
Homeland Security Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law - julian37
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml
======
grellas
The problem here is not so much with a judge or magistrate being ignorant of
technical issues but rather with a set of laws or procedures that allows a
prosecuting authority to come in with a heavy hand to get onerous remedies
without affording the affected party a proper opportunity to respond, at least
at the first step in the proceeding.

As long as the affected party gets a fair opportunity to respond, that party
will put contrary evidence and arguments before the judge or magistrate,
including affidavits of experts who explain the relevant technical issues.
Once a full record is before the court, issues tend to be fairly and properly
decided.

Obviously, at the warrant stage in this proceeding, everything was one-sided.
In such cases, at least at the _ex parte_ phase, things will tend to be
"rubber stamped" by an official, such as a magistrate, who probably has all of
10 or 15 minutes to devote to considering this particular item as one among
what might be dozens of items presented to that official in a given day.

The key is always one of due process. If all sides get to present their case,
judges and magistrates will tend to conscientious and well-supported
decisions. They do not need specific technical training to be able to do this,
as they will usually be well-educated by the affected party on whatever
technical deficiencies might exist in the prosecutor's position. That
obviously did not happen here because this particular step appears to have
been decided based on a one-sided presentation only.

~~~
WettowelReactor
Although your argument stands up for situations under normal due process the
special exemption cases like this shift the burden of education and
responsibility to the judge. In a case where no due process is given the judge
needs to be held to a much higher standard. In this situation the judge’s
order is a tremendous exercise of power which needs to be balanced with
comparable responsibility and accountability.

------
famblycat
"Equally troubling is that magistrate judge Margaret Nagle signed off on the
warrants (literally, with a rubber stamp) without questioning any of this,
from the look of things."

When judges sign off on stuff like this, do they consult at all with
independent technical experts on the implications of the evidence, or do they
just take the conclusions at face value? I sure hope they consult because even
if they're good at what they do, how can they be expected to be any sort of
check on the process when they haven't the technical background to interpret
the evidence?

~~~
puredemo
I wonder if a judge would be willing to shut down this site simply because
it's titled "Hacker News." It doesn't seem to be out of the realm of
possibility considering the processes followed in this case.

~~~
Corrado
In a previous job I was told to stay away from any "hacking" web sites because
they watch everything. I didn't read Hacker News at work for 3 months.

Thankfully, I got laid off from that job and now have a much better one where
I'm encouraged to read all the hacker stuff I can. :)

~~~
jrockway
Yeah, I hear this from time to time. My guess is that it is too much work to
read every site every employee reads. When it comes time to fire them, though,
then they go through your browsing history so they can fire you for reading
"hacking web sites" instead of "not doing any work". Just speculating, but I'm
having trouble imagining a department where the reading habits of 300,000
employees are analyzed in real time.

------
stretchwithme
Homeland Security is an auto-immune disorder.

~~~
JCTony
DHS should really be focusing resources on domestic terrorism rather than
shutting down a few websites. If even one American civilian dies because DHS
was busy shutting down blogs instead of shutting down a terrorist group ho
will they feel then? Obviously they won't care like usual but still.

~~~
anamax
> DHS should really be focusing resources on domestic terrorism rather than
> shutting down a few websites.

What domestic terrorism?

> how will they feel then?

They'll yell that they need more money and legal authority.

~~~
Corrado
Yup, all those TSA agents instilling fear and loathing at the airport are
expensive.

------
tdfx
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization.
You can still get some last donations in before the close of 2010.

------
civilian
How did past generations deal with the problem of idiot and/or old law
enforcers misunderstanding technology? And as technology improves more
quickly, are we at risk of having even more of a problem of disconnect between
the technologically proficient and the (often confused) government
bureaucrats?

~~~
bingaman
They went ahead and broke the law and then were called heretics or worse.
Kepler's mother was imprisoned, threatened with torture and called a witch _.
I'm sure you could find many more examples, it's basically the whole history
of science.

_
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Epitome_of_Copernican_As...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Epitome_of_Copernican_Astronomy.2C_calendars_and_the_witch_trial_of_his_mother)

~~~
hebejebelus
I'm reminded of the old adage: _Science. If you aren't pissing someone off,
you aren't doing it right._

------
tomjen3
The head of ICE should be shacked over this - not because of the way it was
done, but because homeland security should concern themselves with nothing
except stopping terrorist attacks until the present war on terror is over.
With all the urgency politicians have put in to it, we can afford to waste
time on trivial issues of copyright. Unless punished, they will never learn.

~~~
anigbrowl
What does ICE stand for?

~~~
pmh
Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement)

------
digitalclubb
Incredible that people with power have a real lack of understanding in their
field

~~~
hexis
Once one has power, what do they need understanding for? From our perspective,
we would like the powerful to use their power wisely. From the perspective of
someone with power, they are very unlikely to consider themselves unwise and
in need of more understanding. And who is going to tell someone with power
that they are unwise and lack understanding?

------
joe_the_user
If you effectively make the law, then ipso facto you can't be clueless about
the law... maybe clueless...

The questions remains whether this will wind-up being Homeland Security making
the law...

