Civil forfeiture does sound like a huge breach in "due process". I've heard of it mainly through two sources (this site and a John Oliver show weeks ago) and it made me horrified that the (in theory) constitutionally-protected concept of "property" can be bypassed that easily by the government. Setting a case against an "item" and not a person is the peak of legal ridicule in the first place. That it's so difficult to defend against doesn't make things better.
I'm quite amazed nobody thought of accusing his knife when caught red-handed after a murder. "Did you kill your wife? - Obviously not, it was the knife! You should sue IT, not me."
Is the government really trying to make us believe our "assets" are supposed to prove their innocence there?
I don't disagree with the idea of seizing property. However, the government should still sue the owner to justify this denial of property rights. And the government should justify someone's guilt before doing so, not just using the excuse that "the individual might just be guilty of something though it's not been decided yet, so we're taking his stuff just in case he actually is."
In the case of Kim Dotcom, there is nothing like this. He might be guilty, but there has been no trial and even the "fugitive" excuse is flimsy at best. (As stated in the article, he hasn't fled USA. He's only using legal recourse against extradition to a country he has never even been to.) His being guilty - let alone "his property" being guilty - has never been proven, not even in an initial trial. There is only an accusation which, in a country where the justice system is supposed to hold the values of "innocent until proven guilty", should have little to no legal value by itself.
"The government can't be allowed to claim there's no time to get a warrant when it's readily apparent they have all the time in the world."
Newspeak...
In the novel "1984", the government saying one thing and its opposite was perfectly normal. Each citizen was supposed to understand that both are true and never think that inconsistency was suspicious.
Out of fiction, copyright monopolists have the same attitude: they say two opposite statements and politicians as well as judges are supposed to take them both as true.
This example today is just one more real life example that some people have only scorn for citizen rights and basic intelligence.
The main point that always amazed me was how jurors are nearly completely ignored in a trial. - They are supposed to stay silent until the very end, then decide on guilt or innocence based other people's questions and answers. - They are supposed to be emotionless, unbiased and impartial. - They are supposed to conveniently forget whatever was not done "by the rules".
The first point in particular annoys me the most. If jurors have questions about a given point, they can't press on the matter. They can only hope someone (prosecution or defense attorney) will raise the same questions. All this despite the fact that they are the one supposed to make a decision in the end. I didn't know the can't take note either and that doesn't help: are they supposed to remember every little detail? Or trust only prosecution and defense notes? (which is as bad)
There are trials without jury, but any trial with a jury definitely suffers from lots of flaws. I never understood the concept of having a few people forced to silence then to decide on a life-or-death situation.
"The existing rules in place in the US and EU have led to strong respect for rights."
Are we living in the same world? It's obviously true that things would have been worse without these laws and trade agreements. But the situation is far, very far from being as utopian as you describe.
The DMCA and its european equivalent have been besieged since their very beginning, with copyright monopolists trying their best (and often succeeding) in taking down sites that - even in a minimalist way - conform to DMCA takedown requests... more often than not going much farther than what the law requires.
Requests to change these are pretty much little more than an effort to give more power to people who already proved that they abuse what little they already have.
There has been very little respect for "rights", and constant efforts to reduce them even more.
"If any reform of the e-Commerce Directive is needed, it should be in the direction of giving EU startups and platforms greater assurance that they will not be found liable for the speech of their users."
That is very true because the other statement is false. We need more assurance because there currently is very little.
Sounds to me like this guy expects developers to do magic. He doesn't want to do work, as he (more or less) proved that he can arrest terrorists without backdoors. He just has to actually do work and he doesn't like it. What he wants is a magical button on his computer "press here to arrest terrorists" and the terrorists get magically teleported in prison. On second thoughts, no, he doesn't want that. He wants a magical button "press here to arrest terrorists" and FBI agents are teleported to the terrorists (along with a TV crew) to show how much the FBI is needed.
This guy simply applies a common rule in politics. When you don't like the answer to a question, ask it again. And again. And again. At some point, someone will get fed up and give you the answer you want. Either that, or you will ask the question again. There is nothing lost in asking anyway. (Save for "dignity", but who cares about that?)
"The point isn't to maximize dissemination, no matter what. The point is to encourage dissemination on the author's own terms."
This is mistaking the - official - purpose of copyright (dissemination of knowledge and culture) and the means (allowing the author to choose the terms of broadcasting).
The copyright is based on a constitutional right to allow a temporary monopoly on a cultural creation (means) in order to promote its creation and dissemination (purpose). The fact that it has been twisted into restraining dissemination (means) to maximize profit (purpose) is a corruption of the concept... that is sadly very difficult to reverse.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Setting a case against an "item" and not a person is the peak of legal ridicule in the first place. That it's so difficult to defend against doesn't make things better.
I'm quite amazed nobody thought of accusing his knife when caught red-handed after a murder. "Did you kill your wife? - Obviously not, it was the knife! You should sue IT, not me."
Is the government really trying to make us believe our "assets" are supposed to prove their innocence there?
I don't disagree with the idea of seizing property. However, the government should still sue the owner to justify this denial of property rights. And the government should justify someone's guilt before doing so, not just using the excuse that "the individual might just be guilty of something though it's not been decided yet, so we're taking his stuff just in case he actually is."
In the case of Kim Dotcom, there is nothing like this. He might be guilty, but there has been no trial and even the "fugitive" excuse is flimsy at best. (As stated in the article, he hasn't fled USA. He's only using legal recourse against extradition to a country he has never even been to.) His being guilty - let alone "his property" being guilty - has never been proven, not even in an initial trial. There is only an accusation which, in a country where the justice system is supposed to hold the values of "innocent until proven guilty", should have little to no legal value by itself.
On the post: IRS Encrypts An Entire CD Of Redacted Documents In Response To FOIA Request
On the post: State Court: Nothing 'Stale' About Evidence Nearly A Quarter-Century Old
Newspeak...
In the novel "1984", the government saying one thing and its opposite was perfectly normal. Each citizen was supposed to understand that both are true and never think that inconsistency was suspicious.
Out of fiction, copyright monopolists have the same attitude: they say two opposite statements and politicians as well as judges are supposed to take them both as true.
This example today is just one more real life example that some people have only scorn for citizen rights and basic intelligence.
On the post: Judge Kozinski: There's Very Little Justice In Our So-Called 'Justice System'
Ghost jurors
- They are supposed to stay silent until the very end, then decide on guilt or innocence based other people's questions and answers.
- They are supposed to be emotionless, unbiased and impartial.
- They are supposed to conveniently forget whatever was not done "by the rules".
The first point in particular annoys me the most.
If jurors have questions about a given point, they can't press on the matter. They can only hope someone (prosecution or defense attorney) will raise the same questions. All this despite the fact that they are the one supposed to make a decision in the end. I didn't know the can't take note either and that doesn't help: are they supposed to remember every little detail? Or trust only prosecution and defense notes? (which is as bad)
There are trials without jury, but any trial with a jury definitely suffers from lots of flaws. I never understood the concept of having a few people forced to silence then to decide on a life-or-death situation.
On the post: 'Duty Of Care': The Friendly Sounding Way In Which Europe Threatens Free Speech & Internet Innovation
Are we living in the same world?
It's obviously true that things would have been worse without these laws and trade agreements. But the situation is far, very far from being as utopian as you describe.
The DMCA and its european equivalent have been besieged since their very beginning, with copyright monopolists trying their best (and often succeeding) in taking down sites that - even in a minimalist way - conform to DMCA takedown requests... more often than not going much farther than what the law requires.
Requests to change these are pretty much little more than an effort to give more power to people who already proved that they abuse what little they already have.
There has been very little respect for "rights", and constant efforts to reduce them even more.
"If any reform of the e-Commerce Directive is needed, it should be in the direction of giving EU startups and platforms greater assurance that they will not be found liable for the speech of their users."
That is very true because the other statement is false. We need more assurance because there currently is very little.
On the post: FBI's James Comey: I Know All The Experts Insist Backdooring Encryption Is A Bad Idea, But Maybe It's Because They Haven't Really Tried
It's a kind of magic
He doesn't want to do work, as he (more or less) proved that he can arrest terrorists without backdoors. He just has to actually do work and he doesn't like it.
What he wants is a magical button on his computer "press here to arrest terrorists" and the terrorists get magically teleported in prison.
On second thoughts, no, he doesn't want that. He wants a magical button "press here to arrest terrorists" and FBI agents are teleported to the terrorists (along with a TV crew) to show how much the FBI is needed.
On the post: Computer Security Experts Release Report Slamming Proposals To Backdoor Encryption, As FBI Makes Latest Push
When you don't like the answer to a question, ask it again. And again. And again.
At some point, someone will get fed up and give you the answer you want.
Either that, or you will ask the question again. There is nothing lost in asking anyway. (Save for "dignity", but who cares about that?)
On the post: Copyright Takes Down High-Profile Translation Of Thomas Piketty's Comments On Germany & Greek Debt
This is mistaking the - official - purpose of copyright (dissemination of knowledge and culture) and the means (allowing the author to choose the terms of broadcasting).
The copyright is based on a constitutional right to allow a temporary monopoly on a cultural creation (means) in order to promote its creation and dissemination (purpose). The fact that it has been twisted into restraining dissemination (means) to maximize profit (purpose) is a corruption of the concept... that is sadly very difficult to reverse.
Next >>