Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Feb 2012 12:02 UTC
Internet & Networking "The federal government has been paying lip service to the idea that it wants to encourage new businesses and startups in the US. And this is truly important to the economy, as studies have shown that almost all of the net job growth in this country is coming from internet startups. Thankfully some politicians recognize this, but the federal government seems to be going in the other direction. With the JotForm situation unfolding, where the US government shut down an entire website with no notice or explanation, people are beginning to recognize that the US is not safe for internet startups." Not an issue today per se, but if the US government keeps this up, they do run a risk of lobotomising their technology sector.
Thread beginning with comment 507845
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Safe harbor
by malxau on Sun 19th Feb 2012 23:22 UTC in reply to "Safe harbor"
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

There's something to be said about INTENT. Are you running a legit operation where some of your users just happen to do bad things? Or are you running a seedy operation where most of your users do bad things, and there just happens to be legit activity in the process?

Obviously, there should be warrants and stuff, with proper procedures being followed, which looks like it didn't happen in the case of Jotform.


Whether for JotForm or MegaUpload, intent is notoriously hard to prove, and it seems to me like "proper procedures" include a charge, discovery and at least pre-trial proceedings with defendants present prior to just killing the site. They should have a right to make their case first rather than a judge hearing a one-sided pitch for a warrant. And if this happened, MegaUpload et al would have a chance to revisit their take-down practices in light of the charges, which would be more effective than closing one site and letting another one spring up in another jurisdiction.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Safe harbor
by Tuishimi on Mon 20th Feb 2012 01:09 in reply to "RE: Safe harbor"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think that is true if it has to do with the secret service. And it was reinstated not long thereafter once an investigation by the SS was completed.

This isn't generally the baliwick of the secret service so SOMETHING was going on. Or they THOUGHT something was going on and we likely won't hear all the details that it involved. We may here some details, but I wouldn't trust that we are hearing all of them.

It just happened that this came after the other recent takedown, garnering attention of the same sort when I doubt the circumstances were similar.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Safe harbor
by WorknMan on Mon 20th Feb 2012 19:25 in reply to "RE: Safe harbor"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Whether for JotForm or MegaUpload, intent is notoriously hard to prove, and it seems to me like "proper procedures" include a charge, discovery and at least pre-trial proceedings with defendants present prior to just killing the site.


That's not usually how it works. I mean, in 'the real world', if your businesses is accused of criminal activity and you get raided by the cops, you are shut down immediately. You don't get to run your operation while a trial is taking place.

Again, I don't know what the process normally involves before somebody gets shut down and/or if all of these procedures were followed in Jotform's case, but I suspect there is enough fallout in this case that we'll find out one way or the other.

Reply Parent Score: 2