No subject

s defined), and BY VIRTUE OF THE ALLEGATION seizes control of Bob's propert=
y (however that is defined). There are cases in which we in fact do that, b=
ut they are in criminal law - if a police officer thinks that a crime is in=
 progress, they can break into a house, arrest its occupants, and hold them=
 pending trial. In civil law, the counterpart would be that the plaintiff m=
akes a complaint to a judge and the judge makes the defendant post a bond w=
hich will be returned should the eventual suit fail - which we don't do. CO=
ICA/SOPA/PIPA/etc, as I understand them, leave the judge out of that - the =
assets (a domain name) are seized before the judge is ever brought into the=
 picture and before a case is presented. To my mind, that is a violation of=
 the spirit of our fifth and sixth constitutional amendments:

> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous cr=
ime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases=
 arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual ser=
vice in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for t=
he same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be c=
ompelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be depri=
ved of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall pr=
ivate property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a spee=
dy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein=
 the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previo=
usly ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the =
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compul=
sory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistan=
ce of Counsel for his defence.

I say "spirit", because these deal with criminal cases and I'm applying the=
m to civil disputes. But I'm talking about the right to due process, and th=
e right to have a trial. If there is a proceeding in court, the defendant h=
as the opportunity face his/her accuser, and the judgement is that the plai=
ntiff should get control of some of the assets of the defendant, that is wi=
thin legal bounds; having that happen as a result of the accusation without=
 a proceeding is a problem.

Yes, we have already had that happen - per something I read somewhere, a re=
asonably large number of web sites have already been taken down as a result=
 of the accusation, and on legal consideration it has been found that in ma=
ny cases the sites had not been engaged in the activity they were accused o=
f.

My concern with HADOPI is in part that it is the prototype for these laws. =
It does involve a judge, but where one might expect the judge to issue a wa=
rrant for investigation or arrest, the judge authorizes an attack on an ins=
titution in terms of taking down its DNS name and/or preventing routing to =
it. I raised the question because I am signatory to the EFF open letter to =
congress on SOPA, but I don't think the US is the sole source of these laws=
, nor is it even the first. So while you're saying things about COICA/SOPA/=
PIPA/OPEN/etc, don't delude yourself into thinking it's only the US.
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates