Here's more from the New York Times on the Government's seizure of websites in connection Operation Pipedreams, and the arrest of internet drug paraphernalia sellers across the country a few weeks ago.

Two weeks ago, after the federal government shut down 11 Web sites that trafficked in drug paraphernalia like bongs, roach clips and cocaine spoons, the Internet addresses didn't simply disappear from cyberspace. Instead, visitors to sites like PipesForYou.com and aheadcase.com are likely to be routed to a message hosted by the Drug Enforcement Administration. "The Web site you are attempting to visit has been restrained," the message reads in part. The words are superimposed on an American flag. ....Web surfers heading to some of these sites will not be told that the domain name "cannot be found," as they would if the name was wiped off the Internet. Instead, they could end up on a D.E.A. server, where they'll see the message and the flag. That's raising concerns among some experts in Internet and civil-liberties law. Shutting down a Web site is nothing new. Commandeering the Web address is another thing altogether. Is the electronic flag announcement a cautionary message to visitors that they are being tracked?

This is a new frontier for the Government that will be challenged strenously in the courts. Civil libertarians, such as Marc Rotenberg of EPIC say,

ONCE the government takes control of a domain, Mr. Rotenberg explained, it has the ability to record personal information from all the visitors to the site. "It becomes like electronic flypaper," he said. "It can effectively continue to operate the business to attempt to entrap others in the future."

So is it an acceptable investigatory technique as the Government will claim, or a violation of the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights, as will be argued by defense lawyers? We say the latter. The U.S. Attorney misses the point by miles. She says,

"If you had someone who's walking down the street and looking in the window of a drug paraphernalia store at bongs, a police officer could stand on the corner taking pictures of everyone looking in the window," she said. "You'd have the same concerns."

The two situations are hardly similar. Internet users do not intend the public to know their personal identifying information electronically transmitted by their computers whether they want it to be or not. This is not just a screen name or email address that's being conveyed. That would be like photographing their face. This is like photographing them in their underwear. Thanks to Connecticut defense attorney Todd Bussert for the link]