[Bush2000]

What concerns me is how he was treated for what appears to have been an inadvertant error. He should have been given the opportunity to remedy the problem, even if it meant buying licenses for software he wasn't using. The tactics used against him should have been reserved for people that committed massive and/or willful infringement. The facts don't indicate that he met that criteria.

I've already posted BSA's procedural standard: "Typically, after an initial investigation of the lead, the BSA contacts the organization reported, although in some cases it pursues a software raid." Obviously, they had some reason for doing the raid -- and this article doesn't clarify what that reason was. What we do know is that the reason was good enough for a federal judge to issue a court order.

There are safeguards in place to prevent abuses. Law enforcement officials do have to petition the court in order to perform these kinds of searches. Ball did not lack due process, in my opinion.

[justlurking]

What we do know is that the reason was good enough for a federal judge to issue a court order.

Apparently so. But judges are not infallible: they can only rely on the evidence presented to them.

There are safeguards in place to prevent abuses. Law enforcement officials do have to petition the court in order to perform these kinds of searches. Ball did not lack due process, in my opinion.

But, those safeguards aren't foolproof. There are enough examples of abuses, where people have outright lied about evidence.

However, I agree that there was no lack of due process in this case. I just don't think it was necessary.