ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process

from the just-a-tip dept

Mon, Feb 21st 2011 7:37am — Mike Masnick

While the folks at Homeland Security refused to even admit that they had totally screwed up and seized a domain with 84,000 (mostly legal) websites last week, apparently someone at Homeland Security finally realized that the press wasn't going to keep accepting them refusing to answer questions about it. So, it's finally come clean and admitted they seized all of mooo.com, despite the vast majority of it being legal.

I would think that mooo.com's operator has an incredibly strong legal case against Homeland Security if he decides to bring it.

That said, Homeland Security's statement on the matter is pretty (unintentionally) funny in that it doesn't seem to apologize for this blatant First Amendment violation, nor the lack of due process, but does say that authorities are "reviewing" what happened to avoid future mistakes. Oh really? Here's a simple suggestion:

Try some due process.

It's pretty simple, really. If, rather than just seizing domains with absolutely no notice whatsoever, Homeland Security and the kids at ICE actually had to file a lawsuit and allow for an adversarial hearing before the domain got seized, then somewhere in the process before 84,000 voices got shut up by the US government, someone might have pointed out that most of the content on mooo.com was perfectly legal, and Homeland Security could have focused on the few users who were breaking the law. But, you know, that would involve actually obeying the law, and that seems like way too much for Homeland Security these days.

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 seizures, due process, first amendment, homeland security, ice, mistakes, mooo.com, prior restraint

231 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:45am

On the plus side, at least they've been honest. Not like some other companies I could name in the public eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  Assuming it has fessed up to making a mistake, perhaps it bears mentioning that ICE, which is constantly vilified here, is in fact attempting to not sweep its mistakes under rug in an effort to hide them from the public.
  
  Mistakes happen in any human endeavor, and it seems to me ICE should at the very least receive some modicum of praise for recognizing this in seeking to remediate a mistake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    "is in fact attempting to not sweep its mistakes under rug in an effort to hide them from the public."
    
    Really?! You mean their silence about having done it wasn't hoping the questions would stop? That they are being open and honest that they do what corporations tell them to do and ignore the laws they are supposed to be enforcing? That corporate rights earn you a division of the government to be your personal enforcers who only need the proof of "we said so"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Assuming it has fessed up to making a mistake, perhaps it bears mentioning that ICE, which is constantly vilified here, is in fact attempting to not sweep its mistakes under rug in an effort to hide them from the public."
    
    Hmm, the problem I think is that ICE didn't fess up until the backlash really started getting going. That isn't an honest admission, really, it's just paying lip service (or at least looks that way). More importantly, it doesn't really seem that ICE is looking into the basic problems with what they did in taking down a bunch of protected speech in their "raid"....
    
    "Mistakes happen in any human endeavor, and it seems to me ICE should at the very least receive some modicum of praise for recognizing this in seeking to remediate a mistake."
    
    Well, of course. But two things that are important here.
    
    1. Did ICE really make a mistake, or are they reacting this way now only because they got caught and people are pissed?
    
    2. Are they REALLY going to take the best steps to promoting lawful free exchange of speech and ideas? Or are they going to take steps next time to simply not get caught at what they're doing.
    
    It seems to me that they would have gotten a better reaction and quelled the masses more effectively if they had ACTUALLY come out and admitted what they did. They could have said:
    
    "In trying to fulfill our mandate, we took down a bunch of protected speech. That was wrong, and we understand why. Next time you'll see ICE do things better and we apologize to those whose speech and sites were unduly effected."
    
    Seriously, what could any reasonable person say to that other than "Huh. Well, okay then."?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Seriously, what could any reasonable person say to that other than "Huh. Well, okay then."?"
      
      I know exactly what they would say ... class action lawsuit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, this doesn't pass the laugh or smell test. That's right, it's stinkily funny (or perhaps funnily stinky?).
    
    ICE has concurrently gone on interviews to tout their seizures, and claimed "can't talk because it's ab ongoing investigation" whenever tough questions come up.
    
    These efforts by ICE are certainly subject to mistakes, but that's not why so many take issue with it.
    
    They are fundamentally unsound. They lack procedural oversight, adversarial hearings, or, clearly, even basic QA. As has been demonstrated in countless articles, they lack any technical foundation, either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Assuming it has fessed up to making a mistake, perhaps it bears mentioning that ICE, which is constantly vilified here, is in fact attempting to not sweep its mistakes under rug in an effort to hide them from the public.
    
    ICE tried sweeping it under the rug, it just didn't work. You want us to give ICE two medals: one for seizing all of mooo.com, and then another for a failed attempt to sweep it under the rug? Sounds about right for you guys.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Mistakes happen in any human endeavor, and it seems to me ICE should at the very least receive some modicum of praise for recognizing this in seeking to remediate a mistake."
    
    USA: I say there old chap, I seem to have levelled your country with a nuclear carpet bomb. I'm terribly sorry about that, I was actually aiming for France. Mistakes like this one are inherent to the human nature and all that. Very sorry.
    The receiving end: #&*$%! You NUKED US!
    USA: Hey, no need to be rude. We made a mistake and we apologised. These people have no manners.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh and all you mean people bashing ICE: Stop being so damned cold!
      
      .
      .
      .
      
      (yes, it was meant to be a really bad pun...And now I'm running away)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - coldbrew, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's merely a flesh wound.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "USA: I say there old chap, I seem to have levelled your country with a nuclear carpet bomb. I'm terribly sorry about that, I was actually aiming for France. Mistakes like this one are inherent to the human nature and all that. Very sorry.
      The receiving end: #&*$%! You NUKED US!
      USA: Hey, no need to be rude. We made a mistake and we apologised. These people have no manners."
      
      The receiving end: That's alright. It's only a flesh wound
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Havoc (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Confessed, with LOADS of pressure form the press.
    I also wonder what effect the riots in the Middle East are having on situations like this, and how much longer we lazy Americans will tolerate this treatment before unleashing the same.
    Voting ain't working so well anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "how much longer we lazy Americans will tolerate this"
      
      Madison and to a lesser extent Columbus mean nothing?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Madison and to a lesser extent Columbus mean nothing?"
        
        Thats exactly the opposite. One is about being kept down by an oppressive government, the other about entitlement issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Assuming it has fessed up to making a mistake, perhaps it bears mentioning that ICE, which is constantly vilified here, is in fact attempting to not sweep its mistakes under rug in an effort to hide them from the public.
    
    Um, it refused to discuss this for an entire week, and it knows that the affidavit signed by the magistrate judge was going to come out eventually.
    
    Mistakes happen in any human endeavor, and it seems to me ICE should at the very least receive some modicum of praise for recognizing this in seeking to remediate a mistake.
    
    Yes, mistakes happen in any human endeavor, and if you could avoid those mistakes by *obeying the Constitution* and providing basic due process, I'm sorry, but you don't receive *any* praise for realizing you totally screwed up.
    
    I'm surprised that even you would defend this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      One of the main purposes of due process is to keep these kind of mistakes from happening. It amazes me that more people don't seem to understand that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stuart, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Assuming that they are being vilified for good reason.
    
    To start with they are seizing domains and silencing people with no due process and no notice. Without any recourse available.
    
    Second. They at first attempted to turtle up in the hope that the questions would magically vanish.
    
    Third. They have no intention of fixing the real issue which is that they are constantly tromping on the first amendment rights of US citizens without ANY DUE Process.
    
    On top of that. Their idea of immigration enforcement is to ignore that there is in fact any need for it.
    
    Fuck ICE.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  Public says no.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Deggs, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: At least they've been honest.
  In what way have they been honest?
  
  Due process? Nope...
  
  Hearings? Nope...
  
  Obeying the First ammmendment? Mmm, not that either...
  
  Oh I know, confessing to their mistake right away and reviewing their policies? Oh wait...
  
  They haven't been remotely honest. They have only divulged what they absolutely had to to get the media off their backs.
  
  That's not honesty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:51am

Curious...
In many places, the police third line of funding comes from sales of stolen, er I mean "seized" property. And people just quietly put up with it because they do not want the beating and jail time that comes with standing up for their rights.

So, I guess the ICE couldn't come up with a way to sell these websites for a profit...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: Curious...
  ICE
  
  Insidious Criminal Endeavours
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:53am

It was just a simple mistake. Good to see ICE admit it when they're erred. I do think the sites that were wrongfully taken down might have a cause of action against ICE for the illegal seizure. It'll be interesting to see if anyone files suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hans, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Simple Mistake
  Oh please! It's amazing how the apologists can accept this sort of behavior. These are Law Enforcement Officers, trained in the proper process for carrying out investigations and enforcing the law, not just bumpkins trying "learn as they go". They are well aware of proper legal procedure, and know they are violating both the law and the Constitution.
  
  The right answer is they should clearly admit their mistake and accept a reprimand, or be fired. Plain and simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re: Simple Mistake
    They are well aware of proper legal procedure, and know they are violating both the law and the Constitution.
    
    What makes you think they "know they are violating both the law and the Constitution"? That is a ridiculous claim to make.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
      What makes you think they "know they are violating both the law and the Constitution"? That is a ridiculous claim to make.
      
      Agreed. It is ridiculous to think know a damn thing about the law or the Constitution.
      
      But then, if they haven't got a clue - why are they pushing ahead with this agenda?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        to think they *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        It's ridiculous to think that they don't know about the law or the Constitution. In fact, I can almost guarantee that those responsible for the seizures know more about the law and the Constitution than those of you on Techdirt slamming them for what they did.
        
        It's also ridiculous to say that there's no due process with these seizures. Ex parte seizures of tools used to traffic in child pornography occur all the time--and it doesn't violate the suspected pornographer's due process rights.
        
        Are you guys here to analyze the legality of the seizures, or just to pretend like your definition of due process is the only one that counts? Seems like the latter to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        It's also ridiculous to say that there's no due process with these seizures. Ex parte seizures of tools used to traffic in child pornography occur all the time--and it doesn't violate the suspected pornographer's due process rights.
        
        I know it's called "due process", but with all the abuse of the asset seizure laws, that has been perverted into something that really isn't due process - it's simply punishment prior to a trial without even giving the accused a chance to defend themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Either it violates due process as due process now exists, or it doesn't. Saying that it violates some definition of due process that isn't the current definition is meaningless. That will get you nowhere in a court of law.
        
        How much legal research have you done on exactly what is and what isn't due process vis-a-vis asset seizures? This past weekend alone, I read about 60 different reported cases on the subject.
        
        You are incorrect to state that the accused do not get a chance to defend themselves. That opportunity is afforded in every single forfeiture case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Either it violates due process as due process now exists, or it doesn't. Saying that it violates some definition of due process that isn't the current definition is meaningless. That will get you nowhere in a court of law.
        
        How much legal research have you done on exactly what is and what isn't due process vis-a-vis asset seizures? This past weekend alone, I read about 60 different reported cases on the subject.
        
        I won't comment on the actual legality of all this (IANAL) - I am just saying how it appears to the non-lawyer and it defiantly has the appearance of lacking due process from that view.
        
        You are incorrect to state that the accused do not get a chance to defend themselves. That opportunity is afforded in every single forfeiture case.
        
        Right. Six months down the road. After the punishment has already effectively done it's job. A wee bit late for a defense at that point don't you think?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Six months is a long time, but it's not so long of a time to say that it violates anyone's due process rights. Two cases I read this past weekend dealt with this issue. In one case, the hearing was 8 months later. In the other, it was 11 months later. In both cases it was argued that the delay was too long and due process had been violated. In both cases, they lost that argument. The fact is, when there is a criminal investigation underfoot, the courts will allow the government plenty of time to work on their investigation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Six months is a long time, but it's not so long of a time to say that it violates anyone's due process rights.
        
        Yes, it does. Whether a court will admit it or not.
        
        In both cases it was argued that the delay was too long and due process had been violated. In both cases, they lost that argument.
        
        There have been more and more failures of the courts lately.
        
        The fact is, when there is a criminal investigation underfoot, the courts will allow the government plenty of time to work on their investigation.
        
        Too much, even. Yes, there are definitely problems with the court system. Thanks for pointing them out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Ex parte seizures of tools used to traffic in child pornography occur all the time--and it doesn't violate the suspected pornographer's due process rights.
        
        Oh, so those 84,000 sites taken down were all suspected of trafficking in child pornography, huh? I'm starting to think that you're just a lying sack of sh1t. No, I'm actually pretty sure of it now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I have no idea why you are resorting to personal attacks rather than discussing the issues. If you wish to have an adult conversation, please post accordingly. Else, you make yourself out as one to be ignored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Posting blatant lies is not the way to "have an adult conversation" and is offensive to all those to whom you lie. Don't be surprised if they take it personally.
        
        And, personally, I don't care if you ignore me or not. I'll still call you out for lying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Exactly how have I lied?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        BUT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I have no idea why you are resorting to personal attacks rather than discussing the issues.
        
        considering you have a history of resorting to personal attacks, why would you even bring this up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I have no idea what you're referring to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I have no idea what you're referring to.
        
        Heh, that's funny. Mike has more information than you may realize. I suppose you think 2.5 years of law school makes you an expert on everything, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Playing dumb, as usual?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous a-hole, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        He's playing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I have no idea what you're referring to.
        
        As others have pointed out, even without looking at your IP address (and I have not) it's obvious that you're Average Joe. If you'd like, I'm happy to link to comments you've made while anonymous where you *admit* to being Average Joe, which show the same snowflake... and to comments where you resort to personal attacks on me, including calling me a "fucking idiot."
        
        Would that help shake your memory?
        
        Look, if you want to focus on the issues, that's fine. But don't pretend you're not one of the worst abusers of personal attacks around. It's unbecoming of you to lie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        One AC called another one a "lying sack of shit." The other AC responded that personal attacks were uncalled for. It doesn't matter who it is, Mike. Such behavior is uncalled for and you should point the finger at the person causing the problem, not the person trying to keep the peace.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Guys�Guys!
        
        Yes, Joe can be harsh. And Obstinate. And intransigent. And smug. And some of the things he�s said have caused me to fall asleep crying into my pillow. And I�m glad that Mike keeps track of these things so we can better hold people accountable for their arguments and past behaviors. But this is a new day and it�s after 9a.m. MST and Joe has not attacked anyone yet. That�s a good start.
        You may say I�m a dreamer. But I�m not. So�Although I�m glad that Mike doesn�t forget, I hope we can all forgive. For now. For science.
        
        Now, let�s attack his worthless perspective and ideas!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I should add that if you indeed want to run a forum where ideas are debated without personal attacks, then you should review the posts in this thread. The person who needs a "talking to" is not me, but rather, it is clearly the person I was responding to. Funny how you don't single them out. I'm just an anonymous poster who wishes to have a friendly conversation while remaining anonymous. You should respect that--not admonish it. If you want to point fingers, fine, but point them at the trouble makers, not your friendly guests. That's not how to connect with fans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        That may be true, but then you should not blindly accuse other people of being paedophiles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        That's not how to connect with fans.
        
        I've seen no evidence that you're a fan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Does that mean you're going to encourage others make all the personal attacks they want? Apparently so. That's a shame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Interesting ... today I learned from an AC poster that there is more than one legal definition of due process. The following is what I thought it was.
        
        "A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious."
        -- from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law
        
        Not sure to what the AC was referring, but I imagine is it some hidden clause probably within the Patriot act or some such "emergency powers" act.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        That's not what I was referring to at all. Whether or not ex parte civil in rem seizures pursuant to forfeiture proceedings violate due process is an issue that you can research. Rather than just guess that it violates due process, you could learn what constitutes due process in these scenarios and then build a logical argument from there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        "That's not what I was referring to at all"
        
        - Please, elucidate.
        
        "Rather than just guess that it violates due process ..."
        
        - There was no guessing involved at all. It seems that somehow the rights afforded to all citizens of this country have been diluted. There is no question about this, or maybe you have an argument in support of emergency powers? Nothing to see here, move along - right?
        
        "you could learn what constitutes due process in these scenarios"
        
        - That implies that a persons rights are open to interpretation. This is contrary to what many people have been told and some still believe. One would think that those put in a position of power would abide by the rules as set forward by the constitution they swore to uphold. I understand that court rulings set precedence in their interpretation of what was meant by prior laws and rulings, is that what you were referring to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I don't think you understand. What does or does not violate someone's due process rights seizures and forfeitures has been defined by the courts. The controlling opinion is that of the courts. We can all have our separate opinions, but the one that counts is the one that you can prove in a court of law. The Constitution is vague about exactly what due process means. It is the courts that add color when they interpret its meaning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I don't think you understand. What does or does not violate someone's due process rights seizures and forfeitures has been defined by the courts. The controlling opinion is that of the courts.
        
        Might does not make right. You think it does. We have a difference of opinion.
        
        We can all have our separate opinions, but the one that counts is the one that you can prove in a court of law.
        
        Yes, and I expressed mine. To me, the one that counts is the one that is righteous and, again, might does not make right. Yes, the US gov't is mighty. That does not make everything it does right, even when it claims itself to be right through its own courts.
        
        The Constitution is vague about exactly what due process means. It is the courts that add color when they interpret its meaning.
        
        And courts are not always either right or righteous. For example, some would argue that the American Revolution was clearly illegal, but I would say that it was righteous anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I'm not saying might makes right. I'm simply pointing out that there's legal due process, and then there's everybody's personal interpretation of what due process should be. Pretending like your personal version of due process is the legal definition of due process does not advance the conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Pretending like your personal version of due process is the legal definition of due process does not advance the conversation.
        
        He didn't. Why are you pretending he did?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Neither does your incessant repetition "... but, but, the court says so."
        
        Only you desire for every conversation to be about the current law and it's current interpretation. Other people are here to talk about their beliefs and why they believe some courts have made poor, wrong, incorrect, or misguided choices.
        
        For the last 3 months you have been a broken record.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I'm sure lots of people think the courts have been wrong. I'm also sure lots of people have no idea what the courts have said on these matters, or how the law as it exists would be applied to what's going on here. I'm interested in exploring these issues. I should think that my research facility would be a welcome addition to the discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I should think that my research facility would be a welcome addition to the discussion.
        
        Indeed. But lies are not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Oh, I see. Everyone can do as they please and let the courts sort it all out after the fact.
        
        No, that will not work will it ... try again.
        
        The Government can do as they please and let the courts sort it all out after the fact.
        
        There, that is much better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        That's not at all what I said. All I'm saying is that legal due process is defined by the courts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Did they notify the owners of the seized domain assets already?
        
        Because by law they have to do it 30 to 90 days after the seizure.
        
        After that they are compelled to give the assets back or people changed the law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        That's not true. Notice has to be given within a reasonable time of filing the complaint. Here, the complaint hasn't been filed yet (as far as we know). Only the warrant application has been filed (and approved).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I'd gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Either you are a liar or ignorant which is it?
        
        Quote:
        
        (i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after the date of the seizure.
        
        Source: � 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
        
        More in the case of seizures there is a time limit and upon that point the AG most return the seized property, if no charges are brought.
        
        So go weasel your way with otherr people who don't know better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Either you are a liar or ignorant which is it?
        Quote: (i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after the date of the seizure.
        Source: � 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
        More in the case of seizures there is a time limit and upon that point the AG most return the seized property, if no charges are brought.
        So go weasel your way with otherr people who don't know better.
        
        Again with the needless name-calling and personal attacks. Mike says he wants a site where the issues are debated, not personal attacks. That sounds good to me.
        
        Notice how the law you are quoting applies to a "nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding"? These are JUDICIAL forfeiture proceedings, so that law doesn't apply.
        
        I'm not going to "weasel" my way out of anything, but I'm happy to explain to you that you're looking at the wrong law.
        
        If you'd like to apologize for your attitude, I'd gladly accept your apology. I bet you won't admit that you're wrong though, much less apologize for your rude behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        What court initiated the proceedings, because from where I stand, this whole thing is an ICE initiative hence non-judicial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Also I'm wondering if they are not infringing on illegitimate search and seizures becoming unreasonable.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
        
        The more I look at it the more I see something wrong with it.
        The government can't just go in and take the domains of people accused of something just because they want too, they need to have pretty strong evidence of wrong doing and so far they have shown nothing except for lame distribution claims that have no backing of proof anywhere, and in some cases they even lack jurisdiction over the claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Also I'm wondering if they are not infringing on illegitimate search and seizures becoming unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure The more I look at it the more I see something wrong with it. The government can't just go in and take the domains of people accused of something just because they want too, they need to have pretty strong evidence of wrong doing and so far they have shown nothing except for lame distribution claims that have no backing of proof anywhere, and in some cases they even lack jurisdiction over the claims.
        
        The evidence needed to get the seizure warrant is probable cause. The evidence needed to perfect the forfeiture is preponderance of the evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Hence the lack of proof of any kind.
        
        As the law states just distribution is not enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Quote:
        
        ((F) If the Government does not send notice of a seizure of property in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person from whom the property was seized, and no extension of time is granted, the Government shall return the property to that person without prejudice to the right of the Government to commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time. The Government shall not be required to return contraband or other property that the person from whom the property was seized may not legally possess.
        
        Source: � 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Quote:
        
        (A) Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.
        (B) If the Government does not�
        (i) file a complaint for forfeiture or return the property, in accordance with subparagraph (A); or
        (ii) before the time for filing a complaint has expired�
        (I) obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture; and
        (II) take the steps necessary to preserve its right to maintain custody of the property as provided in the applicable criminal forfeiture statute,
        the Government shall promptly release the property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and may not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of such property in connection with the underlying offense.
        
        Source: � 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
        
        Read the f'ing law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Also there are questions of jurisdiction, international agreements and interests that ICE is ignoring and could have dire consequences to U.S. interests.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        "Whether or not ex parte civil in rem seizures pursuant to forfeiture proceedings violate due process is an issue that you can research."
        
        This is why I hate lawyers, they start throwing Latin around like that makes everything OK. Until they have a court order they have not followed due process, the end.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        These seizures are done pursuant to court orders, so it's incorrect to state otherwise. I'm sorry to throw out the Latin, but my point was that if you want to analyze whether or not these seizures violate legal due process, then you need to learn what legal due process means when it comes to seizures of this type.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        "These seizures are done pursuant to court orders"
        
        Which court ordered seizure of the subject domain(s)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        I don't believe the court order in the mooo.com seizures has been unsealed/released yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        You assume there is one. I guess you just have to take their word for it huh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        Sorry the incorrect part is seizing anything that is not a counterfeit and it is not in jeopardy of being vanquished from the face of the earth to hide something.
        
        See I can make blank statements without any citations too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        As a remedy to threats of eminent evidence destruction, not as a tool to enforce IP laws directly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        "A fundamental, constitutional guarantee...
        
        There's your problem. Constitution, schmonstitution. Promises are made to be broken. Especially political promises. And that's all the constitution is now. An empty political promise. A broken one.
        
        Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, you people have lost it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
        "Words are lies the day they're spoken
        Love's a lifetime's only token
        Words are lies the day they're spoken
        Promises are made to be broken
        They're made to be broken"
        
        -- Information Society, 'Made To Be Broken' 1992
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
      "What makes you think they "know they are violating both the law and the Constitution"? That is a ridiculous claim to make."
      
      How rude, what gives you the right to assert that they are too stupid to not know when they are violating the law and the constitution?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
      by the fact that "ignorance of the law" is NO excuse
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  It was just a simple mistake.
  
  That's what thugs always say when they get caught.
  
  Good to see ICE admit it when they're erred.
  
  Heh, they first tried not to. It was only when it became obvious that they wouldn't get away with that that they finally fessed up.
  
  I do think the sites that were wrongfully taken down might have a cause of action against ICE for the illegal seizure.
  
  MIGHT? Gee, do you really think maybe so?
  
  It'll be interesting to see if anyone files suit.
  
  Especially since lawsuits against the government in its own courts always turn out so great, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, "might," because it's not entirely clear that the domain name could not be seized when one of its subdomains is engaged in child pornography. If you can point me to authority stating that what ICE did is clearly wrong, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, it's only "might."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It works the other way around, I'm sorry.
      
      Can you point me to the authority that says that what ICE did is clearly right?
      
      No? Oh, because they didn't go to any of the authorities they should have! Right! I nearly forgot!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't say it was right, I said it might be right, or it might be wrong. Ex parte seizures of suspected child pornographer's tools have been going on for decades. Whether or not an entire domain name can be seized because one of its subdomains is trafficking in child pornography is an interesting question of law. It's one that I don't think you'll find a clear answer on.
        
        ICE admitted their mistake, and they worked to rectify the error. I'm not convinced that they couldn't have seized the entire domain name. I believe that reinstating the domain name was done for political reasons more so than legal reasons. But either way, they admitted that they made a mistake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm not convinced that they couldn't have seized the entire domain name."
        
        I think they have demonstrated that they indeed do have the capability. What is being discussed here is whether they had the authority. I have yet to see anything which shows from where their authority originates, everything points to a flagrant violation of due process.
        
        Next time why not just seize the entire internet because someone out there somewhere is a criminal and must be stopped in order to save the children.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh course when I speak of whether or not they can do such a seizure, I am only referring to whether or not they can do so legally. That they have the capability is a given.
        
        Seizing the whole internet would be ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. They are seizing the domain names of sites where there is probable cause that child pornography is taking place.
        
        The fact that the targeted sites are subdomains leads to an interesting legal question of whether or not they can seize the entire domain. Like I said, I don't think there's a clear answer either way, and I could see a court coming down on either side of the issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seizing the whole internet would be ridiculous.
        
        Seizing the whole mooo.com domain was also ridiculous.
        
        They are seizing the domain names of sites where there is probable cause that child pornography is taking place.
        
        There you go claiming that there was probable cause that those 84,000 domains were involved in child pornography. I still say you're lying.
        
        The fact that the targeted sites are subdomains leads to an interesting legal question of whether or not they can seize the entire domain.
        
        Like the com domain? x.mooo.com is a subdomain of mooo.com. mooo.com is a subdomain of com.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to be missing the point entirely. The probable cause was that certain subdomains were engaging in child pornography. No one, I repeat, no one is saying that all 84,000 sites were engaged in child pornography.
        
        Looking at xxx.mooo.com, mooo is the domain name, and xxx is the subdomain name. I merely point out that if xxx.mooo.com is trafficking in child pornography, I think it's an open question whether mooo.com itself could be seized.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The probable cause was that certain subdomains were engaging in child pornography. No one, I repeat, no one is saying that all 84,000 sites were engaged in child pornography.
        
        Then why would you possibly think it could go either way in regards to taking 84,000 sites for 10?
        
        And why would you think it wouldn't be possible to target only those sites?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The argument is that if mooo.com is going to allow its domain name to be used for child pornography, then it could lose the right to use its domain name at all, no matter how many subdomains it has that aren't involved in child pornography.
        
        Imagine if I own a hotel. I use 10 hotel rooms for child pornography, but all the rest of the rooms are for regular guests. My entire hotel can be seized because of the crimes being committed in 10 of my rooms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Imagine if I own a hotel. I use 10 hotel rooms for child pornography, but all the rest of the rooms are for regular guests. My entire hotel can be seized because of the crimes being committed in 10 of my rooms.
        
        Not so sure that your analogy is correct. It's more along the lines that a business in City X is being used for crimes and ICE padlocks all of the business doors in the entire city and even worse puts warning stickers on their doors saying they are suspected of trafficking child porn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Several points...
        
        1) I would imagine a hotel could be reasonably closed for a period time for the classic evidence gathering reasons, particularly if you suspect the hotel to be involved (knows about and hides such acts). This is not necessary in the case of these websites, unless you're maybe trying to charge that mooo.com was itself involved, which ICE does not appear to be alleging at all, as recognized by them in admitting they only wanted 10 sites, not the provider as a whole.
        
        2) That same basic reasoning applies just as much to .com, .co.uk, etc. If ICANN is going to let people use .com for child porn, maybe they should lose the right to use such domains at all. 84,000 is certainly not a small number of sites to have the use of their domains taken from them, the majority of which appear undoubtedly to be legal, under the principle that 10 are used for child porn, especially if we're talking about the idea that it's feasible for the likes of mooo.com alone to be able to effectively monitor its domains for such use - and we're talking about a domain provider that must serve tens of thousands of sites here, not merely a single particular site with content like Youtube, Rapidshare etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see, that's just it. If a hotel is being used for crime, then the entire hotel can be seized and forfeited--and not for the purpose of preserving the evidence. The forfeiture is to take away the criminals' tools.
        
        That's all these domain name seizures are doing--they're taking away the criminals' tools. Whether the crime is infringement or child pornography makes no difference. Criminals' tools are subject to seizure and forfeiture.
        
        I have no idea if mooo.com is involved or not since I'm not privy to the investigation. There is an innocent owner defense that could come into play if they in fact are not in on the crime.
        
        If I use my house to make child pornography movies, my house can be seized. If I rent my house to someone who uses it for the same purpose, and I know nothing about it, my house can still be seized. However, I can raise the innocent owner defense and prevent its ultimate forfeiture.
        
        I think that mooo.com itself can be seized, as can any instrument of crime, but ultimately if the owners of the domain name are not involved, the domain name could not be forfeited because the owners are innocent.
        
        That's my take anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see, that's just it. If a hotel is being used for crime, then the entire hotel can be seized and forfeited--and not for the purpose of preserving the evidence. The forfeiture is to take away the criminals' tools.
        
        Now wait a minute... if murder has been committed in one of the rooms in a hotel, they do not close down the whole hotel. Sure they might seal off that one room to preserve evidence, but they don't shut down the whole hotel and boot all the guest onto the street.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're talking about investigating a crime scene. I'm talking about the possessions of the criminal being seized and forfeited. If a court decides to order the hotel seized pending forfeiture, the hotel guests have to find somewhere else to stay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK. You are arguing that these seizures are technically following the process for asset forfeiture. I do not dispute that, they probably are.
        
        My argument is that the whole asset forfeiture procedure is unconstitutional and needs to be changed to be more in-line with what an average citizen sees as due process.
        
        How is that we have let "innocent until proven guilty" morph into "punishment prior to a trial" and "you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The seizure and forfeiture of the criminals' tools is not punishment, it's too prevent those tools from being used to commit further crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The seizure and forfeiture of the criminals' tools is not punishment, it's too prevent those tools from being used to commit further crimes.
        
        Well, I am sure that is what you would like to believe in your comfortable legalize utopia, but in the real world that is not how these laws are actually used.
        
        Try reading up on all the abuse of asset forfeiture laws in the "war on drugs" in the 80's and 90's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm talking about the possessions of the criminal being seized and forfeited."
        
        So the criminal sub-sites owned the moo.com domain?
        wait... surely you meant it was in their control?
        wait... maybe they possessed the domain?
        
        Um - why not sieze JUST the sub-domains used by the criminals... I think all here could agree that would be a much more legal and fair action?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        further though...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the moo.com domain is like a road - sure the criminals used part of it but it would NOT be seized as not their property... and not fundamental to the crime (or the enablement thereof).
        
        There - logic out of that one :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um - why not sieze JUST the sub-domains used by the criminals... I think all here could agree that would be a much more legal and fair action?
        
        My understanding is that you can't just seize the subdomains, not at the registry/registrar level. Only the domain name can be seized, if anything's going to be seized at all.
        
        I'll repeat my analogy from above because I think it's apt. If an apartment complex owner has certain tenants in certain units that are committing crimes, say, cooking meth, then that complex owner might have the whole building seized and forfeited. That's too bad for the other tenants who were not breaking any laws.
        
        The problem is, if I run a domain name where I allow of bunch of people to set up subdomains that break the law, I can be held responsible under certain scenarios. That's all I'm saying here. I don't know what the investigation has turned up with regard to the owners of mooo.com. It's conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My understanding is that you can't just seize the subdomains
        
        Your "understanding" is wrong (and purposely so it seems since it has been explained to you over and over).
        
        I don't know what the investigation has turned up with regard to the owners of mooo.com.
        
        Well, then, why don't you just make something up?
        
        It's conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name.
        
        There! See? I knew you could do it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your "understanding" is wrong (and purposely so it seems since it has been explained to you over and over).
        
        How does one seize a subdomain at the registry/registrar level? Rather than attack me personally, explain how xxx.mooo.com could be seized without seizing mooo.com. Thank you. If you can show me I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does one seize a subdomain at the registry/registrar level? Rather than attack me personally, explain how xxx.mooo.com could be seized without seizing mooo.com. Thank you. If you can show me I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
        
        The operators of mooo.com are the registrar's of the subdomains, so it's seized the same way you seize domains. Whereas seizing xxx.com involves going to VeriSign, seizing xxx.mooo.com means going to mooo.com.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think Versign is safe with their government mandated monopoly of .com. They also "won" the .gov contract a couple weeks ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think Versign is safe with their government mandated monopoly of .com. They also "won" the .gov contract a couple weeks ago.
        
        I'm sure they are sound and safe. I can't even imagine anyone petitioning the courts that every domain name that uses .com be seized because one such website traffics in child pornography. I can see such a petition where several subdomains of the same domain name are found to traffic in the same. Pretending like the two cases are identical stretches credulity. It boggles my mind that that argument is even being advanced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Joe,
        You point out that others seem to insist on debating the law as they would like it to be, instead of as it actually is. It�s your turn, Joe.
        The owners of the .com TLD have �set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and��they��are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains.� It works like that.
        Mooo.com is acting as a registrar. They don�t have to host the subdomains� sites to do this. They have as much control over a.moo.com as Verisign has over moo.com. They�re the registrar.
        
        You do have considerable research facility. I beg you, use it. You�re in a safe place, Joe. We�re here to help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ha ha. mooo.com may be acting as a registrar, but they are not a registrar. I think there's a difference. I think a line is drawn demarcating a domain name acting as a registrar that allows subdomains, and a true registrar that sets up subdomains of a top level domain. If I have time, I'll do some legal research. I won't be surprised if I find nothing directly on point. I'm only arguing how I think courts would deal with this situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ha ha. mooo.com may be acting as a registrar, but they are not a registrar.
        
        You're just one lie after another today, AJ. You tell one to try to get out of another one to get out of another one to...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The operators of mooo.com are the registrar's of the subdomains, so it's seized the same way you seize domains. Whereas seizing xxx.com involves going to VeriSign, seizing xxx.mooo.com means going to mooo.com.
        
        If mooo.com is the only one who can control xxx.mooo.com, then how is mooo.com supposed to hand over control of xxx.mooo.com to the court? It seems to me the problem with subdomains is that they are inexorably tied to the domain name under which they reside. The point of the seizure is to take the tool away from the criminal. If the only way to seize the tool, the subdomain, is to seize the domain name, then that's where the problem lies. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I do think that mooo.com itself could rightfully be seized, if the facts are right. I don't know the facts are here though. As I stated before, I think the domain name was returned for political reasons, not legal ones. That's just my guess though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guys, I think Joe believes that Mooo.com is hosting these sites. If that's true, I may forgive him for being so obstinate.
        Joe,
        Mooo.com does not necessarily host the offending sites. I hope that helps.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that mooo.com isn't hosting the material. They're hosting the server that points people to the material. That role, I believe, gives them some responsibility for the sites they point to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that mooo.com isn't hosting the material. They're hosting the server that points people to the material. That role, I believe, gives them some responsibility for the sites they point to.
        
        That role gives them the responsibility to comply with lawful requests from law enforcement to disable domains under theirs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That role gives them the responsibility to comply with lawful requests from law enforcement to disable domains under theirs.
        
        I suspect their duty reaches farther than that. This evening I'll do some research and see what I can find, if anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 12:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that mooo.com isn't hosting the material. They're hosting the server that points people to the material. That role, I believe, gives them some responsibility for the sites they point to
        
        Do you not realize that VeriSign is hosting the server that points people to the material on .coms as well?
        
        You just don't get it. This is the *same* thing. VeriSign is to .com as mooo is to mooo.com.
        
        It is the registrar for the subdomains. The technical situation is identical, no matter how many times you insist mooo.com is not a registrar, it doesn't make you any less wrong.
        
        In both cases, all VeriSign and mooo.com are doing is creating an entry in a database. Both databases look nearly identical. Translated into English, both say "if someone seeks address x, point them to IP address y."
        
        That's it. Both are registrars. Both serve the same function in the same manner. If mooo.com is liable, so is VeriSign. You can't have it both ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you not realize that VeriSign is hosting the server that points people to the material on .coms as well? You just don't get it. This is the *same* thing. VeriSign is to .com as mooo is to mooo.com. It is the registrar for the subdomains. The technical situation is identical, no matter how many times you insist mooo.com is not a registrar, it doesn't make you any less wrong. In both cases, all VeriSign and mooo.com are doing is creating an entry in a database. Both databases look nearly identical. Translated into English, both say "if someone seeks address x, point them to IP address y." That's it. Both are registrars. Both serve the same function in the same manner. If mooo.com is liable, so is VeriSign. You can't have it both ways.
        
        They're not the same since one is website that allows you to create subdomains, and the other is a bona fide ICANN-accredited registrar.
        
        It comes down to ownership. If I create a subdomain of mooo.com, I don't own it. I merely license it, and it exists at the whim of mooo.com. But if I register a domain name with a bona fide ICANN-accredited registrar, I own the domain name, and it is governed by the ICANN rules.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guys, I think Joe believes that Mooo.com is hosting these sites. If that's true, I may forgive him for being so obstinate.
        
        He's been told otherwise repeatedly, so he doesn't have that excuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If mooo.com is the only one who can control xxx.mooo.com, then how is mooo.com supposed to hand over control of xxx.mooo.com to the court?
        
        The exact same way Verisign would turn over control of mooo.com. How many times does that have to be explained to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, come on! There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack this AC. This is just lazy.
        It is conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name. He's perfectly within the bounds of logic to say that, since we know none of the salient facts.
        
        Your "understanding" is wrong (and purposely so it seems since it has been explained to you over and over).
        
        Please enlighten me as to how ICE could do this. So there's no misunderstanding: I'm not saying they can't. However, I don't see how the mechanics of a domain seizure were explained earlier and I'm curious. You can just copy and paste, if you like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name. He's perfectly within the bounds of logic to say that, since we know none of the salient facts.
        
        Funny then that ICE no longer thinks so, isn't it?
        
        Please enlighten me as to how ICE could do this.
        
        The owners of mooo.com are the registrars for domains under mooo. ICE can go to mooo to get domains registered under them shut down, just as it did when it went to the com registrar to get mooo shut down. It is the exact same process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see, that's just it. If a hotel is being used for crime, then the entire hotel can be seized and forfeited--and not for the purpose of preserving the evidence. The forfeiture is to take away the criminals' tools.
        
        That's all these domain name seizures are doing--they're taking away the criminals' tools. Whether the crime is infringement or child pornography makes no difference. Criminals' tools are subject to seizure and forfeiture.
        
        Except we're not merely removing the tools as they're used by criminals, we're removing the tools as they're used by a disproportionately large amount of innocent users without a process to properly account for that. As a poster argued above, this is far less akin to closing the specific building for evidence gathering reasons, but closing every building operated by said business. Imagine McDonalds having every store shut down for health and safety violations of one branch with no findings or evidence of any company wide problems or violations before hand. Again, if we're going to argue that mooo.com may lose the right to let out its domains for 84,000 sites, then that same thing applies to ICANN - that's giving you a significant power over the web and the ability to seize and attempt to limit or remove access to sites, particularly if you want to do so under the cover that some (a very small minority, particularly compared to legal users) domains are used for child porn or copyright infringement.
        
        ICE has not alleged that mooo.com as a whole is directly involved or implicit in what's happened at these sites, and in recognising this mistake, have apparently admitted this was not their intention, and that's the problem. They are taking a gung ho approach with little checks and balances beyond "This is what we think they're doing, please let us seize away", which in turn brings up the ever contentious first amendment considerations in not making sure what they're doing is properly limited and targeted to the specific crime at hand, and unfairly damaging a significant proportion of people both in service and reputation.
        
        This is far, far, far broader than any run of the mill seizures. Ridiculously so, in fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think that mooo.com itself can be seized, as can any instrument of crime, but ultimately if the owners of the domain name are not involved, the domain name could not be forfeited because the owners are innocent."
        
        Okay, but again, in your previous hotel owner analogy, the feds only sieze the ENTIRE HOTEL if it's the hotel owners that are the criminals. That seems to be the hangup here. If a murder is committed in a hotel by a patron, they tape off the hotel room. They would not take possession of the entire hotel. That only happens if the hotel owners are using their hotel in the commission of the crime.
        
        We've yet to hear any reason to suspect that mooo.com is in any way involved in child porn....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        After thinking about a bit more, I need to refine my analogy.
        
        In effect the mooo.com domain is more like a zip code covering all the subdomains. It's really the only thing grouping the subdomains together. Much like a zip code which can contain everything from the local supermarket to an illegal chop shop. If law enforcement wanted to target the chop shop they simply cannot target every other business in the zip code.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your zip code analogy is off because the different businesses in that zip code have different owners.
        
        It's more like an apartment complex where one owner rents out each unit to a different renter. If that owner has his building seized and forfeited, that's too bad for the renters who occupy the units within--they lose their unit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your zip code analogy is off because the different businesses in that zip code have different owners.
        
        Ummm... The 84,000 sites have different owners, they just use the same service for their web names.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, and if the service they all use gets shut down, they have to move somewhere else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, and if the service they all use gets shut down, they have to move somewhere else.
        
        I think they all used the same internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's more like an apartment complex where one owner rents out each unit to a different renter. If that owner has his building seized and forfeited, that's too bad for the renters who occupy the units within--they lose their unit.
        
        Once again, you are implying that mooo.com did something illegal here. That apparently is not the case here.
        
        To use you apartment analogy - a person in Apt A is commuting a crime, so ICE seizes the entire apartment complex.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        committing *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again, you are implying that mooo.com did something illegal here.
        
        Yeah, he keeps doing that. Low.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you will find, if you check it out, that a lease is not invalidated just because the owner lost ownership....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The argument is that if mooo.com is going to allow its domain name to be used for child pornography, then it could lose the right to use its domain name at all, no matter how many subdomains it has that aren't involved in child pornography.
        
        Yeah, right. And if com "is going to allow its domain name to be used for child pornography, then it could lose the right to use its domain name at all, no matter how many subdomains it has that aren't involved in child pornography", huh?
        
        Imagine if I own a hotel. I use 10 hotel rooms for child pornography, but all the rest of the rooms are for regular guests.
        
        There you go again. You've tried before to accuse the owners of mooo.com itself of being involved in child pornography. I'm getting pretty sick of seeing you make unfounded accusations against the owners of mooo.com, Mike and others without any evidence at all. You're really low.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but honestly, I don't even know what points you're trying to raise. I don't know if mooo.com is suspected of being involved in the child pornography or not. I don't believe I've ever indicated that they are. Either way, I think there is an argument that mooo.com could be seized. Criminals' tools can be seized no matter who owns them. Whether they can ultimately be forfeited is a different matter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but honestly, I don't even know what points you're trying to raise.
        
        Perhaps you should learn the domain name system works then before you start make public pronouncements about it.
        
        I don't know if mooo.com is suspected of being involved in the child pornography or not.
        
        But that sure didn't keep you from comparing them to the owner of a hotel being involved, did it?
        
        Criminals' tools can be seized no matter who owns them. Whether they can ultimately be forfeited is a different matter.
        
        Gosh, I guess that would be the entire internet then. And don't forget the power company that provided the electricity.
        
        Whether they can ultimately be forfeited is a different matter.
        
        Yeah, I guess we might get our internet and electricity back in a few months or years. No harm done as long as we get it back *someday*, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A DOMAIN NAME IS NOT A TOOL
        
        ....any more than the name of a shop is a tool.
        
        You talk about "criminal's tools" again here, once more trying to purposefully conflate a "name" with a "tool".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A DOMAIN NAME IS NOT A TOOL ....any more than the name of a shop is a tool. You talk about "criminal's tools" again here, once more trying to purposefully conflate a "name" with a "tool".
        
        The argument is that the domain name is a tool the criminals use to commit their crimes. The domain name is used to access the sites where the crimes occur. Take away the domain name, and you take away the criminals' ability to commit further crimes using that domain name. It's just like taking away a criminal's gun. He can get another gun and commit crimes with it, but he's not going to use the gun you took away to commit any more crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Take away the domain name, and you take away the criminals' ability to commit further crimes using that domain name. It's just like taking away a criminal's gun. He can get another gun and commit crimes with it, but he's not going to use the gun you took away to commit any more crimes.
        
        And what ICE did was like seizing Smith & Wesson because someone used one of their guns to commit a crime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If Smith and Wesson leased out a bunch of units in an apartment complex, and lots of murders were happening there, then yeah, I'd say that Smith and Wesson's assets could be seized and forfeited. That would be more analogous to what's happening here.
        
        What's not happening here is Dell having assets seized because people might be using Dell computers to traffic in child pornography.
        
        There is a big difference between supplying tools to criminals who take them elsewhere to commit crimes with and having criminals commit crimes under your own roof with the tools you provide them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If Smith and Wesson leased out a bunch of units in an apartment complex, and lots of murders were happening there, then yeah, I'd say that Smith and Wesson's assets could be seized and forfeited.
        
        Well, Smith & Wesson *have* sold lots of units (guns) that have been used in murders, so there you go.
        
        What's not happening here is Dell having assets seized because people might be using Dell computers to traffic in child pornography.
        
        Why not? It would make just about as much sense.
        
        There is a big difference between supplying tools to criminals who take them elsewhere to commit crimes with and having criminals commit crimes under your own roof with the tools you provide them.
        
        None of the sites were hosted by mooo, so nothing was "happening under their own roof" as you keep trying to imply. If crimes were committed, they were committed elsewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree. I believe that if mooo.com allows subdomains to be created under their domain name, they could face certain liabilities for those users' activities. It's the concept of vicarious liability. They have the ability to control the activity and they profit from it. The subdomains exist under mooo.com's roof--that is, their domain name.
        
        You can't just set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and then pretend like you are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains. It doesn't work like that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't just set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and then pretend like you are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains. It doesn't work like that.
        
        Why not? Let's say I pay for a post office box from The UPS Store and have heroin delivered to me there - is The UPS Store responsible? And should law enforcement then be able to seize the other 600 post office boxes in that store, even if The UPS Store had no knowledge of anything unlawful happening?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why not? Let's say I pay for a post office box from The UPS Store and have heroin delivered to me there - is The UPS Store responsible? And should law enforcement then be able to seize the other 600 post office boxes in that store, even if The UPS Store had no knowledge of anything unlawful happening?
        
        That's a good hypothetical, but mail is a bit different since the UPS store has no authority to open anyone's mail. A domain name that allows subdomains is different, because there is the right and ability to control what happens on those subdomains.
        
        The other issue is knowledge. I have no idea what the investigation here turned up. Did mooo.com know anything about the child pornography subdomains? I don't think we know that either way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's a good hypothetical, but mail is a bit different since the UPS store has no authority to open anyone's mail.
        
        Why is mail different in the electronic world? I would bet that a lot of those subdomains have email services attached to their web address. Are you saying that privacy on the internet doesn't legally exist?
        
        Also, you say that The UPS Store has no authority to open anyone's mail. Mooo.com doesn't have the authority to change anything on someone else's server either. All they can do is shutdown the subdomain name, just like all The UPS Store can do is cancel your post office box account.
        
        A domain name that allows subdomains is different, because there is the right and ability to control what happens on those subdomains.
        
        I don't think that is quite right. All these subdomains get from mooo.com is an address, I believe. The servers and content are not hosted with mooo.com, so where actually is this ability to control?
        
        The other issue is knowledge. I have no idea what the investigation here turned up. Did mooo.com know anything about the child pornography subdomains? I don't think we know that either way.
        
        True. But, seeing that DHS/ICE very quickly restored the subdomains indicates that mooo.com was not the target.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        mooo.com can look at the sites they allow to be set up under their domain name and determine that they host child pornography. The ability to control is the ability to revoke the subdomain when they find illegal sites. I agree that mooo.com wasn't perhaps the target, but as I've said, I don't know if that was for legal reasons or because they didn't want a bunch of bad press.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        mooo.com can look at the sites they allow to be set up under their domain name and determine that they host child pornography.
        
        Sure, just like Verisign can look at the sites they allow to be set up under com and determine that they host child pornography.
        
        The ability to control is the ability to revoke the subdomain when they find illegal sites.
        
        Just like Verisign with com. Same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tool- ...
        2.
        a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function c : a means to an end
        
        A thing is a tool in as much as it is useful in facilitating an activity. (i.e. Religion is a tool of the oppressor.)
        
        What exactly would be your point, anyway? If it's a tool, taking it away poses a hardship. If it's not a tool, what is it that it should be so important? Where are you going with this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't really follow you. The domain name is a tool used to access the site where the crime takes place. Taking away the domain name means that specific tool can no longer be used to commit crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Domain Name System is an international agreement, it should not fall into any one countries laws but need to be regulated by an international body with international jurisdiction or face caos as everyone would start building their own, so that tool you call it is not to be meddle by low level burocrats or you will face angry governments.
        
        See Pakistan? They got tired of all the drones flying in into their airspace and jailed and American now.
        
        With that said, domain names are road signs, they point to things and people responsible for them would have hard time tracking billions of websites to see what infringes any law in the world. Taking away that is an exercise in futility and only serves to create anger and disrupt the normal operations of the internet, if you think that is a good idea they should seize the IP numbers that are sold too, but I want to see anybody try to seize blocks of IP numbers from ISP's it is not going to happen without a big fight is it now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one, I repeat, no one is saying that all 84,000 sites were engaged in child pornography.
        
        You just did right up above where you said "They are seizing the domain names of sites where there is probable cause that child pornography is taking place" when talking about the 84,000 domains. You've now been called on that lie. Backpedal all you want, it won't make it go away.
        
        Looking at xxx.mooo.com, mooo is the domain name, and xxx is the subdomain name.
        
        You seem to ignorant of the hierarchical structure of the domain name system. xxx.mooo.com is a domain name under mooo.com. mooo.com is a domain name under com. If xxx.mooo.com being used for illegal activity justifies seizing mooo.com, then it would also justify seizing com. So, either ICE had no justification to seize mooo.com or they were negligent in not going ahead and seizing com also. Trying to have it both ways is the height of hypocrisy. Congratulations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I apologize if I was unclear, but I most certainly am not lying. There is probable cause that subdomains were being used for child pornography. If a subdomain is being used for such purposes, then so is the domain name. I think that use of a subdomain perhaps justifies seizure of the entire domain name. As indicated, I think there are arguments for either side of that debate.
        
        I disagree that if xxx.mooo.com is being used for child pornography and that mooo.com can be seized, then that means that all .com addresses could be seized. That makes zero sense to me since all the other domain names that use .com are not involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I disagree that if xxx.mooo.com is being used for child pornography and that mooo.com can be seized, then that means that all .com addresses could be seized. That makes zero sense to me since all the other domain names that use .com are not involved."
        
        Well, okay, but doesn't it follow then that the only justification for seizing all subdomains is if mooo.com is involved? Otherwise it looks like you're just abritrarily saying that .com is too big to seize. Because all the innocent subdomains can make the exact same claim as you did in your last sentence, just one level down the pipeline....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I apologize if I was unclear, but I most certainly am not lying.
        
        Your words are right up there for all to see. And I think their meaning was pretty clear. You miscalculated as to whether anyone would call you on it.
        
        There is probable cause that subdomains were being used for child pornography. If a subdomain is being used for such purposes, then so is the domain name.
        
        com is a domain name. mooo.com is a subdomain under com. xxx.mooo.com is a subdomain under mooo.com. If xxx.mooo.com makes mooo.com guilty, then mooo.com makes com guilty.
        
        I think that use of a subdomain perhaps justifies seizure of the entire domain name.
        
        Then that would justify the seizure of com.
        
        I disagree that if xxx.mooo.com is being used for child pornography and that mooo.com can be seized, then that means that all .com addresses could be seized.
        
        What you said right up above means just exactly that.
        
        That makes zero sense to me since all the other domain names that use .com are not involved.
        
        And all the other domain names that use mooo.com are likewise not involved. However, seizing mooo seemed to make perfect sense to you. Your inconsistency indicates to me that your position is not based on any basic principle other than a desire to try to justify ICE's actions in this case by any means possible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .com is a top level domain. mooo.com is a domain name. xxx.mooo.com is a subdomain.
        
        xxx.mooo.com can make mooo.com guilty. It cannot make all .com domains guilty, since other .com domains have nothing to do with mooo.com.
        
        It's really not that hard to understand.
        
        I'm sorry if you're misunderstanding me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .com is a top level domain. mooo.com is a domain name. xxx.mooo.com is a subdomain.
        
        No, that is incorrect. com, mooo, and xxx are all domain names. com is a top level domain name, mooo.com is a second level, xxx.mooo.com is a third level, yyy.xxx.mooo.com is a fourth level, zzz.yyy.xxx.mooo.com is a fifth level, and so on.
        
        Of course, this has already been explained to you and yet you continue to say otherwise. That's beyond ignorance, that's just plain lying (again). You're really on a roll today, aren't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I apologize if I've been using the incorrect terminology. No need to say I'm lying if I'm simply mistaken. Whether or not my terms are incorrect does not change the thrust of my argument.
        
        I'm looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System#Domain_name_syntax
        
        It appears you are correct. In xxx.mooo.com, com is the TLD, mooo is a subdomain of com, and xxx is a subdomain of mooo.
        
        Again, none of this changes the validity of my argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        xxx.mooo.com can make mooo.com guilty. It cannot make all .com domains guilty, since other .com domains have nothing to do with mooo.com.
        
        *sigh* And xxx.mooo.com has nothing to do with other yyy.mooo.com sites.
        
        Same thing. Same reason why one .com has nothing to do with another, one subdomain at mooo.com has nothing to do with another.
        
        Seriously, stop repeating such ignorance. The relationship between one .com to another is *the same relationship* as one subdomain on mooo.com to another.
        
        They are the same exact thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are related because they are all subdomains of the same domain name. If a subdomain gets in trouble, then that could affect the domain name and any other subdomain names under that domain name.
        
        No need to profess my "ignorance." That's not how you lead a productive conversation. I understand your argument, I just disagree. Telling people to "stop repeating such ignorance" is not good leadership on your part, especially if you really want to promote positive discussion of issues.
        
        If you allowed users to set up their own subdomains, such as childporn.techdirt.com, then you as owner of techdirt.com could be affected. So could any other person who set up a subdomain, whether that subdomain is illegal or not. Liability doesn't extend to everyone who uses a .com or uses the internet or uses electricity. It doesn't spread out to ridiculous limits as you suggest. The fact is, if subdomains of techdirt.com are being used for crime, then techdirt.com itself could be seized as a result. You, as owner of techdirt.com, could suffer the consequences of your users' actions. So too could other innocent users of subdomains of techdirt.com.
        
        Again, I know you do not agree. But please, allow me to express a view that differs from your own without resorting to name-calling. You do want to promote discussion of the issues, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It doesn't spread out to ridiculous limits as you suggest.
        
        It is you who has been suggesting ridiculous limits.
        
        Again, I know you do not agree. But please, allow me to express a view that differs from your own without resorting to name-calling. You do want to promote discussion of the issues, don't you?
        
        You are entitled to your own "view", but that doesn't cover blatant lying. You don't even have the excuse of ignorance any more, since it's all been explained to you. You're just digging your hole deeper, AJ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are related because they are all subdomains of the same domain name. If a subdomain gets in trouble, then that could affect the domain name and any other subdomain names under that domain name.
        
        Same way as setting up a .com gets you in trouble, it could affect all .coms. Same thing.
        
        No need to profess my "ignorance." That's not how you lead a productive conversation. I understand your argument, I just disagree. Telling people to "stop repeating such ignorance" is not good leadership on your part, especially if you really want to promote positive discussion of issues.
        
        If it's pointing out someone being ignorant, then it's perfectly reasonable position to take. Your position is one of ignorance. That it has been explained to you and you continue to stand by the position means you should be called on for ignorance.
        
        If you allowed users to set up their own subdomains, such as childporn.techdirt.com, then you as owner of techdirt.com could be affected. So could any other person who set up a subdomain, whether that subdomain is illegal or not. Liability doesn't extend to everyone who uses a .com or uses the internet or uses electricity. It doesn't spread out to ridiculous limits as you suggest.
        
        I'm confused how you could think that it does spread in one case, but not the other.
        
        The difference between xxx.techdirt.com and yyy.techdirt.com is no different than the difference between xxx.com and yyy.com.
        
        It's the *same* thing, despite your ignorance.
        
        The fact is, if subdomains of techdirt.com are being used for crime, then techdirt.com itself could be seized as a result.
        
        That same reasoning means that if subdomains of .com are being used for a crime, then .com itself could be seized as a result.
        
        Get it yet?
        
        Again, I know you do not agree. But please, allow me to express a view that differs from your own without resorting to name-calling. You do want to promote discussion of the issues, don't you?
        
        This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of facts. And you're wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The difference between xxx.techdirt.com and yyy.techdirt.com is no different than the difference between xxx.com and yyy.com.
        
        In the example of xxx.techdirt.com and yyy.techdirt.com, both are websites set up under the control of techdirt.com. techdirt.com bears some responsibility for what happens on those subdomains, and what happens on one can lead to consequences for the other.
        
        Do you honestly think that you could have child pornography on childporn.techdirt.com, but then blog.techdirt.com would be untouchable?
        
        In the example of xxx.com and yyy.com, there is no relation between the two sites other than that they both share the same registry, VeriSign.
        
        I feel you are stretching things logically beyond their breaking point to arrive at your conclusion. There is a difference between two websites controlled by the same company, say techdirt, and two unrelated websites that share the same generic top level domain.
        
        A big difference.
        
        Even if the subdomains under the techdirt.com domain name are user-generated, techdirt.com itself bears some responsibility for what happens there.
        
        Again, I understand you disagree, but to pretend that what you're saying is fact and that there is no other possible interpretation is very presumptuous. I accept the possibility that you may be correct. You should try doing the same for your fans and readers.
        
        And, yes, Mike, I'm a fan. A skeptical one, and at times a very angry one, but a fan nonetheless.
        
        I'd like to be able to present different views without you demanding that they are per se wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the example of xxx.techdirt.com and yyy.techdirt.com, both are websites set up under the control of techdirt.com.
        
        No, they are not (unless techdirt just so happens to own them). Techdirt can pull their domain names, but, other than that, techdirt does not necessarily have any control over them. You just keep saying untrue stuff.
        
        Do you honestly think that you could have child pornography on childporn.techdirt.com, but then blog.techdirt.com would be untouchable?
        
        Do you honestly think that you could have child pornography on childporn.com, but then blog.com would be untouchable? Hey, they're both "subdomains" ( as you like to call them) of com!
        
        There is a difference between two websites controlled by the same company, say techdirt, and two unrelated websites that share the same generic top level domain.
        
        The 84,000 domains registered under mooo were not controlled by mooo. Statements to the contrary are untrue. Congratulations. If you had any credibility before, I think it's just about evaporated.
        
        I'd like to be able to present different views without you demanding that they are per se wrong.
        
        You aren't presenting different views, you're presenting false statements. Big difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they are not (unless techdirt just so happens to own them). Techdirt can pull their domain names, but, other than that, techdirt does not necessarily have any control over them. You just keep saying untrue stuff.
        
        But that's just it. Techdirt does own all subdomains of techdirt.com, since Techdirt is not a bona fide registrar. In that scenario, only one true registration has taken place, and that's when Techdirt registered techdirt.com with a registry. If techdirt.com allows users to set up subdomains, they bear some responsibility for those subdomains. Techdirt is ultimately responsible for anything that happens on the techdirt.com domain name.
        
        Do you honestly think that you could have child pornography on childporn.com, but then blog.com would be untouchable? Hey, they're both "subdomains" ( as you like to call them) of com!
        
        Yes, blog.com would be untouchable because it has nothing to do with childporn.com. The buck stops at the bona fide registry.
        
        The 84,000 domains registered under mooo were not controlled by mooo. Statements to the contrary are untrue. Congratulations. If you had any credibility before, I think it's just about evaporated.
        
        mooo.com had total control over the subdomains. They could take them down at any time.
        
        You aren't presenting different views, you're presenting false statements. Big difference.
        
        I'm presenting different views. I am stating what I believe to be true. Why are you acting the way you are? It's rather ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Techdirt does own all subdomains of techdirt.com
        
        No more than Verisign owns all domains registered under com.
        
        Techdirt is not a bona fide registrar
        
        Techdirt is indeed the registrar of the techdirt.com domain. Tell all the lies you want, it won't change that fact.
        
        Yes, blog.com would be untouchable because it has nothing to do with childporn.com. The buck stops at the bona fide registry.
        
        The registry in this case being mooo.com.
        
        mooo.com had total control over the subdomains.
        
        Onother lie. If mooo had "total control" they would be able to edit the content. They didn't and they couldn't.
        
        I'm presenting different views. I am stating what I believe to be true. Why are you acting the way you are? It's rather ridiculous.
        
        You're making false statements of fact. If you ever get to be a lawyer someday, give that a try in court. Just go in there and make a bunch of false statements of fact and then try to pull that "my view" crap on the judge. I expect you'll find your butt in a cell where you can contemplate your "views".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No more than Verisign owns all domains registered under com.
        
        That's simply not true. Each company that registers a .com domain name owns that domain name, and what happens on one .com address has nothing to do with what happens on a different .com address.
        
        The difference here is that a domain name owner owns all of its subdomains. xxx.mooo.com and yyy.mooo.com have the same owner.
        
        If a company like mooo.com allows users to create subdomains, then mooo.com owns those subdomains. The subdomain users are licensees of the domain name owner, but they are not themselves owners.
        
        This fact is evidenced in their FAQ. It states: "Administration of these domains is done by myself on a case by case basis as reported to me. If someone is abusing a hostname by using it with spamming or malicious or otherwise illegal activity, upon me receiving such a report the account will be investigated and locked down."
        
        Source: http://freedns.afraid.org/faq/#3
        
        If the subdomain user truly owned the subdomain, then the owner of mooo.com would not be able to shut them down like that.
        
        That proves two things: (1) that the subdomains are owned by mooo.com, and (2) that the subdomains are controlled by mooo.com.
        
        Techdirt is indeed the registrar of the techdirt.com domain. Tell all the lies you want, it won't change that fact.
        
        Techdirt is not a registrar. Registrars are accredited, commercial ventures that manage domain names. Registrars offer registration services to the public. I think you are confused.
        
        The registry in this case being mooo.com.
        
        mooo.com is not a registry or a registry operator. That would be VeriSign. Nor are they a registrar. Registrars are accredited, commercial ventures that contract with the registry. mooo.com does not contract with VeriSign to supply domain names to the public. It simply allows others to create subdomains under its domain name. I think the difference is obvious, but apparently you don't see it.
        
        Onother lie. If mooo had "total control" they would be able to edit the content. They didn't and they couldn't.
        
        Control in the legal sense means the ability to shut down. Hence the language quoted above from their FAQ indicating that they reserve the right to shut down rogue sites.
        
        You're making false statements of fact. If you ever get to be a lawyer someday, give that a try in court. Just go in there and make a bunch of false statements of fact and then try to pull that "my view" crap on the judge. I expect you'll find your butt in a cell where you can contemplate your "views".
        
        No, I'm making reasoned analysis, which apparently, upsets you greatly. A little advice, you'd come across with a lot more credibility if you dropped the attitude and acted friendly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 12:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No more than Verisign owns all domains registered under com.
        
        That's simply not true.
        
        Yes, it is true. It is the same.
        
        Each company that registers a .com domain name owns that domain name, and what happens on one .com address has nothing to do with what happens on a different .com address.
        
        Holders of domain names under com merely pay a fee to use it for a time. After that, Verisign quits letting them use it. And what happens on xxx.mooo.com has nothing to do with yyy.mooo.com.
        
        If a company like mooo.com allows users to create subdomains, then mooo.com owns those subdomains. The subdomain users are licensees of the domain name owner, but they are not themselves owners.
        
        Verisign simply allows users to create domains under com as well. Verisign still has it and that is why ICE goes to them to seize it.
        
        This fact is evidenced in their FAQ. It states: "Administration of these domains is done by myself on a case by case basis as reported to me. If someone is abusing a hostname by using it with spamming or malicious or otherwise illegal activity, upon me receiving such a report the account will be investigated and locked down."
        
        You're just talking about company policies now.
        
        If the subdomain user truly owned the subdomain, then the owner of mooo.com would not be able to shut them down like that.
        
        By that argument, .com domain "owners" don't their domains either because Verisign can shut them down (as they did with mooo.com).
        
        Techdirt is not a registrar. Registrars are accredited, commercial ventures that manage domain names. Registrars offer registration services to the public. I think you are confused.
        
        Registrars *can* be accredited. Whether techdirt chooses to offer domain names under techdirt is up to Mike and company.
        
        mooo.com is not a registry or a registry operator.
        
        They are for names under mooo.com.
        
        mooo.com does not contract with VeriSign to supply domain names to the public.
        
        Of course not (under mooo.com). Why would they? They don't need to! Verisign has no authority to issue domain names under mooo.com, only mooo.com does.
        
        I think the difference is obvious, but apparently you don't see it.
        
        No, you're just making stuff up. Namely lies (as usual).
        
        Control in the legal sense means the ability to shut down.
        
        So that's what you're calling "total control"? In that case then, Verisign has "total control" over domains under com, doesn't it? Which would make them responsible for anything .com domain did, according to your own arguments.
        
        No, I'm making reasoned analysis, which apparently, upsets you greatly.
        
        Lies don't count as "reasoned analysis". And I'm not "greatly upset", just pointing out your continued lies. That, however, *does* seem to upset you.
        
        A little advice, you'd come across with a lot more credibility if you dropped the attitude and acted friendly.
        
        So what's not friendly? See, we're a team, AJ. You tell the lies, and I point them out. I couldn't do it without you!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        VeriSign shut down mooo.com pursuant to a court order. They had no choice. mooo.com can shut down a subdomain because they feel like it. VeriSign cannot revoke a domain name because they feel like it. One is a bona fide ICANN-accredited registrar that allows users to create domain names that they own. The other is a website that lets uses create subdomains that they don't own and that can be taken away from them at any time for any reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        VeriSign shut down mooo.com pursuant to a court order. They had no choice.
        
        Mooo can do the same thing. They wouldn't have a choice either.
        
        mooo.com can shut down a subdomain because they feel like it. VeriSign cannot revoke a domain name because they feel like it.
        
        That all depends on the particulars of the agreement worked out between the parties. Mooo and Verisign both have things in their agreements that let them revoke domain names. Verisign *can* revoke a domain name if they feel like it, but if it runs counter to the agreement they have with the holder then they can be sued. Same thing with Mooo.
        
        One is a bona fide ICANN-accredited registrar that allows users to create domain names that they own.
        
        Mooo doesn't need ICANN accreditation because because they aren't selling names for ICANN.
        
        The other is a website that lets uses create subdomains...
        
        Ummm, Verisign has a website too.
        
        I'm tire of arguing with you, AJ. It's a waste of time as you've been completely discredited and shown to be a huge liar. My work is done. Go ahead, get your last word now...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll only say that when you disagree with someone, that doesn't make the other person a liar. You can simply disagree like a gentleman. I've enjoyed the debate. Have a good one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kirk (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The 84,000 domains registered under mooo were not controlled by mooo. Statements to the contrary are untrue. Congratulations. If you had any credibility before, I think it's just about evaporated.
        mooo.com had total control over the subdomains. They could take them down at any time.
        
        Is that your test, Joe? Is that what makes someone liable?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree that if xxx.mooo.com is being used for child pornography and that mooo.com can be seized, then that means that all .com addresses could be seized. That makes zero sense to me since all the other domain names that use .com are not involved.
        
        Huh? If you are claiming that mooo.com can be seized, that's the *exact* same thing as saying all .com's can be seized. After all it's just a couple of subdirectories of mooo.com being used, just as it's just a couple of .com domains being used.
        
        To argue that it's different is to show an ignorance of how domain names work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not the "exact same thing." I'm perplexed that you are even making the argument. If mooo.com is being sloppy and allowing a bunch of sites to traffic in child pornography using their domain name, then mooo.com is opening itself up to seizure. That doesn't mean that every other .com in the world would also be open to the same liability. techdirt.com has nothing to do with what's happening on mooo.com. Subdomains of mooo.com are different beasts than every single domain name that uses the .com TLD.
        
        To argue that it's not different is to show an ignorance of how domain names work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not the "exact same thing." I'm perplexed that you are even making the argument.
        
        Your perplexion may be arising from your ignorance.
        
        If mooo.com is being sloppy and allowing a bunch of sites to traffic in child pornography using their domain name, then mooo.com is opening itself up to seizure.
        
        Continuing with your vile smear job, I see. There's been no indication that mooo was even aware of any child porn there, much less that they allowed it.
        
        Still, that's like saying "If com is being sloppy and allowing a bunch of sites to traffic in child pornography using their domain name, then com is opening itself up to seizure."
        
        techdirt.com has nothing to do with what's happening on mooo.com.
        
        And a.mooo.com has nothing to do with what's happening on b.mooo.com either.
        
        To argue that it's not different is to show an ignorance of how domain names work.
        
        That has go to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mirradric, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can we further the argument to "." and do away with DNS all together. Let's do our ip mapping manually.. yeah!!
        
        Maybe if we use an analogy you'll be able to understand this better.
        
        Now, let's imagine that a top level domain such as .com to be a very large building. In this case, moo.com would be like a unit in the building. Let's also assume that unit owners are free to sub-lease their units to others. xxx.moo.com and yyy.moo.com would be such examples. let's assume that these sub-units are also free to sub-lease their sub-units to others, creating fourth level domains like ttt.yyy.moo.com.
        
        This can go on ad infinitum.
        
        Can you see that the building owner is just leasing out a unit just like the owner of moo.com is leasing out a unit.
        
        Perhaps framing this in terms of country specific top level domains will allow AC to digest this more readily.
        Consider moo.com.us using the analogy above. It should be obvious that in this case .com itself is a sublease of the top level domain .us, conceptually not much different from xxx.moo.com and moo.com or moo.com and .com.
        
        Let's hope that we'll not need to bring up the concept or the root domain/zone and explain the whole name resolving process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh crap.
        
        The PARENT DOMAIN is a friggen ROAD leading to the friggen HOTEL in which a crime was committed.
        
        ITS JUST A ROAD!
        
        Now please explain why a road was siezed after a crime was committed in a hotel room??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > No one, I repeat, no one is saying
        > that all 84,000 sites were engaged
        > in child pornography.
        
        So why should they all be punished for the actions of a few? That's a kindergarten approach to government and I expect better from mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Seizing the whole internet would be ridiculous"
        
        Kill Switch? I agree it is not funny.
        
        Although recent news claims the US has relinquished control of ICANN etc ... the capability exists to impact much more than what lies with its borders. Just sayin ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The "kill switch" would not be used to shut down the whole internet because some subdomain of mooo.com is alleged to be engaged in child pornography. So yes, it's quite ridiculous to be thinking that it would be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The "kill switch" would not be used to shut down the whole internet because some subdomain of mooo.com is alleged to be engaged in child pornography."
        
        Really?
        When everything is smoothed over with a simple My Bad - Why not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Best not to have a person with zero trust saying that, like you, don't you think?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Seizing the whole internet would be
        > ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're
        > being serious or not. They are seizing
        > the domain names of sites where there
        > is probable cause that child pornography
        > is taking place.
        
        The same argument could be made for the internet as a whole: there's child porn taking place on the internet, so it's wholly seizable.
        
        It illustrates the absurdity of seizing 84,000 innocent sites in order to stop a half-dozen bad actors.
        
        If you're going to use a sledge-hammer to swat a fly, why does it matter how big that sledge-hammer is?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  How is knocking 84,000 websites offline a simple mistake? I'll tell you. The morons at ICE responsible for seizing Internet domains are completely clueless. First they go after the torrent sites at the request of Hollywood, then they go after the sports streaming sites at the request of major sports, then they finally get around to going after child porn. Where the fuck are their priorities? Why didn't they go after the pedophiles first? In fact, if they are so keen on making the Internet safer, why isn't their main focus child porn? Oh wait, I know why, because ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has fuck-all to do with Sports, movies or child porn.
  
  ICE is so fucking clueless they have no fucking idea what their mandate is. So how can you expect them to actually do their job right if they don't even know what it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    So if the child porn sites were taken down first, you'd be all good with this?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It'd be easier to forgive them for certain. At least then I might imagine a scenario where I could possibly have sympathy for them.
      As it is, they definitely tipped their agenda with the ordering of events.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're making all sorts of unfounded assumptions. Perhaps the child pornography investigations have been going on longer than the copyright infringement/trademark infringement investigations that led to similar seizures. You're assuming you know what's going on just so you can slam them for it. It's not productive, and it only reveals your agenda, not theirs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're making all sorts of unfounded assumptions. Perhaps the child pornography investigations have been going on longer than the copyright infringement/trademark infringement investigations that led to similar seizures.
        
        There you go, making unfounded assumptions. It's not productive, and it only reveals your agenda.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What assumption did I make? And how does your post add anything of value to this conversation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What assumption did I make?
        
        Look at your previous comment in this thread. It's there for all to see. Try switching to threaded view if you're confused.
        
        And how does your post add anything of value to this conversation?
        
        Pointing out hypocrisy is valuable. Why would you think it isn't?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again. I don't follow you. If you want to point out my alleged hypocrisy, I'd be happy to address it. Use quotes rather than telling me to look above. That would help me understand what you're looking at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        qyiet (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What assumption did I make?
        Seeing as you Everything after the word "perhaps".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Spaceboy (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? You want to know what my fucking agenda is? It's to get ICE to do its job instead of some bullshit knee-jerk reaction to their failed torrent-site takedown program. When they have the immigration and customs part locked down, then they can move on to other things. That's my agenda, seeing them do their mandate, not branching off on tangents they have ZERO business being in.
        
        I am angry because ICE doesn't give two shits about child porn. When they started taking down all the torrent and media sites, they started to take heat for it. So now they announce an operation where they take down a few child porn sites and 84,000 legitimate sites while calling it a success. This was done to make themselves look better in our eyes and to pat themselves on the back.
        
        Lastly, who was arrested for these child porn websites? All that manpower and time and energy surely resulted in some arrests...right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:38am

From the InformationWeek article:

"During the course of a joint DHS and DOJ law enforcement operation targeting 10 Web sites providing explicit child pornographic content, a higher level domain name and linked sites were inadvertently seized for a period of time," an ICE spokepserson said in an e-mailed statement.

Translation: "We took out 84,000 websites in an attempt to see what we can get away with under the banner of "Protecting the Children" since people were starting to complain about us doing it under the "But..but..Piracy" banner."

"Those sites were restored as soon as possible to normal functionality."

Translation: "We restored them as soon as we realized that people really won't let us do whatever we want under the banner of "Protecting the children". We will try the "Stopping Terrorism" banner next. Stay tuned."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

ICE IS BEING ATTACKED.... SCRAMBLE TAM, SCRAMBLE TAM IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

The Ironfisted Communist Enclave finally admitted it was wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  "Communist": I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    I laughed, it is a funny comment.
    
    However, it would be more correct if the word Fascist could fit in there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:41am

What tends to get ignored here is that mooo.com was restored long before there was any "public uprising". With the collection of other seizures made by ICE in the last little while, there are plenty of people ready to jump all over them. But in this case, the fixed a problem before most people knew of a problem.

What I do see is plenty of bloggers and the usual "but... but... CENSORSHIP!" types ringing their hands and acting like they accomplished something, when it fact it was already done long before they got there. Sort of like a bunch of virtual ambulance chasers, they got there and found no bodies to pick up, so just acted like there had something and went with it.

I am still trying to figure out why Mike Masnick seems to want to support freedom for law breakers. It's an odd place to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  I am still trying to figure out why Mike Masnick seems to want to support freedom for law breakers. It's an odd place to stand.
  
  No one is supporting freedom for lawbreakers. Most all of us here believe that everyone should follow the law - including government agencies.
  
  Remember your comment (if/when) these seizures are found to be unlawful and I will expect you to be on the side calling for the harshest punishment allowed against ICE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    This on a site that supports copyright violators left and right, supports the sites that clearly aim to provide that material, and those who strive to make sure those sites stay online.
    
    If ICE goes to a judge and shows cause, they can get a warrant. That is the law, the start of due process. What is proposed on Techdirt is that the internet be allowed to continue at it's pace, while the case is tried through the courts, dragging often for years (anyone have a final result on Jammie Thomas?), all the while allowing the illegal acts to continue.
    
    Perhaps it would just be easier and cheaper to throw their arms up and stop enforcing the law altogether, as the end results are very similar. Then the file traders, the trademark violators, the child porn distributors, and the various other nasties out there can enjoy themselves (and their victims) in peace.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If ICE goes to a judge and shows cause, they can get a warrant. That is the law, the start of due process. What is proposed on Techdirt is that the internet be allowed to continue at it's pace, while the case is tried through the courts, dragging often for years (anyone have a final result on Jammie Thomas?), all the while allowing the illegal acts to continue.
      
      This has been explained to you in the past, but a preliminary injunction following an adversarial hearing can be done quite quickly. In this case, it would have avoided violating the First Amendment rights of tens of thousands of individuals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kirk (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your confusion is understandable. It's an American thing.
      "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson-
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "This on a site that supports copyright violators left and right, supports the sites that clearly aim to provide that material, and those who strive to make sure those sites stay online."
      
      I'd like for you to prove this statement. This site does not support copyright violators or infringement. It does support real justice and business models that work without government interference or turning your own customers into outlaws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This on a site that supports copyright violators left and right, supports the sites that clearly aim to provide that material, and those who strive to make sure those sites stay online.
      
      To say that most here actively support such sites is to overstate. Rather, I think they're just considered the lesser of two evils. I'd certainly rather associate with copyright infringers than anyone who works in the recording industry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, justice is for girls!!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > What is proposed on Techdirt is that the
      > internet be allowed to continue at it's
      > pace, while the case is tried through
      > the courts, dragging often for years
      
      And what you seem to continually be proposing is that since the courts are slow, the government/RIAA/MPAA/Disney should be able to do whatever it likes to speed up "justice" and if a few eggs get broken in the process of making that omelette, so be it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Norm (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:43am

A few Anonymous Cowards have said that this was a "simple mistake" by ICE and they were "honest" about their mistake. The honest part is at least true (finally) and the mistake may have been simple, but it had far reaching adverse effects.

Given that both statements are true, that is still an incredibly low bar to hit. To be honest about a simple mistake still does not make up for its illeagal seizure. Heck, the process to get the sites back up was more due precess than was used in the initial take down.

We must hold our government to a high moral standard. ICE did not meet it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:20am

Qualified Immunity
I would think that mooo.com's operator has an incredibly strong legal case against Homeland Security if he decides to bring it.

Don't get your hopes up.

On the one hand, I hate to discourage someone from seeking to vindicate a wrong in the legal system.

On the other hand, the legal system is now b0rked. We've come a long ways from Entick v Carrington and Wilkes v Wood. These days, federal agents and officials are practically immune from suit�no matter how severe the wrong. It's a simple political calculus: If the judges try hold law enforcement to account, then law enforcement will begin to laugh at the judges. The judges don't want to be laughed at. They want to be taken seriously as powerful actors in the political process.

And as far as "qualified immunity" goes, "absolute immunity" goes further. One might hope that Judge Rubberstamp would have enough of a sense of shame to resign over his or her failure to protect people's rights. But that would be a futile hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:21am

I never understood why they took down this known base website..... it was sheer stupidity in my opinion. It would be like taking down blogspot.com if they found CP somewhere on it!

No, this should not have happened, and only a LOON who didn't know how the bleep the internet worked would have approved this. That is the problem with our judges today, however: they do NOT know how the internet works and do not know how modern technology works.

It's getting more and more to the point where I think, that in any case with a technological focus, the judge in question should be required to have a degree in that facet of technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:42am

ICE Seizure Checklist
[x] The domain is managed by Verisign or another U.S. registry
[x] No contact has been made with the domain's owner or ISP
[x] It doesn't look like they would fight for the domain in court
[x] The warrant will list other domains so the judge won't look at just one
[x] Eric Holder says it's ok
[x] The seizure is for [ ]copyright/trademark [x]the children [ ]terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: ICE Seizure Checklist
  [x] Profit ???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Havoc (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re: ICE Seizure Checklist
    or [x] Prophet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pesti (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:53am

Anonymous Cowards
It amazes me when I think about all the righteous and upstanding "Cowards" that support the illegal actions of a government agency . Why are they afraid to identify themselves............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm

Trying to sue..
Homeland Security would be a great way to get a one way ticket to Gitmo or come home and find that your house has been burned to th ground by special ops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:41pm

Reassess Priorities
Seems like they have a higher priority with their border guards getting shot up. I don't know about you but I could stand to put a few Hollywood CEO wish-lists on the back burner if it means actually protecting the people from drug cartel thugs. But that means they might lose a stake in the internet security arena. And if they get as much for internet security as they do for airport security I don't see that being a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:25pm

The Government
They should pass a law that anyone in a position of government that violates part of the Constitution should be automatically tried under treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AG Wright (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:32pm

Proper place for ICE
Personally to me it just again shows that the proper place for ICE is in your cold drink of choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous a-hole, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re: Proper place for ICE
  If you want to put shit in your drink, that's up to you. I'll pass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:20pm

WIPO Could Enter Growing Fray Over Internet Domain Takedowns
Just For Information- WIPO Could Enter Growing Fray Over Internet Domain Takedowns

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/17/wipo-could-enter-growing-fray-over-internet-d omain-takedowns/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PandaMarketer (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:22pm

Guilty by association
I think mooo knew it had some webmasters doing illegal things. A lot of times when researching where to host a site, I see a lot of terms of service (TOS) that state what can and can't be hosted there.

If they allowed illegal websites, or that promoted illegal activities, it serves them right to have to defend the innocent customers in ICE's blanket shut down.

I would never knowingly and intentionally host a site on a host that allowed such types of customers.

I realize that's throwing out the baby with the bath water, but people have to be diligent, and know where their property is in relation to legalities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Havoc (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: Guilty by association
  If, and that's a big question here, If they were doing something wrong. By simple seizure they have been completely denied any rights or due process.
  By seizure they are automatically guilty and must prove their innocence. Not how the system's supposed to work, but it is the reality.
  For the children, or is it for continued funding?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re: Guilty by association
  I think mooo knew it had some webmasters doing illegal things.
  
  Assuming ICE didn't contact them before they seized, as in all previous domain seizures, FreeDNS didn't know who was using their service for child pornography. FreeDNS has a total of 3,197,229 subdomains. I doubt they have the resources to see what's going on in all of them. Their service goes beyond just web hosting because someone can point their subdomain to a chat server or something else not easily tracked by a web crawler. If ICE decided to run a real investigation on the subdomain with the child porn, FreeDNS might have given them a lot of assistance. Instead ICE tipped off the pedos by seizing the site, libeling thousands of innocent people in the process. That is not good police work.
  
  A lot of times when researching where to host a site, I see a lot of terms of service (TOS) that state what can and can't be hosted there.
  
  Their TOS prohibits "Any fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise illegal activity" and states that the service is governed by California state laws and federal law. Based on that, they don't allow child porn. The domain WHOIS information seems to be up to date and correct with an address and phone number. Seems to be on the up and up to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re: Guilty by association
  I think mooo knew it had some webmasters doing illegal things.
  
  If you're going to make accusations like that then you need to provide some evidence. Otherwise, you're just engaging in an AJ style smear job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re: Guilty by association
  > If they allowed illegal websites, or
  > that promoted illegal activities,
  > it serves them right to have to
  > defend the innocent customers in
  > ICE's blanket shut down.
  
  Say goodbye to Gmail, Hotmail, or any other web-based email system, then. Either they'll have to engage in the Herculean task of reviewing every single user's email (and the attendant gross invasion of privacy that comes with it) or they'll have shut off the service altogether.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:19pm

Inspired by DH & a bit of George Carlin. PG13 version
Lady Justice are you blind,
Does he get you from?
Is that blind fold for a game
Or is it for shame?

Latin the language of the magiked
Using tongues to get orifices?
In utterance everything is fine
Do we hear the whine?

On the table, off the table
Who is at the table?
We all know its done under the table

See him yet? Dam!
The name is uncle Sam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:24pm

This is what I know it will happen because it happened before.

Laws that society don't agree will be circumvented and eventually fade into obscurity or gutted.

Keep up the good job ICE you are making experts of layman people who before didn't care but now will study every facet of those operations to find a way around it and seize every opportunity to make those laws go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:52pm

Begging the question...
Where are the warrants for the domain names allegedly used in distributing child pornography?

Why haven't we seen a single warrant for the counterfeit online stores yet?

IIRC, only warrants pertaining to 15 out of the 125+ domain names they've seized so far have been made public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake T, 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:40am

Hotel analogy, really?
I know this is a horribly humiliating bump but the "I use 10 rooms in my hotel for child porn, the rest have regular guests, I'd would be arrested etc etc" analogy is a load of BS. These domains are more like apartment towers, you have a landlord (domain holder) who gets paid by the tenants (users) the landlord owns the building (the domain, like mooo.com) and the tenants live in the rooms (sub-domains).
If one tenant is a paedophile (I'm British, I shall use the British spellings) then it would be HIM that would be arrested and HIS room searched, not the landlord and the whole tower. Then the paedo-tenants room would be closed off (seized). How would the landlord be responsible for the tenant in this way? How would the landlord be arrested for the actions and possessions of the paedo-tenant?

If the landlord had a few rooms that he had specifically dedicated to paedophilia, that the tenants (or multiple tenants) used then, and only then, would the landlord be prosecuted, along with the tenants. In a domain, if the owner had created or been into a sub-domain, with the intention of sharing child porn, then the whole domain may be under scrutiny, but the whole domain should not be seized unless there is irrefutable proof that the whole domain was dedicated to illegal activities, if it is only a few sub-domains, then those sub-domains would be seized. Only if the owner was involved and had knowledge of his involvement should the domain be under scrutiny as a whole.
Seizing a domain for the actions of a few users, or the contents of a few sub-domains would be a bit like getting rid of UPS because somebody had cocaine smuggled to them via UPS (without UPS' knowledge) or because a few people within the company were part of a drug smuggling operation. If it's not the whole domain causing the problem/ spreading the problem etc, then it should not be the whole domain that takes responsibility for the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]