
Feds Seized Hip-Hop Site for a Year, Waiting for Proof of Infringement - chaostheory
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/weak-evidence-seizure
======
chauzer
The RIAA labels should be required to pay the owner of the site for any lost
advertising revenue, lawyer fees for the defendant, and any other costs
associated with this case that wasn't paid for by the RIAA labels (the fed
seizure, the prosecutor, etc... was paid for by tax payers). They wasted
everyones time and money.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Agreed. We have a great exemplar of a private interest abusing their
connection with the government to damage someone else. And I don't care if its
the RIAA randomly taking down web sites, or Zero Halliburton manipulating
where the Army goes to protect Oil Well infrastructure that activity should
open up the manipulator to large civil penalties.

I think I'll include that in my discussions with Congressional candidates this
election season.

------
stretchwithme
"ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, has the power to seize
web domains engaged in infringing activity under the same forfeiture laws used
to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to illegal
activity such as drug running or gambling. But seizing a domain name raises
First Amendment concerns — though nothing in the court records show that the
government or the court was concerned about the prolonged seizure of the site
that is akin to an online printing press."

Yeah, who cares about property rights? Wired seems to think that's
unimportant. Freedom of speech is more worthy.

The fact is that "innocent til proven guilty" is being violated when seizures
are allowed before a case is proven. And the police go shopping under these
forfeiture laws.

[http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/exclu...](http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/exclusive%3A-state-
police-caught-on-tape-during-drug-raid)

~~~
rsingel
As the editor of the piece, I'll completely agree with your assessment. Free
speech rights are more important than property rights. The founders thought so
too. But the implication that property rights don't matter at all to Wired
because free speech rights are more important than them is logically flawed.

~~~
stretchwithme
Does the article state any concern about property rights?

------
Nibblerama
This sort of happened to me. I was running an emulated version of a popular
MMO and the feds raided my home, took all my computers and seized my bank
accounts.

This happened years ago, I was never charged with copyright infringement or
money laundering for the donations I collected... but I also never got any of
my stuff back.

Question is, if I was never legally charged with a crime, does it still give
them the right to seize my things and never give it back?

~~~
rmc
Yep, cops can seize property or enter property before they charge or convict
someone. Usually they need some sort of court approval.

------
patrickyeon
Ugh.

> “Here you have ICE making a seizure, based on the say-so of the record
> company guys, and getting secret extensions as they wait for their masters,
> the record companies, for evidence to prosecute,” Cohn [the EFF’s legal
> director] said in a telephone interview. “This is the RIAA controlling a
> government investigation and holding it up for a year.”

I don't like these seizures either, nor that the RIAA has and uses its
influence to tie up somebody's property this way without consequence. But the
EFF seems to insist on going that one step too far when they make public
comments. The wording ("secret extensions as they wait for their masters",
"RIAA controlling a government investigation") turns me right off and makes
them sound like cranks.

~~~
Natsu
> "RIAA controlling a government investigation"

Several ex RIAA lawyers hold top Justice Department posts, as was pointed out
by Ray Beckerman back when they were appointed.

> "secret extensions as they wait for their masters"

The case was delayed for about a year because they were waiting on the RIAA
for proof of infringement after seizing the site based on an RIAA complaint.

But I can see your point about the way they phrased it.

------
loso
I've posted about my disdain of the practices by the RIAA before and this is
only just a digital example of what they have been doing for years. I've spoke
about this before on this site so I will not be detailed as I have been in the
past.

In the past, record companies would send promotional materials to the DJ's.
Their objective was for you to play the material on your radio show, at
parties, and on your mixtape. They would explicitly say mixtape because for a
long time that was how hip hop was promoted. They would do this through a
third party who would cover a region of the country, meeting all of the DJ's.

Every few months, the RIAA would send government agents to arrest people who
were selling these same mixtapes. So even though you were getting the wink and
the nod to put the music on your mixtape, they would then turn around and use
the fact that their music was on your mixtape to try & sue or arrest you.

I was never arrested or sued but I refuse to help promote people who would
pull shady practices like this. A big reason why I'm a programmer and not a DJ
now.

Its no surprise to see them up to their same antics. I just hate how
entrenched they are in both parties of government.

------
newman314
This is akin to saying "Well, I think there is something wrong with the tax
code so I'm not going to pay till I figure out what it is". Some time passes,
I decide that "Oops, my bad", here's a payment but no penalty payment
provided.

It is alarming and frustrating that the land grab for power is seemingly
endless and yet we seem to be unable to do anything about it since the cards
have been systemically stacked against corrective action (we need a President
& Congress that are willing to fix things and that is about as likely to
happen while getting struck by lightning).

~~~
EvilTerran
_"Well, I think there is something wrong with the tax code so I'm not going to
pay till I figure out what it is"_

As an aside, Goldman Sachs and Vodafone have taken almost exactly that tack in
the UK recently. In the Vodafone case, they dodged tax illegally for a few
years, fought it in court for as long as they could (a few more years), then
only had to cough up the original amount, with no interest or fines --
basically because they were pally with David Hartnett, the head of HMRC. Hence
swindling the taxpayer out of billions of GBP.

~~~
gaius
That's not really accurate - they merely interpreted ambiguities in the tax
law in the most favourable way for themselves (and paid all the tax that was
due... In Luxembourg, another EU country). Google do this (in Ireland). Hell,
_The Guardian_ , the most left-wing paper in the UK, does all its financial
affairs offshore (really: [http://order-order.com/2009/02/02/guardians-tax-
hypocrisy-is...](http://order-order.com/2009/02/02/guardians-tax-hypocrisy-is-
ridiculous/)). They pay 0.3% of their profits in tax. 0.3%.

A similar case is ongoing now (Gregg's the bakers) but bizarrely public
opinion seems to have come down on the opposite side this time.

~~~
EvilTerran
As far as I understand it, the British tax code has clauses to the effect of
"business structures created for the sole purpose of evading tax don't count".
In that regard, they didn't follow the rules.

------
c0mpute
I am beginning to wonder if this is a sign of things where a startup/product
dev has to start thinking of the following:

\- Go to a p2p model where the app/service is distributed without a need to
depend on a domain?

\- Really start looking at countries/places to partner with someone to
register to get away from a cancer that FBI is becoming?

Seriously, this kind of thing is what puts a muddy cloud on USA as a viable
option. I know asian countries aren't a walk in the park (I am an India btw,
so know the bureaucracy in India), but maybe a country in Europe can become a
shinning beacon for internet liberties?? I almost feel the intelligentsia of
USA want a place established with modern principles :)

~~~
hello_asdf
It's all about the vps services now. I have a decent one, in a country with
almost no threat of being taken down :)

~~~
myko
Which service and where is it located?

~~~
hello_asdf
I'm using bytesized hosting here: <https://bytesized-hosting.com/>

My server is located in Luxembourg.

------
spoiledtechie
I think its time to start taking a stand against these types of seizures.

Is there any thing that can be done for websites against seizures like this?

Serious Question.

~~~
nextparadigms
Repeal the Pro IP Act passed in 2008.

------
54mf
Maybe I'm being a bit glib here, but what's to stop the folks behind
Dajaz1.com from registering, say, Dajaz2.com and picking up right where they
left off? It's not like that domain name was primo real estate, and if they
truly weren't breaking the law there isn't any reason they couldn't continue
running their site, right?

~~~
nirvana
Well it would be trivial to then seize Dajza2.com as well, but they could
easily get Daj.za or something else and use that-- which would be much harder
to seize.

However the kim dotcom issue shows that even being located in another country,
and the claim that you're "breaking the law" being very flimsy, is not
sufficient protection in many cases.

It will be interesting to see if foreign domain names start getting seized by
US officials.

~~~
54mf
You're absolutely right, but after so long some interesting issues start to
pop up. If "dajza1.com" was able to be seized on the premise that they had
released a specific set of songs, on what grounds could a new domain be
seized? "ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, has the power
to seize web domains engaged in infringing activity under the same forfeiture
laws used to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to
illegal activity such as drug running or gambling." If I own and operate
prettycatcalendars.com and blackmarketorgans.org, the feds might have grounds
to seize one, but certainly not every site I operate? What about a Facebook or
Twitter account that is not connected to the infringing site?

(Most of these are rhetorical, and probably don't have very pleasant answers.)

[Edit] Come to think of it, I'm kind of pissed the site owners didn't just
laugh at the seizure and immediately start up a new site, purely on principle.
URLs are basically irrelevant these days, and ICE seizing them on the grounds
that they're "tied to illegal activity" that adds up to copyright infringement
at best sounds like a lot of dick-swinging by ridiculous executives in an
industry well past its expiration date. They should be treated with
appropriate insolence.

------
tyree732
47 points and no comments? How can this be such an important story if nobody
has anything to say about it?

~~~
timmaah
It has been on hacker news some months ago..

~~~
tnorthcutt
The linked article was posted yesterday, so it hasn't been on HN for several
months. Perhaps the topic of the article?

------
nextparadigms
They shouldn't be able to seize a domain like that without hearing the ruling
first.

------
nirvana
There's no provision in the constitution for stealing property that you think
is involved in a crime (only for taking evidence of a crime. They could
collect evidence without taking the domain, that is completely unnecessary.)
Actually, there's no provision in the constitution for a federal police force
of any kind, and for this very reason[1]. (Check the enumerated powers clause
specifically. If you disagree, please give me which enumerated power
enumerates a federal police force.)

I don't know what will bring the US federal government into compliance with
the law, but it seems to me, over the 40 years I've been alive, they've just
gotten further and further away from it, and more and more unaccountable as a
result.

So, since most of HN seems to be liberals, and I know there are many such
crimes that many liberals disagree with: such as the patriot act, the kim
dotcom fiasco, airport porno scanners, domestic spying of all kinds, the drug
war, even in states that have legalized it, etc. how do you propose to fix
this?

Pick the crime the federal government is doing and continuing to do under
Obama, and tell me, how do you propose to change things so that the federal
government can no longer operate outside the law?

The argument for electing Obama to end the wars and close guantanimo, etc,
made some sense if you believed these were Republican initiatives. But we have
not seen them undone. In my life this has been consistently the case- Bush
didn't undo the "you must lend to people who can't repay" regulations of
Clinton with the unsurprising result. Bush didn't undo the prohibitions on
firearms clinton put in place, in fact, he banned even more guns than clinton
did (something many republicans refuse to admit.) Clinton didn't undo the
damage of the Bush years, Bush didn't undo the damage of the Reagan years,
Reagan did undo a little of the damage of the Carter years but did more damage
himself. Carter- I give him credit- did try to undo a lot of damage and made
some progress, but he and reagan are the exceptions... before and after them
it hasn't really which "party" (or wing of the one party from my perspective)
was in charge.

So, those of you who are younger. The Obama-Bush period is a perfect example.
It is _always_ like this. You can re-elect Obama because you think Mittens
would be worse (he might be, I can't say, I think he would be just as bad.)
But it isn't really going to change anything.

The game is rigged until something asymmetrical comes to change it. That might
be a period of severe economic pain (say when the dollar bubble collapses.)

Whatever, if you want things like these domain thefts to end, and you're in
your 20s, start working on how you're join to turn back federal authority.

The hippies of the 60s may have been socialist, but they were right about
opposing the concentration of power.

The problem is, if google pisses enough people off, their fortunes will start
to decline. Government is able to prosecute a drug war for 50+ years, one that
pisses huge numbers of people off, but there's no seeming way to stop it.

I'm using the drug war as an example here because it has more history than
these domain thefts or the copyright craziness we've seen lately.... and I
believe these thefts are a direct result of the drug war's Asset forfeiture
"laws".

[1] It would be very hard for the feds to ignore state law and raid drug
dispensaries in california if there were no federal police agencies. Further,
this is also why the federal government has no enumerated power to criminalize
drugs, but states do based on their state constitutions. Desire to control the
economy (via regulations) has caused many to defend the "regulate commerce
between the states" as if it gave the power to regulate to the feds. (it
doesn't, it gives the government the power to prevent states from charging
tariffs on the goods of other states... "Regulate" at the time didn't mean
what it is commonly used to mean now- at the time it meant "functional" or
"keep functional" as in "well regulated militia". If you think about it "the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the militia is not
to be regulated (in the modern meaning of the term) because it needs to be
"regulated" (in the "keeping function" meaning of the term)

~~~
cynicalkane
There's this pattern I've noticed, where whenever a constitutional issue comes
up on HN, nirvana makes this post that starts with a complete constitutional
misunderstanding followed by a Randist rant. And it's always top-voted. Yuck.

For starters, the Constitution clearly states that Congress may make laws
necessary and proper for _all_ powers vested in the government of the United
States, not just those in the enumerated powers of article I. Specifically,
the executive branch of the government has the power to enforce laws. It's not
really one of those things that's a matter of judicial interpretation--it's in
plain text, black and white. The idea that the Constitution does not authorize
a "federal police force", as the OP states, is so strange I can't really
fathom how someone who's read the Constitution could come up with it.

Anyway, since we were talking about asset forfeiture, I'll add that it has
withheld a number of constitutional challenges as well. I'm not an expert on
this but I'd be shocked if the OP was.

~~~
nirvana
There's this pattern I've noticed, whenever I make an argument on HN and cite
the constitution, people respond by characterizing me, rather than responding
to my arguments. And its always the top voted response. Yuck.

>the Constitution clearly states... it's in plain text, black and white.

Sure sounds like something you'd be able to quote... and why didn't you? What
possible reason could you have for choosing not to quote something that is "in
plain text, black and white"? This makes me think that the purpose of those
assertions is to pretend like you're making an argument, when your real
purpose is ad hominem. You could have dropped the ad hominem and just given us
the quote and an argument.

After all, its not like I didn't explicitly ask for such a quote in my post!
(but ignoring that is necessary to pretend like I've said something I haven't
your response is predicated on.)

I really think its a shame that you feel comfortable making ad hominem attacks
like this on Hacker News, because by doing so you have derailed any possible
discussion about the topic and made me the topic. I think this is anti-
intellectual.

I think your down vote brigade is shameful as well. This response is being
down voted for pointing out the ad hominem while the ad hominem is up voted.
My original post has dropped 5 points in only a few minutes....

The sad thing is my crime is trying to find common ground with liberals. Which
means it is nothing that I actually said that you object to, but the very
existence of a different way of thinking.

~~~
cynicalkane
Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, _and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._ "

Article 2, section 3: "He [The President] must... take care that the laws be
faithfully executed." Article 2 also expresses that the President has power to
head executive departments and delegate powers thereunto.

While you're at it, you might also want to read
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem> . 'Ad hominem' is a particular type
of invalid deduction. It's not a fancy Latin name for when you feel
persecuted.

~~~
nirvana
>you might also want to read <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

Did you read that page?

 _"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by
pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting
it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical
fallacy.[2][3][4]"_

You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen
because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way
of your persecution complex."

Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported)
assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative
characteristics about me.

Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows
that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers".
Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has
the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers.
You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers
clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually
addressed my claim at all.

Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the
requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for
my claim, not an undermining of it.

The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post
Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything
not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the
power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that
enumeration, for instance.

You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the
constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't
even addressed my argument.

You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like
there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the
point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that
you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack
instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me
look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if
you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me
completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate
still means you lost.

So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for
differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point
where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot
tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective.
And so you attacked me.

I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why
hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.

~~~
tptacek
This is 10 paragraphs of text that imply that air traffic control is
unconstitutional, along with mine safety, FDA standards for meat, child labor
laws, oh, and _any_ privacy protection for electronic communications. It is,
to give it a vivid name, a Wesley Snipesian take on the Constitution.

It's obvious why it's catnip to many HN readers; it suggests that the
Constitution is a very simple computer program, and that anything the
government does that you don't like is a bug in the interpretation of that
program.

Unfortunately for this argument, you cannot look at any federal government
action and match it up to the black-letter US Constitution while ignoring the
two centuries of jurisprudence that put those actions in context. We are not,
no matter what 'nirvana thinks, going to reset the federal government around
his interpretation of the Constitution.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_We are not, no matter what 'nirvana thinks..._

Nirvana never claimed the government would obey the constitution as written -
in fact, he claimed it wouldn't. Your post completely ducks nirvana's question
while mocking him and misrepresenting his views.

His question, again: _"there are many such crimes that many liberals disagree
with: such as the patriot act, the kim dotcom fiasco, airport porno scanners,
domestic spying of all kinds, the drug war, even in states that have legalized
it, etc. how do you propose to fix this?"_

~~~
tptacek
I'm sorry that I've come across as pointlessly mocking him, but this question
doesn't make sense to me.

Take for instance the drug war. I don't agree with the drug war. I think
criminalization of marijuana is terrible policy. _But is it unconstitutional?_
The Constitution provided a framework within which the citizens of the US were
able to elect representatives who passed laws that outlawed marijuana.

"Even in States that have legalized it"? That's an objection the Constitution
_explicitly_ presages: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby".

I re-re-read 'nirvana's point, and I think my interpretation is valid and that
I haven't misrepresented him.

'nirvana has adopted the idea that much of what the government is doing is
illegal because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution (in this one case,
because the power to establish a federal police force isn't one of the
Enumerated Powers of Congress). That's not how the Constitution works.

Could you be more specific, then, about what you're asking me? How do I
propose to fix what? The drug war?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The question, as I'd ask more specifically: what philosophical/legal principle
can/do "liberals" [1] use to determine what is or is not a legitimate function
of the government?

For example, many liberals believe that Jim Crow laws or laws giving special
privileges to straight married couples (but not gay married couples) should
not be permitted even with popular electoral support. I.e., liberals often
consider "the citizens of the US were able to elect representatives who X" to
be an invalid justification for policy X.

The question is, what principle are liberals using to come up with views like
this? Another question in the same line of thinking is: is there a principle
beyond "I like/dislike this policy" which the courts can use to invalidate
laws? (Note that appealing to court precedents and reinterpretations of the
constitution doesn't really answer this, since the court can always re-
reinterpret or make a new precedent.)

[1] I hate phrasing it this way, since the feelings it generates ("I
{love/hate} liberals SOOOO MUCH") reduce everyone's IQ by about 15 pts.

~~~
tptacek
I don't understand. Isn't "Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional" what _Brown v.
Board of Education_ decided? The Constitution doesn't provide a black-letter
guarantee of education for anyone, and yet the 14th Amendment allowed SCOTUS
to hold:

 _Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for
education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to
our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic
public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very
foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later
professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his
environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.
Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right
which must be made available to all on equal terms._

I just don't see where you're going. I'm interested, but I'm not following.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The issue is not what the court decided, unless you believe the court is
always correct and what is constitutional changes w.r.t what the court
believes. For example, do you believe that in the period from 1896 (Plessy v
Fergusen) until 1954 (Brown v Board of Ed), Jim Crow laws were constitutional?

If not, you must have some underlying principle that tells you Plessy was
incorrect. Or, somewhat tangential to constitutionality, you might have an
underlying belief as to what constitutes a legitimate function of the
government (e.g., perhaps you believe that regulating same-sex acts is not
such a function).

The question is, what is that underlying principle (or set of principles)?

This is what Nirvana attempted to ask, while unfortunately getting bogged down
in other far more boring matters.

~~~
tptacek
But it's not just "the Supreme Court decided it and thus it is so" (although
when push comes to shove...). It's also that the SCOTUS decisions are a hint
book to arguments like this.

So, I don't have to reason from first principles to arrive at the conclusion
that the 14th Amendment makes "separate but equal" unconstitutional. Brown v.
Board lays out the argument that it does. I can't best the argument here in a
message board post.

Do you think Brown v. Board is one of the cases SCOTUS got wrong? Genuinely
curious.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think the outcome of Brown v. Board was correct, but I think the reasoning
was wrong.

In particular, I dispute the "disparate impact" theory underlying the court's
reasoning, namely that segregation does not qualify as equal protection
because it is is disproportionately harmful to blacks.

I don't think disproportionate harm is required or relevant. My first
principle is that equal protection is violated when
gov_decision(circumstances, race1) != gov_decision(circumstances, race2).

Because of this, it would be relevant for me to cite Clarence Thomas in
Missouri v Jenkins:
<http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/70/case.html> But since Brown
v. Board doesn't take this same first principle, citing them wouldn't help you
understand my views (even if I agree with the outcome).

Presumably, if I knew your first principles (and if we are both completely
rational, and you are intellectually consistent), I could predict your opinion
on any given case. And that's the question Nirvana was asking - what are your
first principles?

~~~
tptacek
First, thanks for making me read _Missouri v. Jenkins_.

I'm not sure I see where you're going. Thomas' reading of _Brown v. Board of
Ed_ seems identical to mine:

 _Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior
educational resources--making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser
schools--would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white
students felt stigmatized [...]_

[...]

 _Regardless of the relative quality of the schools, segregation violated the
Constitution because the State classified students based on their race._

But further: the circumstances of these cases are wildly different. _Brown v.
Board of Ed_ was about active, de jure segregation of black people and white
people. _Missouri v. Jenkins_ was about a school district that became
majority-black as a result of white flight.

Kennedy's concurrence was illuminating: it seems to allege that the plaintiff
and defendant in this case (the students and the KCMO school district) were
_colluding_ : an accident of venue was the only reason KCMO's school district
was named defendant, and the actual, unnammed, shadow defendant was the state
of Missouri, which was being coerced into funding an otherwise wildly
unfundable mandate to create extravagant inner city schools by judicial fiat.

Thomas, Kennedy, and Rehnquist all put heavy attention on the circumstances of
this case, that the federal judiciary (a) probably can't impose state taxes by
fiat as a backdoor to legislation, and (b) clearly can't do so under the
auspices that demographic "segregation" was equivalent to legal segregation.
That all makes sense to me.

The FBI, air traffic control, copyright extensions: these are all well
supported by legislation. They were not imposed as a backdoor by fiat by an
activist court.

------
malkia
Oh, man! I thought they seized the PHP virtual machine named Hip-Hop. No
seriously - at least for few seconds... This must be News Ycombinatorism that
I'm suffering...

