ICE Reluctantly Releases A Small Number Of Heavily Redacted Domain Seizure Docs, Holds The Rest Hostage
from the but-of-course dept
Back in December of 2010, Aaron Swartz filed a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to seize, without any notification or adversarial hearings, domain names which ICE claimed were facilitating copyright and/or trademark infringement. After nearly two years of back and forth (including ICE apparently losing an updated request and closing the request because of it), ICE has finally delivered 100 pages worth of heavily redacted material which are close to useless. They are also claiming that there are another 16,137 records out there, but they want him to pay over $1,000 to get the rest. They told him if he didn't cough up the money within a few days, they would consider the request closed. Aaron, with the help of the Muckrock site (which helps people file FOIAs), is appealing this decision.In the meantime, however, we have 100 mostly useless documents that appear to just show the warrants that US Magistrate Judge Alan Kay approved on the morning of November 23rd, 2011. Of course, these are completely redacted, so you don't even know what domains they're referring to. In going through the documents, the only thing of interest that I spotted was that the judge time stamped each warrant signature, and many of them are mere minutes from one another -- at least raising some questions concerning how carefully the judge reviewed each individual case before granting the warrant that allowed the feds to then seize and shut down those sites. Considering that we already have two known cases -- Dajaz1 and Rojadirecta -- in which it later came out that the government did not have the necessary evidence, and where the feds were embarrassingly forced to hand back the domains and drop legal proceedings, it seems that a judge should be expected to at least spend some time understanding why it is he's signing off on an order to take down speech.
Either way, it really does seem like these documents being the first 100 released was, perhaps, done on purpose, to make sure the released documents don't actually get at what Swartz actually requested, which was:
- Any guidelines or protocols for ICE agents about the procedures for seizing domains
- Any communications between ICE and other government agencies with regard to the seized domains
- Any communications between ICE and intellectual property owners requesting domains be seized or discussing seized domains
- Any court filings requesting authorization to seize domains
- Any internal emails mentioning the seized sites
- Any legal memos mentioning the seized sites
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: aaron swartz, domain seizures, foia, ice, redacted
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is more or less the reality we have been living with before the internet. FOIA is a huge step foreward on terms of assuring a transparent and more "real" democracy.
That some people are abusing the system is a problem and - on the other side - the lack of ability from some of the government bodies is what is making the transition horribly painful.
I think it is important to recognise that ICE and some other bodies have always been corrupted by a lack of oversight and too big an ego!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1: Are the redacted areas reusable or are they one-off?
2: Did they change to Redacted Areas because people were getting too high on highlighter/black Sharpie fumes?
3: Who owns the copyright on Redacted Areas?
I would love to see a headline like "FOIA request for Redacted Area information is itself redacted"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More to the point though. These sites that were taken down were not some great nation security threat. You would also have a very very hard time convincing me they had a valid excuse for redacting the domain names they took.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe he's not an Anonymous Coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fwiw, Aaron filed the FOIA prior to being indicted.
That would be obvious if you cared about facts and not just slamming him. But, you don't.
Besides, do you really think that someone under indictment in an unrelated case loses their ability to file FOIAs? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know if you are slow or just refuse to acknowledge that a seizure is simply the arrest of property. Do you expect there to be a full blown adversarial hearing before an accused embezzler can be arrested? Do you see any problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, but I would expect one before his property is seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They're interested in stealing content and not being punished for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What did seizing the domain names accomplish? They didn't arrest the guys behind dajaz1.com et al. If the guys behind dajaz1.com et al were in fact hard-core online criminals, it would have slowed them down for at most a day or two, while they switched domains.
Also don't forget, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED in the case of dajaz1.com. The operators of that site had it taken down purely on the allegation of a third party. The police aren't supposed to do that. There is supposed to be some sort of initial investigation. Let us not forget that the "investigation" into dajaz1.com had the ICE agent download 4 files, 3 of which were deliberately given to dajaz1 by the record labels, while the fourth was for an artist not signed to those labels. And yet, that ICE agent used that false evidence as a basis to shut down the site and silence speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're interested in cheer leading for big content and being paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see. So you think that the domain owners were going to "hide" their domains away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll bet that once they find out it's bogus you'll be perfectly happy with the way they seized your assets, and perfectly happy to give them up again when someone else gets the idea to prove the same point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basically you're saying that if I accuse you then you should get all of your assets taken. You didn't mention that the accusation had merit, was pursued by law enforcement, or that there had to be ANY evidence. Just that someone had to be accused.
I bet I could find as much evidence against you as they have against a lot of those redacted sites (note, that would be very little to none).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be nice if we could have a website similar to chilling effects where people can submit censorship and redactions that clearly have absolutely nothing to do with national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart judges..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The exemptions claimed were as follows:
Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2) - completely inapplicable and unprofessional. Privacy Act Exemptions don't work that way, and this is purely a FOIA request.
FOIA Exemption 6 - Personal privacy. Generally noncontroversial, though subject to accusations of overclaiming.
FOIA Exemption 7(C) - Personal privacy wrt information collected for law enforcement purposes. Stronger protection than exemption 6, due to the potentially heightened sensitivity of law enforcement records.
FOIA Exemption 7(E) - Risk of circumvention. If they disclose how they enforce laws, the precise methods of investigation, etc., a reasonably clever criminal will be able to circumvent the laws/enforcement.
7(E) is in a general sense legitimate here, but also potentially subject to huge overclaiming.
The FOIA is a (relatively) straightforward law with a significant background of court precedent, and DOJ had published the DOJ interpretations and business practices for processing FOIA requests in an indexed publicly available form.
Also, technically, the warrants are responsive documents, so it may be sleazy, but it's a valid response.
That being said, the processing here as a whole was very poor form.
Lack of response is a sad fact of FOIA processing, but it still looks bad, especially considering the total lack of response in the face of several follow-up inquiries.
The office claimed several times that they would provide a fee estimate if fees were to exceed a certain threshold, but no notification was sent. Nevertheless, they put in effort far exceeding the fee agreement and notification threshold. Collection of fees is ostensibly to offset the cost of FOIA, hence the ability to close a request for lack of a fee agreement. Incurring assessible fees without a requisite fee agreement is fiscally irresponsible, as well as a waste of valuable processing time.
Not familiar with DHS FOIA policies, but 10 calendar days is an extremely short time frame, even if the letter is received immediately. The time frame had already expired by the time the response made its way through the mail.
Finally, the redacted documents don't seem to pass muster. Each redacted section is clearly marked, but no exemption s claimed. Each redacted portion should be accompanied by the applicable exemptions claimed for that specific portion. Especially when there is such a marked disparity between Exemptions 6 and 7(E).
This reflects poorly on the FOIA program as a whole. Even looked upon with a very forgiving lens, there's a lot of basic stuff they could have done, and much of it is stuff they should have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency doesn't mean "drop your pants and let everyone see all the time". You guys argue about due process all the time, why are you not according the plaintiff the same rights as the defendant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are FOIA exemptions that would allow them to redact information due to ongoing investigations or prosecutions, or several similar circumstances.
However, none of those exemptions were claimed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]