Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you as an American care about hurting innocent individuals?
I think that you can't justify breaking the laws you helped write by simply trotting out a cheap stage prop like "innocent individuals", especially when there is no evidence that it does anything of the sort.
I find the concept that we should tolerate or otherwise accept criminal actions on the part of a government that is supposed to represent us and our ideals simply because it is inconvenient to see the ugly truth quite distasteful.
It is bad form to accept the status quo under the guise of what ramifications there may be as a result of certain actions coming to light. If an entity (in this case, government) is to ever be forced to change its procedures to coincide with the ideals of the public it represents, it is unfortunate but necessary that these actions be brought to light in the first place so that they can be addressed.
I'm sure there is a person sitting in a courtroom in Los Angeles or San Francisco or here in Seattle as we speak who would much rather prefer the crimes he committed not be revealed to the public and merely tolerated because to air them in public would be harmful to innocent individuals. However, that is not how our system operates. In our system, we are held accountable for our deeds, and government should be no different.
I know.. I just wasnt looking for the word, I used hidden, you use spoof, and now by your own admission they are the same..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
Perhaps you should read the article to learn that while the company is based in Belize, the SERVERS were in other countries, which is where they went wrong. The article went to great lengths to point that out, because people would question how the heck the US shut anything down in Belize since Belize grants the US no authority.
And yet magically, the US has shut down the corporation, levied fines, and put them out of business. If it was as simple as them simply having their servers in other countries, then the FTC would only have the authority to shut down the servers but thats not all they are doing.. They have levied fines against a Belize company and ordered to turn over $1.08M to the FTC, and now the company is out of business. You and I both know that someone can find a new server anywhere in the world in about 10 minutes to put programs and sites on but this company didnt have that choice did they? All of this of course is getting detoured from the point which is, YOU are not in Belize so YOU cant claim any such protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
Those seized domains were fronts that were selling counterfeit goods and copyright materials, which falls under a very specific section of law. The seizure of a domain name also has nothing to do with an IP address. Seriously, you need to educate yourself.
I own several dozen domain names, and have made legal arguments in federal court over trademark infringements in regards to those domains (verification can be made by doing a search of my previous postings here) no education needed. And the FTC case above delt with OTHER specific sections of OTHER laws. Domains can be taken for all sorts of reasons, but if you lose your domain name, holding onto that IP is meaningless. We dont key in 173.193.25.16 to go to city-data.com we key in www.city-data.com. Without your domain name, your mirror site is useless.. So please save your "education" for those who have no clue and stop ignoring the discussion..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
That's for damn sure.
I stopped needing to hide things I was doing from the government as I grew up and stopped doing childish things.. And since I havent insulted you, I'd appreciate the same in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
I never said I was immune. Just said it will be very, very difficult to take that server offline. Which grates on you to no end. Which, I gotta say, brings a little smile to my face.
There is no need to take the server off line, as you clearly stated above. The IP can stay active while they kill the domain name...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
Again with another story about servers that AREN'T IN BELIZE. Those were based in England. What's the common thread here? Criminals in Belize (who aren't apprehended) who have their equipment which is NOT based in Belize seized. Hmmmm, so the equipment NOT in the country is taken, but the people IN the country are left alone. I wonder why that is? Seriously, are you really so dense that you think the US FTC has authority in other countries? Seriously? You are so damn imperialistic to where you think the US can just cowboy into any country it wants any time it wants? Good god man.
All of this fails unless YOU are based in Belize, (and of course you can claim to be part of the media)..
Are you part of either? So claiming that the servers are based in Belize means you cant be touched, if its deemed you are breaking the law is complete ignorance.
Wikileaks violated paypals TOS agreement, in particular "activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
By publishing illegally obtained information they are encouraging more illegal activity. You are admitting this to be true when you admitted to becoming a mirror host.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos
Again, nothing WL does is illegal. You can think it all you like, doesn't make it true. I can think that Jessica Alba will walk through my front door in 10 minutes wearing nothing but a pair of bunny ears and a smile, but the odds are it won't happen.
They dont need to be doing illegal acts to violate the TOS, they are facilitating the illegal acts, in specific the guy sitting in jail for taking the documents and releasing them to Wikileaks (corrected, previous typo said wikipedia)
If you cant comprehend this, I adivise you to seek legal advice before you admit to possibly taking part in illegal activity on other we forums (again, if its deemed illegal). The TOS is rather clear, and the actions by Wikipedia is also rather clearly violate those TOS..
Wikipeida can have a merchant account in about 15 minutes to replace Paypal, so I'm not sure all of the whining.. I'm sure he'll have no problem finding one in Belize
Pgh, you've lost. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. You're tap dancing and trying to create silly semantics at this point, which is circular and pointless. Hell, I've gained 6 rep points just responding to you. You know as well as I do that the money seized was also not in a "safe" country (Myanmar, Grand Caymans, etc.). You know as well as I do that the government can't just seize any domain it likes. And you probably know full well that a mirroring site doesn't need a domain, just an IP, because mirrors are clicked to via links, not typed in browsers. You're probably also undoubtedly aware that the "shut down" 'companies' have undoubtedly just sprouted back up under a different name, as most enterprises of that nature do. But you can't just come out and admit you opened your mouth and "removed all doubt" of something very specific, as the well known phrase goes.
There have been repeated references by some posters that the leak was justified because it exposed crimnal activity. Yet none of those posters could point to any actual crime. Very curious indeed.
Is it immoral to bear witness to a crime?
No.
Even if the act of bearing witness is deemed a crime?
No.
If it is illegal but moral to bear witness to a crime, then whose rights are ultimately secured by said law?
The criminal.
They dont need to be doing illegal acts to violate the TOS, they are facilitating the illegal acts, in specific the guy sitting in jail for taking the documents and releasing them to Wikipedia
If you cant comprehend this, I adivise you to seek legal advice before you admit to possibly taking part in illegal activity on other we forums (again, if its deemed illegal). The TOS is rather clear, and the actions by Wikipedia is also rather clearly violate those TOS..
Wikipeida can have a merchant account in about 15 minutes to replace Paypal, so I'm not sure all of the whining.. I'm sure he'll have no problem finding one in Belize
I find the concept that we should tolerate or otherwise accept criminal actions on the part of a government that is supposed to represent us and our ideals simply because it is inconvenient to see the ugly truth quite distasteful.
This part I find describes the attitude by many who are against the wikileaks disclosures. It tarnishes the image of a champion of freedoms that fights against corrupt governments in other places. Now they discover that their own government isn't too much unlike the KGB.
Is it immoral to bear witness to a crime?
No.
Even if the act of bearing witness is deemed a crime?
No.
If it is illegal but moral to bear witness to a crime, then whose rights are ultimately secured by said law?
The criminal.
Criminy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
