Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution
from the that's-bad dept
We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start seizing computers directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work. At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support. Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was given access to and allowed to keep computers from a criminal investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing. The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges. It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party. They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit. However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees. A reader alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that police have every right to retain seized computers, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges. The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified. It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computers, confiscated, copyright, criminal, file sharing
Companies: fact, ifpi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can't help but wonder which law specifically says that the police can randomly seize and keep property "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, I that that the original seizure was done under court order, which would indicate that there was enough valid information for a court to order such a seizure. Thus, it isn't "random", but rather with a court order. In other words, there are no jack booted thugs randomly bursting into houses to take computers without reason and handing them over to FACT (or anyone else).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's absolutely true, but once criminal charges are no longer forthcoming, parties are able to retrieve their property. As long as charges are being considered, the authorities can keep them, but after that they have to give them back, at least in America.
It's difficult to understand how a private entity, like a trade organization, can be allowed to retain another person's property simply because they're CONSIDERING a civil trial. It's civil, so evidentiary procedures like chain of evidence don't really apply, nor do, I believe, rules of discovery. So, again, where in the law does it say one private entity can sieze and retain another's property simply because they're considering civil litigation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Governments are corrupt and are to be feared. They will not hesitate to trample you underfoot to proponent their private (read: corporate sponsered) agenda.
Sad, but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK, not US (so far...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to the days of Longshanks, huh?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Update to Braveheart:
"The problem with the Internet, is that its full of users."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry i just have visions of that one ending badly... and funny... for some reason every time i try to visualize it a rope appears the the "suspected pirate" has cutlass and swings in to lop the heads off... anti-piracy goup insert name here hechmen... I have issues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Born in the wrong time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Comments
I know someone who had his computer seized by the FBI. He was trying to get a job with the FBI and made it to the polygraph portion of the application process, which is really good. I won't go into detail about it because frankly, the FBI scares the hell out of me. Basically, they went into his apartment and took his computer (without a warrant) while he was still in the interview. It took about a month for him to get it back and he was also advised to file charges. He did nothing wrong.
The US government does this all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically any private party can accuse another private party of something and have the accused's property taken by force and turned over to the accuser without the need of any criminal act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any *wealthy and well connected* private party can, yes. If you tried it on them, I suspect it wouldn't work out so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair is Fair
It seems only fair, and there is a delightful irony in using the same tactics in reply. Perhaps Surfthechannel could use the BSA's tactics and offer a cash reward to former FACT employees to report illegal conduct ;-)
Dark Helmet - we Americans have a much more obscene variant of the law that allows the police to seize property alleged to be associated with criminal activity and sell it, keeping the proceeds. No criminal charges are filed, and the 'target' of the seizure is the property, not the owner, sidestepping many constitutional protections.
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forf eiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
common law / civil Law
This could technically happen anywhere where common law exists and where one party has a good enough barrister to argue the case. Given the number of questionable decisions Mike reports on in US courts I am sure that there are US judges capable of make this monumentally bad (and I do agree it is) decision given the quality of judgements that come out of the US from time to time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the IFPI we already know about their MAFIA Activities!
" }:> "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dementia
And you would be correct in doing so, but unfortunately, history paints a different picture. You would go down in a hail of gunfire and then be made out to be some crack-pot and/or terrorist when all you were doing was protecting your home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dementia
I think it's fairly common knowledge that Dementia is a puppy-kicking, nun-slapping raporist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POLICE FRAME PEOPLE TO COVER UP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrongly Seized PC's :( WHEN do we get them back?? UK
This will be 12 months ago in May. No charges were ever brought and we were released from custody within about 12 hours. BUT they shouted at me, that they were going to pin this on someone and it looked like me. They ALSO got my email address WRONG in interrogation, saying it was a .com, when it's a .co.uk.
How long can they KEEP our property??? Which included mobile phones, disks, PC games, lap top, 2 net books, and my uncle's camera. They also caused damage during the raid, which was filmed, and they even FILMED me during my angina attack. The Paramedics ordered them to stop as they proceeded to film me TOPLESS, during treatment!!!
Can a lawyer get a court order to get our stuff back??? Though we had to buy a new PC and lap top so that we could resume our lives. Our lawyer keeps pestering them for our things but they ignore his letters, or say they have a right to keep it indefinitely.
I am VERY angry at the Police treatment and cruel handling of the case, where they have found NOTHING of the nature they were looking for. Both mine AND my dad's health has suffered, and I had to give up my voluntarily work, as it involved duties with the police, of which I am now terrified of.
Also how do I go about putting in a complaint about the plain clothes police involved in the raid and case? They were nasty and it was handled very badly!! My dad and I wish to air our displeasure legally.
Thank you for any help
Babs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I ask that at the conclusion of any court case, an
application is made under Sec 43(1) of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 for an order to be made
for the forfeiture of any computer equipment and compact disks used during the commission
of the offences charged.
It is further requested that this equipment to be forfeited and allowed used by the Police within
their role of tackling Crime, Computer Crime and Internet Crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]