piatkow
msg:4266603 | 10:19 pm on Feb 13, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Suspend not seize.
Still pretty dodgy but it doesn't seem to provide for them to take the ownership away from you.
|
Samizdata
msg:4266657 | 3:28 am on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Thanks for clarifying that.
On the other hand, owning a "suspended" domain is no use to anyone - and presumably you would have to go to court to get it unsuspended (which will be time-consuming and expensive).
Plod as judge, jury and executioner can never be a good thing.
...
|
graeme_p
msg:4266727 | 9:01 am on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Thats something, piatkow, but as Samizdata says you could lose a lot of money while sorting it out.
There is also no reason not to have a judicial process. It could be a fast and relatively simple process like the issue of a search warrant or an arrest warrant.
|
piatkow
msg:4266735 | 9:51 am on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0) |
the only real difference is that they can't sell valuable domain name over your head.
Of course if a site displaying kiddie p-rn was left open until the case went to court the tabloids would have a field day.
|
Samizdata
msg:4266996 | 8:05 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| if a site displaying kiddie p-rn was left open until the case went to court the tabloids would have a field day |
|
It is not a matter of waiting for a case to get to court.
As graeme_p says it should be a similar process to a search warrant, which requires judicial authorisation but is very fast - where prima facie evidence of criminal activity is shown a warrant will be granted, often by a judge in chambers.
Judges are not police, and police must never be judges.
...
|
graeme_p
msg:4267149 | 3:45 am on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I doubt many criminal sites will depend on possessing a particular domain. Criminal activity is by its nature covert, whereas the point of the domain name system is to make it easy for the public to find stuff.
|
Samizdata
msg:4267173 | 5:07 am on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Fair point - but if there is no criminal activity, why would the police be involved?
To be fair to them, they have plenty of work to do already.
...
|
graeme_p
msg:4267303 | 12:35 pm on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0) |
That goes back to your earlier point: by the time it comes to something like this the police should be required to convince a judge that there is criminal activity. That is still the important principle.
I was making a subsidiary point that I do not think it is an important tool for the police to have.
|
graeme_p
msg:4268855 | 6:36 am on Feb 18, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Open Rights Group are responding. Pirate Party UK are doing something but seem less effective.
|
|
