

Gizmodo Goes Crazy, Reality Isn't What It Seems - JSig
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2284164

======
dejb
> they seized domain pointers within their jurisdiction. A nearly-entirely-
> symbolic exercise,

This guy obviously has no clue about the realities of web publishing. How are
ordinary users supposed to find the sites without the domain pointer? For most
users, taking the domain name is the same as shutting the site down.

~~~
vaksel
seizing a domain is like seizing your cellphone # and saying it's ok because
someone can still contact you using your email address(that forwards to your
phone)...which they don't know

------
Elepsis
And here I thought the entire outrage was due to the fact that the U.S. court
system really shouldn't _have_ jurisdiction over generic domain names and
therefore shouldn't be able to do this sort of thing, regardless of the U.S.
law-compliant process they follow.

------
p_nathan
He brings out a good point: there _was_ a warrant. While I'm not convinced
that this is strictly... right, it does seem at least some level of due
process was followed.

I'm not even sure there is a legal framework for shutting websites and
internet infrastructure down.

It reminds me a little bit of Sterling's Hacker Crackdown - there is still an
electronic frontier.

~~~
sabat
_They had court orders. That means they had due process of law_

I don't think court orders automatically mean justice was served. Accusation
was levied, and execution was carried out.

------
SkyMarshal
On issues that deserve outrage, Denninger's rants are second to none. On
issues that don't, he's good at explaining why. And he's got a solid track
record of discerning the difference.

~~~
davidj
really? I've been following the guy for a while and think he is sometimes an
idiot. For example, if there are court orders: where are they? Unless he saw
the court orders, he just made them up. I could give you a bunch of things he
was wrong about. He has a forum where be bans people who disagree with him. He
was right about foreclosure gate and others such as the financial bailouts,
but totally wrong on his deflation argument and wrong about gold. He was so
wrong about gold that he deleted the precious metal area of his website from
public viewing.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Regarding the court orders, ICE confirmed that today. I don't know how he got
verification of that over the weekend, but he's good at digging around and
finding stuff like that.

I'm not sure which 'deflation argument' you're referring to, but he has been
arguing since 2006 that deflation would be the natural result of the financial
crisis, even when Nouriel Roubini himself was arguing inflation (Roubini
quickly reversed himself).

He was completely correct on that, it's deflation that the US Government and
Federal Reserve are trying to prevent with massive stimuli and QE1/2. So far
they've been successful, but at such a great cost there's no telling whether
it's sustainable, or whether Bernanke can wind it down and gracefully exit
eventually. Denninger argues no, b/c there's too much bad debt, and credit

Regarding gold, his fundamental thesis is that the data doesn't support the
widely-held belief that gold is a good hedge for inflation or deflation, but
it does appear to be a good hedge for geopolitical instability. He's posted
data that disprove the former notion, which I'm not about to go try to dig up.

Gold has risen over the past ten years, but that time period was characterized
by both currency instability, currency inflation, debt deflation, and
geopolitical instability in the MidEast and somewhat N.Korea. Good luck trying
to extract any causation out of that correlation. Till then, there's nothing
to disprove his gold thesis.

He made parts of his website private to keep out the 'moonbats', conspiracy
theorists, and 'collapse of the American Empire' cheerleaders, who tend to be
most active in precious metals forums.

Whether he had an ulterior motive to hide being wrong about gold, I can't
speak to that since I don't follow gold, or his gold forum very closely. Have
any evidence of that accusation?

------
wnoise
What an absolutely useless headline.

------
jeffreymcmanus
If there's no due process, it's not constitutional, period.

~~~
AngryParsley
A warrant issued by a judge is due process.

Edit: I'm not saying it's fair, just that it's allowed by the constitution.

~~~
philipn
But the named domain's owners were not notified or provided the opportunity to
even defend themselves! That's not due process.

~~~
ubernostrum
Oddly enough, if police get a warrant to search your house and seize something
that's considered evidence, they don't tell you in advance that they've done
so or that they're coming to execute the warrant.

In other words, due process doesn't mean "nobody's allowed to do anything
until every side has had its fill of argument".

~~~
philipn
Except that this case is completely different from that in every way? This
isn't evidence -- this is a rendered judgement of sorts.

------
drivebyacct2
Uh, what. The outrage, at least from where I'm sitting, is that these
takedowns, if ICE's total cost is distributed accordingly, cost the American
taxpayers millions of dollars. For something that as the author has pointed
out, is largely futile.

~~~
sorbus
No one has mentioned that in any of the articles I've read, or the comments on
HN (though, again, I haven't read all of them). Citations, please?

------
ericflo
They had _United States_ court orders. But DNS be subject to US court orders?

~~~
wnoise
Things aren't generally subject to court orders, people (including the legal
construct of "corporations") are subject to court orders. In particular,
people in the US who run DNS systems are subject to court orders.

