Previously Chatty Homeland Security Clams Up After Errors In Domain Seizures Pop Up
from the no-comment dept
As you're probably aware, we've been covering the many serious legal questions raised by Homeland Security's decision to use its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) group to seize a bunch of domain names. As we've reported, the basis for the domain name seizures was full of serious technical and legal errors, which called into question the expertise of ICE on this subject. This was made even worse when details revealed that many of the "examples" used to prove infringement were sent by representatives of the copyright holders.Right after the domain name seizures, we noted that the Assistant Deputy Director for ICE, Erik Barnett, was perfectly happy to go on the record defending the seizures -- brushing off the concerns many people had about the process. He admitted, point blank, that ICE relied heavily on the very biased claims of industry insiders as the basis for what sites to target, and suggested that there were no serious due process problems with taking down entire websites prior to any adversarial trial.
Of course, this was all before the affidavit had been released, and the myriad errors became clear. So I asked Erik if he would respond to a short list of questions concerning the process and the specific errors made, figuring that since he had been so happy to speak out about these domain seizures in the past, he would be able to answer those questions, and perhaps put some of our concerns to rest. While I emailed Erik directly, I instead heard back from Homeland Security's "Office of Public Affairs," which noted that Homeland Security will not comment on "an ongoing investigation before court." Except, that's blatantly false, since Erik was already on the record speaking to other publications.
Either way, I responded and said I understood not being able to comment on ongoing issues (I had asked if the operators of these websites were going to be charged), I would retract the questions having to do with that aspect of the case, but wanted to see if Erik or someone else at Homeland Security might answer my other questions concerning what appeared to be technical and legal errors in the process itself -- such as what efforts did ICE make to ensure that the domain name seizures did not represent prior restraint, as is required in such seizures under the current law, and whether or not this issue was discussed with the magistrate judge who approved the seizure warrant. I also asked whether or not anyone outside of the RIAA/MPAA representatives (and other government employees) were asked to review the evidence prior to the seizures.
Not surprisingly, after asking a second time if Homeland Security could address these questions, I was told "we are not discussing the matter at this time." So, there you go. Homeland Security had no problem playing up these seizures immediately following their seizure, but as more and more evidence comes out concerning mistakes made, the agency clams up. Transparency in government.
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, ice, seizures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
Prostitution for laws is hypothetically also illegal, but is so rarely prosecuted by corrupt prostitute Attorney Generals that it may as well be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
There's good money if F*cking the tax-payers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon.
The errors may or may not be material to the seizures (and likely would not have swayed the judge one way or the other), and discussing them pretty much would lend credence to them. I don't think anyone involved wants to make this a case about minor errors in a document, rather they want it to be about the overall concept, which is for the courts to decide.
No doubt the ICE people took one look at TD and knew right away this wasn't a place to talk to, because no matter what they said, it would be nitpicked to pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
"I don't think anyone involved wants to make this a case about minor errors in a document"
No you dont think. Minor errors? O'KAY...
"rather they want it to be about the overall concept"
What? The concept of seizing property without proper oversight, or following current laws?
Read your comment again and reflect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
TD made the request, I have no doubt that the people running the press office had a quick look at the site, maybe searched for some terms relative to the story. They probably came across the one sided hatchet job from a while back and figured out where they were at. Quite simply, talking to TD would be sort of worthless, and likely would hurt them, not help.
End of problem.
The errors in the document are minor. For people like you and I who are more technically inclined, we can see the errors. Would those errors have changed the issuing of the warrant? That is up to the defendant's lawyers to argue, isn't it?
he concept of seizing property without proper oversight, or following current laws?
Proper oversight is the judge who issued the warrant. Current laws would have to be addressed in a manner that justifies the warrant. Unless of course you are suggesting that the judge and all of the ICE are on the **AA payroll. That would pretty much be a tin foil defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
You freetards live in a fantasy world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
I'll remember that next time I hear about your rants against 'freetards'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
"For people like you and I who are more technically inclined, we can see the errors."
You dont expect a judge to notice them? C'mon man. Really? He noticed, or just rubber stamped it, and if he read and missed them, he should step down, period.
"Proper oversight is the judge who issued the warrant."
If he was doing the job correctly, the errors would have been mentioned, changed, then brought back. All would have been legit, and we would not be having this exchange. The warrant appears to have been rubber stamped.
More of the good ole boys club.
http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/red-approved.gif
"Unless of course you are suggesting"
Never suggested any of that, and leave my tin foil hat out of this.
"They probably came across the one sided hatchet job"
(Link needed)
"I have no doubt that the people running the press office had a quick look at the site"
I have no doubt they looked at the site and realized this community would see through the BS propaganda they are pushing, and would call them out on every lie.
If you had a solid case, you would not want "minor errors" causing your case to get thrown out; Correct? So this indicates to me that 1) DHS had a bonehead write this up, and f'ed up royally 2) Had a judge that would pretty much sign anything handed to them by DHS. Both conditions are a disservice to the American people.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement + other duties as follows. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
Honorable Margaret Nagle is a "she."
Not a huge thing but looking at her records, IP law isn't her strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
How could it hurt them if all they made were only minor errors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
The overall concept is that IP maximists get to pick and choose which laws get followed and which ones don't. Laws only get followed when they're convenient for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
but I suppose frivolous laws only apply to the citizens and not to the corporations and the corporate controlled government. Though, in this case, the laws being broken by the government to combat alleged infringement aren't frivolous and they're certainly far more serious than the crime/tort of infringement.
But then again, breaking the law is only material when such laws are designed to help support big corporations. When breaking the law is intended to help big corporations (like the laws that the department of homeland security is breaking) then breaking such laws aren't material. It's OK to break the law, as long as doing such helps you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
Yes, because it's OK for the government and big corporations to break these "minor" laws, but it's not OK for citizens to break the much more minor laws of infringement.
"rather they want it to be about the overall concept, which is for the courts to decide."
The overall concept that it's wrong to break the law? Oh, that's right, that concept only applies to poor citizens, not to big corporations and the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
This site has gone full tilt tin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon.
Oh, wait, corporations are people too. Only there's no-one to punish, cause the person doesn't exist, except in paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
But it's OK for IP maximists to nitpick whenever someone (allegedly) breaks an unimportant infringement law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon.
Laws don't apply to government and big corporations. They only apply to citizens and especially poor ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would seriously look at that angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
�Where the transcendent value of speech is involved, due process certainly requires in the circumstances of this case that the State bear the burden of persuasion to show that the appellants engaged in criminal speech.� ��Speiser v Randall (1958).
�
�
Though the proceeding in question is divested of many of the aggravating incidents of actual search and seizure, yet, as before said, it contains their substance and essence, and effects their substantial purpose. It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.� ��Boyd v United States (1886)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In spite of the fact that the constitution gives corporations no rights, only individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In spite of the fact that the constitution gives corporations no rights, only individuals.
you should be absolutely correct. unfortunately, the supreme court has given corporations personhood, which means they have all the rights and protections of "the people."
so yeah, F all. if i had the money to move out of this country, i would in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanting evidence may lead to finding evidence
Perhaps the response from ICE was disingenous. However, there may be a distinction between commenting "right after the domain name seizures," and commenting while the matter is "before [the] court."
The first may be to inform the media of the prospect of pending charges (which seems acceptable even from the perspective of the court, and desirable from that of the public). The second might be perceived by all parties as an attempt to manipulate the legal process.
I'm not suggesting ICE is blameless; I'm not making any claims about their behavior in any other context. I'm simply pointing out that this post DOES answer exactly the question it claims was NOT answered. The quotes in this post make ICE's explanation for refusing to speak clear: the case is in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wanting evidence may lead to finding evidence
The department was wise to truncate further "conversation" by noting the painfully obvious. "The matter is now before the court."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wanting evidence may lead to finding evidence
It truly doesn't make any sense when you gather all of the evidence together like everyone is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICE did not issue any seizures, The Court did. you're legal system did.
What do you have trouble with Mike, that is a standard comment, and it is true, by law they are not allowed to comment on an investigation that is before the court.
They ARE allowed to comment in the subject in general, so yes, he is allowed to defend the seizures, but he is not allowed to comment on a specific case that IS NOT before the court.
It is also NOT ICE that conducted the seizures, it is the court and the judge, who ordered the seizures, not ICE.
ICE told the court about it, and the court decided what ICE told them was valid, and worthy of action.
The COURT then takes action, not ICE, once ICE tells the judge and once the judge agrees, then it is up to the judge and the courts to take appropriate action..
That is why someone from ICE cannot comment about the case, is because it is out of his hands at this point, it is before the court, he can defend the seizures in general, but he CANNOT comment specifically on something before the court..
He tells you that, and like most stupid reporters, you say "OK I understand that,, BUT how about if I ask you exactly the same question about the same thing, but word it differently, will that help"..
Ofcourse not,
The very next question you ask him, after he tells you he cannot comment on that specific case, is a question asking him to comment on that specific case !!!!..
Makes you look stupid, or at best, you do not understand what you are talking about, and seem to have little understanding of the legal processes that are involved with any actions.
You're claims that ICE are the ones conducting the seizures is incorrect...
It is a court ordered seizure, that means it is court ordered, and court approved, and the courts have ALLREADY looked at the probabity and legality of the sites, and have allready made a determination. thus the seizures.
It has been before a judge, and a ruling has been made, not by ICE but by your legal system.
but as more and more evidence comes out concerning mistakes made, the agency clams up. Transparency in government
What evidence ? has "come out" concerning 'mistakes', and what does it matter, the JUDGE does not feel it is a mistake, and he is the one who matters.
It's again, not in ICE's hands now it's in the courts, and the courts, tend to take legal process seriously.
What happened, if you have to be educated, is that ICE saw something they thought was illegal they went to the court, and seen a judge, and showed the judge what they have seen.
IF the judge, say's "Yes, you are right that is against the law", then it is the Judge and the Court that takes appropriate action, not the person who saw the crime and went to the court.
So if you are critical of ICE, then you should be equally critical of your legal system, after all it is not ICE seizing those sites, it's your appointed courts of law..
such as what efforts did ICE make to ensure that the domain name seizures did not represent prior restraint, as is required in such seizures under the current law, and whether or not this issue was discussed with the magistrate judge who approved the seizure warrant.
What efforts ?? they went to the court, and they convinced a judge that what they were saying was true, the judge would have determined the legality of the accusations, including prior restraint, and the current law, (thats what judges and courts do !!).
Once all the legal details are worked out by the court and the judge, then the court issues the seizures, and the case is 'before the court'.
It is out of the hands of ICE, and in the hands of the court, ICE is in no position legally or morally to comment on the case once it is before the court.
Mike, as usual, this is all stuff you are 100% aware of, yet, you constantly twist the truth. why are you making out that it is ICE and not the court, and the judge, that have rightfully issued the seizures ?
The fact a judge, and court issued the seizures is proof that the process was correct, and legal.
Asking ICE about the process, that WORKED, and was effective, and accepted by the court, cannot be questioned after the fact.
The judge made his decision, and no matter what you think, or say, that is not going to change. A law has been broken, a judge determined that was the fact, therefore the judge rules on the case, and ordered action.. end of story..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE did not issue any seizures, The Court did. you're legal system did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE did not issue any seizures, The Court did. you're legal system did.
Please point this law out to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is for ALL, even Disney
"In general, what we can say is, there are specific complaints from rights holders that these sites were infringing on copyrights."
Yes, when someone lodges a complaint, they should look at who lodges the complain, and if they are successful in the field, or are "big", or is called "disney" then that complain should be ignored.
Only complaints from people with no financial interest in it, or who will suffer no loss should be able to lodge a complaint to the law !!!.
that would mean you could be part of the legal elite, where you could be complained about, but for some reason, they are not allowed to complain about you because they have an interest in what you are doing, and what you are doing is damaging them.
So if you are a successful bank, making lots of money for your investors, and someone robs off you're bank, and you call the police, should the police say, "you exagurated how much was stolen, you are doing very well, therefore you do not deserve legal protection or support from the law, but if you were poor, and ran a really crappy bank, and did not make much money for your investors, then we would be right around to help you.
So you are saying that IT MATTER'S who can use the law and who cannot, if you are successful you do not have a right to the law ?
If you are successful, you do not have a right to tell the authorities about it, and you should have no expectation that the authorities will act for you, because you are 'big enough' or something..
How does that work Mike ??
ICE should of ignored the complains because it was from a big media company ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law is for ALL, even Disney
It's not like the government ignores Disney. Heck, the department of homeland security even went over to Disney's headquarters to announce their intent to serve Disney. I wish they would come over to my house to do such, but I don't have enough campaign contribution money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law is for ALL, even Disney
Irony? I think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is simply a fishing expedition to see how far they can get a certain strategy through the courts. When it comes to internet issues there is no precedent to go on, so agencies will come up with "creative" ways to prosecute cases. The legal councils know that this may or may not be legal but since there is virtually no consequence for agencies who break a law and then claim ignorance they do it anyway.
Law enforcement runs on the mantra of "its better to ask forgiveness than permission." As an added bonus it only takes the "hard glare of the law" to disrupt and ruin a civilians life regardless of conviction, so they still get their man on allegations alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]