Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
from the sure-they-wanted-to... dept
There was a lot of attention paid last week to Homeland Security's ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) decision to shut down a bunch of movie file sharing sites. There were lots of questions about the action. We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation. Others, quite reasonably questioned how this is a Homeland Security (or ICE) issue at all. But, lost in much of the discussion was another important point. Beyond just raiding the operators of many of these sites, Homeland Security also seized the domains of the sites, though it's not at all clear under what legal authority they did so, and there was no due process involved at all:The report did not cite under what law the domain names were seized. As far as I know there is no federal law that allows the seizure of domain names. That of course is the troubling part. Although I have no love for sites that allow the distribution of protected works for free, when the federal government starts making up their own remedies for violation of laws, its a problem. Moreover all that happened here was a claim by the government of improper conduct by the site. There does not appear to been a hearing where any of the domain owners got notice or what you would call due process, which is an opportunity to defend themselves prior to the domain seizureThis reminds many folks of the still ongoing legal dispute in Kentucky over whether or not the governor there can just seize the domains of certain gambling-related websites.
TorrentFreak has an anonymously-sourced (so, take that for what it's worth...) story, suggesting that ICANN was involved in the domain name seizure of these websites, using technicalities in how those sites were registered to take back the domains and hand them over to the US government.
As TorrentFreak notes, this seems to open a huge Pandora's box of potential problems, in terms of what the US government and Homeland Security (at the behest of Disney) might seize next, without any due process. What about some more well-known sites, like The Pirate Bay's domain or MegaUpload? According to the (again, anonymously sourced...) report on TorrentFreak, US officials looked into seizing both of those as well, but realized doing so would likely create other diplomatic and PR-related issues:
Shockingly, TorrentFreak was informed that wheels were also set in motion to seize The Pirate Bay domain. But for reasons that remain unclear that didn't come to pass. Our source believes that the US authorities would've had to contact the Swedish authorities on the matter first, but that since there is already an unfinished criminal process against the site, the time was not considered right. There is an implication, however, that patience won't last forever and may run out after the founders' upcoming court appeal.Given the anonymous sourcing, it's worth taking the reports with a grain of salt, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the possibility of seizing the domains was at least explored. If I had to guess, the possibility of a PR nightmare was probably what kept those plans on the drawing board. It was easy to step in and seize the relatively little known domains that they did. In fact, very few of the stories focused on the seizure of the domains themselves. If it had been a major site, much more attention and legal scrutiny would have been quickly applied to the question of what legal authority does Homeland Security have to seize domains.
Another site in the cross hairs appears to be MegaUpload. Although a domain seizure was suggested, it now seems that another route has been taken, at least for now. We have also been informed by other sources that further sites are being watched although it proved impossible to discover their names.
However, now that the dust is settling on the Disney-directed bust, it does seem like an important question for Homeland Security officials to answer. On what basis can they seize domains and what role did ICANN play in those seizures?
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: domain names, homeland security, seizure
Companies: megaupload, the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Legal Authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MAFIAA GO AWAY !!!
they make no money then they will collapse just like one of the websites they illegallly took down.
Vote out the Republicans and Democrats next election.Find Independents and try to get them in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They'll never do this because in the future http and likely dns(as we know it) will be outdated as protocols. Searches will move from "public" google and search field on a web page, to "distributed" edonkey, magnet style.
Piracy is evolutionary, it follows along a predictable path, and it will simply evolve beyond the laws' ability to ever get close. Amusing to watch those caught in the net, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait what?
So the Pirate Bay and MegaUpload are putting national security at risk, how are they doing this?
Can government separate itself from corporations just like it did from religion, or are they being a bit too greedy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait what?
Surely you jest.
Look at half the elected leaders in congress, biblethumpers tried and true. There is no separation. 'We pledge allegiance to...the USA ... "One nation under God"' (A slightly abridged version of the flag speech every kid is forced to recite. Daily. To what end? I don't know.)
There is no *clearly drawn* line. There really has never been, nor in any foreseeable future will be.
Sorry.
And if they can't keep their hands out of religion...
'God' knows they can't keep their hands off of every last cent they can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait what?
Still, I agree, no clearly drawn line between politicians and religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait what?
I don't think any of us were invited to that meeting. :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.saveninjavideo.net/2010/07/letter-released-yesterday.html
At least for them, they disabled the site of their own accord.
It's also funny that they make the claim of these sites having no respect for creativity or innovation - I know for a fact Ninjavideo in particular had a strong artist community that even produced a very well done comic about the site amongst other things.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-piracy-20100701,0,2871905.story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.saveninjavideo.net/2010/07/official-article-from-immigration-and.html
Note that they claim these sites made millions, of which there is no evidence for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, a model for busting users could look like this:
- wiretap a linkswapping forum, collect user IPs
- wiretap a few of those IPs, look for high volumes of traffic from locker services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload
- convince a judge that high volumes of file-locker traffic is sufficient probable cause for a raid on the end user.
- profit! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they're the enforcement branch of the government and as such they can do whatever they want. Unless congress decides to impeach the president, but Congress is just as corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and now it's the dept. of homeland security that needs to get involved to put an end to this terrorist activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is. The very screen shot they posted answers their own question: http://www.thedomains.com/wp-content/Screen-shot-2010-07-01-at-11.22.31-AM.png
Authorities got a seizure warrant first from a US District Court under 18 U.S.C. 981 and 18 U.S.C. 2323.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It will be interesting to see what evidence they produced to get the warrant, but if they do have evidence of these against the site owners, it just lends itself to the question of whether the domains are 'property' under these laws and if they have jurisdiction over them.
It seems questionable to give any single country jurisdiction over a domain name as it could easily lead to countries having domain name wars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It will be interesting to see what evidence they produced to get the warrant, but if they do have evidence of these against the site owners, it just lends itself to the question of whether the domains are 'property' under these laws and if they have jurisdiction over them."
It's a criminal investigation, to be sure. All they needed was probable cause to get the warrant. The domain is an instrumentality of the crime, so it makes sense to me that they seized it. I'm curious to see one of these cases go to trial. Should be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Authorities got a seizure warrant first from a US District Court under 18 U.S.C. 981 and 18 U.S.C. 2323.
Those laws only allow for the seizure of real and personal property, of which domain names are neither. Thus, the " misunderstanding" arises from the citing of laws that aren't applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exclusion of domain names seems like a real limitation in this case.
Some courts found to the contrary a decade ago,
Which courts and cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for cases that might support your view, why don't you go find them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: be careful
that seizure which is a violation of a list of laws. the problem is that no where under those codes does it directly
assume a domain is an "asset" so the code that they used to seize the domain needs to appear before a jury, essentially the laws prohibiting this type of seizure or allowing it have not been written into regular law. the only place where this type of seizure is clearly stated is under the patriot act and that should have never existed in the first place. I would bring into question how they lawfully attained a warrant to monitor communications in the first place since
the organizations that executed these warrants have no jurisdiction over this matter. This may be something america
needs since law has not caught up with todays technology this could either be the next step to the obvious police state america has become or a step back towards our freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What else do you expect from the government granted monopoly capital of the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shhh! Don't let them know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line - can't trust the US (or any) Government
Same can be said of any country - the US just happens to be the powerhouse at the moment.
Governments aren't fair. They are restrictive and protective by design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is the deal with disney ? they are not allowed to play ? WHY?
There you go, I learn something new everyday !!.
So if you work at a private corporation, or I assume are mearly a private citizen. Then when you ring up the authorities, police or homeland security.
The first think they ask you is your name, and who you work for.
If you happen to work for a private corporation, they say, "Sorry, we dont help private corporations, or private citizens" so forget about the crime you saw..
So who do the homeland security people work for ? is it only if your a government corporation or what ? to get help from the authorities ?
So if I own a private corporation that is a bank, and I see lots of counterfiet money being imported, and I go to homeland security, they will tell me to go away, because your 'just' a private corporation..
Sure you pay our wages, with your taxes, and you pay for our government with your taxes and productivity, but because your a private corporation we will not help you..
What a great country you live in :)..
At least where I live we have equal rights under the law, does not matter if your employed, or not or who you are employed by.
It does not matter what race, color or sex you are, it does not matter if you work for disney, or are on social security.
I did not know that in the US this was specific rule for specific people, and that the government was not allowed to help specific types of people, based on employment, race, age and so on.
So if I worked for Disney, I would not have the same rights that someone who worked for what ? else.?
May be you should trying something constructive like.
"A government by the people,, FOR the people". that might work !!
How many 'major strikes' will it take Mike ?? you might be about the find out !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is the deal with disney ? they are not allowed to play ? WHY?
No one said that Homeland Security shouldn't do things that protect people. The problem is when it appears they are working directly for a corporation, rather than for the people.
As I noted in the original post, if the FTC announced action against Intel at AMD's headquarters, people would cry foul. Yet when Homeland Security announces actions against file sharing sites from Disney's headquarters?
You don't have any problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is the deal with disney ? they are not allowed to play ? WHY?
I would expect "Homeland Security" to be a go-between agency that helps the iron out communication issues between the CIA and the FBI, local Police, Border Patrol and DEA.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Rem, It's Because The Property Is Bad
That's how they get away with it.
It's been part of English Common law for centuries and was brought over into our law.
The 1984 Omnibus Crime Bill increased the powers of police Confiscation.
That's why a guy busted for being with a hooker in his car can have the car confiscated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Rem, It's Because The Property Is Bad
"a civil forfeiture proceeding is an in rem action against property, rather than a proceeding against the owner. Thus, “[t]he Government need not prove, within the criminal justice system that the owner committed a crime” in order to proceed with a civil forfeiture. Indeed an acquittal on a criminal charge does not bar a civil forfeiture proceeding. Moreover, as the Second Circuit has held, “[a] forfeiture proceeding may even be commenced where no criminal action is brought."
Lopes v. U.S., 862 F.Supp. 1178 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Rem, It's Because The Property Is Bad
They used to publicly torture and execute people over in Merry Olde England, too. That's why the founders of the US thought certain things needed to prohibited in the constitution.
As to taking people's property, they apparently thought that a clause plainly prohibiting the taking of property without "due process" would be enough to prohibit such behavior. It seems that they were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incredibly troubling ....why ?
You don't have any problem with that?
If Intel was clearly breaking the law, and the law was against an issue that homeland security is interested in (like customs and counterfeit), and the 'crime' or alledged crime was against AMD, and commited by Intel, then the 'scene of the crime' is AND, and the criminals are Intel.
So if one accounting firm finds out the burnie madoff is a scam, they are not allowed to tell the authorities, or make charges against Madoff, because they are in the same industry ?
You dont think it would be right to have the authorities announce their actions from the scene of the crime, or where the crime was exposed ?
It's common, and nothing you should find "incredibily troubling"
So all of a sudden, according to you, the authorities are getting into trouble because they are trying to uphold the present laws.
Because of that, you attack the authorities and the people seeking the law to be upheld.
You make out it is somehow bad for someone to want the existing laws applied and enforced. Saying nothing about those breaking the law.
Thats ok, to break the law, but if you get the authorities to enforce the law, you are bad somehow, especially if you work for a private corporation, something you find "incredibly troubling"..
so for you its not incredibly troubling that people are willfully and knowingly breaking the law, but its incredibly troubling that people seek to try to uphold the law.
No wonder your once great country is going to hell in a handbasket..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incredibly troubling ....why ?
Okay, rather than go off pointing out a lot of problems with rebuttals, I am just going to quote you to make my point.
You said:
an issue that homeland security is interested in (like customs and counterfeit)
The easiest point being made is that the reasons they seized them have absolutely nothing to do with Homeland Security. Nothing. At. All.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incredibly troubling ....why ?
No one said the company cannot report things to the authorities. The question is how involved are they in the followup investigation and seizure/raids. Private companies should not be involved.
You dont think it would be right to have the authorities announce their actions from the scene of the crime, or where the crime was exposed ?
The offices of a competitor? You REALLY don't see the conflict of interest there?
You make out it is somehow bad for someone to want the existing laws applied and enforced. Saying nothing about those breaking the law.
No, I said quite clearly in the original post that if they were breaking the law it's reasonable for legal action to be taken. I'm still questioning why Disney is so heavily involved when they are not an impartial observer.
Thats ok, to break the law, but if you get the authorities to enforce the law, you are bad somehow
Again, I said no such thing.
so for you its not incredibly troubling that people are willfully and knowingly breaking the law, but its incredibly troubling that people seek to try to uphold the law.
I said no such thing.
It is impossible to argue with someone who makes up what other people say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: incredibly troubling ....why ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incredibly troubling ....why ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is Legal Maze
(Following From http://openjurist.org/)
18 USC 2323 - Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution
(1) Property subject to forfeiture.
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319,....
(Following from http://www.law.cornell.edu)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > § 2319 - Criminal infrigement of copyright
Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(B) of title 17
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101 a.3 (Unauthorized Acts. Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved distributes or offers to distribute...)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 46 > § 981
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
(A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956,
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1956
a.3.a. Whoever, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
c.7.d. the term "specified unlawful activity" means ...an offense under...section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement)
e. Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct.....
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)
United States
Department of Homeland Security
Child agencies:
...
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
...
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
...
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is Legal Maze
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)
Child Agencies:
National Protection and Programs Directorate
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Protection_and_Programs_Directorate)
The National Protection and Programs Directorate[1] (NPPD) is a component within the United States Department of Homeland Security led by the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs. NPPD's goal is to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements. The components of the National Protection and Programs Directorate include the Federal Protective Service, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Office of Risk Management and Analysis, and US-VISIT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is Legal Maze
(from the DHS website http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7
December 17, 2003
SUBJECT: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection
....
#
Coordination with the Private Sector
# In accordance with applicable laws or regulations, the Department and the Sector-Specific Agencies will collaborate with appropriate private sector entities and continue to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms. Additionally, the Department and Sector-Specific Agencies shall collaborate with the private sector and continue to support sector-coordinating mechanisms:
1. to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and
2. to facilitate sharing of information about physical and cyber threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, potential protective measures, and best practices.
....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here is Legal Maze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is Legal Maze
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
(A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956,
Yep, which would not legally include domain names since they do not fall under the legal definition of real or personal property. See the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is Legal Maze
Of course, just because domain names are property subject to forfeiture doesn't mean it's a good idea for the government to do it, especially while wearing those embarrassing Mickey Mouse ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here is Legal Maze
Ok then, name them, please. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But so far no one has cited such court rulings.
Not sure where you found a "legal definition of real or personal property" that excludes domain names, but it doesn't appear to be the same "dictionary" the rest of the U.S. legal system is using.
OK, which "dictionary" is this that "the U.S. legal system is using"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's inspired by the old Nazi "Fatherland Security" and Soviet "Motherland Security" organizations. The people putting together the similarly named US organization wanted to pay homage to a couple of organizations they greatly admired and desired to emulate, hence the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
That is what you said, Mike.
You said it is "incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing "appeard" to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
You said PRIVATE CORPORATION, that means to mean at least ANY private corporation, and because it is a 'private corporation, you find it incredibly troubling.
I dont, I find it common and normal that a private corporation would seek the help of authorites to uphold the law.
I was just wondering what you found so incredibly troubling about a private corp working with the authorities to stop a crime.
Yes, the accounting firm that found madoff, did ALOT of work with the authorities, and if you remember, the authorities failed badly and taking their advice.
"this man has given you a roadmap and a flashlight leading to this pile of dung that is burnie madoff, and you guys could not work it out!!!"
So there is nothing at all about private citizens or private or public corporations working with authorities to identify and stop crimes.
thats how things are supposed to work, that very thing you find incredibly troubling, thats all I was saying.
But that at least I know you said.. I did not copy/paste it from nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
I don't know about Mike, but for me it is incredibly troubling indeed.
- The corporation in question was not acting as a citizen and informing the government it was indeed in the front seat and apparently barking orders to a government agency, when was that we surrendered control of the government agencies to corporations?
Have anybody see citizens coordinating attacks with the government ever?
Have anybody see citizens being invited to participate and plan anything?
Why corporations are being call in to the action?
Would the government call the EFF to monitor and make sure the law is being fallowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We focused on the incredibly troubling fact that the whole thing appeared to be coordinated by Disney, a private corporation.
Because when that "crime" is really competition, then there are serious concerns about the conflict of interest. Do you not see that?
Yes, the accounting firm that found madoff, did ALOT of work with the authorities, and if you remember, the authorities failed badly and taking their advice.
Totally different situation and you know it. In that case, Markopolos did the research and *sent it* to the SEC for the SEC to deal with (which, they failed to do). If the SEC had then had Markopolos to lead their investigation, it would have been a huge conflict of interest which everyone (outside of you, apparently) would have found quite troubling.
Again, there's nothing wrong with Disney providing info to the authorities for the authorities to then make their own determination over. What's troubling is to then continue to involve the biased party in the investigation/raids/seizures and announcements.
The SEC never would have busted Madoff and announced it at Markopolos' office. Everyone would have thought they were crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Osiris serverless portal, no government can control what it happens inside and it will be open source.
Besides that how about a physical server that cost $50 bucks?
http://hackaday.com/2010/07/01/arduino-webserver/
Put one in every hotspot in the country with a copy of the piratebay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://kioskofpiracy.org/2009/09/07/the-pirate-kiosk-is-now-live/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will find a way...
I can easily see private (but publicly) available hosts files or similar being used instead - heck, probably even distributed via torrent sites, or IP redirects via bit.ly and such.
Just seems silly and a waste of time. The holes are many and people will find a way. As I believe has been said before, this will just drive the traffic in such a way that it will be harder to track and combat for the authorities, but the behavior will remain the same.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whaddaya expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]