??? It sounds like you've only been half-reading my posts above.
Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action.
When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator, that would be the person implementing the DNS changes under ICE supervision AFTER being presented with the warrant authorizing the domain seizure. The warrant which the ICE staffers got from a judge, who had first examined the evidence thoroughly.
One more time, in chronological order:
Someone in the DoJ/ICE finds a child porn website, and begins collecting evidence by making screenshots or downloading content or whatever methodology they use.
Everything known about the website is written up in an affidavit (ie a statement), and along with the evidence it is taken to the local District Court.
A judge reads the affidavit and examines the evidence - maybe as collected, maybe by going to the website directly to verify the statements made by the DoJ agent.
If the judge is satisfied that it is the real deal, then she issues a warrant authorizing the seizure.
The warrant is taken to ICANN or InterNIC or wherever it is easiest and fastest to patch the DNS, and is shown to the staff there as proof of legal authority. This is called executing the warrant.
A technician then redirects the domain name of the porn site(s) to point at an ICE server. On this occasion, mooo.com was accidentally redirected as well, which should never have happened. Exactly who screwed up and how is still a mystery.
Despite their excess length, I'm fairly sure I've got an idea of what you're aiming at.
You're noting that the large web site shutdown was probably a mistake but are using that argument to defend the basic mechanism. Seems like a reversal of the principle "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" into "better a thousand innocents get hit with accidental collateral damage than one guilty man get away with having something really dangerous on the Internet".
Yes, it was probably a mistake. The point is when it gets easy for repressive measures to happen, they get sloppy and hurt innocents. And when a cop has the luxury not having to have a trial, things will be easy whether there's a judge involved or not.
Constitutional guarantees really do exist to "make the cops job hard". The urge for the good citizen to agree with the cops is too great.
And also, these action were carried out as "civil forfeiture" (in this case "virtual property") so my comments on this seem entirely justified - indeed, I don't think anything I said was specific to physical as oppose to "virtual" property.
Edit: It's not really the judge's "job to interpret evidence" fairly. There really aren't ANY uncorruptable experts on fairness. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY thing that keeps the justice system honest is the public, adversarial institution of the trial itself (it's kind of like the market that regard - two would-be monopolists can be very honest with enough daylight on them). The trial system hasn't done a terribly good job lately but if it is entirely absent, you get really bad things.
You're right, I haven't read all of your posts. I only have time to read 20,000 words a day and just couldn't fit it in. That said, it appears your stance is either shifting with time or you're playing piggy-in-the-middle while you sit on the fence. It was bad, but hey, mistakes happen, and what's qualified immunity?
I have not changed my opinion about this at all. Obviously I need to work on my communications skills. I do not think qualified immunity will apply here.
I do not think qualified immunity will apply here.
Well that's the most concrete point you've made so far, but I fear you've chosen brevity at just the wrong time. In addition, I think slaps on the wrist like some guy being forced to resign is effectively the same as immunity, since we're talking about legal repercussions here, and escaping the merest suggestion of criminality creates no deterrent.
Yes, examining the evidence is a judge's job. And it is the judges who issue the warrants (or not) after conducting a thorough review of the evidence provided. That's what is supposed to happen, and that's what almost always does happen, and that's due process in action.
When I referred to the likelihood of a technical error by a network administrator, that would be the person implementing the DNS changes under ICE supervision AFTER being presented with the warrant authorizing the domain seizure. The warrant which the ICE staffers got from a judge, who had first examined the evidence thoroughly.
One more time, in chronological order:
Someone in the DoJ/ICE finds a child porn website, and begins collecting evidence by making screenshots or downloading content or whatever methodology they use.
Everything known about the website is written up in an affidavit (ie a statement), and along with the evidence it is taken to the local District Court.
A judge reads the affidavit and examines the evidence - maybe as collected, maybe by going to the website directly to verify the statements made by the DoJ agent.
If the judge is satisfied that it is the real deal, then she issues a warrant authorizing the seizure.
The warrant is taken to ICANN or InterNIC or wherever it is easiest and fastest to patch the DNS, and is shown to the staff there as proof of legal authority. This is called executing the warrant.
A technician then redirects the domain name of the porn site(s) to point at an ICE server. On this occasion, mooo.com was accidentally redirected as well, which should never have happened. Exactly who screwed up and how is still a mystery.