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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 2:51pm

    "This is not an American problem, it is a global one and it is a fight we must win."

    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?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 2:58pm

      Didn't you know?

      America IS the world. To ICE and other law enforcement agencies, no other countries are important and many don't even exist.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 3:53am

        Re: Didn't you know?

        Exactly!

        "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.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Tex Arcana (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:45pm

          Re: Re: Didn't you know?

          "...because our benefactors the *IAA's have determined that we must think this! way!":tard:s

          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??

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 2:55pm

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:55pm

      Re:

      From the ICE News release:
      The federal forfeiture process affords individuals who have an interest in seized domain names a period of time after a "Notice of Seizure" to file a petition with a federal court


      Compare:
      It is readily apparent that the Maryland procedural scheme does not satisfy these criteria. First, once the censor disapproves the film, the exhibitor must assume the burden of instituting judicial proceedings and of persuading the courts that the film is protected expression.Second, once the Board has acted against a film, exhibition is prohibited pending judicial review, however protracted....

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

    a fight we must win

    Can he please give some examples of global fights we are participating in where "we must win" is not one of the set goals?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:10pm

    By carrying out take-down in bulk, it limits any judges ability to determine whether or not the action is appropriate for every site. This allows some site to be slipped into the list with minimal evidence.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      • First, the burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on the censor.

      • 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.
      — To this end, the exhibitor must be assured, by statute or authoritative judicial construction, that the censor will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court to restrain showing the film. Any restraint imposed in advance of a final judicial determination on the merits must similarly be limited to preservation of the status quo for the shortest fixed period compatible with sound judicial resolution.

      • 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.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:52pm

    You know the domain name seizure notices posted on seized sites, with the DOJ and Homeland security symbols, stating "This domain name has been seized..."? Just last night I downloaded a pic of that and, using my photo editing software, changed "This domain name..." to "This computer...". I am using that as my desktop wallpaper.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

    So what happened to the law? You know the one where the DOJ has 1 year to determine if enough evidence is present for a court case or the property must be returned?

    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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      -, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 3:54am

      Re:

      It's like B.D. "Brad" Odle and others in the Missouri highway patrol stealing a person's property and refusing to return it, and giving the rightful owner the runaround when he inquires about it.
      They think they are so high-and-mighty, but they are nothing but thieves and thugs who hide behind a badge.

       

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 4:52pm

    Yes, it's that time of year again, when Techdirt complains about punishment being handed down to websites that violate the law...

     

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

    •  
      icon
      silverscarcat (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

      Re:

      It's that time of year again...

      When Anonymous Cowards come out of the woodwork to complain about Techdirt pointing out the hypocrisy of Maximalists and not siding with them.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 5:10pm

      Re:

      Yes, it's that time of year again, when Techdirt complains about punishment being handed down to websites that violate the law...

      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.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 5:15pm

        Re: Re:

        Pretending ignorance of seizure law, it's the Mike Masnick way...

         

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 7:35pm

        Re: 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.


        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!

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Rekrul, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 12:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          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!

          It's legalized theft.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 1:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          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!

          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.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 4:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Free speech claims are a defense to a seizure, not a blanket immunity against seizure.

            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.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 5:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The only people who think he's a buffoon and a figure of fun are copyright maximalists who don't understand just what's wrong with copyright.

              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.

               

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Ahhh. So, your retardation is hereditary. That's too bad.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  wow...

                  I wish I could see you in person.

                  You're a horrible person.

                  You think my grandmother is retarded?

                  FUCK OFF!

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 5:23am

              Re: 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."

              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?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                @silverscarcat

                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.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Gwiz (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Masnick seems to contend that because of First Amendment implications, websites are somehow immune from seizure without first having their day in court.

                  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?

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You should have stood up for SOPA, as that's exactly what you'd have gotten. Instead you get this. Holy Unintended Consequences, Batman.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:25pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

                      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.

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Gwiz (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You should have stood up for SOPA, as that's exactly what you'd have gotten. Instead you get this. Holy Unintended Consequences, Batman.

                      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.

                       

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

            •  
              icon
              art guerrilla (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 6:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ooo, look at me ! ! !
              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

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You want justice? Start by paying for content, loser.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2012 @ 5:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Why should I pay so you can call me a pirate? If I'm going to be insulted why the hell should I need to pay for the privilege?

                   

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

              •  
                identicon
                Michelle, Dec 30th, 2012 @ 11:49pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wtf do you know about what someone has been through, you obviously know nothin of the really world..blood sucking leeches where I come from are murderous mf that would shove ur words of wisdom where a soldier died for whats right and the mere mention of leeches would trigger somethin called ptsd, dont forget those who fought for us to express our irrellivent opinions on this cyber hypocracy anyway, I say, in ur nek commy

                 

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Free speech claims are a defense to a seizure, not a blanket immunity against seizure.


              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.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You're suggesting that there are free speech implications involving the seizure of these counterfeit and trademark infringing websites. All indications are that these sites were trafficking in goods- yet you still bang the free speech drum? Stretching Ft. Wayne Books v. Indiana to cloak the guy selling fake Nikes online is a pathetic joke.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 12:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You're suggesting that there are free speech implications involving the seizure of these counterfeit and trademark infringing websites.

                  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?

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Why so afraid of allowing them to have their day in court?

                    There are several hundred seized websites who could have tested your dubious legal theory. Maybe they know something you don't.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 3:03pm

                      Re: 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.

                      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.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "My theory isn't "dubious" it's the fucking law."

                        I'd say it's more along the lines of the 4th and 5th Amendments...

                         

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 4:38pm

                        Re: Re: 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."

                        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.

                         

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

                        •  
                          icon
                          silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 6:45pm

                          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.

                           

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

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2012 @ 12:10am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Somebody hit ur cybetard bitch button, Imf real, you live vicauriosly through a world that dosnt really exist, cyber crap is pretty amazing but what kind of skills in life does it apply to.ima disabled but your infantile feedback just proved you to be chidish and as if you refuse to go about without being heard as well, I laugh at you cyber tard

                             

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

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2012 @ 12:10am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Somebody hit ur cybetard bitch button, Imf real, you live vicauriosly through a world that dosnt really exist, cyber crap is pretty amazing but what kind of skills in life does it apply to.ima disabled but your infantile feedback just proved you to be chidish and as if you refuse to go about without being heard as well, I laugh at you cyber tard

                             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Michlle, Dec 30th, 2012 @ 11:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Cryin bout somethin worthy, who really cares about privacy? Cyber bored no really life havin mf, freedom of speech is being valued cuz the info is here to chek out, only ur cyber peeps understand how it works, thogh I find it all interesting, I being the illiterate inbreed I am, I can only check it out step by step, and its alot to remember, so shove your privacy, or dont bn a cyber tard

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 5:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Just like an individual doesn't need to be convicted prior to arrest


          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.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Nice melodrama!! Would it be asking too much to have you explain how this has ANY relevance to whether the First Amendment immunizes individuals from arrest or websites from seizure before a judicial finding?

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Guy, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 9:14am

        Re: Re:

        Not true, the pizza place near my house was raided and everything seized before the owner went to court. It has been closed since while he goes through the court process. Not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that is how it always works.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 12:34am

    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?

    Because copyright trumps all.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 7:52am

      Re:

      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?

      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.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 8:06am

        Re: Re:

        Given your nation's habit of 'interning' inconvenient nationals, this seems to be a continuation of the same process. And SOPA, even if it would have been workable or actually desirable from a legal point of view, was still utterly broken from a technical frame.

        How did Prohibition work as a law with a 'desired' effect of 'protecting' society?

         

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

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re:

        The anti-copyright crowd has given us the copyright laws we have today? Dat is very Interestink. I bet they are lobbying for more retroactive extensions right this minute.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re:

        Ah, the usual whining from the SOPA masturbators. "Since you wouldn't let us do these things permanently set in stone, we're going to do them anyway!"

        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.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        yes, because something made with warnings from the PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE INTERNET that it was a bad idea surely can't be a bad thing, right?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Since you have revealed that you are developmentally disabled, I'll try to show some patience. The chant you learned on the short bus and regurgitated above regarded DNS blocking. That was dropped from the bill.

          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.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            silverscarcat (profile), Nov 27th, 2012 @ 6:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Developmentally disabled... Wow! You can use big words. Did your mommy teach you that word today or was it your daddy?

            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.

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    relghuar, Nov 28th, 2012 @ 12:52am

    ...why they have to do this en masse on one day instead of going through the more tedious, though transparent, process ...

    Because, ummm, they don't have to bother with any process? ;-)
    This way looks a lot better in press conference, too. Perfect win-win situation...

     

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


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