inherit
12045
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:52:05 GMT -8
Renegade
As unique as mice pudding milkshake
40,557
August 2003
renegade
|
Post by Renegade on Feb 5, 2011 6:29:57 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that the public face of a website - the bit that visitors see - doesn't need a search warrant to view O__o Even if it did, how do you know they don't have a warrant to view the site?
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Feb 5, 2011 6:31:24 GMT -8
I think that equating the internet to someones house is totally wrong. You don't invite total strangers into your house. You can't have people you don't know in your house all day long. The web is public. Your house isn't...
I understand how people don't want censorship but it isn't censorship when you can't say certain stuff on the radio or TV. The web is a public place. It is the government's job to protect public places...
|
|
inherit
75778
0
Mar 23, 2024 3:21:54 GMT -8
alexx
still here .... watching
3,399
March 2006
alexx
|
Post by alexx on Feb 5, 2011 6:32:06 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that the public face of a website - the bit that visitors see - doesn't need a search warrant to view O__o Even if it did, how do you know they don't have a warrant to view the site? Not the site.... the links
|
|
inherit
12045
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:52:05 GMT -8
Renegade
As unique as mice pudding milkshake
40,557
August 2003
renegade
|
Post by Renegade on Feb 5, 2011 6:42:15 GMT -8
I don't beleive that they need a search warrant to click links on a website. do you have anything showing otherwise?
|
|
inherit
75778
0
Mar 23, 2024 3:21:54 GMT -8
alexx
still here .... watching
3,399
March 2006
alexx
|
Post by alexx on Feb 5, 2011 6:49:47 GMT -8
To prove those link have copyright material before you click them. But as I said it is easy to prosecute the guy behind the link. That is legally easy. The problem is with those that host the links as it is not illegal
|
|
inherit
12045
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:52:05 GMT -8
Renegade
As unique as mice pudding milkshake
40,557
August 2003
renegade
|
Post by Renegade on Feb 5, 2011 7:03:36 GMT -8
I'm not gonna believe you need a search warrant for that unless you can show me proof.
I think its fairly clear cut that the sites were linking to pirated content. I don't even see how you can be arguing against that.
I agree that the case won't make it to court, because its not gonna be worth the effort since the sites themselves are controlled from outside the US. And that would mean that the domains eventually had to be handed back, I'd assume, but it doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken - just that it never went before the court.
|
|
inherit
29252
0
Sept 6, 2012 15:46:49 GMT -8
Derek‽
28,655
August 2004
kajiaisu
|
Post by Derek‽ on Feb 5, 2011 12:23:40 GMT -8
To prove those link have copyright material before you click them. But as I said it is easy to prosecute the guy behind the link. That is legally easy. The problem is with those that host the links as it is not illegal No, you don't need a warrant to view links. In the US we have a couple laws around the need for a warrant to search property. First, we have probable cause: law enforcement can search a person's property if they have sufficient reason to believe a law is being committed; if police pull me over, they can search my vehicle even if I deny them permission, simply if my behavior is highly suspicious and leads them to believe I may be hiding something. The other, which is more fitting for this scenario, is a plain sight law: the police can search a person's property if contraband is left within plain sight of the law enforcement officer; if police pull me over and I have a crack pipe on my passenger's seat, they're searching my vehicle and I'm getting arrested, no matter how much I protest. Links and copyrighted media are being broadcast in plain view of anyone who can find them. It's not as if ICE had to crack encryption or passwords to find these violations, just search Google. I agree that the case won't make it to court, because its not gonna be worth the effort since the sites themselves are controlled from outside the US. And that would mean that the domains eventually had to be handed back, I'd assume, but it doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken - just that it never went before the court. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 981--the law in which the seizure warrant was issued--forfeited property is not to be returned, and is considered the property of the Attorney General's office. I don't know how intangible property would work, though. I imagine the domains will just be freed up one day, but probably not just given back to the offending sites.
|
|
inherit
66829
0
Jan 16, 2020 19:36:30 GMT -8
Hero
I r teh n00b eater!
17,455
December 2005
herooftime3
|
Post by Hero on Feb 5, 2011 12:35:29 GMT -8
I think that equating the internet to someones house is totally wrong. You don't invite total strangers into your house. You can't have people you don't know in your house all day long. The web is public. Your house isn't... Not necessarily. There's plenty of private websites out there.
|
|
inherit
*this CT deserves an achievement*
136400
0
Jun 25, 2021 18:23:00 GMT -8
Trill
hola
6,232
January 2009
ghbraingle
|
Post by Trill on Feb 5, 2011 12:41:20 GMT -8
Why is Homeland Security getting involved with websites distributing copyrighted material? Don't they have better things to do, and shouldn't this be in some other regulatory agency's jurisdiction?
|
|
inherit
12045
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:52:05 GMT -8
Renegade
As unique as mice pudding milkshake
40,557
August 2003
renegade
|
Post by Renegade on Feb 5, 2011 13:02:05 GMT -8
Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 981--the law in which the seizure warrant was issued--forfeited property is not to be returned, and is considered the property of the Attorney General's office. Even if it never goes to court, and therefore the domain owner is never prosecuted for the offence? Doesn't that mean that technically he's not guilty, and therefore shouldnt have forfeited the name - like if they took DVDs and then found they weren't pirated?
|
|
inherit
71006
0
Apr 2, 2013 14:07:51 GMT -8
Miss Daisy
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
2,675
February 2006
durellia
|
Post by Miss Daisy on Feb 5, 2011 15:23:13 GMT -8
If someone was hosting child porn wouldn't you want someone to have the power to take the site down. I know we don't want the government involved with everything but as long as it isn't censorship like they have in china i have no problem with them taking down illegal stuff. Yes!! And in that case I would also like to see IPs getting sent to the authorities of anyone who tried to view the site. But in this instance only. Streaming sports or music isn't nearly as serious as the situation you brought up. Child Porn is just.. sick. There's a HUGE difference here.
|
|
inherit
130636
0
Oct 14, 2023 4:16:06 GMT -8
ukschalke
11,848
September 2008
ukschalke
|
Post by ukschalke on Feb 5, 2011 15:25:48 GMT -8
If someone was hosting child porn wouldn't you want someone to have the power to take the site down. I know we don't want the government involved with everything but as long as it isn't censorship like they have in china i have no problem with them taking down illegal stuff. Yes!! And in that case I would also like to see IPs getting sent to the authorities of anyone who tried to view the site. But in this instance only. Streaming sports or music isn't nearly as serious as the situation you brought up. Child Porn is just.. sick. There's a HUGE difference here. this^^
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Feb 5, 2011 15:36:01 GMT -8
The government should stop ALL illegal activity...
|
|
inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Feb 5, 2011 18:14:36 GMT -8
The government should stop ALL illegal activity... For this even to be possible, the government would have to be so abusive and invasive that it would not be a life worth living. Ben Franklin said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Feb 5, 2011 18:19:14 GMT -8
The government should stop ALL illegal activity... For this even to be possible, the government would have to be so abusive and invasive that it would not be a life worth living. Ben Franklin said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I agree with you on that. But if it is public illegal activity then i should think they should be able to stop it. If you were selling pirated dvd's on the street they could arrest you. Why can't they do it if you are pirating things over the web?
|
|