Undue process: how Uncle Sam seized BitTorrent domain names

arstechnica.com

51 points·mycroftiv··6 comments

Our tax dollars at work, seizing domains for sharing the music that people at the label sent them.

An interesting question: When someone is suspected of a crime, they are often imprisoned leading up to their trial. Yes, so that they cannot flee, but also so they cannot continue committing crimes (if they are the guilty party).

Could it not be said that seizing the domain name is the most logical & effective way to 'hold' a webpage/internet company in their equivalent of jail?

There are several rights underlying any imprisonment, as laid out in the constitution: namely the right to due process and to a speedy trial. I think you could reasonably argue that either of those are violated by this type of seizure.

When someone is suspected of a crime, they are often imprisoned leading up to their trial.

... after a judicial hearing in which bail is denied. People are not just locked up - most countries have very stringent rules as to how long you can keep somebody without a hearing - typically 24-72 hours, though "terror" legislation has eroded that in some countries.

Note the word "SUSPECTED". A suspect cannot even be held at a police station for questioning. Big difference between arrested and suspected.

Post 9/11 though the patriot act has done some unholy horrors to our due process.

Incorrect. When someone is ARRESTED for a crime (not suspected) they are imprisoned. If them fleeing is not a problem, they may post bail which is money held for ransom to be returned when you go to court. If you don't go to court there will be a bounty on you.

Long story short, innocent until proven guilty. Not vice versa.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com