-more-legal-actions.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-ad... Or you can read the almost-totally-redacted FOIA document dump: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedom-information-document-dump-ice-about-domain-seizures-almost-totally-redacted.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedo... The court case is under seal, so I can't point you to any relevant court documents. Heck, even Senator Wyden raised a fuss about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizure/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizur... I don't have much reason to doubt the accounting of events described in the TechDirt article -- although it does contain a fair amount of editorializing. If the government would remove the seal and speak up instead of remaining mum, we'd have another side to the story, and maybe we could eliminate this perceived "bias".

pyre 15y ago

Which parts are biased? Things like whether or not the government allowed the domain owner to contest the extensions should be pretty easy to verify. I'm sure that the lawyer probably has some record of a number of the communications he/she had with the government. I realize that there's a bit of hand-waving with respect to 'holding people responsible,' but most of the things in that article that are verifiable are pretty damning of the government if they are true.