Mozilla Tells Homeland Security To Screw Off. Questions Plugin Removal Request.

  • May 5, 2011 9:55 pm
  • by: Mike

All to often we woefully read articles about people or companies rolling over to this generations greatest annoyance and corporate disease — the RIAA. So entrenched in the U.S. government is the RIAA (and similar organizations) that any law they want passed can make it through political red tap thanks to back room dealings that are witheld from the public and continuous lobbying dollars. Part of this new age cancer’s “enforcement” is being increasingly handled by the department of Homeland Security.

Getting to today’s story, the department of Homeland Security has sent a letter to Mozilla asking demanding that the company remove a plugin called “MAFIAAfire” that automatically re-routes users who visit a website/domain that is currently seized by ICE to alternate domains. Naturally, ICE wants this plugin removed as they say it circumvents domain seizure controls. Mozilla, however, didn’t just rollover and say “OK”. Though they didn’t just say “No” either. They did even better — they sent a lengthy response with 11 questions asking for detailed reasons, court rulings, specific laws that are being broken by keeping MAFIAAfire up, etc. It’s Mozilla going above and beyond to protect basic human rights of consumers and not just letting the government walk all over them.

Expect such stories to increase in the coming years as cyber regulations get more strict, RIAA-like corporations increasingly guiding government policies and practices, and consumers start fighting back.

Full response after the break…

    To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security’s request to take-down/remove the add-on from Mozilla’s websites, can you please provide the following additional information:

  1. Have any courts determined that is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)

  2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)

  3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.

  4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?

  5. What protections are in place for or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?

  6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?

  7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down is based?

  8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners constituted civil or criminal copyright infringement.

  9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized domains or (if so please provide us with a copy)

  10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?

  11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with If so, what response, if any, did make?
  12. Via: TechDirt



    blog comments powered by Disqus

Author: Mike

visit my website

Gadget lover, smartphone collector, and beer connoisseur. I've been writing about gadgets for three years now and loving every minute of it. Outside of the digital landscape, I enjoy being active outdoors. I'm always up for a good conversation, so feel free to drop me a line!