Dutch Economics Minister Says ACTA Is Designed To Shut Down Child Porn Sites… Even Though That's Not True
from the outright-lies dept
If you’ve been paying attention lately, you’ve probably heard SOPA/PIPA/ACTA supporters insisting that anyone against those bills is involved in a misinformation campaign. This seems pretty ridiculous, considering the level of misinformation that has been spewed for decades in support of these kinds of laws. But it’s reaching a new level of crazy over in the Netherlands, where the Dutch Econimics Minister Maxime Verhagen has apparently announced that “ordinary” people have nothing to worry about concerning ACTA because its focus is to take down child porn sites. Talk about misinformation. ACTA is about intellectual property infringement and has nothing to do with child porn.
Because the Google translation was weird, I asked a native Dutch speaker to confirm the original translation, and, though he provided a bit more context, he confirmed the basic statement. Apparently Verhagen brings up child porn not once, not twice, but three times in the course of the interview. Sometimes it’s just to provide an analogy, about how blocking internet sites is okay if it’s child porn, so there’s no problem if it’s also done under ACTA, but that’s a totally separate issue because child porn and infringement are extremely different situations. But on the third mention, as the article suggests, Verhagen does, in fact, link ACTA to child porn:
“Regarding internet users that download – this treaty doesn’t cover that at all. It’s about, for instance, the possibility to shut down a child pornography site (not the person who goes there, but the person who puts it online). Or when there’s big-scale commercial abuse in such a way that the labor of the creator is taken away from him”
I recognize that he’s saying the purpose of ACTA is to go after sites not users, but that really is besides the point. People are concerned about the wrongful censorship of sites, and ACTA itself has nothing to do with child porn. Using that and claiming that’s what ACTA is about is simply fear mongering. Of course, it’s become all too typical these days to wrap other forms of legislation in “child porn” claims. This comic from over a decade ago remains all too true, as we’re seeing with politicians around the glob using child porn to press for draconian legal changes.
Filed Under: acta, censorship, child porn, copyright, maxime verhagen, netherlands
Comments on “Dutch Economics Minister Says ACTA Is Designed To Shut Down Child Porn Sites… Even Though That's Not True”
The problem is with the means, not the ends
Even if ACTA were indeed designed to combat child porn, it still would be the wrong way to do it. Taking down websites based on allegations of illegality, whether it’s child abuse or copyright infringement, is going to end up hurting innocent people whose sites are shut down because somebody thinks they’re illegal or infringing. Under ACTA, getting at the truth of the accusation doesn’t matter as much as stopping the perceived illegality, and that’s the problem.
I am going to assume that this politician is semi-competent so he would realise that ACTA has nothing to do with child pornography.
Franky it is simply atrocious that they use such a horrendous cruelty to further their own agendas; I also worry about this affecting legitimate concerns and legislation to prevent this and prosecute those involved.
YIPPY TECHDIRT IS BACK!!!!
For a brief period this afternoon I was concerned someone had figured out a way to silent Mike, but alas I no longer need to read the google cache for this article.
wow, masnick has found a politician who says something he thinks is not true !!!!, or has some details of facts wrongs.
And this is so important that mansick has to write about it..
You are really lucky you Mike, do not have to answer to anyone, when it comes to talling the truth !!
Next thing you will be writing about, is how you found out the Pope is Cathlic, and that bears shit in the forest !!
it appears you would say anything, if you believed it would give you a couple more page hits 🙂
Time to bring this back up...
Link
7 years ago we got a child pornography filter on the Internet in Denmark. Some people said that it was a bad idea, but others said these people were just paedophiles, or trying to help paedophiles. Some people said that it was against our constitution, which it was. So the censorship was implemented in a way so it was formally (but not in reality) voluntary, which ensured that it was not formally a violation of our constitution.
Some people warned that once the censorship infrastructure was in place, it would most likely be used to censor other things. But they were told “Never! This is ONLY to prevent this horrible crime, and will never be used for other censorship.”
It started with just infringement. Then they come for your children, stating they’ll protect through censorship. Then, they come to take away your property through eminent domain seizures. And the government tries to leave you with nothing to your name. No way to make money, plenty of ways to abuse the system with bad laws and low standards of proving crimes.
It’s amazing to me… How the hell did we get here? We have a system actively supporting dying industries over the people it’s supposed to protect. And there’s very little that can be done until more people can step in the system and tell others to knock it off. It’s a frustrating battle, this idea of copyright. The larger battles for privacy, liberty, and justice seem to go unheeded so long as the government seems to think that it can do anything it wants.
Good grief…who are the Pro-ACTA group members think they’re fooling?
Re:
Aww, Darryl found the keyboard and randomly poked some keys again.
Wait...
Didn’t the Dutch government agree not to ratify Acta on grounds of human rights violations? This means that not only is this guy a liar and a nut, but his opinion may only be own.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
thats right, so dont ever try to enfore ANY crime EVER because it might at some point actually hurt someone who is innocent.
Lets not consider that crime itself is usually directed at the innocent, and designed tohurt the innocent…
If CP represents are form of “trade” (and it does), and ACTA is a anit- illegal trade group, then by definition it is working to stop illegal trade, including the trade of CP…
the problem is not with the means, it IS with the ENDS !!
The “ends” is illegal trade, masnick is claiming the opposite to what you claim !!, he is saying the problem is with the “means” (ACTA) and the the ends (CP)
Here we go again
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again because it seems to need saying.
Just where were the uber concerned politicians like Maxime Verhagen while I and many other children were being sexually abused. Not to mention physical abuse and many other forms of abuse.
Once again, almost all of it takes place in family or by trusted adults such as teachers, ministers, scout master and coaches. But, to restate it, the vast majority of it takes place in family, By fathers and mothers almost equally and almost all of whom were abused themselves. So where were you then Maxime Verhagen? (Or Vic Toews)
Real pedophiles are a tiny minority of the human population. Take a second or two to look it up.
I have to say I’m sick and tired of being victimized again, or at least being used as a victim, by grandstanding politicians who want so desperately to play the “it’s for the children card” when things like ACTA aren’t any such thing. Just do me a favour and others who have suffered childhood sexual abuse out of your rantings.
IP has nothing whatever to do with the abuse (sexual or otherwise) of children who, after all, get no say in any of this. Abuse or idiotic IP laws.
There may be one bright light in all of this. Perhaps ACTA is on the verge of collapse in Europe. And I can’t think of a better thing to happen to that thing. Let’s stop this idiotic expansion of IP laws till they get to the point where no creator can create anymore without fearing that they may copy a sentence used in another work. For example: “I am” as it is used twice in the Bible. (The Bible may be in the public domain but virtually none of the translations are.)
Re:
I am assuming you are a semi-competent human, so you would NOT realise that ACTA is about counterfeiting and TRADE.
You would also not realise that the trade in CP is still in fact TRADE.. That is probably why he is a politician and people listen to him, and you are a nobody, that as such no body listens too..
Is anyone surprised....
GAH stupid enter button.
that with all the secrecy even someone who supposedly has seen the paperwork doesn’t even know what it says?
Re:
Just to educate you a little bit. The word Pope means Bishop of Bishops and does not just apply to the Bishop of Rome. The Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian and some branches of Orthodoxy have popes and always have. And will continue to.
So, the Pope may not be Catholic. He could be Coptic and there is, in fact a pope in the Coptic church.
Oh, and you truly must be an urbanoid who lives nowhere near a forest or you’d know that bears don’t just shit in the woods, but all over your lawn, in your garden and anywhere else they please.
It is nice to know that some AC’s are as totally ignorant as I’ve always thought they were.
Watered down...
Some day: “If you don’t give me free food you’re in favor of child pornography!”
Wait...
Not exactly. They will not ratify it until it has been clearly established that it does not violate basic rights and the constitution. They never stated that such violations do indeed exist, so they may still ratify it when none are found.
Re:
Next thing you will be writing about, is how you found out the Pope is Cathlic, and that bears shit in the forest !!
Wait. I must have my metaphors mixed up. I thought it was “Does the Pope shit in the woods?” and “Are bears Catholic?”
I guess I am up a tree without a paddle, but I really didn’t want to tip the apple cart before the horse, so….
It’s almost like they talk to each other and get taught what to say. Too bad he missed what happened to the guy who proposed the same idea in Canada.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
You’re presenting a false dilemma. It’s not either you (A) take down the allegedly infringing site immediately without due process or (B) do not nothing to enforce the laws.
There’s a middle ground that involves making sure due process is followed. If a site is truly trafficking in child porn, that will still be true after a court of law reviews it.
However, if an allegedly copyright infringing site is immediately taken down without due process and then later found to be non-infringing, there’s no way to get that time back during which the site was taken down. That’s prior restraint. That’s a violation of free speech. That’s possibly interfering with business practices if it’s a non-infringing commercial site.
If you want to pass an anti-child porn law, go for it. Everyone will be behind you if you can come up with an effective way to counter child porn without dropping a nuke on the rights of innocent people. But don’t pretend ACTA has anything to do with child porn. It was negotiated by lobbyists for the entertainment industry who have no interest in curbing child porn and only have interest in their own profits.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
Darryl, please learn human.
Re:
You do realize that censoring doesn’t stop the abuse those children suffer right?
You do realize that no censorship BS ever stopped illegal activity only hide it from view right?
Re:
“Next thing you will be writing about, is how you found out the Pope is Cathlic, and that bears shit in the forest !!”
That’s about as funny as a screen door on a battleship.
So, why don’t you make like a tree and get out of here.
ACTA will have exact opposite effect.
Child porn is KP not IP
Many if not most countries have felony law regarding child porn. In the UK mere possession is potentially an imprisonable offence with the offender also being placed on the sex offender register for life requiring them as a minumum to keep the police informed of their current address and excludes them from many jobs.
In the UK filters are tolerated by the public to block access to child porn but in reality it is still out there, the worst of which is on the TOR darknet where politicians and law enforcement has difficulty touching it but at least it is out of sight of the general public or so politicians think.
Blocking child porn is one thing. trying to use ACTA or any other legislation to curb a MAINSTREAM activity such as filesharing is another. This will result in the widespread aboption of circumvention methods such as TOR.
This will not only give the mainstream population easier (poss unintentional) access to child porn , illicit mail order drugs, even hitmen, it will also make their detection and identification that much harder due to the explosion in the number of TOR nodes.
Promoting ACTA you might as well be peddling child porn.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
Learn to think, Darryl. “The ends” in my post would be stopping copyright infringement and/or child pornography. “The means” would be ACTA the way it’s currently written.
With this in mind, do you still insist “the problem is not with the means, it IS with the ENDS”?
Re:
I’d assume that Holland and nearly every other country on the planet already has laws that can be used to bring down child porn websites…
ACTA is supposed to stop counterfeit goods surely?
Isn't that what WWII was all about?
Isn’t that what World War I and World War II were all about? Getting rid of child porn? That’s most likely why the US is in the Middle East. It’s to get rid of all the child porn. And if you’re against war, then you must be all for child porn. It wasn’t until Human Rights made a big stink about it that we had to resort to ACTA to replace all the rockets, missiles, and nukes.
In fact, that’s why the American Revolution occurred. Settlers were trying to get away from all of what they thought was child porn in England. Turned out they were wrong, but what the hell, they’re here now so lets just settle, make bombs, and blow crap up that might have suspected bunkers filled with child porn.
Makes perfect sense… 😐
so has a politician of equal or higher standing educated her on the ‘mistakes’? why was she not called out at the time on the misinformation she was spouting?
Re:
I can trade marijuana with people using a the internet. I can trade sex using the internet. So ACTA will not only stop child pornography and copyright infringement, but it will also stop sex trafficking and drug use! Huzzah!
Re:
If a bear shat in the Pope’s hat in the woods, would Rick Santorum be there to tell us how nature has declared war in religion?
its simple
THIS LAW IS ABOUT CHILD PORN SITES {rest of law}
end of story
Re:
* on religion. Need to type slower.
Actually do something about it...
I’m getting increasingly aggravated with politicians claiming their internet regulation bill is to stop “child porn” to benefit their campaign contributors rather than actually doing something to stop child porn, let alone helping the victims!
The problem is with the means, not the ends
I want to see you show us where in history censorship ever stopped a child from being abused.
Re:
And censorship stops how that trade?
It makes it more difficult for law enforcement to find it and it serve as a early warning system to criminals how is that useful?
The problem is with the means, not the ends
Tell me this, fool. How does shutting down child porn websites stop the proliferation and production of child porn?
Somebody please think about the children!!!!!
Pirate apologists, paedophilia supporters, puppy kickers, candy thieves, PLEASE think about the children!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
Child Porn
Seems to me that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would just ensure that the child porn you’re downloading is genuine. After all it is about being anti-counterfeiting.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
You say: “thats right, so dont ever try to enfore ANY crime EVER because it might at some point actually hurt someone who is innocent.”You probably mean “don’t enforce any law” but even if you’d stated it correctly it’s pure strawman. NO ONE you are “arguing” with took that position.Try to argue against the actual position that they’ve stated: That ACTA doesn’t address child porn AT ALL. Go ahead, try to use logic not logical fallacies.
Maybe Maxime Verhagen expects IP claims on CP so it can be taken down under ACTA
Re:
It’s supposed to stop counterfeit child porn.
To the best of my knowledge, all references I have seen concerning SOPA, PIPA and ACTA relating to child porn have been responsive to Mr. Vixie’s comment about DNS/DNSSEC. His opinion was that perturbing the internet is OK in matters such as child porn, but he does not believe it should be perturbed for something like copyright infringement. IOW, he will tolerate it for one, but not the other. I understand the basis for his opinion, but nevertheless believe he is articulating policy preferences, and not technology issues.
Re:
Apparently you don’t realize that your avatar sticks whether or not you’re logged in.
Re:
Was that that whole abuse the politician on twitter thing? I though that was seriously funny …
Re:
I wonder if Maxime has a sibling called Minime?
Re:
To the best of my knowledge, all references I have seen concerning SOPA, PIPA and ACTA relating to child porn have been responsive to Mr. Vixie’s comment about DNS/DNSSEC.
Um. This has absolutely nothing to do with Vixie’s comment. Why even bring it up?
You seem to have a complete hard on over your total misreading of Vixie’s comment.
His opinion was that perturbing the internet is OK in matters such as child porn, but he does not believe it should be perturbed for something like copyright infringement.
That’s not what he said, but this is off topic, so why even bring it up other than your rather questionable fascination with Mr. Vixie.
Do you have any comments on what this post is actually about or are you not allowed to stay on topic when it makes your position look totally ridiculous and foolish?
YIPPY TECHDIRT IS BACK!!!!
For a brief period this afternoon I was concerned someone had figured out a way to silent Mike
Heh, mine too. DNS was flaky (I could ping the server by IP fine, but DNS queries came back denied.) For a second I was wondering if MAFIAA got their wish and somehow Techdirt was SOPA’d. However, it was probably someone messing around with their DNS server as queries were resolving properly along some of the paths and were failing along some of the others. Maybe DNSSEC implementation?
Re:
Thank you for your input Mr. Tannen
Re:
Your comments concerning what is being attributed to the individual in the Netherlands is equivocal. Hence, I provided my comment only to note that when this has been mentioned in the past, it has been in the context of “breaking the internet”. Is this what the individual had in mind? I do not know, but it is a distinct possibility.
As for Mr. Vixie, I believe I have accurately summarized what he stated. I would, of course, be pleased to consider whatever you may have to offer in rebuttal.
Perhaps it is just my impression, but you seem to be much less tolerant of those who may say something with which you disagree. That would be a shame because it takes away the persuasive force of your arguments.
Wait...
But there must be some sort of violation right? And perhaps we don’t need to worry as all EU states must ratify the treaty, and Poland has dropped out.
its about protecting the intellecuual property of childrens genitalia
The problem is with the means, not the ends
No, No, No, Mr. Wilson. Your example of the false dilemma should be: (A) You’re against child porn or (B) you’re a filthy pedophile.
By changing the language of Anonymous’ argument, you side step the real issue, which is intellectually dishonest. For shame!
Re:
Anent my comment at #47, Mr. Vixie has written on at least one occasion:
I’ve been asked by several people whether ISC’s Response Policy Zone technology (referenced above) can be used to implement government mandated DNS blocking, for example to protect Hollywood against intellectual property theft or to protect children against against abuse by the distribution and viewing of Child Abuse Materials or to protect a society against content deemed dangerous by its government. Sadly my answer to this is a qualified “yes.”
I say “qualified” because while I can agree that it’s worth perturbing the whole Internet ecosystem to wipe out a domain that’s being used for the distribution of Child Abuse Materials I simply cannot agree that this level of perturbation is warranted for the protection of intellectual property. One form of perturbation that I’m especially concerned about is wiping out a domain name that’s being used for both malicious and non-malicious purposes. I could imagine wiping out twitter.com or facebook.com if they were hosting Child Abuse Materials and did not respond instantly to a lawful takedown order. I can’t countenance that level of ecosystem disruption if the content in question is a copy of the latest Hollywood blockbuster movie or video game. Worriedly, I do not think that this level of fine distinction and finesse would inevitably guide the hands of governments in control of mandated “DNS blocking”.
Nevertheless the raw uncomfortable truth of the matter is that any form of mandated “DNS blocking” whose goal is to make certain domain names unreachable will be indistinguishable from the result of a Secure DNS failure – and a failure is a failure is a failure. We need informed debate on the question of mandated “DNS blocking” but we should be true to the facts and the details. Secure DNS and “DNS blocking” are ships in the night at the moment and whenever the goal of “DNS blocking” is merely domain name disappearance and not content insertion then “DNS blocking” will not break Secure DNS or even slow it down.
Re:
>And this is so important that mansick has to write about it..
And that was so important you had to respond to it.
The problem is with the means, not the ends
I see, darryl. You want everybody to enforce crime. Why do you love child porn so much?
This is the CDA we're talking about
Maxime Verhagen is of the CDA party, a slightly right of the road cristian party. His party has not as fully supported the investigations on abuse within the church as other parties.
Now he claims that child porn will have IP claims? All those priests, being sorry for their home video’s leaking to the net?
ACTA is not about child porn, and the CDA is not about correctly explaining their statements.
Why stop there?
I believe ACTA will help us protect against zombie invasions, develop limitless energy for the future and solve the problem of world peace. How can anyone be against THAT?!
I am reminded of a game
where players have to speak on a subject without mentioning the subject itself.
Perhaps we could introduce this to all forms of political campaigning in such a way that any politician who tries to claim anything is to “combat child porn”, is immediately disqualified.
There would of course be a single exception and that is where the subject matter actually is about combatting child porn.
Sadly if they were prevented from using this as a bogus claim, they would simply move on to the next emotive concept, whatever that might be. “killing kittens” perhaps?
Re:
So if the mere mention of trade is enough to bring in the query of child pornography why not involve every single industry that exists? Does child pornography affect all trades simply because it involves elements of trade?
At least you’re brave enough to acknowledge in order to become a politician you need to draw conclusions with sheer amounts of ridiculous hyperbole.
Omg, and these idiots are ruling my country…
But think of...
So… even the Dutch are using “but think of the children” as an excuse to rip away rights from people. Good for you. I guess the Dutch can start practicing their goosestepping now…
The problem is with the means, not the ends
You don’t realize how very, very clever the ACTA people are. They’ve got it all figured out.
You see, the child porn purveyors will, of course, want to stop pirates from stealing their IP, so they will want to use ACTA to do it.
That means they have to register copyright. That’s when the Copyright Office (a subdivision of Disney), will catch them!!!1!!
It will work!!!11
STOP american IP legislation in Europe !!!
greetings from Poland !!!
Re:
What, unfortunately, many fail to understand is that current US copyright law in substantial measure represents conforming US law since 1978 to treaty requirements dating back to the Berne Convention…and the impetus for Berne and its progeny originated in Europe no less, with France being the catalyst.
If nothing else, I do give Congress credit for enacting various provisions in the Copyright Act that try and ameliorate some of the excesses thrust upon it. Section 512 of the DMCA is but one of many examples. Another is Fair Use, a doctrine developed at common law by the federal courts. Of course, Fair Use resulted from the limitations inherent in the First Amendment, a limitation on government that is not universally required throughout the world.
This does not mean that I support each and every provision of current US law in a Pavlonian manner. I still believe that the Copyright Act of 1909 is conceptually superior, primarily because of its opt-in, limited term, and formalities requirements. It is the elimination of these these that seem to underlie much of the concern associated with current law.
ONLINE Child Porn Legislation?Smoke Screen For Spying On Electronic Communications
Canada, Britain & U.S. Government want to Spy On Its Citizens?/ Electronic Communications?
The Canadian (Commons recent Bill C-30) would?give any Canadian police officer without a warrant?the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties that British Government recently proposed?to spy on Brits? electronic communications. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals appear to mirror legislation U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens?
Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits, Canadians and Americans that resulted from e.g, evidence or information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Citizens? communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records including GPS tracking.
Compare with U.S. Government?s proposal to electronically monitor, spy on Americans without a warrant?with Canada?s recent eavesdropping (Bill C-30) and British Government?s plan to spy on its Citizens? electronic communications.
U.S. Government wants the power to (introduce as evidence) in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context any innocent?hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person?s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the U.S. Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen?s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts?determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to?Americans? Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on ?Asset Forfeiture? to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The ?Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000? (effectively eliminated) the ?five year statue of limitations? for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they ?learned? an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizen?s (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government can too easily use no-warrant?(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler?s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of ?Property Seizure? Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation?s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an ?innocent owner defense.? This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime ?even when you did not do the crime? may (involuntarily waive) a defendant?s right to assert in their defense?the ?Criminal Statute of Limitations? past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
Re:
Translation: “No, I don’t have any useful input.”
Re:
Mr. Masnick,
Your silence is “deafening”. You chide me for making a comment without detailed citations, I provide a copy of remarks made at a 3/11 meeting of the ISC, and then all further comments by you come to a complete halt.
If this was the first time I could understand the lack of a response. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modus operandi here…traverse a TD argument, receive expletive laden remarks, address the few points made in the remarks with backup, and then receive nothing in return that perhaps the traversal has merit.
For one who supposedly encourages debate, the definition of “debate” as applied here seems rather one-sided.