Newly Obtained Homeland Security Documents Reveal Radical Shift In Internet Policy

Until a few weeks ago, Brian McCarthy ran a website, channelsurfing.net, that linked to various sites where you could watch online streams of TV shows and sports networks. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized his domain name in late January. All you'll find there now is a "This domain has been seized" warning, complete with a screeching eagle dive-bombing your face as he clutches a banner that reads "Protection is our trademark."

Then, in an unprecedented move, on Friday they arrested McCarthy and charged him with criminal copyright infringement -- punishable by five years in prison.

Demand Progress just obtained a copy of the complaint that DHS and ICE made against him: they do not even allege that he made a copy of anything. Just that he ran what they call a "linking website" which linked to various sites with infringing material.

Based on my participation in the investigation leading to the February 2011 Seizure, I know that Channelsurfing.net was a "linking" website. Based on my training and experience, I know that "linking" websites generally collect and catalog links to files on third party websites...

Prosecution for secondary liability -- linking to a site that houses infringing materials -- is without precedent. Under the logic that governs the arrest, any Internet user who sends around a link to a copyrighted YouTube video -- or posts such a link on their personal blog -- is a criminal. This new enforcement regime is certain to have a chilling effect across the Internet.

The arrest represents yet another shocking overreach by DHS and ICE, whose policing of the Internet is growing ever more heavy-handed. We need to push back -- and fast -- before they try to lock up more Americans. Having accidentally seized 84,000 domains last month, it's clear that the agencies don't understand the operations of the Internet well enough to be in charge of policing it.

Will you sign on to Demand Progress's petition to DHS and ICE to demand that they release McCarthy and stop the seizures and arrests immediately?

 

Comments

[Helzapoppin]

08:12 PM on 03/15/2011

Think we aren't living under a corporate police state? Think again.

[pixelm]

05:32 PM on 03/11/2011

Couldn't disagree more. First, knowingly managing a linking site (basically providing an organized way for people to link to copyrighted material + generating a profit from it for advertising), is clearly copyright infringement. This is part of the pirate ecosystem - store the clips on a cyberlocker, organize them on your website, and away you go with a way to make dollars on someone else's investment. This guy clearly had criminal intent. Your post suggests that you don't like the idea of copyright (or compensating people for their hard work creating content) rather than not liking this particular arrest.

[Rainer Hofmann]

07:49 AM on 03/14/2011

How about self-denunciation?

Let us all do so and it will lead to 30 million more prisoners...

Rainer from Germany

[pixelm]

10:13 AM on 03/14/2011

These were large commercial sites, not individuals. Unfortunately, copyright infringemetn actually does hurt people, and ultimately, hurts everyone when it eliminates the way copies are financed. Ranier - obviously people value movies and music or this wouldn't be a big issue. And copyright is the only way anyone has figured out to have the people, rather than government, fund speech in a voluntary way (that is, only the people who want it enough to pay the price pay for it - just like anything else you buy).

[Sake Neko]

11:40 PM on 03/10/2011

Folks, before you sign that petition, please note that the petition managers state that they WILL SEND YOU BULK EMAIL. They say that you will have an opportunity to unsubscribe, but apparently only after you get email that you did not ask for. :/ This is *JUST BARELY* not spam; technically if you sign the petition, you have agreed to receive the email. They lost a signature because I don't agree to let some person or group with that little social networking sensitivity and manners have or use my information.

[Ron Arnold]

11:08 PM on 03/10/2011

I don't know if Bush can be nlamed for this'n . . . .

[Rassie]

07:00 PM on 03/10/2011

You don't have to be a civil libertarian to find this outrageous, but it helps. LINKS? Posting LINKS? We're all criminals now.

[undrgrndgirl]

10:52 PM on 03/10/2011

yup...i guess the only question that remains is can they lock us all up?

[Me atlast]

11:00 AM on 03/13/2011

Not all of us, just the ones they want locked up. It lets em be selective when they so choose.

[realitytrumpsbull]

10:13 PM on 03/09/2011

Well, you figure that government basically helped invent the internet, put up a bunch of money for it, just like regular telecommunications, and that the 'internet' is really nothing more than a collection of computer servers and user terminals/home or mobile PC's and other devices, and that government's had a regulatory hand in the rest of it, so when you're using the web, for whatever you use it for, you're basically on THEIR playground. And, if they decide that you're infringing, or otherwise perpetrating, and it's deemed serious, expect to hear about it. There's a lot of talk about online privacy and all that, but really, there isn't any. Not really. So, for stuff like copyright, might want to make sure that it's OK to use whatever it is you want to use. There's also private parties and companies out there, with their lawyers and so forth, who still want those royalties. But, I think Ugly Day is when they decide to go surfing people's hard drives over the net looking for 'stolen' music.

One way to fix a lot of this stuff would be to dump a lot of material into the public domain. Now, that would run counter to basic profit motive, and some people just aren't very altruistic, but you also consider that at some point, if you provide anything to the public, eventually your sales or rights in the matter are going to diminish to the point being negligible. 

Someday, they'll copyright your DNA, without your permission, and you'll have to call an 800 number to get them to sign a release form so you can give blood, or something. Be patient, all things in good time.

[bg66astoria]

04:00 PM on 03/09/2011

if they're good at shutting down things, I agree - let them teach the DOJ & Treasury how to shut down the Wall ST crooks who have not been investigated since 2008.

There, they would be doing something for the good of the public. Copyright enforcement must be removed from the DHS portfolio ASAP!

It's time to repeal the "Patriot Act." Get to it DEMS!

[realitytrumpsbull]

10:15 PM on 03/09/2011

Now now, professional courtesy, plus you figure all those government people probably have retirement accounts and 401k's and stuff, built on things like stocks and bonds, so if you start shutting down the crooks, they stop getting the old ROI, there, and then they might have to get jobs at Wal-Mart or something when they retire because gas will be $50/gal. or whatever. That is, if there still IS gas, by the time they do that...

[undrgrndgirl]

10:55 PM on 03/10/2011

dems??? lol...the only ones who will actually shut down the patriot act are 3rd parties with your best bets of getting in office being the greens and the libertarians...

[Brian OHara]

03:55 PM on 03/09/2011

Now, day by day, we move ever closer to Nazi Germany. I thought a Republican would do it, but Obama is a Reagan Democrat, not a believer in Freedom: Government of the Vicious Rich, by the Vicious Rich, for the Vicious Rich.

[JohnFromCensornati]

02:54 PM on 03/09/2011

What does copyright infringement have to do with homeland security or immigration?

[realitytrumpsbull]

10:16 PM on 03/09/2011

Maybe it's mainly about movie piracy? Don't steal, the government hates competition...

[OneFish]

11:02 PM on 03/09/2011

nothing, but it has everything to do with authoritarianism.

[Vious]

02:48 PM on 03/09/2011

So, the ISP's have gotten enough contributions through DC to get the government to over-reach for them and scare the public? Got it

[realitytrumpsbull]

10:20 PM on 03/09/2011

Well, another way to look at it is that you figure at least in theory, in the US it's for the People, by the People, and of the People, so, 'the government'? It's everywhere. They're everywhere. They're everyone. It's the Matrix. Or something. And, even online, there's still laws. 'Back in the day', you could pretty much do whatever the damn hell you wanted to, online, but I think those days are coming to a close. Besides, the real 'cops' anymore are probably just computer programs. And, when the little slip of paper comes out the side, they send the squad car. Someday, there'll be Police-Bot to go with that,  and one more job lost to the internet. Beep. Chirp. Click.

[pixelm]

10:16 AM on 03/14/2011

nothing wrong with real laws applying online. If the law is bad, study it, figure out something better, and organize to change it! Should it be ok to bully people online? Lie about them? Defraud people with bogus products or steal their passwords to their bank accounts? Of course not!

Offline, we've come to compromises -we have privacy within limits - but a court can order a search warrant upon probable cause. Online we need similar balance.

[Indigo1941]

02:32 PM on 03/09/2011

That's exactly right, the enforcement agencies don't understand what they're working with on the internet. It's like handing a baby a pair of sharp scissors. Alas.

[iblogleft]

02:28 PM on 03/09/2011

Unreal.

[BBackSoon]

02:27 PM on 03/09/2011

Could we move these people over to the the agencies that police the Financial houses.

[OneFish]

11:03 PM on 03/09/2011

How many campaign contributions came from MR Linkfarmer?