cannabisnews.com: Police Powers Move Into Your Browser





Police Powers Move Into Your Browser
Posted by CN Staff on March 03, 2003 at 17:01:29 PT
By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Source: ZDNet
The U.S. Justice Department is experimenting with an Internet crime-fighting technique that raises novel legal, technical and privacy concerns. The tactic: domain name forfeiture. In two separate cases last week, the Justice Department seized domains for Web sites that it claimed were engaging in illegal activity. The first set of domains were allegedly used to sell drug paraphernalia such as bongs and marijuana cigarette holders. Now visitors to PipesForYou.com, 420now.com, OmniLounge.com and ColorChangingGlass.com are greeted by this hair-raising alert:
"By application of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the Web site you are attempting to visit has been restrained by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania." The second case involved David Rocci's iSoNews.com, which he handed to the Feds as part of a plea bargain in which he admitted to selling illegal "mod" chips for Xbox and PlayStation game consoles. Rocci will be sentenced under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on March 7 before a federal judge in Alexandria, Va. iSoNews.com now says: "The domain and Web site were surrendered to U.S. law enforcement pursuant to a federal prosecution and felony plea agreement for conspiracy to violate criminal copyright laws." Because domain names can't be squeezed into traditional legal categories, a novel problem arises: They're not ordinary property like cars or boats, which can be seized and resold without worries. It's true that domains can be an instrumentality of a crime, but Web sites and mailing lists are also spots where people meet, chat and search for information--without expecting that ownership may switch hands silently and abruptly. That's why we should think twice before applauding this trend in police power. One reason is that the Justice Department's privacy policy allows it to hand over information it collects from people visiting seized Web sites to "appropriate law enforcement officials" for criminal prosecution. It's possible to imagine a scenario where an innocent Web visitor becomes unfairly targeted by the Feds. It's legal to browse the Web for information about illegal drugs and even legal to read about bypassing copy-protection technology (though under the DMCA, researchers writing such papers may have cause for concern). But in a newly security-conscious climate, the Justice Department may not be terribly sensitive to Americans' First Amendment rights and may assume the worst about visitors to its collection of seized domains. What's more, the Justice Department is able to review the search terms that people type in before connecting to the seized site from search engines such as Google or AltaVista. That's because Web protocols pass the search terms to the destination site in the Referer: header. A third problem with the Justice Department's tactic is that criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty. While Rocci pleaded guilty to DMCA crimes, the people raided last week for selling "drug paraphernalia" online did not. But even if they're eventually acquitted by a jury, what value will their domain name have if it's been tarred by Justice Department ownership for the past few years? A better solution: Simply yank the domain name. Do what frequently happens in civil lawsuits, which is to take the Web site offline temporarily and place the domain name in the custody of the court system. This domain-forfeiture technique is not unique to the Justice Department. In December, according to a report by Nathan Cochrane in Australia's The Age newspaper, the Australian government seized a Web site that was selling bogus "purple plates" that purported to strengthen the human immune system. Purple-Plates.com, the domain name in question, now sports a note saying: "This notice has been placed pursuant to an order of the Federal Court of Australia as a result of action taken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuant to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act." A federal sting operation?  What appears to be the first case of this sort arose in 1996, when the Cult Awareness Network--which warned of the dangers of unconventional religions--was sued into oblivion by the Church of Scientology. A bankruptcy court judge placed the group's assets including cultawarenessnetwork.org up for auction--and the winning bidder was--you guessed it--Scientology. Mark Rasch, a former federal prosecutor who's a vice president at Solutionary in McLean, Va., represented Cult Awareness Network during its demise. After Scientology gained control of cultawarenessnetwork.org and promptly began reading e-mail sent to the old addresses, Rasch told me on Friday, "people thought they were communicating confidentially with an anti-cult group when they were talking with their enemies." Now, let me be clear. That's not what the Justice Department is doing today. There are clear notices on the sites that the government seized last week. (Although e-mail sent to the postmasters and Webmasters is now read by the Justice Department.) The disturbing thing is that it would be legal for the Justice Department to seize control of a purportedly illegal site and set up a sting operation tomorrow. In a landmark 1992 Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. U.S., the justices ruled that police may set traps for people who are already "independently predisposed to commit the crime." (A dissent went even further, saying the government could initiate contact with people who had no predisposition to break laws--a rule that would permit the FBI to spam Americans with enticements to commit crimes.) "That would not be entrapment any more than a woman who's an undercover cop standing on 14th and W streets dressed as a hooker would constitute entrapment," said Rasch, talking about the kind of sting Web site that would be legal today. "You still have to go over to her and negotiate prices and services...(The Justice Department) could take over an Islamic foundation, keep the content the same, transfer the domain name to itself and keep on communicating with people without telling them they're talking with the government. It would be able to monitor communications on the site because it now owns it." If the Justice Department's actions augur a law enforcement trend, an unintended consequence might be to drive possible targets to shift operations overseas. A Web site selling bongs and chillums may be unlawful in the United States, but a domain registrar in the relatively permissive Netherlands may not be eager to hand it to the Justice Department. (And there are always alternative root servers, which supplement existing top-level domains with a slew of extra ones such as .food, .xxx, and .kids.) At least for now, though, there's good news for habitual readers of the seized iSoNews.com. In the last few days, after losing its domain name to the Justice Department, the Web site popped up again in a new spot: The aptly named StoleMy.com. Biography: Declan McCullagh is the Washington correspondent for CNET News.com, chronicling the ever-busier intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired. Source: ZDNetAuthor: Declan McCullagh, CNET News.comPublished: March 3, 2003Copyright: 2003 CNET Networks Contact: declan.mccullagh cnet.comWebsite: http://www.zdnet.com/DL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-990728.htmlRelated Articles:Feds Weed Out Drug Paraphernalia Sites http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15552.shtml Feds Crack Down on Drug Paraphernalia http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15550.shtml55 Charged in Drug Paraphernalia Sales http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15547.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 04, 2003 at 13:42:23 PT
Paul
That was so nice to read. I believe Cannabis has spiritual and medical use. I like Church of the Tree of Life because that's the one that jumped out at me. Enjoy being with your Mom. A 90 has a lot of wisdom wrapped up in all those years. What a blessing to read about how she feels and how you helped her. Let us know how it goes at Church.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by paulpeterson on March 04, 2003 at 13:30:32 PT
FoM
Thanks for noticing. I'm moving between Illinois & Iowa, where I continue to lobby the locals for change. I met my chief of police in Storm Lake, Ia., thought I had some consensus as to how to defuse this "war" then he got a warrant and busted two of my "people" a week or so later (someone smelled cannabis, he got a warrant, they got evicted).I put together a "Dare Plus" flyer, suggesting that the loss of trust kids have for police when they first try spleef (sp?) is devastating because then they won't trust the warnings about those harsher drugs. Then I found out Dare Plus really does exist (just not with my own slant, eh?). I didn't ruin a Dare fundraiser recently-I was in Chicago. The local paper there has run some fine articles and editorials lately (sorry, I didn't get them posted on Cannabis.com). The paper is the "Storm Lake Pilot Tribune" (unsure what their web site is).That 1/6/03 bit about pot curing skin cancer threw me for a loop (I wasn't forcasting anything more in cancer research for a long time). I wrote a good article chronicling the history of cancer research hiding by the feds, but I can't get any paper to print it!NORML is suing the Illinois people and today I got ahold of the "spokesman" for the DHS (local goons that should be supporting MM). I hope to start a continuing dialogue for these people to work up a program. I'm trying to be the "good cop" that gets heard rather than the "bad cop" that just wants to go to court, even though I still have a class action filed, but dormant. The governor's office (five people so far) kept bouncing me around, then they finally told me to go to the DHS since the new gov is so swamped with "policy" issues, they can't even begin to think about this issue. (That could be good news, ie: if the DHS people listen and learn, then they would have a receptive governor without any real hard feelings anti).Of course, I have a warm place to live in Iowa with my 90 year old mom, so I'm OK. She is too, after having some pre-Alzheimer symptoms that a certain tea, taken daily for 3 weeks, took care of quite nicely. She immediately remarked upon the first dose that the "fuzziness" and inability to focus was gone, then she started having thoughts a few days later that she hadn't recalled for 50 years. After the 3 weeks, she even stated it wasn't helping anymore, so she quit and asked me what that means-That means, of course, that I had given her a "radiator flush" and she was "good for another 30,000 miles.Last Sunday, in fact, at her 90th birthday party, she got right in the face of our conservative Presbyterian minister and asked him what the "tree of life" in the garden of Edens was, of course he didn't know.She told him it was hemp! I loved the look on his face! Then this 90 year old person stated in perfect logic "I can't prove it was, but you can't prove it wasn't!"Then she told him that the WITCH BURNINGS of old were merely midwives that knew about pot's pain benefits that the pope didn't like! His eyes just ballooned up!Then I got to tell him and his wife that I was asking a federal judge in Chicago to allow me to start a POT CHURCH under the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 1993. It will be interesting to sit right down in front next Sunday and listen to his sermon, next to my mom, of course. Oh, by the way, that chief of police knows I gave my mom TEA, but somehow I don't think he wants to incarcerate a pillar of the community.I'll keep checking in from time to time. Now I have a little cash and plan to restart my website soon, just in time for the ASHCROFT bonfires of his own vanity. The "Privacy Protection Act" should protect me, like that silver cross that priests used to wear ie: as long as no commercial solicitations or solicitations to commit crimes are going on. This summer I want to invite the tribes to my 40 acre farm for a gathering-call it an old fashioned religious revival meeting. If there are any good religious hippies out there, I bid them welcome! As long as we can, with an honest heart and open will, state that CANNABIS HAS SPIRITUAL QUALITIES, and we are prepared to avoid "illegal" diversion of this "sacrament" to "non-believers", any arrests for purely religious practices will merely ignite a furor and test case, if these goons want to bust or forfeit, etc.Iowa happens to be in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, you see, that has already ruled that the RFRA of 1993 applies there. Illinois is in the 7th Circuit, which has not directly opined that the law is still valid as regards to federal legislation (such as to trump the Controlled Substances Act). Therefore, even though Iowa is even more conservative than Illinois, since they have a "leg up" regarding this RFRA thingy, that might be the best place to start the church, "Church of the Path of Christ" or "Tree of Life" or "Church of the Tree of Life", which one sounds best to you? MAYBE WE COULD DO A SURVEY asking the faithful what name they want, eh?I'll leave that to you to decide. For now, my address is 6352 Hwy. 71, Storm Lake, Iowa 50588. Since I have a bunch of time on my hands right now, I would love to get snail mail about these issues. Send me a stamp and I'll mail you some of my articles, OK?Bye for now, signing off. PAUL PETERSON
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 04, 2003 at 12:19:38 PT
Paul
Good to see you and I hope you are doing OK these days.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by paulpeterson on March 04, 2003 at 12:11:26 PT
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT violations
The way I see this, under the Federal Privacy Protection Act (no I do not know the cite, it's subsection is 2000 ee, though) once a person engages in the "dessimination" of information (ie: a valid First Amendment activity like Ben Franklin, of course), the feds and state goons are PROHIBITED from confiscating any property (including computers, data bases, web sites, etc.) unless they can PROVE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY is involved.That means anytime you recommend the violation of a law or help to facilitate breaking a law, you may by implication be losing your First Amendment rights. Obviously, the commercial sale of pipes, etc. triggers their rights to interfere. However, if a site is merely for the dessimination of information, even about sources of seeds, etc., the site itself cannot be compromised, only used as a means of contact with the real "lawbreaker", that is, the guy selling seeds. That, specifically, is why cannabis.com & marijuana.com are still around today.In my own situation, last year, my web site Illinois-MMI.org was compromised numerous times by the DEA or the like. I bitched to the FBI, DOJ & federal courts in Chicago, and surprisingly enough, I think the FBI helped me to get it up again (a few times, no less). Of course, when they did it again in 8/2002, by then I had become so poor and cashless that I didn't even have the funds to pay the guy to reboot it again. I still have a federal case filed against the Illinois Supreme Court & local goons for myriad of violations of my constitutional rights (and yes, I will amend to include the "Privacy Protection Act" claim, etc.)What I see here is that the sleepy courts will rely on staid, old, tired precedents, and they will only start to think creatively and openly when the sensibilities of the masses are inflamed, etc. The feds will always go TOO FAR in trying to control such things, and ASHCROFT is the very definition of going too far, aint he?I look for the weight scale indicator to go only so far to the right, in response to this cooked up "terroristic" threat, that really will just increase the propensity of people to want to commit terror, because of their experience of TYRANNY. Then, the courts will start to reign in the overstepping feds, but of course, the courts won't get gutsy enough until it appears the war-drums are dying down (not likely soon).These recent bogus enforcement efforts will therefore be our greatest boon to progress in the war against the war on some drugs (WAWOSD). Sort of like a typical immune system, where an allergin is required to provoke the immune response.Therefore, please look kindly at John Ashcroft after all. You see, because of his ineptness and overstepping, he becomes the allergin that the courts have to cough up (more times than I would want to cough him up, that is!).Just remember that he tried to stop the Oregon assisted suicide law, only to be rebuffed by the courts (they told him to get outa the doctor's office). The 9th Circuit has already told the DEA to stop threatening doctors that "recommend" pot to their patients (and this time, the 9th Circuit has definately done their homework, so I don't see the US Supreme Court reversing their decision!)My recommendation is to STOP ALL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY regarding cannabis & pipes & seeds, so you don't get busted under that "Commerce Clause" mumbo-jumbo and wait for more states to come forward about MM (then we get the feds moving towards the civilized world, that is for legalization).Right now, recall, Vermont & Connect. have already cleared committee. Maryland is moving nicely on this as well. Sorry about Montana's 60-40 negative vote. New Mexico is again clearing these hurdles. Wyoming and Arkansas are moving ahead. (Coumbus, Mo. is now trying to do a local rule ordinance as well). (Of course, Illinois has had this fine law now for some 32 years and I am finally getting people here to consider these things, under a new Democratic governor-Blagoyavich, who has admitted smoking but can't remember if he inhaled!).And lets get some more sites up, which only dessiminate information, without any illegal activity to give our virus Ashcroft the open door to close the door, OK?At any rate, keep the faith, just checking in, etc., over and out. PAUL PETERSON
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Kegan on March 04, 2003 at 03:54:36 PT:
Peacefully?
At what point do we declare them a tyranny and start the violence? I surely dont have any idea. I hope we can get our country back peacefully........I predict a civil war... or more to the point, months of "The Rodney King Riots" in every city.American civilian casualties will number in the millions.Sorry.... that is what I predict is all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hopeful Freeman on March 03, 2003 at 21:08:35 PT
LIVE ON COPS!
"That would not be entrapment any more than a woman who's an undercover cop standing on 14th and W streets dressed as a hooker would constitute entrapment," said Rasch, talking about the kind of sting Web site that would be legal today. "You still have to go over to her and negotiate prices and services..."---I was watching cops one night, and the hooker asked the guy, he said no, he wasn't gonna spend 50 bucks to get laid, so she lowered her price over and over again until he said yes to a dime. Sure enough he was cuffed and put into the back seat.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 03, 2003 at 19:00:53 PT
Prime
It sends a message but to me the message is we will act like a terrorists. That's what worries me. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Prime on March 03, 2003 at 18:51:46 PT
White Powder...
I dont know how I feel about that one. It certainly sends a message.As an amateur historian I often find myself contemplating what it must have been like for our fore-fathers to take arms against the British. Before the first official shot was fired there were several incidents that today would be labeled as terrorism.Thomas Jefferson states in the Declaration of Independence that it is our right and our duty to violently overthrow our government if they become tyranical.At what point do we declare them a tyranny and start the violence? I surely dont have any idea. I hope we can get our country back peacefully.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on March 03, 2003 at 18:29:29 PT
Prime
If they took CNews you wouldn't be able to post and you should bury your books. I'm mentally prepared that it could happen but I don't think it will. CNews doesn't do anything that is illegal so we should be ok but Lord knows I could be wrong!PS: Sending white powder to Federal Judges could hurt everyone now! I can't believe someone did that. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15617.shtml#16
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Prime on March 03, 2003 at 18:22:30 PT
Just for kicks...
My favorite new song is from System of the Down - Prison. They're trying to build a prison
They're trying to build a prison
They're trying to build a prison
For you and me to live in
Under the prison systemI have also started listening to Pink Floyd's The Wall again. And... I got an Xbox for Christmas this year. One of the games we got is called Hunter's Reckoning. In Hunters, all the bad guys are demons and the undead. They all live in Ashcroft Penitentiary. To win the game you have to destroy Ashcroft's Prison.Funny sometimes how fantasy sometimes imitates real life.FOM, when they take CNews send me an Email so I know to stop posting. Then I can go out back and bury all my books before they come and take those as well.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Virgil on March 03, 2003 at 17:50:24 PT
From the Army of 1- Nol Van Scheik
http://www.hempcity.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76&highlight=The following table shows you the : Annual prevelance of abuse of the population aged 15 and above. The figures are the results of a UN research project. The total of marijuana smokers worldwide is 147 million, according to this report. Top 50 Countries in Cannabis Consumption, worldwide. 1. Papua New Guinea 29.5% 
2. Micronesia Fed. State 29.1% 
3. Ghana 21.5% 
4. St.Vincent Grenadines 18.6% 
5. South Africa 18.4% 
6. New Zealand 18% 
7. Australia 17.9% 
8. Sierra Leone 16.1% 
9. Zambia 15% 
10.Nigeria 14.4% 
11.Ireland 9.4% 
11.United Kingdom 9.4% 
13.El Salvador 9.2% 
14.Canada 8.9% 
15.USA 8.3% 
16.Mali 7.8% 
17.France 7.4% 
17.Morocco 7.4% 
19.Mauritius 7% 
19.Switserland 7% 
19.Spain 7% 
22.Dominican Rep. 6.9% 
22.Zimbabwe 6.9% 
24.Germany 6% 
24.Iceland 6% 
24.Italy 6% 
27.Honduras 5.9% 
28.Brazil 5.8% 
29.Chile 5.7% 
30.Colombia 5.6% 
31.Belgium 5.5% 
32.Egypt 5.2% 
33.Austria 5% 
34.Chzech Rep. 4.8% 
35.Slovenia 4.4% 
35.Denmark 4.4% 
35.Greece 4.4% 
38.Iran 4.2% 
39.The Netherlands 4.1% 
40.Kenya 4% 
40.Luxembourg 4% 
40.San Marino 4% 
43.Namibia 3.9% 
43.Croatia 3.9% 
45.Norway 3.8% 
45.RussianFed. 3.8% 
47.Argentina 3.7% 
47.Portugal 3.7% 
49.Ukraine 3.6% 
49.Phillipines 3.6% Source: United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime. 
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/report_2002-06-26_1/report_2002-06-26_1.pdf The Netherlands are heavily criticised for having cannabis available through coffeeshops, all other countries do not have any regulated outlets. The UN recently addressed the Netherlands, to complain about the Tolerance system and the coffeeshops, because the coffeeshops are visible and easy to address. The UN did not address any of the other countries on this list about their availability and use of cannabis. The UN can stuff its comments, for all I care. Nol van Schaik.
_________________
In Cannabis Fidelis
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 03, 2003 at 17:42:34 PT
Just a Comment
I wonder where this will all end?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment