Annual Cyber-Monday ICE Take Down Blitz 2012
from the nice-use-of-ICE-resources,-guys dept
It's cyber-Monday, the day when many of us basically go to Amazon.com and get a bunch of gifts for friends and family because going to the store this time of year is as dangerous as a North Korean prison camp. I say "many of us" partially to account for anyone out there who doesn't celebrate Christmas and partially to account for the hardworking folks at America's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who instead spend the day posing as shoppers to shut down internet sites that they think are selling infringing or counterfeit products and replacing their web pages with handy little ICE "naughty" badges (Just like Santa would do! Yay!). We covered their exploits last year as they went about taking down 150 domains, sans the websites in question being able to tell their side of the story. It's like justice, minus any of that annoying rights of the accused crap!Well, ICE is at it again, this time taking down only 132 websites, in their effort to stop commerce they decide they don't like.
"This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the [Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center]," ICE Director John Morton said in a statement. "Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world. This is not an American problem, it is a global one and it is a fight we must win."As with last year, ICE appears to be focusing on trademark infringers and counterfeiters, but they haven't released the list of sites seized yet, so we can't be sure there aren't any Dajaz1-type screw-ups in there as well. Still, the question remains why they have to do this en masse on one day instead of going through the more tedious, though transparent, process of taking the sites to court. Yes, the article states that they are getting court orders to take down the sites, but why not actually drag site owners into the courtroom and give them a chance to represent themselves before shutting down their ability to operate entirely? Is it likely that most, if not all, of these sites are infringing some way? Perhaps, but given that we've seen ICE take down innocent sites in the past, why not err on the side of caution and actually follow the justice process?
I also find Morton's comment about this not being an "American problem" quite amusing given the annual cyber-Monday take down blitz. If this isn't an America-focused event, why is it being conducted on cyber-Monday, a predominantly American marketing term?
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: copyright, counterfeiting, dhs, domain seizures, free speech, ice, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Are the definitions of trademark the exact same all over the world? What if I'm in a country where these sites aren't in fact breaking that country's laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't you know?
"This is not an American problem, it is a global one and it is a fight we must win."
I do not find it amusing that they have declared war on the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Didn't you know?
My wife's uncle is an ex-ICE dweeb, and he has this exact same mindset: "BLACK VS WHITE, RIGHT VS WRONG, AND IF YOU DISAGREE WE WILL LOCK YOU UP!"
Yeah... and we wonder why most of the world hates our guts??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Compare:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a fight we must win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a fight we must win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a fight we must win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a fight we must win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a fight we must win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
• Second... because only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression, only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.
• The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision, to minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a big short cut around proving evidence is enough to justify the seizure, following that with putting the burden of court being put on the domain owner, rather than DOJ being required to either gather the evidence for a case or returning the domains.
If it were a counterfeit selling site, it takes no time and little money to be back in business...far less than what court and legal fees would cost. Only thing I see this doing is driving the domain business out of reach of the DOJ.
Nice to know that jobs in the US doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They think they are so high-and-mighty, but they are nothing but thieves and thugs who hide behind a badge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Anonymous Cowards come out of the woodwork to complain about Techdirt pointing out the hypocrisy of Maximalists and not siding with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Normally, you can't "punish" someone until, you know, there's been a trial and they've been proved guilty.
That is the complaint here. Due process. What a concept.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SWEET!
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is the complaint here. Due process. What a concept.
I don't know why you continue in denial over seizure laws. Once again, seizures are arrests of property. Just like an individual doesn't need to be convicted prior to arrest, the adjudication process doesn't need to be completed prior to property being seized. What a concept!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's legalized theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is false. When the "seizure" involves speech protected under the First Amendment -- and domains have been deemed speech protected by the First Amendment in a few different cases -- the law says a higher standard is required, including adversarial hearings.
So, uh, nope.
Due process was clearly violated.
Of course, in the two cases that would have proved that point, once the DOJ got close to being embarrassed it dropped out. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's like saying protestors are immune from arrest because their behavior may implicate the First Amendment. That is simply untrue, as is your absurd contention about websites.
Seriously, do you have such little integrity that you must continue to lie and distort the facts to further your anti-copyright agenda? This is precisely why, outside of your coterie of piracy apologists and zealots, that you're regarded as a buffoon and figure of fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a little FYI...
I was talking to my 70+ year old grandmother this last weekend...
Explained what copyright was meant for...
And then explained how it was being used.
She said that the system was broken.
When a 70+ year old woman can see that copyright is broken, then there's something wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish I could see you in person.
You're a horrible person.
You think my grandmother is retarded?
FUCK OFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I NEED to comment on this stupidity...
Protestors STILL have 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights, even if they're arrested. And most of the time, the people being arrested are inciting violence (not so much during the OWS days, since they were often vilified by the press).
So, even if you DO arrest someone, they NEED to be able to have their day in court, which falls under the 4th amendment (Due process). Since that's being violated...
Yeah...
You are SUCH an idiot, you know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you must be slow. No one is saying that a seized property or an arrested individual isn't entitled to their day in court. Masnick seems to contend that because of First Amendment implications, websites are somehow immune from seizure without first having their day in court. That is simply untrue and incorrect. But you seem blinded to this obvious fact by your own zeal and stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I happen to agree with that. So do a lot of other people. It seems like the only ones who don't agree with that also seem to be copyright maximalists. Funny that.
So what exactly is the problem with having an adversarial hearing prior to seizing a domain name? The government covers their ass and won't have their case thrown out on constitutional grounds. If the accused is really engaging in criminal behavior, then the odds they will show up to an adversarial hearing is slim and the domain gets seized ex parte anyways. The domain isn't going to flee and a domain itself (without the underlying website) isn't any sort of evidence in itself.
So what exactly is the problem with having a hearing first? I just don't get why you even argue this. Even if a hearing isn't required like you argue, doesn't prudence on the government's part seem like the rational thing to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGG!!!
SOPA would have CENSORED the internet and would NOT have allowed for any due process!
No hearing, nothing.
Just cutting off websites even faster than they're doing now.
Quit defending bad legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you babbling on about?
DHS/ICE dreamed up their fantasy legal theories to seize domains way back in June 2010.
PIPA was introduced May, 12, 2011 and SOPA was introduced October 26, 2011.
We already HAD this prior to SOPA/PIPA, so I don't get what point you are trying to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
i'm part of a co-te-rie ! ! !
la-dee-dah...
here's the thing, parasite, a HUGE MAJORITY OF US (and i include the clueless who don't follow these issues) do NOT give a shit what 'laws' (sic) YOUR paymasters have managed to ram through the process to our detriment...
we want fairness, equity, and reasonable laws, YOUR SIDE provides NONE of that; we do NOT care what the legal technical ins-and-outs are, we do NOT care you have managed to slant the laws to favor Big Media: WE WANT JUSTICE, NOT your bullshit for why we need to support the extortion bidness model of your paymasters...
fuckin' blood-suckin' parasites... get a real job and try and contribute to society, leech...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said it was a "blanket immunity against seizure," so you're now misrepresenting what we said. All we said (it's right above) is that there needs to be an adversarial hearing first. Fort Wayne Books vs. Indiana makes this clear.
That's like saying protestors are immune from arrest because their behavior may implicate the First Amendment. That is simply untrue, as is your absurd contention about websites.
No, it's not. The fact that you need to make up absurd claims to back your position shows how weak it is.
Seriously, do you have such little integrity that you must continue to lie and distort the facts to further your anti-copyright agenda?
Only one of us is lying.
I have the law on my side.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3320933171915854930&hl=en&as_sdt=2& as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
This is precisely why, outside of your coterie of piracy apologists and zealots, that you're regarded as a buffoon and figure of fun.
It's funny how every time some moron makes this claim, I seem to get yet another call from someone way above your pay grade asking for advice or help on policy issues. Today is no exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I am suggesting that seizing the domain (not the sites) for a website has free speech implication -- which is not really debatable. Existing case law has highlighted that domains are subject to First Amendment scrutiny, which was ignored here. Furthermore, the seizures of certain domains, like Dajaz1 and Rojadirecta, without consideration for the impact on protected speech has demonstrated the problem.
All indications are that these sites were trafficking in goods- yet you still bang the free speech drum?
You could just as easily state that "all indications were that the Ft. Wayne Books store was engaging in obscene behavior." Yet the court said that they deserved an adversarial hearing before seizure.
If you are so sure that there is infringement, it is quite fast and easy to file for a temporary restraining order to have the site shut down, granting a short period of time allowing the site owner to file a response.
Why so afraid?
Stretching Ft. Wayne Books v. Indiana to cloak the guy selling fake Nikes online is a pathetic joke.
You keep pretending I'm saying that this gives them immunity or "cloaks" them. It does not. I am not and have not argued that the sites need to remain up. I am merely suggesting that an adversarial hearing is required.
Why so afraid of allowing them to have their day in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are several hundred seized websites who could have tested your dubious legal theory. Maybe they know something you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's expensive to fight back against the US gov't. But you're arguing that it's okay if perfectly legitimate sites are taken down as collateral damage?
I note that you still haven't responded to the question about why you're so afraid of due process.
The answer is because you can't. We've already seen the government go running and hiding whenever any case gets close to actually testing *their* obviously dubious theory.
My theory isn't "dubious" it's the fucking law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say it's more along the lines of the 4th and 5th Amendments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's expensive to fight back against the US gov't. But you're arguing that it's okay if perfectly legitimate sites are taken down as collateral damage?
Well, according to you it's a slam dunk. How much money does it cost to appear pro se? How about your friends at the professional piracy apologist organizations like EFF, CDT and PK? They have tons of lawyers. If it's a lay down why aren't they representing these poor, persecuted souls? For that matter, why don't you bankroll one of these cases?
I note that you still haven't responded to the question about why you're so afraid of due process.
My response is that they are being afforded due process. Again, if such website seizures like the ones described in the article involve such blatant violation of due process it is hard to imagine that no court in the land has stood up. Maybe that's because the court doesn't see any clear, obvious due process violation either.
My theory isn't "dubious" it's the fucking law.
It's not the law because you say it is, sorry. Invoking Ft. Wayne v. Indiana in cases of seizing websites where some douchebag is selling counterfeit Nikes is utterly laughable.
This is classic Masnick: seldom right, never in doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You lost all credibility when you said the EFF was a professional piracy apologist organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some years ago now, an officer responded to a 911 dispatch. The officer spotted the suspect entering a convenience store, and followed him in, pulling his nightstick from his belt as he pursued.
The officer was confident. Confident in the suspect's identity. Confident in the suspect's guilt.
Within two-and-a-half seconds of contacting the suspect, and without saying a word, the officer clubbed the suspect over the head—or in the neck—or on the shoulder. The convenience store surveillance video is blurry, and witness accounts differ.
Then —again with an overhand strike to the head or upper body— the officer clubbed the suspect a second time: The suspect fell to the floor.
The suspect had been attempting to purchase a Diet Pepsi, and as the suspect lay on the floor, on his back, with the officer standing over him, the suspect held the two-liter bottle in both hands, defensively, shielding his face from the officer's club. That's when the officer first spoke to the suspect, ordering the suspect to drop the pop. The officer tazed the suspect, and although the tazing was mostly ineffective, it got the suspect to drop the pop and begin to crawl away along the aisle. The officer followed, with his nightstick, beating.
A second officer arrived, and now it becomes brutal. More officers arrive and the situation becomes sickening.
The suspect died, of course.
Oh, and the suspect was innocent. Ooops. Not guilty after all. What a mistake! What a fuck-up!
The police department tried to cover it up, but the story got too messy. It's a long story. Now, the former officer was finally sentenced at the beginning of this month. He got four years and three months. The officer's attorney has filed a notice of appeal.
There will be no appeal for the corpse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you should look up what Due Process is, buskahosa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because copyright trumps all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because copyright trumps all.
Ironic that SOPA would have provided exactly what you ask for. Sadly the "justice process" is being followed and this is the result. You should thank the anti-copyright jihadists for what you have today- including six strikes; search engine and ad network cooperation agreements; beefed up FTA's and all of the other extra-judicial enforcement measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How did Prohibition work as a law with a 'desired' effect of 'protecting' society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How this would have meant more freedoms is anyone's guess. The usual whining mantra is "It's in law! It's therefore unchallengeable!" Where more freedoms in contesting such irresponsible claims comes in is beyond the ken of reasonable people. But then, the RIAA and associated individuals are hardly reasonable people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All that was left was search engine delisting (we now have demotion instead which will have the same effect) and choking off payment processing and ad revenue (which we now have through voluntary agreements). SOPA would have required judicial approval and an opportunity for an adversarial hearing before any of those remedies could be implemented. Now you have effectively the same recourse, without any involvement from the court.
Ask your helper to search on Wikipedia and maybe explain it further using smaller words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you ignore the point of the people who KNOW how the internet works saying it's a bad idea, I don't think you have much of a point here either.
Pro-tip for you, insulting someone on the internet only makes you look like a petulant child demanding attention.
Also, I'm not disabled at all.
Maybe if you stopped being a copyright apologist, trolling and used a real name, you might be of someone of interest, but, you aren't, so, I don't care about you.
To me, you're just like ootb, bob and average_joe...
Someone not worth paying attention to because they're idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...why they have to do this en masse on one day instead of going through the more tedious, though transparent, process ...
This way looks a lot better in press conference, too. Perfect win-win situation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]