Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Compensation for Bandwidth Costs is Extortion?

Posted by Cliff on from the now-this-is-ovekill dept.

Tha_Big_Guy23 asks: "According to this article, a man who created a website for his local Sheriff's department is being charged with extortion. This was caused by taking down the website after repeated attempts to get compensation from the county to cover the bandwidth costs. As a result, all his personal computer property, and company computer property was seized and he was jailed." "After being jailed he was charged with extortion, larceny by conversion, using a computer to commit a crime, and obstruction of justice. This website explains in more detail the circumstances surrounding the situation. Has anyone on Slashdot ever had an experience where a client was unwilling to compensate you for either your work, and/or the resources required to do your work?"

While the end result of this situation is a shame, let this situation serve as a warning for those of you who work, without a contract in place. While it is the general hope that people will behave in an honorable manner, sometimes this is just not the case, and contracts exist to protect both parties, when things go sour.

47 of 865 comments (clear)

  1. Written Contract? by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could see something getting out of hand with just verbal communications, misunderstandings, etc.

    Anyone providing or buying services ought to insist on a written contract that both parties sign. Then, there's no question of consequences if someone doesn't pay within 30 days, etc.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  2. Thankyou sir by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My knee was jerking furiously until I read your excellent post. I can rest easy now knowing that there's two sides to this story and we have another sensationalized /. article.

    1. Re:Thankyou sir by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And another highly misleading headline. "Compensation for Bandwidth Costs is Extortion?" is a real twisting of the reported facts, even if the webguy's claims are reasonable (They aren't). His actions certainly are not reasonable.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Thankyou sir by TwistedGreen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way I see it, Slashdot is providing is readers with valuable lessons in critical thinking. At what other news site could you exercise your mind to read between the lines, besides Slashdot?

    3. Re:Thankyou sir by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're not real familiar with North American "news" sources, are you? If they're not sensationalizing completely baseless conclusions drawn from inconclusive scientific reports ("the gay gene has been discovered!") they're just making shit it up and hoping nobody notices (NYTimes, anybody?).

      I guess it was inevitable. Once slashdot got big enough and had a clearly defined set of agendas within the readership, sensationalizing headlines and distorting the actual news reports to play on the mores and taboos of the group became a good way to get eyes on stories and, in turn, a good way to get more hits for squeezing advertiser wallets.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    4. Re:Thankyou sir by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know Slashdot has never been a place you trust unquestioningly for your news, not that trusting any source unquestionably is a good idea, but is it just me or have the editor's knees been getting a much better workout over the past couple of months?

      Based on my understandings of the problem, just looking at the current YRO frontpage, two of the last four stories have blurbs that are just plain wrong ("Courts Overturn FCC - Return of the Monopoly?", "Do You Have A License For Those Facts?" (my debunking and I'm a certified IP wonk). One of the others ("MSN Search Blocking Results For XFree86?") didn't really have enough data to prove or disprove (so it's probably not worth the 868 comments it attracted).

      Now this article, where I think the blurb is deceptive enough to constitute being "wrong".

      Slashdot editors, you are getting sloppy and going from moderate benefit (at least it provided some reasonably centralized source of information) to positive menace. Please, either spend more time digging into these stories, or stop posting the blurbs. You can disclaim responsibility for the accuracy of the stories until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that posting does constitute some degree of approval, since there is a selection process.

      This is an intervention. Please stop damaging our cause. You're marginalizing all of us who are legitimately concerned about the way things are going when you post so much obviously wrong stuff under the guise of "being on our side".

      (At least do us the courtesy of starting to shill for the RIAA and MPAA if you don't want to be bothered with improving your accuracy.)

    5. Re:Thankyou sir by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 5, Insightful


      This is why Slashdot is relatively good journalism, IMO. Even when the submitters and editors are clearly biased, it is only a few comments into the following discussion that things get balanced out. How often do we see on the big cable and broadcast networks retractions and alternatives being shown within minutes? Almost never.

      Even for the frequent story about Microsoft or SCO, there'll be at least a few comments among the flames adjusting the facts of the story. Actually, by being so harsh on these companies, for example, we can help the public better understand what is true and what is misrepresented regarding their actions. Hold the feet to the fire, so to speak.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    6. Re:Thankyou sir by Tanlis · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Richard, a former reserve deputy in the sheriff's marine division, more than three years ago offered to provide the Web site at no cost to the county as an in-kind contribution. Hackel, who enthusiastically supported it, said Richard agreed to operate it in exchange for publicity for his company.
      He agreed to host it at no cost. If he waited 2-3 years before asking them to pay, then he is only owed from the point he asked to when he stopped hosting the site. He truly was a fool though to run the site for that long if he expected payment from the beginning. Of course the second link states he tried getting paid during this period of time. Someone isn't telling the truth. So unless the guy has proof he tried to obtain payment on certain dates, he's not going to win.
    7. Re:Thankyou sir by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well the way I read it he didn't 'blow $300k of his own money.' The $300k was in "time, money, and resources". Thus I have a strong feeling that of that $9,000 per month, every month for 33 in a row he is claiming to have spent to total the $300k, a pretty good chunk of it was his self-assigned pay rate of $150 an hour (my guess, no basis in fact) for his own time 'webmastering'.

      Did he actually write checks for $9,000 per month is true expenses? Electricity, new hardware, bandwidth charges from his upstream provider? I'm guessing no fscking way.

      And according to the first article, yes he did plonk down a bill, a piece of paper saying something to the effect of 'you owe me $300,000'. They told him to get bent, then arrested him.

      That said, I think this entire thing is stupid. No farm-team sheriff office needs a web site that has 3.5 million 'hits' a month from 60 countries. And for damn sure no farm-team sheriff office web site is worth $300,000 over three years, traffic or no traffic. Someone is about to earn a few whacks from the clue stick.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    8. Re:Thankyou sir by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I volunteer to do work for you for free, and then send you a bill for it, that is fraud and/or extortion.

      It's certainly not extortion. It may be fraud. Depends on the nature of the bill, and the nature of the agreement. If there is a dispute abut the nature of the agreement, (abnd it appears that there is) then it is a civil matter. Not a criminal matter.

      The first link (which goes to a somewhat unbiased newspaper) clearly says he asked for $300K.

      Don't trust the media to get all the facts right. they tend to make small mistakes, and mishear things, and write what they think happened rather than what actually happened.

    9. Re:Thankyou sir by fredmosby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excellent post, the only thing I would change is "North American" to "any". It's not like American news sites are more biased than any other news sites.

    10. Re:Thankyou sir by Ironica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The guy volunteered to host and maintain the site in exchange for free publicity. Then he decided to stop doing so. But instead of handing the site and the domain over to the police department, he decided to try to shake money out of them. That certainly sounds believable, and the department's reaction is quite understandable.

      I see. So if I do volunteer work for another entity without any sort of contract, with the clear disclaimer on all the work that I own it, and then I decide to stop doing it, I have to turn over my work for free or be thrown in jail?

      Who "owns" a domain name? In this case, he offered to set up the site for publicity. He registered the domain name, the site always said that it was owned by his company, and then he stopped providing the free service (after a year of trying to negotiate a new deal where they would pay him for it). The domain name and the data has value to the sherriff's department (obviously), and they have NO AGREEMENT that he is to turn over the data or domain name to them if he stops hosting the site. So of course, it's perfectly understandable that they would throw him in jail and confiscate his equipment if he wanted them to pay for it.

      He might have asked for an unreasonable amount, and he might have even felt a bit malicious about it. Certainly, he had them up a tree, but they did do a lot of the climbing themselves. Still doesn't seem to me to be that obvious that he committed any crime.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  3. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Before everyone gets their tin foil in a not, a few quotes from the article to show that there are two sides to every story:
    Richard then demanded $300,000 of taxpayer dollars from the county. Richard said the money would offset the huge expense of running the Web site for the 33 months.
    This for 3.5 million users per year.
    Richard lied to investigators by claiming he sold the domain name to a Virginia company, Hackel said. Hackel said his mistake was placing too much trust in Richard and agreeing to have Richard pay the nominal domain fee. Richard retains authority of the domain name.
    Appearently he was holding the domain name until they paid him $300,000
    --

    "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
  4. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by Lizard_King · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3.5 million hits per month

    "hits" is such a crappy way to measure bandwidth. Depending on how the site is built and which web traffic monitoring tool you use, a single unique visit to a site can result in hundreds of hits. My shitty site gets in the order of 50-70k hits a month and I know its only my mom.

    --
    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
  5. Re:Huh? by Muerto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They do to receive email.. when you have a domain change... this also changes the domain for the email.

  6. What's wrong with what he did? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, there was no contract.

    Second, he told them that he'd discuss pay at a later date since they were to busy to handle it to begin with. If I donated 2 years of my time, I'd sure as hell want compensation.

    He did what any normal person would do: shut off their service since they didn't pay. In fact, he did one up on what most would do. They didn't pay for TWO YEARS and he let them go on that long. Try not paying YOUR hosting bill and see what it gets you. A shutdown site, that's what.

    How the hell is this extortion? Not even REMOTELY. People are stupid. They don't realize it takes time and money, not to mention VALUE of what he had turned the site into.

    Granted he didn't have a contract, but both parties are at fault. You can't NOT have a contract then call "extortion" and throw him in jail. Sorry, that's not how it works.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:What's wrong with what he did? by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't pay for TWO YEARS and he let them go on that long.

      The agreement was that he would host it for free in exchange for the publicity it would generate for his firm Running Wolf. It's not that they wouldn't pay -- the agreement between them was that they didn't have to. Then the guy pulls the site, asks for $300K, and won't put it back up unless they pay? Well, that borders on extortion. As other people mentioned, he should have contacted a lawyer first since he needs one now even more.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:What's wrong with what he did? by mamba-mamba · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I think most of the charges against him will be dropped. But the fact is, it sounds as though the guy also owned the domain, and essentially held it for ransom (for example, it sounds like the deputies all had email addresses on the domain since the article mentions that they couldn't use email after the guy pulled the plug).

      If that's the case, I don't believe the guy behaved professionally or intelligently. He should have just cut off the website, or replaced it with a note saying that, due to an inability to reach an agreement with the sherrif's dept., the site was removed.

      Alternatively, he could have sold them the domain for some reasonable price, and they could have kept their email up and running and so on.

      Anyway, the Sherrifs were stupid to arrest him. At some point, it will probably come back and bite them. This guy will sue for false arrest or something, and the county will have to spend a bunch of money defending the suit.

      MM
      --

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  7. The Guy Made Mistakes All Along by ausoleil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, $300,000 is extravagant by any standards. He should have charged his actual costs, after all, he did agree to do the site in exchange for publicity. Thus, the designer should have asked to have the county pay the real cost. I simply cannot imagine the ISP involved was charging that much.

    Secondly, the designer should have never shut the site down without sending the county properly served due notice. In other words, registered or certified mails, preferably coming from an attorney.

    Finally, the designer should have sued the county, and then through the litigation a settlement would have been obtained -- most likely through binding arbitration.

    But, at the same time, to settle a civil disagreement through criminal prosecution seems to be abuse of power at most naked.

    Both of the parties should be spanked by their Mamas.

    1. Re:The Guy Made Mistakes All Along by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But, at the same time, to settle a civil disagreement through criminal prosecution seems to be abuse of power at most naked.

      Which should be a lesson to all of the conservatives out there who think that unlimited police power is only a threat to those who are doing something illegal. In reality, unchecked police power is a threat to anyone who annoys it, whatever the reason.

  8. Obviously this is a civil issue by madMingusMax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It does appear the webmaster is a scumbag, and probably had evil intentions from the getgo. However, the sheriff's office made an oral agreement, no written contract, with this person.

    The evil webmaster then said, after 3 years and however many hits later, I need some cash. Pay me a lot of money or I'll shut it off to cut my costs.

    Sheriff replies "Screw You!" and throws him in jail.

    This is a Civil Issue, not a bullshit criminal case.

    --
    Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
  9. Re:Proof positive... by bryanp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that you should NOT, in any circumstances, trust cops.

    Odd. I would say that it is proof positive that you should not, in any circumstances, commit a crime against an entire police department.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  10. Why is the site even a .com? by lightspawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article lists www.macombsheriff.com as the offending web site.

    Which begs the question: Why does it have a .com TLD? Was it a commercial web site? I'm sick of .gov and .mil sites using .com because it's k00l3r. These sites should use the proper TLD, and of course it should be impossible for a _person_ to own these domains.

    Of course, when I rule the world there will be different TLDs for individuals, companies, military, government, and nonprofits - and a commercial site would never be able to even claim an individual's web site is infringing (or whatever) since they will live in different namespaces.

    Ironically, the alleged extortionist's domain is justice4pat.com, seeming to suggest that this is a business venture for him.

    Or maybe he just decided not to use .org because he felt like supporting Verisign, what with all of their sitefinder-related legal fees.

  11. Clearly more here than meets the eye... by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you RTFA you will see that the web designer hit up the county for $300,000 for three years of serving the web page -- far, far more than the actual costs.

    The response of the Sheriff's Dept. is clearly overblown, but this guy was clearly not operating on the level.

    To be honest, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.

  12. Re:Huh? by Homology · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I see why they needed somebody else to build their web site -- they think they need a web page in order to receive email!

    A homepage is certainly not needed in order to recieve e-mail, but for giving contact information to the public it is very useful.

  13. Re:Huh? by mamba-mamba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heh, I laughed at that too. But later in the article, I realized that the web-designer guy actually owns the domain. So he would be in a position to totally shutdown their email.

    MM
    --

    --
    By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  14. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by Wakkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read both articles, and they contratict each other.. The news article says he demanded $300,000... The other site says that he didn't want that money back. Who do we believe?

  15. This is an IP issue. by cmburns69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't read a single comment that is at the heart of this issue. The reason the Sheriffs department considers it extortion, is because they claim they own the content.

    Demanding money to give a person something that he/she owns IS extortion. But does the Sheriffs department own the content, or does the hoster (since he was hosting it for free).

    It should probably have been a civil case first to resolve the IP. The owner of the IP would then have had firm legal ground for whatever action they wanted.

    But I don't agree with slapping him with a criminal suit right off the bat.

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  16. Two Important Lessons by buzzoff · · Score: 4, Insightful
    - Don't offer things like this for free
    - If you do decide your work is worth something then don't jump from free to $300,000

    You shouldn't offer things for free if you really want to profit. All you'll do is make yourself miserable at best. If you're really stupid you might even lose touch with reality and demand $300,000. Did he really expect them to pay? Unbelievable...

    --
    "Never tell me the odds"
  17. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Theres still something fishy here -- 300,000$? I could build a fucking datacenter for 300,000. Think about how much hardware that is. At my last job I bought 2.6TB of SUN storage and a 4 way SUN server for 100,000$. 300,000$? Thats one HELL of a website!! I'm paying like 150$ a month for a TB of traffic and a colo'd p4.

    I don't think we can settle anything about this case until we see documentation on this 300,000$. Either he's the stupidest web developer in the world, or he's a fraudster.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  18. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by argmanah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For two years, Pat attempted to negotiate a way to pay for the site. For two years, Pat worked without pay. For two years, RunningWolf was not compensated for its server space or its bandwidth costs. For two years Pat spent $300,000 of his own money to host and maintain the site, never asking for nor receiving a profit.

    Pat did not ask for payment of any of that investment, but simply explained to the county he could no longer afford to host and maintain the site for free. For 2 years the sheriff refused to negotiate a way to continue paying for the site.

    Considering that it is undisputed that this guy donated nearly 3 years of his time to this county before asking for anything, I find it much more likely that his side of the story is more accurate. You don't see greedy/selfish people work selflessly for 3 years with no return on investment.

    You do however, see greedy/selfish people willingly leach off of generous people for years, and then sue or otherwise take legal action when those generous people stop.

    You seem to be very ready to believe that a guy would be willing to work for you pro bono for 3 years, then suddenly turn and try to extort you by withholding his free service? How am I the one with the tin-foil hat? I have more faith in people than that.

    --
    Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
  19. No good deed goes unpunished... by Dave21212 · · Score: 3, Insightful


    To all of you posters claiming he should have had a contract, I say why... he offered to run the site for free, a site the HE OWNS and worked on. Was he supposed to contract with himself ? Or maybe a contract that states that he would work for free until such time as he didn't want to any longer ?

    I don't get it ? Is there really any legal reason he can't pull down HIS OWN website ? If he approaches the Sheriff and suggests that he need money for bandwidth or he's turning HIS WEBSITE off, how is that extorting ?

    All you William Hung fansites take note... don't take them down or else !

    An arrest, possible prison sentence, confiscation of equipment... if anyone doesn't see this as a small-town Sheriff abusing their position they are missing the point.
    It's not illegal to ask for money to support YOUR website...
    Wouldn't that make Slashdot guilty of extorting money by withholding stories from non-subscribers ?

    Nuts...

    --
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
  20. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by nehril · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This man is being arrested because he refused to work for free.

    not entirely correct. he *offered* to create and run the site as a free service years ago, in exchange for the publicity it would bring him. the sherriff's office agreed. 3 years later, the web site is on all the police cars & letterhead, is used for email and has become an integral part of the department.

    Now, he's *backcharging* the department $300,000 for work he originally agreed to do for free. That number does not appear to be solely bandwidth costs, but seems to include other new and surprising charges. The department didn't go for the "altered bargain" right away, and rather than the obvious expedient of simply turning over the site contents/domain to them to maintain on their own bandwidth, he pulled the plug as a bargaining tactic.

    so lets see:
    • he hooked the department on a free service
    • gained the desired publicity over it
    • *then* decided it was never free and is now worth $300,000
    • then pulled the plug during negotiations


    sounds slimy to say the least. it's generally a bad idea to play evil hardball with attorneys general, because it really doesn't cost them anything to fight back.
  21. No no no no no. by amarodeeps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, please RTFA. He OFFERED to run the site for free initially, I quote:

    Richard, a former reserve deputy in the sheriff's marine division, more than three years ago offered to provide the Web site at no cost to the county as an in-kind contribution. Hackel, who enthusiastically supported it, said Richard agreed to operate it in exchange for publicity for his company.

    Doesn't sound like he was getting screwed to me. Sounds like he pulled a turnaround when he asked the county for $300,000 all of a sudden.

    I've actually been in a situation when we've had to shut someone's site down because they wouldn't pay. It took us more than 6 months to do it though, because we were professional and considerate, and it wasn't even a big site, just one of our small clients. But we had to do it after a while because he was just totally ignoring our bills and communications. He did eventually pay a reduced sum that we agreed to through negotiations. We then surrendered his domain gladly. But my point is, we gave him a long time and we tried really hard to communicate with him before shutting him down. It was the most drastic thing I've EVER done to a client, and I still feel a little weird about it.

    This sounds different. Sounds like ye old bait and switch to me. And it doesn't really sound like they were out of communication--something I'm sure should have been worked out before the drastic step of shutting down their site happened. ESPECIALLY considering this guy offered to do it for free initially. You don't just shut down someone's site, especially not a high profile client like this. You just don't. There are other avenues way before that happens.

  22. Not the way to make an offer by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The way the website offer should have started the process was by sending them a registered letter informing the sheriff that he no longer could afford to offer the county his services for free, and that as of a certain date he intends on terminating the service unless another agreement can be made.

    He could then conclude the letter by informing them that he is willing to provide services to the county at less then his normal prices, and would be willing to consider a request for an extention of the deadline for a reasonable time if needed to ensure continuity.

    Extortion charges are a bit extreme, but if he's trying to show his power over the site to the sheriff, he shouldn't overreach. He managed to get the sheriff to overreach as well, and while the charges will likely be overruled by a court, that isn't a fun thing to have to go through.

  23. uh, whatever! by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They guy was frikkin arrested, his equipment impounded, and he's being threatened with 20 years in jail. For a dispute that should be settled in civil court. Is the guy snow white innocent in the whole affair? Probably not. Is the police department committing a huge abuse of authority? Hell yes!

  24. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope... he was operating on the "free drugs" model of business...

    Give the county free services for three years, then hit them with the price and tell them that they can't live without him... that's not true, the county can take those three years of free service and give him nothing but a thank you, and then take their business elsewhere.

    While the extortion charge is a bit extreme, he's lost all hope of doing business with any local government in the area ever again. He should know that local governments have to follow strict purchasing rules, and usually any contract worth $300,000 a year has to go out to bid.

    His claim of ownership of the domain is a bit weak. He's not the Macomb Sheriff. The sheriff's office could very well create a trademark and then sue for posession of the domain name.

  25. One rule to live by... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never piss off people who can legally carry guns.

    Seriously though, let's look at the charges:

    Extortion: How could Pat Richard extort anyone by shutting off his own server? Imagine loaning your car to someone, then deciding you cannot afford paying the gas, the insurance, and the up-keep. You give him an ultimatum, either buy the car or I'll take it back. Under what system of justice could you be charged with extortion under that scenario?!

    Larceny by conversion: How could he convert his own property? Via this charge the Sheriff's Office is essentially admitting that the website was theirs, but on the other hand, they refuse to pay for it. They should not be able to have it both ways.

    Using a computer to commit a crime: Turning off your own server is a crime?!

    Obstruction of justice: See above.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  26. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by Gr0nk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My guess is that his lawyer posted this article in order to "slashdot" the new domain - in a tactic to drive up their bandwidth costs to make the $300,000 seem a little more reasonable.

    --
    2advanced.net: Webhosting. Peace of mind
  27. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Damned it - preview/submit - who knows

    So the police dept. unwisely used a free service. At this point - make contracts that guarantee that the site is up and useful.

    Where it is nice to get things started on a shoestring, at some point SOMEONE should have thought "Hmmmm... We are spending real dollars here to advertise this site - we should spend the dollars now to make sure that we can have access to this site at all times"

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  28. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is it exactly. The copyright on the material, even if he didn't include his disclaimer about being the property of his company, is HIS. The domain is HIS. He asks for 300k, and you don't pay, it's entirely within his legal right. Besides where is the line between extortion and not? The article says that it's extortion because so much money is involved. So, if he only asked for 50k, it wouldn't be extortion?

    The fault for this even being an issue falls squarely on the collective shoulders of the sherrif's department. First of all, friends are friends, and business is business. If it's important to your business (the area residents and to a lesser but entirely legitimate degree all of the residents of the USA being the customers) then you need to treat it like a business, and document things, sign contracts, and so on. A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.

    The fact is that it doesn't seem that he's broken the law. The site belongs to him. The domain belongs to him (and that's the department's own fault, since he offered and they could have told him no.) How is he not within his legal rights?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. I reserve judgement by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's an idiot for claiming that the website cost him $300k. That I will agree on.

    But... there were two links. One said he did NOT demand back-payment and just wanted forward-payment for his site. That is perfectly legal and if they refuse that, then he has the right to close it. It sux and is shitty business practice, but it's legal.

    If he DID demand back-payment for that rediculous amount of money, he deserves trouble. 50 years is excessive. Give him 3 months and keep his computers...

    Ever been in jail? Two nights feels like a month... trust me, he'll have plenty of time to think about it in a few months.

    I think everyone should spend a weekend wrongly imprisoned in jail... just for the perspective. I did it (not by choice) and many of my opinions about the justice system changed drastically.

    Stewey

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  30. I have a BIG problem with this.... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, let's dispense with the "he said, she said" content here. My divorce lawyer once said to me: "There are three sides to every divorce: your side, her side and the truth!"

    So, let's try to stick to the facts:

    Fact #1. This guy built and hosted the web site and paid for the domain name. Last time I looked, it cost money for bandwith, so some one was paying something. The Sheriff's Dept. admits it wasn't them paying, so it must have been him. Bandwith for 3.5 million hits costs what? $1000.00/month? $5000.00/month? I don't know the exact amount, but this still is a tidy sum of money.

    Next, someone paid for the computers to host this site, the rent for the place to house them, the electricity to run them, upgrading, maintenance, etc. Another fairly substantial cost.

    Next, someone had to build the web site. It's likely quite slick to win all these awards, and took someone quite a bit of time, not to mention the cost of the computer programs used to create it.

    Okay, no one disputes that the guy did all these things. Maybe in the beginning he DID offer to do them for free....

    BUT.....(and this is a big but....)

    A year ago, he went to the Sheriff's Dept. and told them he couldn't afford to do this for free any more. I'm sure that the bandwidth cost for millions of hits/month were getting pretty steep for him. I'm sure he had to provide mega large servers out of his pocket for hosting too. The Sheriff offered to help him by allowing him to sell ads on the site. It's fairly obvious that the Sheriff was getting MUCH MORE from this site then the guy was. I'm sure the site got much bigger then both of them ever expected it to... In any event, it's fairly obvious that the guy let the Sheriff know of his hardship at least a year before he actually pulled the plug. The Sheriff even admitted this when he allowed the guy the right to place ads on the site.

    The way I see this is that it was unreasonable for the Sheriff to expect unlimited web hosting in perpetuity, especially where the costs of providing such hosting had obviously increased dramatically over when the offer was first made (of course, I'm assuming the web site didn't have 3 million + hits a month the first day it opened). There IS an implied contract here actually. That contract was to provide web hosting and email for a small county's Police Dept, NOT a mega site visited 3+ million times a month by people from over 60 countries. The fact that this guy offered his benevolence (and his money!)for as long as he did (in a major economic downturn no less!) should not be cause to put him in jail for extortion. The Sheriff should have known that the gravy train would eventually come to an end, and actually HAD a year's notice that it was fast approaching the station! This sheriff should be fired for several reasons. The first is stupidity. A high school student should have been able to see that this site was costing much more to run then one man can provide for free. Worse, the guy TOLD HIM it was a year BEFORE he pulled the plug! Second, is due to police brutality. There was NO criminal activity here! At best, this should have gone to a CIVIL court. Finally, for theft. The Sheriff had NO RIGHT to confiscate that computer equipment. By doing that (and jailing the guy), he likely put the guy out of business permanently. What a reward, huh? It's like giving the Sheriff a gun for his birthday and then having him shoot you with it!

    With friends like that Sheriff, who needs enemies?

  31. Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see why both can't be true.

    What if the guy thinks to himself, after three years, "this is bull. I have worked on this site for three years and have yet to see any money from the publicity. I can't afford to float it along any more, and these guys keep making demands of me."

    So he says to the Sheriffs, "Hey guys -- listen. I've lost about $300,000 of my own money running this site, and I'm going to need you to start paying for it. I'm turning it off, but I'll put it back on when you pay." The figure is an exageration (obviously). Maybe he's expecting a few hundred dollars a month.

    And the Sheriffs hear this as, "Guys, I want $300,000 to bring your site back up." That IS extortion. And obviously, since it's not in the budget, they can't pay it. This is government -- you can't wipe your ass if it's not in the budget. That's why everything's budgeted so high.

    So maybe the guy exagerates, and maybe the sherriffs hear the exagerated sum before the real one. Nobody thinks, because there's a lot of emotion.

    Not saying that's what happened. Just saying that neither group has to necesarily be lying.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  32. Re:What exactly is Slashdot? by ArekRashan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wait a second. Slashdot is journalism?

    I've been reading ./ for years now, and I always thought that it was a BBS that was extremely popular because it linked to lots of news stories, which gave its members a constant stream of new topics to "discuss".

    Slashdot is what happens after journalism.

  33. Detroit Free Press article by cesimpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think some of you relied solely on the poorly written and sheriff-friendly article at the Macomb Daily.

    Why don't you see what a real newspaper like the Detroit Free Press has to say about the situation?

    Mr. Richard did not ask for $300k. He only cclaimed that to be his previous investment. The only thing he asked for was help in the future.

    He gave 12 months formal notice, and more than two years of informal notice, that he needed help financing HIS site. The sheriff refused to help. The site went down. Simple.

  34. It comes down to this.. by SykeOpath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the end, there are really only two ways this can all go:

    1) If this person can prove that they had been trying to negotiate a payment plan with the Sherrif, and that these subsequent charges against him are because he then stopped supplying the service when no settlement could be reached, then he will have a great case; and will probably win more than he says it all cost him.

    2) He will go to jail, and has lost all of his computer equipment forever, and may even be restricted as to their use when all said and done.


    Personally, I find this all to be an over-abuse of police power.. at this point. IF it turns out that there was no 'demand' for money, only a 'request', then the extortion charge seems pretty steep. Most of the other charges are just being used as 'add-ons' to that main charge - this was what was used in the committing of that crime etc.. However, they ARE serious enough to adequately destroy someones life and livelihood.

    Was it reeally called for in this case? Why would they particularly need to seize his equipment and personal effects? Taking these things really do nothing to solve the 'case'.. if anything at all, maybe they would have wanted to server so they cold pull evidence of access logs etc from it, but beyond that, siezing all of his computer and electronic equipment associated with it, is just strong arm tactics.. I'm surprised more people aren't mentioning due process and reasonable search and siezure rules.

    Still, the press is not a good place for finding out the 'truth' about such things.. after all, if you where to believe the press, then the Macomb Sherriff's office has enough problems as it is anyway, what with the Old Sherriff Hackell who was brought up on charges for rape (I think it was), and now his son taking over.. who is the currect Sherriff probably involved in this.

    Basically, there's more to this than meets the eye, but I still feel there is something wrong when peoples property gets taken without there even being 'good reason'.

    But that's just me I guess.. and I'm a bit of a SykeOpath ;-)

    --
    Absence of evidence, is never evidence of absence..