How The Attempted Censorship Of File Sharing Sites Avoids Due Process

from the day-in-court? dept

We've already covered how some US Senators are pitching a bill to censor websites that are deemed centered around "infringing" uses, and noted the irony of the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, decrying internet censorship in other countries. That said, the more people dig into the details, the worse this bill appears to look. The EFF does a good job highlighting many of the rather serious problems with the bill.

While most of the press coverage has discussed the process by which the Justice Department can go to a judge and get a website added to a blacklist, which ISPs and registrars will have to block, there's another part that hasn't received nearly enough attention: which is that there's an effective loophole that could allow similar blocks without judicial review:
The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines -- without judicial review -- are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)
We've seen this game in the past, of course. Generally when you provide companies immunity for sites doing something, they'll do it. So, suddenly we're taking the most basic judicial oversight out of the process of allowing the Justice Department -- which, again, is still staffed with a bunch of former entertainment industry lawyers -- choose which sites should be blocked. It's difficult to see how anyone could think this is a reasonable idea.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:03am

    The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines -- without judicial review -- are "dedicated to infringing activities."

    So with judicial review, one can be denied their first amendment rights?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:06am

    What is that software they use to circumvent the great firewall of China? I might need that someday.

    Also, is it a crime use an IP Addr rather than a name?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    The catch about due process.

    With judicial review, the state can take your home and children. The 4th amendment only requires that the SWAT team has the required paperwork tended to before they crash through your front door with a BTR.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:39am

    >> Also, is it a crime use an IP Addr rather than a name?

    Only if you think other people may think it's racist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:55am

    Re:

    Which one of them?

    TOR(win, lin., mac)
    Proxychains(lin)(the great grandfather of all proxies)
    TSOCKS(lin)
    Freecap(win)
    Sockschain(win)
    Retroshare
    Stealthnet
    I2P(java crap in need of people to transpose it to other more stable language)
    Osiris SPS(Serverless Portal System) (network overlay that aims to creates resilient, anonymous, untraceable websites)
    Netsukuku (network overlay that is an entire network on top of the internet with it own TLD system)
    Stegoshare
    Freenet(java crap in need of people to transpose it to other more stable language)
    OFFSystem(introduced the brightnet concept only works with real broadband because of extreme overhead)
    GNUNet
    TorChat

    Choose your poison.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 7:11am

    Re:

    What is that software they use to circumvent the great firewall of China? I might need that someday.

    it's called SSH.

    connect to a box overseas and tunnel your traffic through that.

    that's the problem with censoring the internet, it's so easy to get to that controlling it is nearly impossible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 7:56am

    I really hope they block google. That would be something that would cause an uproar.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 8:45am

    Thanks for highlighting this

    And when the AG puts your site on the list, you aren't allowed to go to the court to appeal without first going to the AG. The bill provides no time limits for how long the AG can take to consider your petition. You could go completely out of business waiting for the DOJ to consider whether you were wrongly placed on the list.
    I imagine in practice, there will be media companies who notify the DOJ of sites they consider questionable in an opening volley in licensing/purchasing negotiations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    greenbird (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 8:57am

    Techdirt will be on the list about 10 minutes after the bill passes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    that_id (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 9:16am

    Wow, where does that stop?
    AG: I'm not telling the cops to rough this guy up for a confession, but I'll provide immunity to the cops in case they do...

    AG: I can't issue warrants to search these homes, but if they get searched by ...anyone, immunity will be provided for tips leading to any arrests.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    greenbird (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 9:18am

    I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here. They're not subverting the laws. They're subverting freedom of speech, expression and privacy that once were the fundamental foundation of Western governments. There is no democracy without free speech. Once information is controlled so are the minds of the masses.

    They're is actually a law being considered in the Senate of the United States that allows censorship of speech based solely on opposition to certain corporate interests. And it has a large nonpartisan support base. That should scare the s**t out of everyone who actually likes having a modicum of freedom. This isn't the slippery slope. It's kicking the rock hold the avalanche back.

    Hell, in the US in the past it was difficult to impose censorship even during war when a great many lives were at stake. Now it's being imposed in the name of a few corporate interests who's business is being undermined by technological advances.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anon, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 9:28am

    What's the magic number?

    I've read that they wouldn't plan on going after sites that had some infringing issues, but were predominantly legal, such as Google & Youtube. Torrent links sites, Newsgroup index's, etc. all have some portion that is completely non-infringing, but you'd have to figure these are the one's that are supposed to be targeted.

    So what's the magic number? 90% infringing, 80%? Who would be responsible for scouring these sites to determine the exact percentage of infringing material?

    Personally, I don't think there's a feasible, cost-effective process for determining which sites should be blocked. Therefore, none should be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Rob Shaver, Sep 24th, 2010 @ 11:39am

    Senator Patrick Leahy, decrying internet censorship

    This is the link you used before:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4437&wit_id=2629

    The current link just goes to the same EFF article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    RobShaver (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 11:40am

    Senator Patrick Leahy, decrying internet censorship in other countries

    This is the link you used before:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4437&wit_id=2629

    The current link just goes to the same EFF article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    Couple of complicating factors beyond free speech which, I suspect, is where this will be slapped down and hard.

    Lemme see Leahy is proposing a bill that will by some form of magic apply to Canadian, Mexican, Caribbean and other off shore but near by ISP's and DNS operators? I guess he thinks the entire Internet is located in the U.S.A and not global? Either that or he figures that it's okay to legislate extra-territorially whereas he's scream blood murder if someone tried that with the United States?

    And there's a scale of infringement? Not according to the RIAA and MPAA there isn't so bye bye Google, YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, I guess.

    Block all of usenet and irc? Good luck with that.

    And isn't Leahy forgetting that one of the factors leading to the American revolution was this small notion of due process?

    Or is Leahy channeling his inner George III George's worst bouts of syphilis? (The 1770s as it happens.)

    It's painfully obvious that Leahy has forgotten about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

    Someone here is bought and paid for by the folks behind ACTA and is getting there first to prove his loyalty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    Small correction:

    "Or is Leahy channeling his inner George III George's worst bouts of syphilis? (The 1770s as it happens.)"

    Should read: Or is Leahy channeling his inner George III IN George's worst bouts of syphilis? (The 1770s as it happens.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Re: The catch about due process.

    But this is not adhering to that whole 'judicial review' and actually.... Judges are VERY leery to allow the police to 'bash through your door' unless you are a terrorism suspect or they have reason to think that someone is in danger at that very moment.

    Since the shooting of the 7 year old girl in the basically home invasion of the WRONG HOUSE in California..... judges have been getting VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY leery of letting the police do these things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Thanks for highlighting this

    Yep, that is a very good thing to bring up there. Very possible that big corporations will do EXACTLY what you are describing there. Which is the reason why there should be NO extra-judicial reviews of ANYTHING.

    Only through the damned legal system!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Sep 24th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    Re:

    Agree with that last sentence absolutely: this guy is BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, and the US Attorney Generals office should be looking to see if this bastard is getting some kickbacks somehow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Sep 28th, 2010 @ 3:20am

    PETITION TO THE SENATE

    PETITION TO THE SENATE: Censoring the Internet is something we'd expect from China or Iran, not the U.S. Senate. You need to stop this Internet blacklist in its tracks and oppose S. 3804.

    http://demandprogress.org/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This