9 ms·

Whatever happened to due process?

323 points by peteforde 13y ago

freejack 13y ago
"Rapid takedown" was foisted on us in 1999 when the original registrar agreements were being negotiated at ICANN. At the time, it was held out as a threat - agree to rapid takedown, or be subject to US regulation. At the time we didn't realize that it was the intellectual property community making the threat - it came to us under the cloak of the ISP community, which we've since realized meant "Big Telco's with massive media holdings". Its been a slippery slope every since. oBDisclaimer: I work at a large registrar and was in the room when the original contracts were being discussed and negotiated. I'm sorry for the part I played!
- bigphishy 13y ago
  Freejack, very interesting. What would be the best course of action to preventing these takedowns, or at the very least, prevent the abuse of takedown notices?
pallandt 13y ago
This should get on the front page, the title is ambiguous, but the article itself is about a very abusive law enforcement request.
moomin 13y ago
A little background: the guys who sent the letter are PIPCU, a new department with funding for two years who are undoubtedly keen to get results quickly and cheaply. A weirdness of PIPCU is that they're City of London police, not London Metropolitan Police as you'd expect for a department with such a wide remit.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  What is the difference between City of London police and London Metro police? (US resident, my only time in London was a quick drunken jaunt through SOHO on a long layover) EDIT: Thank you all for informing me!
  - nandhp 13y ago
    CGPGrey did a pretty interesting video a while back that explains the difference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
  - rcthompson 13y ago
    I would think it's the distinction between the "City of London" (just the city itself) and the "London Metropolitan Area" (the city and surrounding sprawl).
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      "The City" is a tiny little slice with something like one hundred residents. It bears zero relation to London, the London Urban Area, the London Metro Area, or the London Municipal Area.
      - topbanana 13y ago
        7400 at the last census (2011), but many thousands of workers during the day.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        What's 7300 human lives between friends?
    - topbanana 13y ago
      In fact the City of London is a tiny part of the city of London, and only one part of the centre (the north-east). It's the area that was originally defended by a wall in Roman times.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    City of London is the financial district, a city within a city. Most of the voters there are companies and it is administered by a corporation. Dick Whittington ran it for a bit with a cat that liked sturdy footwear. It is weird.
- switch007 13y ago
  The strangest thing is that the City of London is very much like a corporation. A business with policing powers over other businesses...?
  - pjc50 13y ago
    Just because it's called "City of London Corporation" does not mean it's the same as a public limited company with shareholders. It's basically a local authority with an unusual name and history(+). Of course it's very pro-establishment, but that's a function of its electorate. PIPCU is new and a little unusual, although there's plenty of precedent for having special police units for complicated crime and they sit next to the Fraud bureau in City police units. It's a bit of an escalation - previously it was local Trading Standards who would handle piracy (e.g. people selling copied DVDs at the local market) (+) How old? Over 1000 years, its origin is unclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/who-we-are/Pages/the-city-of-london-corporation.aspx http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/who-we-are/Pag...
  - Hoff 13y ago
    See the Reedy Creek Improvement District, for a US analog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distric...
- pjc50 13y ago
  Note for Americans: there's no equivalent of "federal" police, it's handled by the local or regional authority. The "Met" end up with most of the national-level jobs like anti-terrorism. PIPCU is a bit odd and new, and clearly looking to make a mark. They might reasonably complain that London police have no authority over them, and they'd be right; this is really a problem for ICANN who are ultimately threatening the registrars.
dingaling 13y ago
Amazing that in this era of phishing the PIPCU expect someone to take significant action against their own customers on the basis of an e-mail. And I'm 99.9% positive it wouldn't have been PGP or S/MIME-signed for authenticity. Kudos to Mr Jeftovic for insisting on proper instruments, such as a court order.
Sharlin 13y ago
There was an incident a week or so ago where the admin of a Finnish punk website posted a scan of an "information request" he had received from the police. This request was to provide registration information (especially email and IP addresses) of certain users of the site. The common factor was that these users had participated in a forum thread discussing organizing a (apparently entirely peaceful) "shadow event" of the traditional presidential Independence Day reception. The "request" came with a gag order and without any mention of an appeal process. The rationale included was a generic boilerplate "investigation or prevention of crime" with no mention of anyone being suspected of any crime or planning thereof. The gag order was, obviously and quite defiantly, disobeyed by the admin. Now it appears that these kinds of requests are perfectly legal, do not require the authorization of any member of the judiciary, and appear to be used quite carelessly to gather information about people not officially suspected of anything. Getting "official" personally identifying information from ISPs is much harder, though, but this does not look good especially given that the new police law currently in planning stages is expected to considerably extend the electronic powers of the police.
- coldcode 13y ago
  Each country has its own laws for this sort of thing, so it's hard to generalize.
  - Sharlin 13y ago
    Sure; I wrote the post in a bit of haste, just meant to share a related anecdote. The alarming thing about the case is that it seems to have come as a surprise to most observers that the police actually does have such powers in the first place.
StuntPope 13y ago
Wow, check out the page they wanted us to redirect the domain too http://83.138.166.114/ http://83.138.166.114/ "Don't use those other guys, use these guys instead" It's like reverse online piracy, hijack the traffic from a bunch of domain takedowns and push your own cronies sites. pro-music.org - based in london, UK whymusicmatters.org - London, UK thecontentmap.com - London, UK Nice scam
clarkmoody 13y ago
What gets me about all of this is that the largest, most egregious perpetrators of online criminal activity right now are our own governments, spying on their own citizens, illegally wiretapping our own private communications and nobody cares, nobody will answer for it, it's just an out- of-scope conversation that is expected to blend into the overall background malaise of our ever increasing serfdom. The truth doesn't have many friends with the powers that be.
squidi 13y ago
The title of the article (as fascinating as it was) seems rhetorical. Can't easydns just point the PIPCU to their own Domain Takedown Policy and instruct them to take it further with ICANN and the courts of the Province of Ontario?
ashray 13y ago
Due process went out of the window a long time ago when the US showed everyone that it is certainly possible and even admissible to seize domains without any sort of process. The US (department of homeland security, no less!) started seizing domains about 2 years ago. They went and basically took down any domain that was related to large scale piracy (demonoid) or counterfeit goods (sites that sold fake gucci bags, that kind of stuff..). The other kind of site that they targeted were mostly sports streaming sites (ones that streamed ESPN, etc.). It was obvious that the UK would follow soon enough seeing that such a thing was entirely possible. Of course when the US seized a spanish website (rojadirecta) domain, they were challenged in court and lost. [0] There were also several other incorrect seizures where the US government ended up seizing sites that had nothing to do with any illegal activity and then returning them a year later [1]. This is what happens when you ignore due process. Most small service providers and ISPs feel threatened when a big government like the US comes after them. Unless they have properly defined protocols for dealing with this kind of stuff, the support rep will probably buckle under pressure and hand over the data. Personally, I've seen instances where domain registrars are often requested for private registration data without court orders or any sort of legal basis. Some registrars hand out the data. Some registrars email their customers asking them to transfer away (so stop being our customers) to continue protecting their privacy. Some registrars actually have the guts to say no. It really varies. We're certainly at a point now where governments can easily coerce internet businesses to bend to their will. There will be a brave few who will stand tall but I don't know how long it will be before their backs/businesses are broken and bent (lavabit being a recent example). Of course the UK government probably doesn't have access to the root name servers and therefore is left with sending out notices. But there's no telling when governments (who are of course sponsored by corporations as we all know by now..) will start cooperating with each other for such take down requests. Sort of like the reverse surveillance agreements with Germany/Australia/etc. (can't spy on my own citizens ? no worries, you spy on mine, I'll spy on yours, and we'll exchange notes!) And I thought the dark days of the internet were in the 90s... [0] - https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-returns-seized-domains-to-streaming-links-site-after-18-months-120830/ https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-returns-seized-domains-to-strea... [1] - http://torrentfreak.com/feds-return-seized-domain-111208/ http://torrentfreak.com/feds-return-seized-domain-111208/
slg 13y ago
Is due process the wrong term? Can't due process occur after the fact? For example, you can be arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, taken off the road, put into custody, and found to be innocent, and that is still part of due process. Your actions appeared to be causing a threat to others, so the government stopped your actions immediately and let the courts decide your guilt or innocence. How is that different than taking a site that is suspected of harming other people offline immediately and then work on deciding guilt or innocence? Note: I don't necessarily disagree with the author, but I am playing devil's advocate here.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Taking a site offline on mere suspicion would be analogous to imprisoning someone on the mere suspicion. The notion of due process breaks down when it is too easy to abuse the process itself.
  - hawleyal 13y ago
    People are imprisoned on mere suspicion. One is put in jail after an arrest before trial. They require a fee to be released before trial. Even if one is acquitted of charges, they do not receive refund.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > People are imprisoned on mere suspicion. No, actually not. The police can place you in arrest, but only for a limited time. Then a judge has to decide based on various factors whether you can be kept in jail until trial, whether you can get out on bail and how large the sum is, and sure, you get the bail money back if you show up in court, even if your not acquitted. [1] The important factor is that a _judge_ gets to decide that, not a prosecutor or mere policeman. [1] Please note that if you loaned the money from a bail bondsman, the bondsman gets to keep his fees. This however is a separate transaction.
    - thecodeore 13y ago
      In the US, if you post BAIL you do get it back, a BOND however is a service provided by a company where by they post BAIL for you and you pay a company 10% (normally) for their service, The BOND company then guarantees to the court you will appear or they will track you down, if they bond company does not they must pay the court 100% of your BAIL. So if you have a $5,000 bail, you can go to a bonding company and get out for $500, you will not get that $500 back, however if you had the $5,000 you could give that to the courts, and get 100% of that money back.
shmerl 13y ago
Due process, presumption of innocence and other such "nuisances" are something that the DRM lobby tries to kill.
alphadogg 13y ago
There's never been due process; it's not suddenly worse than before. The widespread and rapid communications we enjoy know have made us all too aware of how often it does (and used to) happen. In some ways, it is both worse and better for us.
brewdad 13y ago
How can an email be considered legally binding? This would go straight into my spam folder.
- ddunkin 13y ago
  It can't, I would have deleted it immediately. The real requests comes in snail mail and are the only ones I reply to.
AJ007 13y ago
We need more support for ICANN alternatives, so when something stupid happens its just inconvenient. http://dot-bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains http://dot-bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains
endou 13y ago
They are only ordering to redirect the domain to a sole ip address? Not serving HTTPS? Should links point to secure versions of seized domains or simply to attest their identity. I think it's ok to say they are the criminals on the internet and not necessarily the other way. Not that requests cannot be legitimate but at least a basic level of quality must go into the actual process because here it just looks awkward. Not to mention shitty html behind it: if you takedown domains, please show some style :)
maddddddddddddd 13y ago
FUCK THE POLICE
ffrryuu 13y ago
Dead and buried.
gcb1 13y ago
it says a lot when siding with criminals is in the best interest of law abiding citizens than siding with the goverment.
w_t_payne 13y ago
It's not the 'net that they want to censor. It's your brain.
cryofan 13y ago
due process was simply a tool that was born out of the civil rights era, a tool used by the upper class to increase the labor supply and thereby drop wages and decrease voter unity. Due process was a result of race-guilt engendered in the brains of educated young men who attended elite schools in the first half of the 20th century. The curriculum at those schools was molded by monies from large nonprofit foundations, e.g., getty, ford and rockefeller foundations. These foundations were run by the upper class. The upper class has a primary goal: increase profits. One way they do this is dropping wages. You lower wages by increasing supply of labor faster than demand for it increases. The upper class created a civil rights movement by creating race-guilt, race shame in the minds of impressionable young white people in school. The monies from the foundations were paid to race-oriented, anti-white scholars, activists and writers. Over the decades these well paid faux-leftists managed to mold,shape and change the american left from a left oriented on populist economics, class economics to one oriented about race and gender, identity politics, a new Left that taught that in order for educated whites to prove themselves as non-racist, to make up, atone for the crimes of slavery, they had to elevate the nonwhites, put them ahead of working class whites, to make a place for them in white society. Due process was a concept that arose to help the upper class help the nonwhites get ahead. And in the process, the upper class increased the labor supply and dropped wages and made themselves richer. Just a coincidence of course. Now, you realize that it was never whites who were slaveowners. It was the upper class all along. The 1860 census showed that only 1.5 percent of all white americans owned slaves. And no surprise that it was the rich, seeing that a slave cost several years income. Now, seeing as how my karma is so low here because I speak against the upper, this comment will be duplicated on my blog at radicalamericancentrist on blogspot.

323 points by peteforde 13y ago

"Rapid takedown" was foisted on us in 1999 when the original registrar agreements were being negotiated at ICANN. At the time, it was held out as a threat - agree to rapid takedown, or be subject to US regulation. At the time we didn't realize that it was the intellectual property community making the threat - it came to us under the cloak of the ISP community, which we've since realized meant "Big Telco's with massive media holdings". Its been a slippery slope every since. oBDisclaimer: I work at a large registrar and was in the room when the original contracts were being discussed and negotiated. I'm sorry for the part I played!

bigphishy 13y ago
Freejack, very interesting. What would be the best course of action to preventing these takedowns, or at the very least, prevent the abuse of takedown notices?

pallandt 13y ago

This should get on the front page, the title is ambiguous, but the article itself is about a very abusive law enforcement request.

moomin 13y ago

A little background: the guys who sent the letter are PIPCU, a new department with funding for two years who are undoubtedly keen to get results quickly and cheaply. A weirdness of PIPCU is that they're City of London police, not London Metropolitan Police as you'd expect for a department with such a wide remit.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
What is the difference between City of London police and London Metro police? (US resident, my only time in London was a quick drunken jaunt through SOHO on a long layover) EDIT: Thank you all for informing me!
- nandhp 13y ago
  CGPGrey did a pretty interesting video a while back that explains the difference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
- rcthompson 13y ago
  I would think it's the distinction between the "City of London" (just the city itself) and the "London Metropolitan Area" (the city and surrounding sprawl).
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    "The City" is a tiny little slice with something like one hundred residents. It bears zero relation to London, the London Urban Area, the London Metro Area, or the London Municipal Area.
    - topbanana 13y ago
      7400 at the last census (2011), but many thousands of workers during the day.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        What's 7300 human lives between friends?
  - topbanana 13y ago
    In fact the City of London is a tiny part of the city of London, and only one part of the centre (the north-east). It's the area that was originally defended by a wall in Roman times.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  City of London is the financial district, a city within a city. Most of the voters there are companies and it is administered by a corporation. Dick Whittington ran it for a bit with a cat that liked sturdy footwear. It is weird.
switch007 13y ago
The strangest thing is that the City of London is very much like a corporation. A business with policing powers over other businesses...?
- pjc50 13y ago
  Just because it's called "City of London Corporation" does not mean it's the same as a public limited company with shareholders. It's basically a local authority with an unusual name and history(+). Of course it's very pro-establishment, but that's a function of its electorate. PIPCU is new and a little unusual, although there's plenty of precedent for having special police units for complicated crime and they sit next to the Fraud bureau in City police units. It's a bit of an escalation - previously it was local Trading Standards who would handle piracy (e.g. people selling copied DVDs at the local market) (+) How old? Over 1000 years, its origin is unclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/who-we-are/Pages/the-city-of-london-corporation.aspx http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/who-we-are/Pag...
- Hoff 13y ago
  See the Reedy Creek Improvement District, for a US analog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distric...
pjc50 13y ago
Note for Americans: there's no equivalent of "federal" police, it's handled by the local or regional authority. The "Met" end up with most of the national-level jobs like anti-terrorism. PIPCU is a bit odd and new, and clearly looking to make a mark. They might reasonably complain that London police have no authority over them, and they'd be right; this is really a problem for ICANN who are ultimately threatening the registrars.

dingaling 13y ago

Amazing that in this era of phishing the PIPCU expect someone to take significant action against their own customers on the basis of an e-mail. And I'm 99.9% positive it wouldn't have been PGP or S/MIME-signed for authenticity. Kudos to Mr Jeftovic for insisting on proper instruments, such as a court order.

Sharlin 13y ago

There was an incident a week or so ago where the admin of a Finnish punk website posted a scan of an "information request" he had received from the police. This request was to provide registration information (especially email and IP addresses) of certain users of the site. The common factor was that these users had participated in a forum thread discussing organizing a (apparently entirely peaceful) "shadow event" of the traditional presidential Independence Day reception. The "request" came with a gag order and without any mention of an appeal process. The rationale included was a generic boilerplate "investigation or prevention of crime" with no mention of anyone being suspected of any crime or planning thereof. The gag order was, obviously and quite defiantly, disobeyed by the admin. Now it appears that these kinds of requests are perfectly legal, do not require the authorization of any member of the judiciary, and appear to be used quite carelessly to gather information about people not officially suspected of anything. Getting "official" personally identifying information from ISPs is much harder, though, but this does not look good especially given that the new police law currently in planning stages is expected to considerably extend the electronic powers of the police.

coldcode 13y ago
Each country has its own laws for this sort of thing, so it's hard to generalize.
- Sharlin 13y ago
  Sure; I wrote the post in a bit of haste, just meant to share a related anecdote. The alarming thing about the case is that it seems to have come as a surprise to most observers that the police actually does have such powers in the first place.

StuntPope 13y ago

Wow, check out the page they wanted us to redirect the domain too http://83.138.166.114/ http://83.138.166.114/ "Don't use those other guys, use these guys instead" It's like reverse online piracy, hijack the traffic from a bunch of domain takedowns and push your own cronies sites. pro-music.org - based in london, UK whymusicmatters.org - London, UK thecontentmap.com - London, UK Nice scam

clarkmoody 13y ago

What gets me about all of this is that the largest, most egregious perpetrators of online criminal activity right now are our own governments, spying on their own citizens, illegally wiretapping our own private communications and nobody cares, nobody will answer for it, it's just an out- of-scope conversation that is expected to blend into the overall background malaise of our ever increasing serfdom. The truth doesn't have many friends with the powers that be.

squidi 13y ago

The title of the article (as fascinating as it was) seems rhetorical. Can't easydns just point the PIPCU to their own Domain Takedown Policy and instruct them to take it further with ICANN and the courts of the Province of Ontario?

ashray 13y ago

Due process went out of the window a long time ago when the US showed everyone that it is certainly possible and even admissible to seize domains without any sort of process. The US (department of homeland security, no less!) started seizing domains about 2 years ago. They went and basically took down any domain that was related to large scale piracy (demonoid) or counterfeit goods (sites that sold fake gucci bags, that kind of stuff..). The other kind of site that they targeted were mostly sports streaming sites (ones that streamed ESPN, etc.). It was obvious that the UK would follow soon enough seeing that such a thing was entirely possible. Of course when the US seized a spanish website (rojadirecta) domain, they were challenged in court and lost. [0] There were also several other incorrect seizures where the US government ended up seizing sites that had nothing to do with any illegal activity and then returning them a year later [1]. This is what happens when you ignore due process. Most small service providers and ISPs feel threatened when a big government like the US comes after them. Unless they have properly defined protocols for dealing with this kind of stuff, the support rep will probably buckle under pressure and hand over the data. Personally, I've seen instances where domain registrars are often requested for private registration data without court orders or any sort of legal basis. Some registrars hand out the data. Some registrars email their customers asking them to transfer away (so stop being our customers) to continue protecting their privacy. Some registrars actually have the guts to say no. It really varies. We're certainly at a point now where governments can easily coerce internet businesses to bend to their will. There will be a brave few who will stand tall but I don't know how long it will be before their backs/businesses are broken and bent (lavabit being a recent example). Of course the UK government probably doesn't have access to the root name servers and therefore is left with sending out notices. But there's no telling when governments (who are of course sponsored by corporations as we all know by now..) will start cooperating with each other for such take down requests. Sort of like the reverse surveillance agreements with Germany/Australia/etc. (can't spy on my own citizens ? no worries, you spy on mine, I'll spy on yours, and we'll exchange notes!) And I thought the dark days of the internet were in the 90s... [0] - https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-returns-seized-domains-to-streaming-links-site-after-18-months-120830/ https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-returns-seized-domains-to-strea... [1] - http://torrentfreak.com/feds-return-seized-domain-111208/ http://torrentfreak.com/feds-return-seized-domain-111208/

slg 13y ago

Is due process the wrong term? Can't due process occur after the fact? For example, you can be arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, taken off the road, put into custody, and found to be innocent, and that is still part of due process. Your actions appeared to be causing a threat to others, so the government stopped your actions immediately and let the courts decide your guilt or innocence. How is that different than taking a site that is suspected of harming other people offline immediately and then work on deciding guilt or innocence? Note: I don't necessarily disagree with the author, but I am playing devil's advocate here.

stcredzero 13y ago
Taking a site offline on mere suspicion would be analogous to imprisoning someone on the mere suspicion. The notion of due process breaks down when it is too easy to abuse the process itself.
- hawleyal 13y ago
  People are imprisoned on mere suspicion. One is put in jail after an arrest before trial. They require a fee to be released before trial. Even if one is acquitted of charges, they do not receive refund.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > People are imprisoned on mere suspicion. No, actually not. The police can place you in arrest, but only for a limited time. Then a judge has to decide based on various factors whether you can be kept in jail until trial, whether you can get out on bail and how large the sum is, and sure, you get the bail money back if you show up in court, even if your not acquitted. [1] The important factor is that a _judge_ gets to decide that, not a prosecutor or mere policeman. [1] Please note that if you loaned the money from a bail bondsman, the bondsman gets to keep his fees. This however is a separate transaction.
  - thecodeore 13y ago
    In the US, if you post BAIL you do get it back, a BOND however is a service provided by a company where by they post BAIL for you and you pay a company 10% (normally) for their service, The BOND company then guarantees to the court you will appear or they will track you down, if they bond company does not they must pay the court 100% of your BAIL. So if you have a $5,000 bail, you can go to a bonding company and get out for $500, you will not get that $500 back, however if you had the $5,000 you could give that to the courts, and get 100% of that money back.

shmerl 13y ago

Due process, presumption of innocence and other such "nuisances" are something that the DRM lobby tries to kill.

alphadogg 13y ago

There's never been due process; it's not suddenly worse than before. The widespread and rapid communications we enjoy know have made us all too aware of how often it does (and used to) happen. In some ways, it is both worse and better for us.

brewdad 13y ago

How can an email be considered legally binding? This would go straight into my spam folder.

ddunkin 13y ago
It can't, I would have deleted it immediately. The real requests comes in snail mail and are the only ones I reply to.

AJ007 13y ago

We need more support for ICANN alternatives, so when something stupid happens its just inconvenient. http://dot-bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains http://dot-bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains

endou 13y ago

They are only ordering to redirect the domain to a sole ip address? Not serving HTTPS? Should links point to secure versions of seized domains or simply to attest their identity. I think it's ok to say they are the criminals on the internet and not necessarily the other way. Not that requests cannot be legitimate but at least a basic level of quality must go into the actual process because here it just looks awkward. Not to mention shitty html behind it: if you takedown domains, please show some style :)

maddddddddddddd 13y ago

FUCK THE POLICE

ffrryuu 13y ago

Dead and buried.

gcb1 13y ago

it says a lot when siding with criminals is in the best interest of law abiding citizens than siding with the goverment.

w_t_payne 13y ago

It's not the 'net that they want to censor. It's your brain.

cryofan 13y ago

due process was simply a tool that was born out of the civil rights era, a tool used by the upper class to increase the labor supply and thereby drop wages and decrease voter unity. Due process was a result of race-guilt engendered in the brains of educated young men who attended elite schools in the first half of the 20th century. The curriculum at those schools was molded by monies from large nonprofit foundations, e.g., getty, ford and rockefeller foundations. These foundations were run by the upper class. The upper class has a primary goal: increase profits. One way they do this is dropping wages. You lower wages by increasing supply of labor faster than demand for it increases. The upper class created a civil rights movement by creating race-guilt, race shame in the minds of impressionable young white people in school. The monies from the foundations were paid to race-oriented, anti-white scholars, activists and writers. Over the decades these well paid faux-leftists managed to mold,shape and change the american left from a left oriented on populist economics, class economics to one oriented about race and gender, identity politics, a new Left that taught that in order for educated whites to prove themselves as non-racist, to make up, atone for the crimes of slavery, they had to elevate the nonwhites, put them ahead of working class whites, to make a place for them in white society. Due process was a concept that arose to help the upper class help the nonwhites get ahead. And in the process, the upper class increased the labor supply and dropped wages and made themselves richer. Just a coincidence of course. Now, you realize that it was never whites who were slaveowners. It was the upper class all along. The 1860 census showed that only 1.5 percent of all white americans owned slaves. And no surprise that it was the rich, seeing that a slave cost several years income. Now, seeing as how my karma is so low here because I speak against the upper, this comment will be duplicated on my blog at radicalamericancentrist on blogspot.