Congressional Reps Question Feds Over Botched Domain Seizures
from the will-we-get-answers dept
The government's admission that it had (once again) mistakenly seized and censored a website for over a year when it dropped its case against Rojadirecta/Puerto80 has reminded everyone that Dajaz1 was not an isolate case. It was a part of a wider program where DHS (via ICE) and the DOJ systematically believed whatever the RIAA and MPAA were telling them, leading to the blatant censorship of a variety of websites, without proper due process. Thankfully, some in Congress are paying attention. Bipartisan Congressional Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Jason Chaffetz and Jared Polis have teamed up to send a letter raising a number of questions about Operation in Our Sites, to both Attorney General Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.The letter doesn't even mention the Rojadirecta case, but focuses on what happened with Dajaz1, pointing out their concern with the program, and how it appears to violate free speech rights, ignore due process and destroy legitimate businesses. The letter raises the fact that Dajaz1 is not an isolated case. As we've pointed out in the past, we're aware of at least a few other domains that were seized, and whose owners had challenged the seizures. And yet, well over a year later, there appeared to be no evidence of either a return of those domains or a forfeiture process started. Given how the feds treated Dajaz1, with secret extensions, preventing Dajaz1 from representing itself in court, we've wondered how many other domains the DOJ and ICE had incorrectly and illegally seized -- and which they were now keeping in that kind of holding pattern. It's good to see that this letter directly asks about that issue:
Other complaints have been raised by websites seized under "In Our Sites" that bear similarities to the Dajaz1 case. These complaints center around unnecessary delays in advancing and resolving cases, difficulty in obtaining documents from the government that are fundamental to the underlying cases (such as affidavits), and difficulty even maintaining contact with the U.S. Attorneys prosecuting the cases. The effect of these problems is to severely limit the ability of website owners to challenge the legality and merits of the domain name seizures.The letter goes on to ask a series of important questions for both DHS and DOJ, especially regarding the utter failure of both departments in the Dajaz1 situation.
- What is the process for determining which sites to target? Who is involved in that process? What specific steps do DOJ and ICE take to ensure that affidavits and other material are thoroughly reviewed for accuracy prior to seizing a domain?
- To what extent are government agents required to evaluate whether the potentially infringing material to which target sites link -- or which they host themselves -- are non-infringing fair uses, impliedly licensed, and/or de minimis uses?
- Do government agents consider whether a site complies with the DMCA safe harbors? If so, how does this affect the determination to target a site?
- How many sites have attempted to retrieve their domains, via any process, judicial or informal, and what is the status of those cases?
- Have you made any changes to your domain seizure policies or their implementation as a result of the issues arising from the Dajaz1 seizure or any other seizure? If so, what were those changes?
- What specific steps has the DOJ and ICE taken to ensure that domain name seizure cases proceed without unnecessary delays, and that website owners seeking to restore their domain names have swift access to the officials and documents necessary to resolve their cases?
- How many more seizures do you anticipate occurring in the next six months and year?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: dhs, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, ice, jared polis, jason chaffetz, legality, stalling, zoe lofgren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We regret to inform you that we can not answer your questions due to National Security Issues....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Outcome?
Perhaps governments could still BLOCK them if in their own countries if they must (politics will settle that one). But seize them? Never!
Governments are never non-partisan. In some countries, they are outrageously partisan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Expected response(s)
2) "We regret to inform you that the information you are seeking does not exist."
3) "We'll get back to you on that."
4) "Unfortunately we are currently waiting for relevant information to be forwarded to us, but as soon as it is, we'll make sure to send you a copy."
5) "Lemme talk to my boss, I'm sure with a little convincing he'll agree to give you what you're looking for, and at a good price."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hopefully she, and her lapdog Holder, are held accountable, then tarred & feathered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Expected response(s)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
God ICE burns me up...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Outcome?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Probably not much.I have no trust in this Government and my Approval of their Actions is pretty close to ZERO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just as well go ask a pedophile if he diddles kids. Straight forward answers aren't in the cards. Anymore than ICE has been straight forward in these seizure cases.
The whole thing is typical of government actions in these days and times. It's not what the law says...it's what we think we can stretch it to say. As long as we don't tell you what that is, we're good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Expected response(s)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You missed a word there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You missed a word there.
Sorry, which enforcement effort have they not criticized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean, just look at it. Unverified investigation methodologies, insufficient evidence, over-the-top takedowns, blatant disregard for collateral damage - what's NOT to criticise?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Censorship!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The effects of this are rather simple, since fear drives people away from implementing security, the real threats continue. In other words, we are sacrificing simple copyright infringement with gross embezzlement by organizations that impersonating financial accounts. This sadly however is a global problem, since DHS/ICE is not only endangering US citizens but everyone on the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Censorship!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yup, that's why their operating budgets are seriously down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't see them criticizing all sorts of enforcement. Between the three of them I've only seen two criticisms raised: SOPA and Dajaz1. Certainly Lofgren, by herself, has raised a few other issues, but there are lots of enforcement efforts that she sees as just fine.
To claim that the 3 of them criticize every enforcement effort is ridiculous and wrong.
I guess when you have no argument, you resort to lying, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: God ICE burns me up...
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg270/smort_sg/stress-reduction-kit.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which won't stop piracy either. Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that is why there are supposed to be anti-trust lawsuits filed to stop these damn things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would mean that infringers would have to come before the US judicial system to litigate. That means they would then be served by every single company for copyright infringement and in some cases arrested. Do you really think that will happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which won't stop piracy either. Care to try again?
So if these efforts are a waste of time, there's an awful lot of crying and contrived outrage over ineffective measures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: God ICE burns me up...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your turn, shillbitch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why at all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course. What you're missing is that the objection to these measures isn't really about the impact they may or may not have on piracy. The objection is the collateral damage they do to innocent third parties.
That the measures won't be effective against piracy in no way means they won't be harmful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]