IP: Re: Asset forfeitures - piracy (fwd)

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: shapj@us.ibm.com
>X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>
>
>I am struck by three simple and obvious counterbalances that do not appear to be
>under consideration:
>
>The first is a law mandating the prompt (90 days or less) return of property
>deemed to be seized from innocent parties.  That is, if law enforcement preempts
>due process by seizure, they should be prepared to immediately demonstrate
>guilt.
>
>The second is a law mandating that when property is jointly held by an innocent
>party and a suspect, the innocent party should receive proportional
>compensation.  I am mindful of the loss of house and home experienced by
>innocent spouses.
>
>The third is a requirement that property returned following seizure should be
>accompanied by compensatory interest at somewhere between 2% and 5% *per day*,
>or alternatively that the seizing agency should be required to pay damages under
>the usual 3x rule within 90 days.
>
>
>The problem is not that property is being seized.  The problem is that due
>process is being evaded and there is no accountability for error.  If a law
>enforcement agency had to pay for its mistakes, the incentive system would
>ensure that seizure occurred only under suitable certainty.
>
>Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
>IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
>Email: shapj@us.ibm.com
>Phone: +1 914 784 7085  (Tieline: 863)
>Fax: +1 914 784 7595
>