Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Slippery Slope continues. (Score 5, Insightful) 305 305

It is, and it's a fair question. Assuming that this is a real seizure and not a hoax, the due process works like this:

0) Somebody allegedly uses property for an illegal purpose. By law, they are deemed to have transferred title to the United States Government by dint of the illegal activity (if in fact the illegal activity can be proved).

1) The government files for a seizure warrant in US District Court. The owner of the property (here, the domain) does not get a say, nor any notice that this is happening.

2) The government seizes the property and provides notice to the owner, if known, and any person who might have a claim on it. For example, if the property is a car with a bank lien, they must notify the owner and the bank.

3a) The government files a complaint for forfeiture in US District Court (or in state court). This is called an "in rem" action--meaning that it's not a lawsuit against an individual, but a suit to determine title to property. The United States claims that it owns the property because of the transfer-by-law that occurred at zero, supra. Anybody who disagrees can stake their claim. The judge determines who gets the stuff.

3b) The government doesn't file anything, and the owner sues the government for a civil rights violation by unlawful taking of property without due process. The suit proceeds as above.


The cases determining whether due process has to occur pre-seizure or post-seizure are complicated, and beyond the scope of this author's knowledge or this post.

For reference, I am a lawyer and have posted this explanation based on my legal study, but it should be considered scholarship (information for general knowledge) and not legal advice (information specific to an individual's problems). If you are in need of legal advice, you should consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Comment Not what she said (Score 1) 890 890

The full transcript of the interview is here. She never said a thing about body scanners on trains or transit, nor was she asked. She merely said that "we have to be thinking" about surface transportation security. You can read into that whatever you want, but the headline implies a comment that she simply did not make.

Comment Re:These guys... (Score 1) 239 239

It's true, but very slowly. Think about how many thousands (dare I speculate, millions?) of these suits RIAA files each year before 268 United States District Judges in 94 different United States District Courts and 3 territorial courts. In comparison to the onslaught of filings, the "judge says no to RIAA" stories are still just a trickle. Of course, it's also possible that there's some selection bias in what gets reported. It would be interesting to see numbers on exactly how often these things get shot down, and how that has changed over time.
The Internet

SixApart Sells LiveJournal to Russian Media Company 172 172

molrak writes "SixApart tonight announced the sale of journal/blogging service Livejournal to Russia-based SUP. Original LJ founder Brad Fitzpatrick has chimed in on the situation: 'This is pretty cool because - They're ridiculously excited about LiveJournal, and have been for awhile (they previous purchased advertising rights in Russia, but ended up doing a bunch of Russia-specific LJ development as well). They want to throw a lot of resources at LiveJournal in terms of product development and engineers. "LiveJournal.com, Inc." now stands alone again, focusing on nothing but LJ. Sounds like I'll have more LJ influence (via new role as advisory board member) than I've had recently.'"

Journal Journal: More Comments on "Funny" Moderations

Since I wrote the original the meta-moderation system has changed, so we are now asked to rate "funny" moderations based not on whether or not they are fair, but whether or not the comment is funny. This may require some actual reading of context, and may lead to leaving the comment un-meta-moderated more often than other moderations (with the exception of redundant)


Journal Journal: More comments on "Redundant" moderations

In my previous journal entry I suggested that meta-moderators should nearly always leave alone posts that are moderated "Redundant." I would now like to re-iterate this point. Today I got a message that a posting I moderated as redundant was meta-modded as unfair. This angers me, because the EXACT SAME THING was said in at least 5 other previous posts. The bottom line is:

It is better to never have tried anything than to have tried something and failed. - motto of jerks, weenies and losers everywhere