[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

We have such a process already. It's called a warrant. I doubt very much that an ISP would turn over a server to the authorities without one.

And yet, if you'll remember, the Bush administration got plenty of private customer data from the Telcos, using illegal warrants at best. And in most cases, they just asked and it gets turned over. Warrentless wiretapping ring any bells? Passing laws to make it illegal for customers to sue the telcos for breaching their privacy? So maybe there is a warrant in this case.... and maybe there isn't.

The point is, we don't know.

Most "rights" are not absolute. For instance, if you're stopped while driving an automobile, and the cops find your stash in the trunk, you don't have the same constitutional protections as you would have if the stash were sitting in your desk drawer at home.

I realize this. The problem, which you should well be aware of, is that: legal != right.

Since you read Slashdot, you should be aware of the Peter Watts case. For those who don't know, he's a Canadian sci-fi writer, who was crossing the border from teh US back to Canada. He was given two contradictory orders from police, and stood up out of his car in confusion to ask which one he should follow. He was promptly tackled, beaten, pepper spray'ed and had all his possessions confiscated. He was arressted for "assaulting a federal officer" and spent a night in a cold jail cell.

All perfectly legal, but by no means right. As far as I know, he was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to two years in jail, but the judge suspended the sentence, and I think he just has to pay a fine. I'm not sure if he got his stuff back. A FOIA request for the border video has been denied due to ongoing investigation.

One of his blog entries: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186

The point is, we have to fight government douchebaggery on behalf of other people, wherever we see it. If we don't, it will continue to happen and it will get worse, until it does happen to you or someone you know. That's why I'm pushing on this, because it smells bad. It could be all legit and there could be damn good reasons, but we don't know. Until we do, I'll keep saying that we have to shine lights on things like this, get people motivated to speak up against it.

Moreover, we have a well-established "transparent" procedure to change such rulings if enough people feel their rights are being trampled upon.

The problem is, most people feel it's always Someone Else's Problem. Not enough care, and that's why I make cases like this, to try and motivate people to care, so enough speak up. The process is idealistic, but reality seldom works that well.

You seem to believe there are never any circumstances where it might be reasonable to assert a public interest that overrides your private "right."

Gonna stop you right here, because I don't believe this at all. I like free speech, but yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is bad. Speech solely designed to motivate groups to violence is bad. Everything else, even if it's that Nazi KKK member shouting on the corner how much he hates Jews and blacks, should be allowed.

How about a case where you have two sets of books and base your tax filings on just one of them, while keeping the real information hidden? Should we consider it "unreasonable" to permit the government to seize that second set of accounts as part of an investigation into tax fraud?

Not sure where you're going with this, because I think it's pretty obvious. If there's a crime going on, you do some investigation, gather some evidence, get a judge to sign off on a warrant, then seize those books. And you tell the press, "We seized some assets of [insert entity here] on the charge of tax fraud."

Simple. Then we go to trial and find out what the truth is (assuming it's a fair court).

But that's quite different than what happened here. No reason was given, and no charges filed, other than "child pornography and terrorism." I mean, come on, doesn't that raise any alarm bells with you? Those are incredibly vague things and not really linked, unless you know of terrorists that are also pedophiles. It sounds more like they are counting on people's brains shutting down the instant they hear those two "fear" words. They'd actually have more credibility if they only used one.

And you still haven't answered my question: What if it was you, and you were leasing a car and the authorities took it. They gave as their reason "connected with child pornography and terrorism." Is that a label you want applied to you, without anyone having to back up the charge? Do you want to be known as a pedophile and a terrorist?

Because you can just look at this thread, where we have several instantly willing to jump on the bandwagon and believe they "must" be guilty because the authorities said so. Even if you spend months (if not years), clearing the charge, you'll still have it hanging over you.

Legal != Right.

Considering the amount of hoopla it has generated in recent days, I suspect someone might have contacted him, or BurstNET, already.

I am interested to hear more. It sounds like you've made up your mind that the government is all well and good, and that somehow the truth will be known eventually. Understandable, even though I'd call it a bit naive and idealistic. Me, I'm a bit more skeptical of things until I get a reason, especially when down by government organizations that have a history of incompetence, malice, and general douchebaggery.

Bad things happen, by bad people, and they do end up getting away with it. Especially if the people shrug their shoulders and don't raise a fuss.