House Representative Drafting Bill To Stop ICE Domain Seizures Without Notice or Hearing

According to jdsupra.com, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif),  is drafting legislation that would seek to increase judicial oversight ICE’s ability to seize domain names.

To date the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized 1,630 domain names, of which 684 have been forfeited to the government.
According to the article “Lofgren’s bill will apparently propose that the government must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before domain names are seized or redirected.”
We have often criticized the action of ICE which has seized domain names without any notice to the domain holder nor to the registrar of the domain.
We see no reason why domains can be seized without notice and without the domain holder having an opportunity to be heard.
The case of rojadirecta.com and .org, the government returned the domains to the domain holder after more than one year after the seizing the domains.
The government admitted that it as wrong in seizing the domains and returned the domains to the domain holder but did not compensate the domain holder for its one year loss of the domain or even its attorney fees in the wrongful seizure.
This will be the poster case for a change in the law.

Comments

  1. says

    It looks like a step in the right direction. I hope it becomes law.

    Recall, though, that both the .info and .org “anti-abuse policies”, which I and others opposed due to similar lack of due process, already let those registry operators be judge, jury, and executioner. VeriSign attempted to bring out a similarly policy in October 2011 for .com/net/name, but fortunately the community immediately voiced opposition, and it was withdrawn within days. People pay more attention to what happens in .com — obviously their concerns about due process would be the same for .info and .org.

    If ICE wanted to reduce illegal activity, it would be wiser to pursue WHOIS accuracy as a goal. That would actually reduce crime, proactively. And, if illegal activity was alleged, they’d have accurate contact details to pursue a case properly via the courts.

  2. BrianWick says

    “it would be wiser to pursue WHOIS accuracy as a goal.”

    Could not agree more – I have never hidden myself and my past failures from anybody – I own up to them – plus how many legit businesses in the US operate but are not registered in at least one state – NONE – I think that is you real point George

Join the Discussion