We read:
"Feds have seized at least 70 websites for copyright and trademark violations. The 70+ domain names have been seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a department under Homeland Security. The shut downs were initiated through court-ordered warrants.
ICE’s notices includes copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit goods.
A spokesman of ICE told Torrent Freak: “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time.”
Most of the blocked domains are e-commerce site, or websites selling goods like clothes, bags etc.
Source
The clothes and handbags are apparently suspected of being "knock-offs" (cheap copies of well-known brands) but how such goods are a threat to homeland security is not remotely obvious. It would be funny if it were not so ominous. Clearly they can block any internet content whenever they like.
And note that "copyright infringement" is one of their excuses. Most blogs reproduce at least some news content from elsewhere so Homeland Security could suddenly shut down 99% of conservative blogs on that ground if they chose. You don't even get a warning notice.
Rather sad when the chief danger to free speech is the U.S. government. Obama could shut down all conservative blogs 6 months before the 2012 elections and nobody could do anything about it. You could go to court but getting a result there could take years.
12 comments:
I have absolutely no problem with the U.S. government enforcing its laws, however it must do so through proper legal channels. If it is determined that the methodology used in these cases was done to sidestep the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, then this really needs to be stopped before it is used for more nefarious purposes.
-sig
ICE is a department under Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to DHS standing up, the US Customs service, now part of ICE, handled enforcement of importing counterfeit goods into the US. If the good being sold were counterfeit and violated copyright/trademark laws, then ICE could get a court order to shut them down. That is no different than them getting a court order to shut down a street vendor or corner store that is knowingly selling these items.
That is no different than them getting a court order to shut down a street vendor or corner store that is knowingly selling these items.
It is different in that none of the sites received the warrant or were allowed to make claim in court.
Part of the law is that a warrant for seizure must be served to the owner of the property being seized. That did not happen here.
The one thing that's clear in this case is that in dealing with these internet sites, we're in uncharted waters. The sites are violating the law, just as vendors do selling their counterfeit goods on the street. Here in NYC it's a huge problem, especially since these vendors pay no tax and the city's broke. And when politicians smell fresh money, watch out!
On the other hand, we are seeing yet another govt. agency which seems to be giving itself a whole lot of authority and power it perhaps shouldn't have. Ever since this Marxist got into the Oval Office, he has routinely side-stepped congress, granting far reaching powers to his hand-picked "czars". This is something the president (does not) have the Constitutional authority to do, but that doesn't seem to bother him, nor the current congress. Look for major changes after Ja. '11.
Shutting down blogs before the 2012 election would be all that is required to assure an Obama defeat, no matter who is running against him. Let us hope he is that arogant.
MDH
"Part of the law is that a warrant for seizure must be served to the owner of the property being seized. That did not happen here."
These sites are not operated by US citizens and therefore they have no protection under US law.
They were however hosted under US registered domains and possibly on US based servers.
They were seized under national security legislation anyway, which allows DHS to bypass a lot of normal legal process.
The proceeds of the counterfeit trade often flow (directly or indirectly) towards terrorist groups and/or the countries sponsoring them.
These sites are not operated by US citizens and therefore they have no protection under US law.
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in cases involving detainees at Gitmo, so you are wrong on that basis.
Furthermore, are you really trying to say that a non_American citizen can be thrown in jail for no cause? That a cop can just stop anyone on the premise that they are not an American citizen?
There is nothing in the US law that allows the government to circumvent the Constitution.
(Oh, and by the way, several of the domains were run by US citizens and hosted on US servers.)
All the plans of BIG BROTHER under our new dictator OBAMA and oviously the liberals didnt learn from this elections
They don't have the authority to do this, but they will acquire it if Congress does not object. The sites may be illegal, but another illegal act does not even the score.
The feds are using the Wikileaks incident along with the Pirates domains to seize control of the Internet.
As the natives shopped for bargains and the NFL played on.
welcome to Big Bro internet, get used to less and less freedom and more intrusion and probably taxes soon enough.
"Part of the law is that a warrant for seizure must be served to the owner of the property being seized."
Is electronically shutting down a web site the same as a seizure, which is a physical act? What's being seized? I doubt an American court will agree with that, thus, no warrant needed.
As for Big Bro internet, you can bet on it, and google will be/is a big part of that. And yes, taxing the internet is just around the corner. BTW, google is watching every key stroke we make here...
Is electronically shutting down a web site the same as a seizure, which is a physical act?
Yes, because seizure is removing control of the object from the owner. To illustrate the point, bank accounts do not actually have money in them, but merely electronic representations of money. The government, when seizing a bank account, still must provide a warrant to the account owner.
Secondly, the DNS has a real value. If it did not, courts could not resolve disputes as they do when it comes to domain names.
What's being seized? I doubt an American court will agree with that, thus, no warrant needed.
What is being seized is the intellectual property of the owner. That is the same type of thing that the government is saying the sites stole. You can't play both sides of the fence and claim that IP has a value on one hand to prosecute someone, and then say it doesn't have a value when you are seizing the IP.
Lastly, if you had bothered to read the notice, the DHS says they have a warrant, so your point that they don't need a warrant is moot. What they didn't do was SERVE the warrant.
Post a Comment