Sex.com Hijacker Captured in Mexico

Revvy wrote to mention that Stephen Cohen has finally been brought to justice. From the article: "Cohen, a multiple felon and longtime con man, had been on the run since before 2001, when a judge ordered him to pay a San Francisco entrepreneur for hijacking the Internet address Sex.com. In 1995, Cohen forged a letter to Internet authorities to gain control of the address, which he transformed into a highly profitable site for pornography ads. Cohen, who had been living in a Tijuana mansion, was arrested on an immigration violation by Mexican authorities and turned over to agents of the U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Marshals Service, according to Deputy Marshal Tania Tyler."

Comments

Re:And?

[ThogScully]

In the nineties, it wasn't about just any domain name. Keyword domain names were worth millions at least. Someone had the foresight to get sex.com (which you can't deny is and was an incredibly profitable keyword on the web) fast and lost that opportunity. He fought to keep the domain and pointed out the errors in NSI's policies and even when demonstrated to them he was the rightful owner, they did nothing to undo their mistake.

The real perpetrator in this case is NSI for essentially violating their agreement with the original owner to keep his domain in his control, but you can't deny that the original owner wasn't a victim.
-Neil

Re:Double standard?

[hey!]

Oh, yes, there's definitely a double standard in here somewhere. I mean, Mr. Cohen is a fugitive from justice while those braceros just want to send enough money back to their families so their kids can get ahead, but Mr. Cohen is rich. Rich guys with light skin shouldn't be treated as common criminals.

As the inimitable Mr. Boortz would say, the rich are responsible for creating prosperity, not those dirty laborers creating cheap agricultural surpluses. You need only look at their relative pay and their value to society will be made plain. And so the first seats in the lifeboat should rightfully belong to the rich. You might go so far as to say that they are entitled to them. Don't you love that word "entitled"? It's so redolent of nobility (feudal nobility, not that sticky romantic kind). I also love the word "privelege": rich people have a privileged status in our society, because they are law unto themselves (privilege: form the latin prvus, single, alone + lx, lg-, law).

Bringing the wealthy under the same laws as the rest of us is of course the ultimate double standard, because it takes so much more effort. We should expend the same effort on everybody, no matter what their ability and resources to evade are. It's cost efficient. You get many more people into prison that way. And everybody knows that the higher the number of people behind bars is, the greater your objectively measurable progress against crime is. We should not ask governments to make extra effort to bring the wealthy to account, when the result could only be fewer people in prison per dollar spent. As we've been told repeatedly, the government has too much "hard work" on its plate already. ...

Excuse me, was I ranting?