Slashdot Mirror
Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names
Bootsy Collins writes "The Miami Herald is running a
story
on the first-ever prison sentencing (and, for that matter, prosecution and conviction) under the Federal Truth in Domain Names Act. This act, combined into the larger
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003, made it a violation of U.S. Federal law to use a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive someone into viewing obscene material -- larger penalties if attempting to so mislead minors, but up to two years even if adults are the object. In the case in question, a man was convicted for registering thousands of domain names which were close misspellings of popular web sites for kids. Attempting to surf to those sites would redirect to a site entitled 'Dorm Sex Party.' Before being arrested, the convicted typosquatter made about a million dollars for the referrals." He's been on Slashdot before.
goatse.cx != goatsex
goatse = GOATSE
(G)uy
(O)pens
(A)ss
(T)o
(S)how
(E)e
goatse is thus perfectly appropriate.
What's creepy about this is how people take offense to things that are not in and of themselves offensive, such as the word "niggardly".
You have a fair point about the stupid dismissal of someone for using the word "niggardly", which etymologically has no relationship whatsoever with the word "nigger". However, I don't think I'd be too controversial in suggesting that those people who have used the word "nigger" in the workplace have, historically, got off too lightly.
Sure, the "niggardly" case was stupid. But it doesn't make right all of those situations where black people have had to endure workplace abuse which included the word "nigger". Is Rosa Parks a modern-day heroine because she confronted the niggardly behaviour of the driver? Or because she confronted the fact that the driver regarded her, first and foremost, as a nigger?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
No dude. This is the internet era. No one must ever pay for porn again
Been there done that. There is no money worth staying in prison for. I know guys who defrauded banks for millions who would have turned the other way if it meant saving their families the embarrassment, and hardships they'd suffered by being locked up. So you mean to tell me you would put a price on your wife and kids, family, dignity? If so, then you my friend will be a lonely sad person in the future. "making you a bitch" is reserved for prisons, not white collar places, you'd have to be in a USP for something like that to happen. Club Fed as we called it is Camp Cupcake, think of a college with no chicks, and no gates (for the camps), for the lows, same shit. Medium - High you'd run into things here and there, but what your thinking of via conditioning you've seen or read about is limited to high security prisons, and state prisons. Club Fed is as they call it Club Fed.
MoFscker
The deal he had with the porn sites had him getting paid for referrals. Not for referrals that actually sign on, but simply the number of referrals. So he was screwing over the people who were paying him, as well.
In fact, that's apparently why he targeted the kids. According to his admission, it wasn't that he had some thing about making kids see porn. It was that kids were more likely to make spelling errors, so they were more likely to come across his typosquatting websites; so if he targeted kids, his referral numbers would be higher.
Most crimes do not have one and only one possible sentence. Generally, the court has leeway. The law perscribes maximum and sometimes minimum sentences for a given crime. This is so there is some additonal deterrence for repeat offenders. You do something once, you are likely to get a sentence quite a bit under the maximum. However if you are back in court for the third time on the same offence, they can hit you with a harder sentence.
-- b
Don't forget the 1 count of child porn he pleaded guilty to. It's not just the 49 counts of redirect sites he was sentenced for.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
If he had made the statement that he misspelled the domain names to attract adults, thats one thing, but in his case intention is everything. He should of received 30 years.
I'm doing the smart thing. I'm redirecting adults who can't speak English. For example, my domain www.should-of.com redirects you to www.should-have.com and teaches them about the difference.
If you look for research on the effects of exposure to pornography at a young age - you'll answer your own question. Children aren't capable of seeing consequences for alot of their actions. And there is actually alot of evidence that shows that exposure to pornography at a young age tremendously increases the chance for addiction to it at a later age.
Shielding kids from pornography isn't the same as shielding them from sex. Pornography != sex.
That said...isn't shielding young kids from pornography similar to shielding them from drugs and alcohol?
Better than Flickr - Manage, Share, Archive
Why aren't the christians calling for execution of homosexuals or at least making homosexuality a death penalty offense.
Because according to the New Testament, Christians aren't bound by Jewish laws such as those found in Leviticus.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
It's not a felony to register domain names, it's a felony to use those domain names to mislead people into looking at porn.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Unfortunately if you give hime two he will reinvest until he has 4 etc. The only way of removing a motivating factor behind crime is remove the gain.
This is what I was referring to...
--
Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
What gives you that idea? "Of" is a preposition. "Have" is an auxiliary verb used to put "should" into the past tense. The two have nothing in common aside from the language in which they are spoken and that the contraction of "have" sounds a lot like "of."
If you still disagree, consult the American Heritage Dictionary:
Improper english is used very often in casual communications, but you'd better get it right in a formal context. If your company puts out a press release with "should of" in it, people everywhere will point and laugh and your company will be thought a bunch of bafoons.
I believe you need to re-read Roe v. Wade...the actual opinion to get an idea of what the seven justices who were part of the majority were talking about...the Courts as you put it do not overturn the Constitution ever, they interpret the Constitution...
....and last I heard, the 2nd Amendment was live and kicking from the observation that the local gun store is still doing a brisk business....
more pointedly, the substantive due process reasoning the Court used in Roe was the same reasoning the Court used to overturn bans on interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, and the right for married couples to make intimate decisions such whether or not to use birth control, see Griswold v. Connecticut...the rightly interpreted penumbras in the Bill of Rights that forbid the government from interfering in certain personal and very private decisions...
By your reasoning, the states could limit the number of children a couple or person could have...the states could require a license for a person to have a child...or the states could make laws that forbids all sexual positions besides missionary...or that sodomy between two consenting adults is a crime...under your so called theory of the 10th amendment, states could limit very private activities such as these...but that is far from what the founders notions of state sovereignty was about...Lucky for us and I would say the majority of Americans, our Courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution....
Moreover, do you think under the guise of the 10th Amendment the states should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The tired states' rights argument was made many times during the era of Brown v. Board of Education
Perhaps I am not watching the "correct" news channel or listening to the "correct" right wing demagogue (sorry, Ann Coulter is not an authority on Constitutional law) but did I miss the story about the 10th and 2nd Amendments getting "overturned"? No, the 10th Amendment is alive and well in Constitution Jurisprudence, See Printz v. United States, Reno v. Condon
What judges do you want to impeach? what exactly did they do that rises to the level of impeachment? If you are referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges, read their opinion about the gay marriage issue. Those so called judges that our President is villifying for political reasons to cater to his "base" have done nothing that warrants the repeated character assassination by our President. Their opinion is based on the interpreation of the Mass. Cosntitution. Those judges did what judges were suppose to do...just because they came to a decision that you do not agree with does not mean the judges committed an impeachable act...
furthermore, what exact unjust decisions should our President overturn? What specific decisions did the judicial branch make for the executive and legislative branch? Again, your arguments are the same ones segregationist made in the 1950s...and I am sure, if you have been listening to Fox and our President that you are probably upset with Alabama Ten Commandments case too...again, read the opinion of that case, Glassroth v. Moore, 299 F. Supp 2d 1290...probably one of the most comprehensive and thoughful opinion's written by a federal judge.
Ultimately it is tiresome to hear people like you regurgitating "activist" judge crap that our President and the rest of the majority of the right wing likes to scream. It is an ignorant statement to repeat, (see Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for an example of Scalia's "activistism")...again, it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution and declare laws that violate the Constitution as invalid...it is the State Supreme Court's of most of states, i.e. Mass, to interpret their own state Constitutions and declare laws that violate their state Constitutions as invalid...this power of the Courts is what keeps our government in balance...it is this powe
It's happened to me too (and by the same group; WHOIS ipid.net). These days it's a little more difficult to lose a domain this way. Nearly all registrars will hold onto an expired domain for one month in the RedemptionPeriod status. This means the domain won't work - and you'll notice that you can't get to your site - but it gives you 30 days to figure this out and post a renewal before the domain becomes available on the open market.
If this didn't happen in your case, I'd suggest using a different registrar next time. DomainMonger has been good to me, and they do support the RedemptionPeriod. Of course, you have to visit your own site enough to realize that it's down, which in the case of ipid.net I didn't do, so I wound up losing that one anyway.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.