Slashdot Mirror


MegaUpload Programmer Pleads Guilty, Gets a Year In Prison

An anonymous reader writes When MegaUpload was shut down a few years back, seven of the company's employees were indicted by the U.S. We heard a lot about Kim Dotcom's court proceedings, but not much about the others. A few days ago, we received word that programmer Andrus Nomm has been arrested in Virginia. This came as a surprise to everyone involved. MegaUpload attorney Ira Rothken said it was likely Nomm had made a deal with the Feds. Now, we know for sure: Nomm has pleaded guilty to felony copyright infringement and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. In a statement, the Department of Justice said they will continue to pursue his co-conspirators.

188 comments

  1. Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..the rest of us need the record. Don't be scared of the government, and don't commit suicide.

    1. Re:Don't plead guilty by OverlordQ · · Score: 0

      Can be sure as shit that Kim isn't going to part with his money to defend him even if he didn't have his own case to worry about.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you can afford to win, it's often more cost-effective to plead guilty than risk spending the rest of your life in a gulag.

    3. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He didn't.

      Before agreeing to leave to the US he was awaiting an extradition trial in a foreign country unable to leave and could not find work.

      They don't care about him. They want him to roll on the others and provide them with enough evidence to convince foreign courts to extradite everyone to the US where they will get a "fair and balanced" hearing and then be sentenced to decades in prison as an example of how corporate money buys "justice" as well as votes.

      It does not matter if the testimony of this person is a lie or even if it was extracted in a heavy handed way using everything but torture. All they need is the targets on US soil where justice means fuck all.

      This is primarily all about getting access to Dotcom. The NZ legal system is kept at arms length from politics for a reason and THIS is a great example of that reason.

      And it will still not be enough most likely once they fabricate the evidence...

    4. Re:Don't plead guilty by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can be sure as shit that Kim isn't going to part with his money to defend him even if he didn't have his own case to worry about.

      You are correct but not for the selfish reason you imply. Kim Dotcom's assets have been frozen so they were not available to defend this programmer. He is only being allowed money for living expenses and his own legal fees. You may hate Kim Dotcom but he is not stupid. It would have been in his own best interests to pay for this guy's defense (assuming that fact couldn't be use to malign the defendant).

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    5. Re:Don't plead guilty by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless you can afford to win, it's often more cost-effective to plead guilty than risk spending the rest of your life in a gulag.

      Yeah, but life with a felony conviction is like being in a gulag without the State even having to spend money on you.

    6. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand time is better then US time.

    7. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was criminal, you don't need money to fight it, they're required to give you lawyer.

    8. Re:Don't plead guilty by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      reminds me a lot of a guy who lives in NH. He was a pot dealer who was a member of a local political group that the feds wanted to keep tabs on. So what did they do? They offered a heroin dealer a wrist slap if he would help nail the pot dealer.

      The pot dealer gets nabbed, and told he will be given a sweetheart deal if he spys on the policitcal group...he says no so they railroad the fuck out of him to make an example of what happens when you don't act like the sniveling peon you are.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:Don't plead guilty by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      ROTFL you mean an underpaid, overworked public defender who doesn't barely have time to actually represent you? yah that works real well. Public defeders are barely adequet for a plea bargain most of the time. Shit a friend of mine had one and when he sat down with her she hadn't even bothered to look at his case.

      This "justice system" is 99% scam jobs program

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never made a claim to the quality of the legal representation that you'd get. Just that they were legally required to give you a lawyer. And if the lawyer provided literally hadn't even looked at the case, then you can then move for a mistrial on grounds of not actually have been given legal representation. Knowing your rights can help you a lot in trial.

    11. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears to me, being from another so take this as nothing more than a worthless opinion, that a lot of time and effort is put into making sure that one doesn't know their rights.

    12. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand time better? I imagine it's like hanging upside down, like from your feet amirite?

    13. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim DotTard is just that...a tard

    14. Re:Don't plead guilty by sjames · · Score: 1

      But they won't.

    15. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same poster here...The police in NZ have lied their way through many court cases also.

      My bro wanted to be one. Talked to 3 senior cops on holiday who were speaking freely.

      They asked him why he wanted to be a cop.
      He spouted some naive BS about justice and honesty.

      They told him that he would be routinely be told to lie under oath by the brass and if he refused would be ostracized and bullied until he towed the line or quit.

      And if he could not handle that, he should not bother applying.

      He never bothered applying.

    16. Re:Don't plead guilty by dbIII · · Score: 0

      If it's a high profile case the lawyer gets screwed over too. Take a look at what happened to those appointed to defend people in GITMO as an example - Major Mori was pushed out of the military and then found he couldn't get a job in the US due to the bad reputation he gained by doing his job as ordered and not rolling over as suggested in backroom deals with amoral non-military spooks outside of his chain of command. Now he works in Australia. A patriot doing as ordered driven out of the country.

    17. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be here all week, Two shows on Saturday.

    18. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better Call Saul

    19. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1980s called.. they want their lame apologetics back.

    20. Re:Don't plead guilty by ultranova · · Score: 1

      A patriot doing as ordered driven out of the country.

      The Devil knows his own, and will eat them last. So this effective banishment should be considered a badge of honor for Mr. Mori. And, conversely, doing well in the US - and, to be fair, many other places - is quickly becoming a different kind of badge altogether.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:Don't plead guilty by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Shit a friend of mine had [a public defender] and when he sat down with her she hadn't even bothered to look at his case.

      Well, if they get a fixed number of hours per case and reading the case file would come out of that, I'd be inclined to do the same as reading legalese takes time even for a lawyer. Just to get the gist of:

      a) Why are you here?
      b) What are they charging you with?
      c) What evidence do they have?
      d) What do you want to do?

      From what I understand they get a lot of people who have been caught fairly red-handed and who's basically looking for leniency, far from everybody has a case worth going to trial over so if you get past the first filter of possibly having a case either due to the facts or the law, then they'd start reading. I'm pretty sure that's how I'd do it, unless I actually had spare time to read cases up front. Something tells me that's rare.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They. Have. To.

      They will.

    23. Re:Don't plead guilty by sjames · · Score: 1

      But they don't actually do it. For example, in some states they require proof of indigence. Not that you will end up indigent if you have to pay for a lawyer, actual proof that you are currently indigent. If you don't have that, and don't hire a lawyer, you are considered to be voluntarily pro se.

      Even when you are 'provided a lawyer', what they mean is that some guy who passed the bar who has far too many cases to actually remember your name and what you were charged with will glance at your case folder for 30 seconds and urge you to plead out (once you remind him of who you are and what you are charged with).

      Look it up. The actual reality is rather shocking.

    24. Re:Don't plead guilty by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Well, head off to some socialist paradise and see how that works for you. Try opposing the government in China. In Russia. In India. In African countries. Of course, you can oppose the government in places like Israel, but mentioning that is certainly not politically "correct". Sorry to inject reality here... lets go back to programming as usual.

  2. A programmer arrested for © infringement? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't a programmer an employee doing what he is requested to do - and anyway making programmes does not infringe copyright laws. It seems everyone has to pay a price in this megaupload story, in order to send a strong and threatening message.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by al0ha · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting tact but that same kind of argument did not work for Dread Pirate Roberts either, once involved in a criminal conspiracy, which I am sure the Feds deem MegaUpload is, you are liable for all use of that which you created, even a program you coded if it was used for illicit purposes.

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    2. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that the purpose of the law is to make it possible for a large number of people to live and work together, and that's the truth. The tricky thing is how it does that, and I suspect it's not how most people imagine. Just don't expect to find "loopholes" if you're not in a position to make people regret their decision to go after you.

    3. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Saying you were only following orders is never a defense for committing a crime.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a programmer an employee doing what he is requested to do

      Yea, that's not a defense to anything. If I'm an accountant, and my boss tells me to do the books, I'm still committing a felony if I do it, and actually could be committing a felony if I don't immediately report the request to the relevant authorities. TFA clearly states that the defendant knew that what his employers were asking him to do was illegal, and he did it anyway.

      making programmes does not infringe copyright laws

      Making and distributing a program that facilitates copyright infringment does in fact infringe copyright laws. It's calledsecondary liability. Granted it's a bit murky in the text of US copyright law, but the case law is quite clear. And he was also charged with conspiracy, and anyone who participates in any part of a criminal conspiracy is guilty of all illegal acts committed in furtherance of that conspiracy, so he was guilty of the actions of all members of Megaupload, regardless of which aspects he had a direct hand in.

    5. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you're a delivery guy, and you do what you're requested to do. Then it's fine to deliver illegal drugs, despite the fact that drug trading is illegal?

      If you know what you're doing. I'm guessing you know you may be breaking the law, and despite your manager telling you to do it, you're not expected to break the law (independently of how ridiculous the law is).

    6. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between delivering drugs, and making the code of a web site as an employee.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better go arrest anyone who developed a web browser, BitTorrent client, email client/service then. All of those have been used to violate copyright.

    8. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing justice, morality and what happens in the real world.

      Common mistake....

    9. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So lets say, I work on an assembly line that builds a car, later used in an armed robbery. Does this mean my coworkers and I are accomplices in the robbery? No, we employees working on tasks assigned. Building a car does not make me an accomplice later in how the car was used.

      Why should programmers be any different?

    10. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, but given the massive scale of the criminal conspiracy which was perpetuated by the financial industry with re-packaging shitty debt ... I think it's mostly just a demonstration that "the law", and the consequences for breaking it, and entirely dependent on how much you have paid your congressman.

      Wall street ripped off the world for trillions of dollars, and not a single person was charged. And yet they're all "too big to fail" and we couldn't possibly charge them with crimes. And certainly the rank and file were clearly just following company policy.

      Executives oversee illegal activity all the time, but somehow the fact that they're executives means the "corporate veil" protects them.

      I think it's a complete crock that employees of corporations can be charged depending on, literally, how much slush money one set of corporations has given government.

      Essentially the *AAs have bought themselves a different set of laws, and the US government are more or less their enforcement arm.

      It's hard not to see these kinds of prosecutions as more or less political show trials. Because, they essentially are.

      It's not based on the principle of law, it's based on the political desire to make an example of someone. And that someone ran afoul of major campaign donors who have bought off the government.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nomm is also accused of watching at least one copy of a pirated TV-show.

      “On or about December 5, 2008, NOMM sent VAN DER KOLK an e-mail, which included a screenshot of NOMM’s account using Megavideo.com to watch an infringing episode of the copyrighted television show Chuck,” the indictment reads.

      This sounds like going after Al Capone for tax evasion. Actually, more like going after one of his henchmen for tax evasion. It's likely they only are after Dotcom, and are using this guy as leverage to get to him. I mean, seriously? Watching one pirated TV show? At this point, they're just throwing whatever they think can stick at him.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    12. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wanted precedent, and they got it! This is for the docket, and for future use. Programmers, be aware, and BEWARE!!!!

    13. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      No, actually there's not. If you commit a crime you are guilty of it - regardless of if someone paid you to do it or not.

      "Just doing what you're hired to do" is no defense if what you were hired to do is illegal.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    14. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between working for a company that does something wrong without your knowledge and working for a company that is knowingly doing something that is "perceived" as illegal. I use perceived because there's still a fine line between enabling distribution and distribution of copyright material in some countries.

    15. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      This sounds like going after Al Capone for tax evasion. Actually, more like going after one of his henchmen for tax evasion

      Well, more like going after the secretary that works for his tax accountant.

    16. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      "Just doing what you're hired to do" is no defense if what you were hired to do is illegal.

      Seems to work for the NSA and other three-letter agencies ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    17. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, technically. But if you're told "make a web site so people can upload stuff", and then for some esoteric reason, the feds decide that the uploading is criminal copyright conspiracy, that's hardly fair is it?

    18. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by wed128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should programmers be any different?

      because computers.

    19. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by jlv · · Score: 1

      An assembly line worker is no more an accomplice then the maker of the computer Andrus used.

      On the other hand, I suspect if you were a worker hired to take a car and specifically enhance it to be part of the armed robbery (e.g,. make it a better getaway car), then they could try you as an accomplice.

    20. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That describes the ENTIRE federal judicial system.

    21. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you don't believe what you said. If you know you're delivering drugs, then no, there's not. But if you don't know what you're doing is in support of an illegal operation, and it's reasonable to believe you didn't know, you usually don't have much to worry about unless you refuse to cooperate with the justice department. Intent is a big portion of criminal law.

    22. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is quite a bit of difference. Writing code that allows you to store and share files is a neutral activity. Using that code to distribute files youhave no right to distribute is not. Of course, seeing the distinction requires you to have the capacity for reason.

    23. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the post you are replying to? What part of "once involved in a criminal conspiracy" is confusing you?

    24. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the orders. They may not in themselves been illegal. Writing some code to do some memory operations could have been used by another programmer for illegal purposes without your knowing. Should you still be held accountable?

    25. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yea, that's not a defense to anything. If I'm an accountant, and my boss tells me to do the books, I'm still committing a felony if I do it, and actually could be committing a felony if I don't immediately report the request to the relevant authorities. TFA clearly states that the defendant knew that what his employers were asking him to do was illegal, and he did it anyway.

      Round one of "devil's advocate", now it's my turn.

      Suppose you're a sysadmin for the NSA and you discover they are committing a felony. Should you then report it to the relevant authorities?

    26. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should programmers be any different?

      Gotta lock him up as an excuse to import another H1B worker.

    27. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference between delivering drugs, and making the code of a web site as an employee.

      There is, except they caught him using that same code for violating copyrights.

    28. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are in fact committing a felony, rather than simply obeying a law you don't agree with, then yes, you absolutely should report them. What you definitely should not do is steal as much of their data as possible and sell it to foreign governments.

    29. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Isn't a programmer an employee doing what he is requested to do - and anyway making programmes does not infringe copyright laws. It seems everyone has to pay a price in this megaupload story, in order to send a strong and threatening message.

      "I only followed orders" hasn't worked as an excuse for quite a while. If you write software, you know what it is supposed to do. And if it is used to help with copyright infringement, and you knew it, or you would have known it if you hadn't closed your eyes to it as hard as you could, you are guilty.

    30. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Shagg · · Score: 1

      So is the programmer that writes an ftp server guilty if that server happens to be used for copyright infringement?

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    31. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was more or less development/CTO lead of mega. Which does not mean that the feds are justified - he probably just decided that its easier to sit a year than be on the run indefinitely.
      It is also worth considering that his (ex-)employer has been unable to pay him for quite some time already.

    32. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing he was taking advantage of the site, e.g. posting his own content to get the big referral bonuses

    33. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Isn't a programmer an employee doing what he is requested to do - and anyway making programmes does not infringe copyright laws.

      Not directly, but it does facilitate infringement which is what is needed in a conspiracy charge. It's similar to working as receptionist for a hit man or something like that. If your job activities facilitate crime, you can be charged.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    34. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Funny, but given the the massive scale of the criminal conspiracy which was perpetuated by the financial industry with re-packaging shitty debt

      I wonder if any of those people use any microsoft programs to commit their crimes... perhaps we can get all the microsoft emplyees put in jail.

      (but seriosuly, this is such a slippery slope i wouldnt even want that)

    35. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you get paid to modify a car to help smuggle drugs across the border then you are an accomplice. It has to do if you should reasonably have known your actions were contributing to the execution of a crime.

    36. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Probably the part about "once involved in a criminal conspiracy". How exactly was the programmer involved? He wrote code that allowed users to upload and download files, the content of which the programmer could not possibly know or be responsible for?
      If the programmer is responsible, then so is the uploader and downloader's ISP, and the manufacturer of their switches and hubs and the operator of the telephone lines, etc, etc.
      The only way the programmer is responsible is if his boss said "we want you to write a program that violates copyright" and he did so.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    37. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      But if you get paid to modify a car to help smuggle drugs across the border then you are an accomplice. It has to do if you should reasonably have known your actions were contributing to the execution of a crime.

      And much like the manufacturer of a hammer, they have no way of knowing whether that hammer will be used to nail together pieces of wood or open up the back of someone's head, and so they are therefore not responsible when someone misuses the tool which is intended for beneficial use.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    38. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an interesting question, I'd also like to add to this question: With this ruling, does this mean all programmers in all companies can be held liable for their work even if they are employees of said company?

      If this were the case I'd quit my job tomorrow.

    39. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 1

      Pretty much everyone knows dealing drugs is illegal. But when you've got drop box, youtube, and everyone else allowing everyone to upload stuff to their sites, how are you supposed to know it is criminal? Even more so when all you are doing is writing code, not making value judgments on what is going to be uploaded with it.

    40. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how conspiracy charges work. The ISP, switches hubs and whatnot are all common carriers in that they don't make decisions about what should and shouldn't be going up and down their tubes.

      However, people working for megaupload are directly involved in the enterprise and are therefore potentially on the hook for conspiracy.

      I'm not really sure what's so hard to grasp about that.

    41. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 1

      More like going after Al Capone's tea lady for putting a nip of whisky in her night cap.

    42. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 2

      Like many coders, I too have written code to upload files, but I'm damned if I know what files were uploaded or what their copyright status is.

      Je Suis Kim Dotcom.

    43. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory, only if they instructed you to make it better for a bank robbery. If they said they wanted it fast and bullet proof, then no. If they presented that it was for a movie about bank robbers, then no.

      In practice, these days they don't even bother to match the charges with your actions anymore. If they decide to get you they'll just charge you with everything until something sticks.

    44. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by dissy · · Score: 1

      once involved in a criminal conspiracy, which I am sure the Feds deem MegaUpload is, you are liable for all use of that which you created, even a program you coded if it was used for illicit purposes.

      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

      There, you just participated in a web forum used for illicit purposes, and so are also guilty of criminal copyright infringement and criminal conspiracy.

      Hope to see you in cell block six for the traditional fuck-beta gathering!

    45. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by ld+a,b · · Score: 1

      If you write software, you know what it is supposed to do.

      I gather you have never worked as a software engineer, then?

      At best we can infer what it's supposed to do based on a tissue paper scribbled by someone who has no technical expertise and was told about the project five minutes beforehand. Using lipstick or crayons as available.

      Usually we get an artist's rendition of the above, faxed, and then re-scanned and embedded into a pdf file.

      --
      10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
    46. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you absolutely should report them ...

      Let's see: Which US politicians complained about the invasion of Vietnam, creation of ultra-secret laws, invasion of Iraq, complete surveillance of domestic citizens? The base turns rotten because someone at the top says the rules don't matter. Until he needs a scapegoat; then it's "following orders is not an excuse".

      ... sell it to foreign governments.

      Who did this? Manning, Assange and Snowdon gave their stolen documents to domestic and foreign journalists. The NSA accused those journalists of selling documents, without producing any evidence.

    47. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      You mean sort of like how a chemist in a meth lab is just an employee?

    48. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when nobody in power cares that they are breaking the law and pointing it out leaves you on the hook for the whole thing?

    49. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Here we go again. The New York Times is a foreign government?
      Snowden didn't have to sell Putin anything. Merely being an embarrassment to the USA was enough to get him in the door.

    50. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      And much like the manufacturer of a hammer, they have no way of knowing whether that hammer will be used to nail together pieces of wood or open up the back of someone's head, and so they are therefore not responsible when someone misuses the tool which is intended for beneficial use.

      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    51. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      No. In Breaking Bad, since you watch too much TV dramas, that would be the guys of the Vamonos fumigation company. They do some work, which is then indirectly used by a meth lab.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    52. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government has become little more than organized crime. A protection racket available to the highest bidders. They make examples out of those who dare challenge them, just like the mob does. They heap public praise on those who play ball with them, to show the rest of the masses how they should act. It's all about the public spectacle, because they realize that if a critical mass of the public figures out the truth and decides to stand up for themselves, their reign at the top is finished.

    53. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you keep up with the news? It is FREQUENTLY used as a defense for committing a crime. Whether you get away with that defense depends on who you are and who you were working for. Just like ignorance of the law. Peons get harsh punishments with the comment of "ignorance is no excuse", while politicians do the same thing and get let off with a "well, he didn't know, he's sorry, and he promises not to do it again."

    54. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I send a packet of heroin using FedEx then the FedEx driver is innocent unless he has some way of knowing what's in the package.

    55. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the relevant authority being the people.

    56. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that all employees of a company that commits a crime should be held responsible, regardless of whether they actually committed crimes themselves.

      Everybody goes to jail then because there isn't a single company in the entire world that hasn't broken the law.

    57. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      yes, hence my sig.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    58. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What's so hard to understand is how the company broke the law. Did the company upload or download copyrighted materials? I thought it was their users that did that. I thought the company made a tool which could be used for uploading and downloading files. Unless the tool was made specifically for uploading and downloading illegal files, then I don't see the problem. In fact, if it was specifically used for uploading and downloading illegal files, then it would be important that we get a hold of their algorithm because nobody else has a good algorithm for determining if a file is illegal or not.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    59. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching a copyrighted video isn't a major deal in a criminal trial, indeed. However it acts as a piece of evidence here. It shows that Nomm knew about content stored on the MegaUpload servers. He knew how that content could be accessed. He knew or should have known that such access violated copyright law. Basically, this breaks down his defense of "I'm just a programmer and wasn't aware of the implications of my actions". That gives you mens rea.

  3. Oh Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There goes my business plan for "GigaUpload"!

    If I implemented it, I'd get a thousand times his sentence.

    1. Re:Oh Shit! by alphatel · · Score: 1

      There goes my business plan for "GigaUpload"!

      If I implemented it, I'd get a thousand times his sentence.

      You and the TeraUpload guy are screwed.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Oh Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There goes my business plan for "GigaUpload"!

      If I implemented it, I'd get a thousand times his sentence.

      You and the TeraUpload guy are screwed.

      And Mr. Bear at PetaUpload... well, you don't even want to know.

  4. Don't plead guilty by Sylak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd imagine he didn't have the money or patience to fight it and didn't want to set a precedence by losing in court.

  5. Co-Conspirators? by NickFortune · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, someone hires you to work on a file sharing network. And this is conspiracy? I mean there was a time when "file sharing" was a legitimate thing to do and didn't automatically imply copyright infringement.

    Even if it did, I doubt Kim Dotcom said "hey, how'd you like to join a conspiracy to enable copyright infringement?" I think it was more likely "I want to hire a database programmer"

    I know it's kind of hip to say "well what do you expect?", but really this seems punitive vindictive and disproportionate.

    I mean if this can happen when you write code in good faith for someone who used it for purposes later deemed illegal ... that kind of puts us all in the frame. I mean, corporate ethics being what they are and all that.

    Damn.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    1. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, someone hires you to work on a file sharing network. And this is conspiracy? I mean there was a time when "file sharing" was a legitimate thing to do and didn't automatically imply copyright infringement.

      Even if it did, I doubt Kim Dotcom said "hey, how'd you like to join a conspiracy to enable copyright infringement?" I think it was more likely "I want to hire a database programmer"

      I know it's kind of hip to say "well what do you expect?", but really this seems punitive vindictive and disproportionate.

      I mean if this can happen when you write code in good faith for someone who used it for purposes later deemed illegal ... that kind of puts us all in the frame. I mean, corporate ethics being what they are and all that.

      Damn.

      Bullshit, and apparently the courts agree. He would have to be a complete dimwit not to realize his file sharing system was being used for large scale copyright infringement and blind, deaf, and dumb not to have seen the news articles about how governments and copyright holders were taking a very pointed interest in his employer.

      He got what he deserved.

    2. Re:Co-Conspirators? by carlosap · · Score: 1

      He knew that his Job was illegal, and he was making money for that. So dont be so naive. If you do a Job that something is fishy is up to you to continue

    3. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From my understanding, the government will have to show that:
      A) That the purpose (or at least one purpose of the site) was to aid copyright infringement (or other illegal thing)
      B) That this guy knew about the purpose, even if he tried to pretend he didn't.

      I'm guessing that they won't have any problem convincing a jury of (A), and he emailed someone a screenshot of his computer watching a pirated video on MEGAVIDEO.COM, so I don't think they'll have much trouble with part (B), either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Damn is the word.
      Considering how many of us support corporations that do entirely evil and horrible things every single day... and all under the name of the law. That's not including the bank industry. Fill in the blanks in my generalizations and I do see this statement entirely accurate.

    5. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      There's a fine line here and if you are willing to knowingly risk walking it all bets are off when hammer time happens.

    6. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      From my understanding, the government will have to show that:

      A) That the purpose (or at least one purpose of the site) was to aid copyright infringement (or other illegal thing)

      B) That this guy knew about the purpose, even if he tried to pretend he didn't.

      I'm guessing that they won't have any problem convincing a jury of (A), and he emailed someone a screenshot of his computer watching a pirated video on MEGAVIDEO.COM, so I don't think they'll have much trouble with part (B), either.

      So, uh, guess I shouldn't get a drop working for Dropbox or Google, right? You do realize they let people share arbitrary files for download by anybody on the internet.

    7. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      After reading the other article, it seems he plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement. Here is the law itself.

      Having a legitimate use is not a justification by itself. Remember Limewire lost their court case because they were implying on its website that it could have illegal uses. Don't do that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if it did, I doubt Kim Dotcom said "hey, how'd you like to join a conspiracy to enable copyright infringement?"

      It's pretty clear from the internal emails released that that's basically what went on. Everyone there knew the service was being used for massive copyright infringement, and on some levels they actually encouraged it.

      The reason Kim Dotcom got off (or should get off) has to do with legal procedure and extradition treaties. Basically in their zeal to reel him in, the U.S. DoJ ignored its prior agreements with New Zealand, and pressured NZ police into taking actions which violated their own laws. That's why he's getting off, not because he didn't infringe copyright. Most people here hardly consider him a champion of their pet causes. They just happen to side with him in this case because they're opposed to Hollywood leveraging its political influence to commit illegal acts under the color of law enforcement.

    9. Re:Co-Conspirators? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      He knew that his Job was illegal, and he was making money for that. So dont be so naive. If you do a Job that something is fishy is up to you to continue

      I'd like to see you trot that out the next time a cop or TLA employee is caught doing illegal shit as part of their illegal job duties and no one suffers any consequences.

    10. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. The courts only "agree" because he took a plea bargain. You can't actually take anything of value from that, esepcially in a country where the law is structured to allow major trumping up of charges if one refuses to take a deal.... even people who believe they are innocent often plead guilty in the face of that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. One thing I have never understood this sequence:

      1. Cop searches car illegal.
      2. Court tosses out evidence.

      So far so good. No qualms there with the court....

      3. Cop is NOT charged with a crime, continues working

      That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

      In fact, if anything he was denying a person their civil rights under color of law....which is a felony. Why should he NOT be charged? Why should a prosecutor even be allowed to know about such an event and not bring up charges?

      And no, I am in now way saying such evidence should be used.... I understand fruit of a poisined treee, I just don't understand allowing trees to be poisoned and hoping nobody notices next time.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Shagg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether your intended use is legitimate or illegitimate has nothing to do with it. If you piss off the copyright cartel, you're guilty. Whether or not you actually broke the law doesn't matter.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    13. Re:Co-Conspirators? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, the government will have to show that: A) That the purpose (or at least one purpose of the site) was to aid copyright infringement (or other illegal thing) B) That this guy knew about the purpose, even if he tried to pretend he didn't. I'm guessing that they won't have any problem convincing a jury of (A), and he emailed someone a screenshot of his computer watching a pirated video on MEGAVIDEO.COM, so I don't think they'll have much trouble with part (B), either.

      I don't think they have to prove actual knowledge if your activities facilitated the crime. I think they need only prove a lesser "subjective test": that is "would a reasonable person have known that their work was facilitating crime?". This kind of reasonable person test is commonly used so that people can't use a "blind eye" defense. Willfully turning a blind eye to criminal activity doesn't absolve you if you were actively participating.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    14. Re:Co-Conspirators? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      So, uh, guess I shouldn't get a drop working for Dropbox or Google, right? You do realize they let people share arbitrary files for download by anybody on the internet.

      Yes, but he wasn't arguing that letting people share arbitrary files for download was a problem.

      What he said was:

      A) That the purpose (or at least one purpose of the site) was to aid copyright infringement (or other illegal thing)

      So you'd have to argue that at least one purpose of Dropbox and/or Google Drive is to aid copyright infringement.

      Now here's the difficult bit. 'purpose'. The courts have established (uhhh... I think they have anyway, the MegaUpload case is a clusterf*ck) that piracy was one of the purposes of MegaUpload. I don't think anybody has established that one of the purposes of DropBox is piracy. It's one of its uses - in that some people use it for that - but not a purpose.

    15. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make any fucking sense. You can search how to kill someone on Google, so if a murderer uses Google, then we should have Google on trial?

    16. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government doesn't have to show jack shit, because they already scared him into pleading guilty.

    17. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any fucking sense.

      And here someone who doesn't understand the law.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think they need only prove a lesser "subjective test": that is "would a reasonable person have known that their work was facilitating crime?".

      Yeah, I think you're right. I tried to convey that idea, but you said it better than I did.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a coherent understanding of reality.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Co-Conspirators? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      This. One thing I have never understood this sequence:

      1. Cop searches car illegal.
      2. Court tosses out evidence.

      So far so good. No qualms there with the court....

      3. Cop is NOT charged with a crime, continues working

      That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

      In fact, if anything he was denying a person their civil rights under color of law....which is a felony. Why should he NOT be charged? Why should a prosecutor even be allowed to know about such an event and not bring up charges?

      And no, I am in now way saying such evidence should be used.... I understand fruit of a poisined treee, I just don't understand allowing trees to be poisoned and hoping nobody notices next time.

      Give us a link to the law violated in 1. for starters. Is it state, federal?
      Then give an example of one of us, random people on the street, breaking that law, and walk us through you bringing what charges against that person, in what court, etc. etc.

    21. Re:Co-Conspirators? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It never went to trial, so we have no idea what the courts think of it. All we know is that a prosecutor thinks it's a crime, but prosecutors these days think everyone but them is a criminal.

    22. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is "mens rea" ?
      if you could prove that he _KNEW_ it was wrong and continued to do so, you have a case to bring up with Internal Affairs.

    23. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me, given that ICQ permits file transfers and they are undoubtedly used to transfer large amounts of copyrighted data, what penalties have they faced?

      Oh, that's right: none.

      Must be good to not have a minor industry like Hollywood go on a full-out vendetta against you, in another country and buy the government's co-operation in getting at you.

    24. Re:Co-Conspirators? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it's insane that a civil crime such as a breach of copyright terms is treated as a criminal matter more serious than assaulting someone and leaving them with injuries that will be with them for the rest of their life.

    25. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it's insane that a civil crime such as a breach of copyright terms is treated as a criminal matter more serious than assaulting someone and leaving them with injuries that will be with them for the rest of their life.

      Here in the US we have the best legal system that money can buy.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    26. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? By your implication, ALL cop searches of cars are legal. Okay, very good. Have a great weekend. //pats condescendingly on head

    27. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      What is it? An outdated concept that has clearly failed us.

      I understand the academic argument, I just don't see how people look at the results and claim its still valid reasoning.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're trained in procedure and what's allowed/disallowed. What's required for a legal search should be well known to a police officer. The result is either that the officer is incompetent and not fit for duty, or he knowingly violated someone's rights.

      So what's it going to be? Suspended (withOUT pay) and face retraining at the dept's expense, or charged with violating civil rights?

    29. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Cop searches car illegal.

      Give us a link to the law violated in 1. for starters. Is it state, federal?

      It's that thing you wipe your ass with, AKA, the Constitution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      Arguably Federal law but many if not most states are bound to it as well (though not always in the same fashion).

    30. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody has established that one of the purposes of DropBox is piracy. It's one of its uses - in that some people use it for that - but not a purpose.

      I see. So, I'm OK working for Dropbox if my reading of the company founder's minds is the same as a court's? Or maybe it comes down to whether Dropbox has better lawyers?

    31. Re:Co-Conspirators? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that the court and/or the programmer read the minds of the people behind MegaUpload. That's utterly fascinating - please, do tell me more about this aspect of the legal process.

      Nomm further admitted that, through his work as a computer programmer, he was aware that copyright-infringing content was stored on the websites, including copyright protected motion pictures and television programs, some of which contained the âoeFBI Anti-Piracyâ warning. [...] Despite his knowledge in this regard, Nomm continued to participate in the Mega Conspiracy.

      Aw, turns out he didn't need to read minds after all.

      Besides, remember that thing where some Dropbox user couldn't share something publicly because it was flagged by Dropbox's DMCA filters?
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

      Weird. Seems like Dropbox is even taking a proactive stance to prevent the very thing that MegaUpload proactively facilitated.

      I feel like this keeps coming back up, though - along with "TPB and Google are functionally equivalent!". Maybe just read previous arguments:
      http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

    32. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The convict the cop, you'd have to show malicious intent (mens rea). If the cop in good faith searched the car, it can still be deemed illegal by the court.

      Now if I dressed up as a cop and searched your car, that dressing up shows I knew I was exceeding my authority as a private individual. That establishes my malicious intent, and it would be easy to convict me. But a real cop isn't dressing up, and can perform legal searches.

      Also, a car search can be thrown out if there's reasonable doubt that it was in fact legal, but that same doubt will also mean that a case against the cop would be thrown out. Doubt works in two directions.

    33. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that the court and/or the programmer read the minds of the people behind MegaUpload. That's utterly fascinating - please, do tell me more about this aspect of the legal process.

      Nomm further admitted that, through his work as a computer programmer, he was aware that copyright-infringing content was stored on the websites, including copyright protected motion pictures and television programs, some of which contained the âoeFBI Anti-Piracyâ warning. [...] Despite his knowledge in this regard, Nomm continued to participate in the Mega Conspiracy.

      Got it, so I'm safe working for Dropbox as long as they don't store any copyright protected motion pictures on their system - ie I'm not safe working for them.

      Seems like Dropbox is even taking a proactive stance to prevent the very thing that MegaUpload proactively facilitated.

      Proactive facilitation of copyright infringement? Does that mean that when you sign up for an account with them they go ahead and load copyrighted material on it before you even get a chance to do it yourself? Or does it just mean that they comply with the DMCA and take stuff down when they're asked to?

    34. Re:Co-Conspirators? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Got it, so I'm safe working for Dropbox as long as they don't store any copyright protected motion pictures on their system - ie I'm not safe working for them.

      If you become rather aware of it (like that guy) and that they're not doing anything much about it (like megaupload) and you then continue to work for them (like that guy) - you're right, you wouldn't be safe working for them. Up until that point, though, I'm not sure what they'd have on you.

      Proactive facilitation of copyright infringement? Does that mean that when you sign up for an account with them they go ahead and load copyrighted material on it before you even get a chance to do it yourself?

      It means that they encouraged people to upload copyrighted material (to which they had not acquired the appropriate licenses for distribution etc.etc.) and even did so themselves (iirc).

      Or does it just mean that they comply with the DMCA and take stuff down when they're asked to?

      As far as I know, both (MegaUpload and Dropbox) comply with DMCA requests. One was just a little more 'meh' about it than the other.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    35. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, both (MegaUpload and Dropbox) comply with DMCA requests. One was just a little more 'meh' about it than the other.

      Thank you officer, may I have another?

    36. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. How many other professions would look you right in the eye and claim its not their fault that they don't understand the parameters of their own job!

      If there is ANYTHING a cop should be a fucking expert on, its when he can and can't arrest someone. If he isn't, then that really is negligence. On his part, on his departments part. If they really are that incompetent they don't deserve to be cops.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    37. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      See and this is why its bullshit. I can be charged for crimes even if I had no malicious intent. I cannot use ignorance of the law as my excuse. Mens Rea is a double standard that has no place here, and certainly no place being applied to the very people who enforce the law which doesn't give us the same benefit.

      Mens Rea is a tyrants argument if it doesn't apply to everyone.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  6. Stupidity at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, blame the messenger instead of the sender. They may have create the service, but they aren't the ones who placed that copyrighted content there. They were even doing a relatively good job of removing copyrighted material.
    By the logic of the US, all of Google employees should go to jail, considering how many copyrighted content there is on Youtube.
    This is why nobody likes the US.

    1. Re:Stupidity at it's finest... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Megaupload didn't have a reputation of being extremely compliant in that department. I would compare them to Youtube or Google's employees.

    2. Re:Stupidity at it's finest... by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      Wasn't one of the complaints that when it came to removing things like child porn, they removed it entirely, whereas for copyright infringement they just removed the specific link and left other links to the same content in place.

      By doing the two differently, they certainly left themselves open to the charge that in fact there "relatively good job" was in fact knowingly superficial.

  7. What about bankers then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If programmers can be held criminally responsible for the misdeeds of their employer (which they carry out), then what about all the assholes on Wall Street with the mortgage backed securities scams and all that...

    1. Re:What about bankers then... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Why do you want to put bankers in jail? They've got enough money to pay for Britney's CD.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:What about bankers then... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      In court you only need to prove you weren't aware of the illegal activities which is generally fairly easy to do if you aren't a partner in the business. If you did know of the illegal activities the company did and continued to work for the employer without question, I say: "Deal with the consequences"

    3. Re:What about bankers then... by lgw · · Score: 1

      If programmers can be held criminally responsible for the misdeeds of their employer (which they carry out), then what about all the assholes on Wall Street with the mortgage backed securities scams and all that...

      The really scary part is: those securities weren't a scam. People actually thought they made sense. There are lots of other crazy, similar financial products those same people think make sense today. Approaching 1 quadrillion dollars (no joke) of CDSs. What a mess.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:What about bankers then... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Approaching 1 quadrillion dollars (no joke) of CDSs.

      At some point, that's not money; that's Cookie Clicker.

    5. Re:What about bankers then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who went to jail for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Or this: http://www.justice.gov/crimina...

      From 2006 to 2010, the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia, and other drug traffickers laundered at least $881 million in illegal narcotics trafficking proceeds through HSBC Bank USA. These traffickers didnâ(TM)t have to try very hard. They would sometimes deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows in HSBC Mexicoâ(TM)s branches.

      Or this: http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report all cash transactions above $10,000 to regulators and to tell the government about other suspected money-laundering activity. Big banks employ hundreds of investigators and spend millions of dollars on software programs to scour accounts.

      When people are depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars via custom boxes that fit teller slots, how the heck are you not responsible especially since laws and regulations require you to report suspected money-laundering activity?

      Many people would still be alive today if the banks didn't help drug lords launder billions of dollars. Without the money their armies wouldn't be as well funded or equipped.

  8. Re:A programmer arrested for é in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, what programming language did they use? What operating systems? Those developers should also be held accountable "for all use of that which they created". Those co-conspirators need to be punished!

  9. Wait, I'm confused... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

    Democracy my ass.

    1. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States
      2. Not sure how that has anything to do with Democracy. We voted for the people that allowed the law, doesn't matter how influenced there were by the IP holders.

    2. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

      It's both. 17 USC 506 defines criminal copyright infringement:

      (a) Criminal Infringement.—
      (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
      (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
      (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
      (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

      The usual differentiation between criminal and civil infringement is 1A, for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. I think in this case, it had to do with the fact that MegaUpload made significant amounts of money through advertising associated with the pages on which they were sharing works under copyright.

    3. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      2. Not sure how that has anything to do with Democracy. We voted for the people that allowed the law, doesn't matter how influenced there were by the IP holders.

      No matter what the pretext is, if the laws passed by the government don't generally represent the will of the people then it's not a democracy.

      It's not the act of voting itself that makes a democracy. Shouldn't that be obvious? Everyone in North Korea voted for Kim Jong-un, so that's clearly a democracy, right?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Does that mean that it's not criminal to distribute something that's no longer in commercial distribution?

    5. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it could still be criminal under clause (A); it's an "or" rather than an "and" at the end of clause (B), meaning that only one of the clauses needs to be satisfied. This is especially true since the NET Act redefined "private financial gain" to (rather counterintuitively) include the receipt of other infringing copies, even if no money changes hands in connection with the distribution.

    6. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what the pretext is, if the laws passed by the government don't generally represent the will of the people then it's not a democracy.

      It's not the act of voting itself that makes a democracy. Shouldn't that be obvious? Everyone in North Korea voted for Kim Jong-un, so that's clearly a democracy, right?

      No, the will of the people elected Al Gore. We suck it up because that's not how democracy works.

  10. What about knife factory workers? by stafil · · Score: 1

    I don't know the details, but if a programmer can be charged for making a program that allows others to use it, among other things, for illegal activities, doesn't this mean that one can charge the workers at a knife factory as well?

    1. Re:What about knife factory workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you work at the knife factory and find out that the factory owners are targeting their product at known murders with the knowledge that they are using them for murder, yet you continue to work there then quite possibly. If you are also being asked to add features to the knives to make them more effective at killing humans, the more so. If you also then get paid a wage which you know is disproportionately high compared to other knife factories, as a result of them being sold for the purpose then again probably more so.

    2. Re:What about knife factory workers? by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      I don't know the details, but if a programmer can be charged for making a program that allows others to use it, among other things, for illegal activities, doesn't this mean that one can charge the workers at a knife factory as well?

      His software didn't just allow, among other things, illegal activities. He created software for a company whose whole business was based on illegal activity.

    3. Re:What about knife factory workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you work at a factory making nail guns... and find that wile they can be used to kill, they are used to mostly build homes. Good.

      Someone else works at a weapons factory. He soon finds out the guns he makes are meant to kill people. Now what?

    4. Re:What about knife factory workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many countries have laws permitting legal use of guns, including in certain instances to kill others. Guns used by the military also tend not be illegal. So I'm not sure how you see this as different from the knives example.

      If you work at the gun factory and find out that the gun factory are customising the guns for hitmen and don't report it then perhaps you could be considered part of the conspiracy, if you are further bought into the fold by being asked to change the designs such that the only purpose can be for illegal activity. If you also start profiting by being paid a huge wage, which you are pretty certain is because of the guns being sold for illegal activity, then yes you are likely to be considered part of the conspiracy.

      If you want to start making up straw men of incomparable cases, then this could get pretty boring pretty quickly.

    5. Re:What about knife factory workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand the argument being used here, and having never used Megaupload I can't comment on what it's primary purpose truly appeared to be. But how is this different from the business of any other cloud storage provider? Don't they all make money by providing a publicly accessible "drop box" for people to put whatever data they want onto?

      What is different between Megaupload and OneDrive, DropBox, Mega.co.nz, and all the others? Why shouldn't their employees be criminally prosecuted?

    6. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I understand the argument being used here, and having never used Megaupload I can't comment on what it's primary purpose truly appeared to be. But how is this different from the business of any other cloud storage provider? Don't they all make money by providing a publicly accessible "drop box" for people to put whatever data they want onto?

      What is different between Megaupload and OneDrive, DropBox, Mega.co.nz, and all the others? Why shouldn't their employees be criminally prosecuted?

      One step at a time.

      Actually, after the legal groundwork and precedents are created for establishing the ability for the US government to do just that, they will be mostly left alone if they willingly cooperate with spying on their users for the NSA etc and maintain a relatively low profile.

      The more people they can collect evidence of criminal activity on, the more people they have leverage over. Just as they threatened this guy with prosecution for watching one of the copyrighted movies unless he caved, this will be used on others.

      There's nothing to prevent it being used in totally unrelated investigations. "Either inform/work/cooperate for/with us to get dirt on these political targets or we bust you on felony copyright infringement charge!s, and if you've ever coded anything that facilitates infringement in any way, with additional felony copyright infringement facilitation charges!"


      "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:What about knife factory workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He created software for a company whose whole business was assumed to be based on illegal activity.

      There, fixed that for you.

      If they had sufficient evidence of criminal intent, they wouldn't have made (bullied someone into) a plea bargain.

      Good one, Slashdot, you worthless piece of second-rate poorly planned shit:

      It's been 1 hour, 26 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      It's as if the software was designed by a committee who didn't allow anyone to explain why something might not work as intended because that would be negative and might hurt feelings or make someone sad.

    8. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh great - quoting a Russian as evidence about how democracy doesn't work. If Stalin planted Rand to fuck up US politics he couldn't have done a better job.

    9. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Oh great - quoting a Russian as evidence about how democracy doesn't work. If Stalin planted Rand to fuck up US politics he couldn't have done a better job.

      LOLwut!? You must not have done well with reading & comprehension in school. Either that, or you're too lazy to do your own reading and simply accept what others tell you.

      AS rails against exactly the kind of authoritarian oligarchy that is now on the verge of doing what all the foreign enemies of the US could not accomplish in over 200 years: The destruction of the US as a prosperous and relatively free & open society.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      OK then, a Russian railing against capitalism. Happy now?

    11. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      OK then, a Russian railing against capitalism. Happy now?

      You've still completely missed the entire point of AS.

      It's not capitalism Rand rails against in AS, it's those who would destroy capitalism and individual liberty by creating a crony-capitalist oligarchy.

      You know, like what is happening currently in the US, and being carried out by both major political parties.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I thought the entire point was that you could "shrug" and do the job so badly that everyone would wish you never took it in the first place :)

      As I suggested above, things are likely to have ended up just the same if Stalin had her on the payroll. A plea for fragmentation and disruption in the name of the individual, with "I've got mine" pretending to be a philosophy instead of mere selfishness. She took the poison from being damaged in the USSR and spread it in the west, railing against the very things that were keeping her alive such as the welfare provided by the US taxpayer.

    13. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      creating a crony-capitalist oligarchy.

      With respect, that's how capitalism started instead of the way it's going. It's why you have other things to temper it, first the Church and now government. The way Rand suggests that there should be a small and ineffective government without a rampant crony-capitalist oligarchy happening via some magic is part of her damage.

    14. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I thought the entire point was that you could "shrug" and do the job so badly that everyone would wish you never took it in the first place :)

      Wow, are you trolling here?

      Point was that the people who actually produce will stop producing if/when government takes away too much of the fruits of their labor and/or tries to assume control of their business.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      With respect, that's how capitalism started instead of the way it's going. It's why you have other things to temper it, first the Church and now government. The way Rand suggests that there should be a small and ineffective government without a rampant crony-capitalist oligarchy happening via some magic is part of her damage.

      Nothing magical at all. It, however, does require citizens who are willing to do their homework and make informed and reasoned voting choices.

      Thanks to the decades of destruction I've watched being waged upon the US education system by the government and their teacher union accomplices, educated and informed citizens are most definitely the exception rather than the rule these days. Your take-away from 'Atlas Shrugged' proves the point.

      To have a government powerful enough to provide all the social 'safety nets' and giveaways means having a government that is a ripe target for corruption both from within and without.

      Nobody bribes a politician or political body that does not have the power to accomplish their goals. Same principle applies to computer networks. Better a network of stand-alone machines each with their own security systems, than a server/dumb terminal system where an attacker needs only compromise 1 machine to control the entire network.

      Freedom is a zero-sum game in that the only way government gains power is by taking power away from States and citizens respectively.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    16. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the society full of perfect citizens so that there is no need for citizens to work together. Sir Thomas More had a few things to say about that in a very easy to read book (the modern English version) called "Utopia", which is where the word came from. I'm not being a snob it's probably easier to read than most of what you read in high school or even a Rand novel. You probably don't even have to read it to get what I'm talking about - the meaning the title now has says it all.
      I know the concept of a chosen few being immune to the will of the rest of society sounds nice but it sucks once you have kids or relatives outside the fold of those chosen few.

      US education system by the government and their teacher union accomplices, educated and informed citizens are most definitely the exception rather than the rule these days. Your take-away from 'Atlas Shrugged' proves the point.

      Ah - personal attack time I see. Maybe you are proving that point about the limitations of your education if you are resorting to that, maybe not, but you are comically far off the mark if you are pretending that I am a product of that system as I am assuming you are.

      One thing I'm curious about - how in a Rand society can "informed and reasoned voting choices help" when the government is so powerless in such a setting?

    17. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      One thing I'm curious about - how in a Rand society can "informed and reasoned voting choices help" when the government is so powerless in such a setting?

      Government power can be "weak" without being powerless. There are degrees and scopes of power.

      Ah yes, the society full of perfect citizens so that there is no need for citizens to work together.

      Nice straw man. I never said anything about "perfect" anything, nor is perfection required. I'm not talking about some fantasy society in your head. I'm talking about the US and the ideas and concepts the authors of the DoI/Constitution brought to life.

      If you truly want to understand what I'm talking about, I suggest you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as a good starting point to understanding these concepts.

      Ah - personal attack time I see. Maybe you are proving that point about the limitations of your education if you are resorting to that, maybe not, but you are comically far off the mark if you are pretending that I am a product of that system as I am assuming you are.

      If your take-away from Atlas Shrugged is truly as you've indicated through your comments here, then either your education or your critical thinking abilities are in serious doubt.

      Of course, it could easily be the case that you understand fully the concepts presented in AS and you simply don't believe men can rule themselves and build a free and open society and must have a King or ruling elites in charge and making all decisions, and so are being intentionally obtuse in railing against these concepts and ideas.

      Whatever the case, this article & discussion are about to go to the archives, so I'm done here. I'm sure there will be many opportunities in future article discussions to further this discussion.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    18. Re:What about knife factory workers? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to have a society work in a novel, but some models of society require perfect people to function.
      Sir Thomas More had a society that needed no lawyers because the law was so simple that everyone could understand it. He knew such a thing needed perfect people that wouldn't try to find loopholes and thus it wasn't put forward as a serious suggestion. Rand on the other hand has put forward something similar which IMHO shows little understanding (compared with even a high school student) of Western society and society in general - it's like the impossible cultures put forward in heroic fantasy that are placed for mere background and never intended to be taken seriously.
      You are seeing a misunderstanding of Western society through a lens of memories of Stalin's Russia from someone with limited participation in Western society - and it only works in the novel because all the characters have to do what the writer tells them to do. It's only popular IMHO because it's comforting how simple the solutions offered are.
      Just do the job so badly that everyone would wish you never tried ("I'd shrug"), and presumably someone else in the collective farm will do it. She still had her head in Russia and just didn't get Democracy or Capitialism.

    19. Re:What about knife factory workers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You've never read Atlas Shrugged.

      If you think Rand was advocating anything 'collectivist' at all, perfect or otherwise, then you could not have read the same 'Atlas Shrugged' that the rest of the planet has. Rand railed against the sort of collectivist/socialist policies & programs etc she saw gradually taking root in the West that she and her family suffered through while in the USSR.

      I'm convinced you got fed your opinions on AS and Rand from your teachers/professors and/or your political/ideological peers.

      Try actually reading a work before you try to take it apart, or else you risk looking the fool.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  11. MPAA=crony capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re-elect no one. Ever

  12. re:co-conspirators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What bothers me most about the attempted slaying of all supposed guilty of copyright infringement laws...
    Banks such as JPMorgan and HSBC, Paypal, and Bank of America... who have accomplished entirely evil and horrific deeds... including murder, conspiring for murder, murder for hire, putting millions of people out of work, as well as laundering trillions of USD for drug cartels and organized crime... and all the while their employees (specifically young employees; under 30) are taking their own lives out of fear or possibly being framed, etc....
    These entities have entirely too much power, too much control, too much secrecy, and yet they still walk; including CEO's walking with Billions.
    Now this is disheartening.
    All the while yes copyright infringement happens every day; yet it is not equating morally to any of the aforementioned acts I noted above.
    But the government will ruthlessly oppose and hunt down those involved in Mega, piratebay, even silkroad, as well as petty drug and petty non-violent crimes...??? Makes certain logical and ethical sense, absolutely... ?
    where is the logic and...?
    where is the moral line being drawn in the legislature and law?
    makes me absolutely ill as it does the rest of us, but we all do our best to abide and get along and not piss off the angry dragons... and it's not really that difficult to abide but when I read about developers being punished for simply doing their job (generally speaking...)
    however- does law equate to justice? or should it?
    things we all ponder from time to time, I'm sure.

  13. Re:co-conspirators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats because governments are just like any other criminal outfit, and the reason they target other lesser criminal outfits is because they are encroaching on their territory.

  14. Copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So can I sue factory workers at arms manufacturies for murder?

    1. Re:Copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can I sue factory workers at arms manufacturies for murder?

      Well you probably wouldn't have standing, unless you were the one murdered, in which case you might have trouble retaining a lawyer.

  15. Mega had copyright reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Videos and other copyright were taken down at request, so they did their due diligence. Mega video et al was pretty clear about copyright and take down notices. It's sort of like suing Dell if someone used a computer to download stuff too. Why not have Dell equally share the blame? Why not imprison the internet service providers? The fiber optic cable manufacturers? DVD and CD manufacturers? When does the stupidity end?

    1. Re:Mega had copyright reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well no, the complaint is that "Videos and other copyright were taken down at request" wasn't being done. On request they'd remove specific links, whilst other links pointing to the same content (they hashed files and stored only one copy) were not being taken down. Contrasted with their response to child pornography where they removed every link and the content, then it seems their "due diligence" was faulty in a way they should have known was faulty.

      It also ignores all the other emails and stuff where they have evaluated content and known it's copyright material but not removed it.

    2. Re:Mega had copyright reporting by ld+a,b · · Score: 1

      unlink(2) is also known as rm(1).

      They were removing the files as far as the general meaning is concerned.
      The data on your disk is never purged unless you make an extra willing effort.
      If their site was being modeled after a filesystem, it's reasonable to expect that it would only remove the links.
      It is also reasonable that someone would think about taking extra measures for child pornography, given that mere possession is a serious crime and digital forensics are regularly used in its prosecution.

      Code Simian - (To self) We removed it but the data it's still there, better purge it just in case.
      Code Simian - Boss, should we purge all known child porn from our systems?
      Kim Dotcom - Aye.

      It is reasonable for someone to make that logical jump for child pornography while forgetting to do the same for copyright infringement.

      Or... does the prosecution agree with child pornography?

      We can then all agree that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant willingly kept the data for copyright infringement purposes.

      Criminal Case *poof*

      That defense doesn't account for e-mails, confessions and general dumbassery, though.

      --
      10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
  16. Guns, Knives, and Bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all know that their products will in some cases be used illegally. Time to round them up.

  17. This too shall pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day the world will look back at the era were people were punished for the short lived 'copyright infringement' concept as badly as we look back to some of the other errors in our past.

    1. Re: This too shall pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day the world will look back at these times and say "this is how it started". Or rather, those words will be whispered in fear while armed drones will patrol the skies above and armored, masked security officers march the streets looking for "malcontents".

  18. Standing of the victim's family by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't the family of the victim of a successful murder or the victim of attempted murder have standing to sue for wrongful death or attempted wrongful death?

    1. Re:Standing of the victim's family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demonstrating mens rea for any particular factory worker in the specific case would likely be impossible is why. Really these arguments of totally incomparable cases where the individual has far less direct involvement, direct knowledge of the crime involve and isn't profiting personally seem pretty naive.

  19. Not exactly how it works by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You plead guilty because in America we do jury trials, and juries are highly unpredictable. They often rule based on emotions and how they feel. If you're rich you buy a lawyer that's a smooth talker and can confuse the jury. Everyone else just plea bargins. Otherwise you're gambling that the jury will like you. If you lose the gamble than years of mandatory sentencing guidelines will put you away for decades.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly like sueing Tramontina everytime someone gets stabbed with one of their knives.

    MU, as any tool, is not good or evil, it's just a tool and what people do with it is what matters and they are just too lazy/cheap to look for those alleged IP offenders (which just a BS case, noone should get jail time for some shitty movies or programs!)

  21. let's just kill everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    who the fuck are these people prosecuting these cases? what sort of subhuman scum would do that for a living? if we just put them all down we'd be free.

    1. Re:let's just kill everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You going to do it, champ?

  22. They WANT the searches to go right up to the line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

    You can find an explanation of that in this guide to the 4th amendment exclusionary rule. The short answer is that they WANT searches to go right up against the absolute limit of legality.

    This is because the purpose of the rule is not to give people who do bad things a get out of jail free card when they're caught breaking a law or punish the cops for making mistakes--something which is pretty unreasonable when even the courts disagree about what is and isn't allowable half the time. The purpose is to protect us from actual police over-reach, where someone sics the cops on you to go out there and find something that you're guilty of.

  23. WTH I don't get it! by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    Is everyone who ever wrote a file transfer program guilty of copyright infringement? Is everyone who ever wrote a protocol that makes a directory downloadable guilty? Arrest everyone who worked on Apache! And FTP. And Gopher. And telnet. And Kermit.

    Say I move a file into a copyrighted public place using Windows. By this prosecution, the programmers at Microsoft should be arrested!

    I don't get it. Is there no logic to prosecutions? No principle?

  24. Do you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... What happens to geeky programmer types in prison? They have their exit ports turned into input devices.

  25. Re:They WANT the searches to go right up to the li by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    However when police perform illegal searches they ARE people doing bad things, and this IS giving them a get out of jail free card. As far as I am concerned an illegal search is a terrible violation, and deserving of a felony conviction.

    "I don't understand my job" is no excuse; and frankly, look where its gotten us, the only reason there are not many many more TONS of evidence tossed out by illegal searches is most people give up without a fight in the face of our abusive system which will do everything in its power to strong arm people into giving up their right to a trial.

    Frankly, I think we should get rid of pleas entirely, automatic not-guiolty plea for all cases, you MUST fight it; that way a prosecutor must file honest charges and not try to present two massively different options in hopes of not having evidence seen or contested.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  26. Read what I've written not your strawman by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you think Rand was advocating anything 'collectivist' at all,

    Where did I suggest that. Oh that's right, I didn't!

    I instead suggested that she attacked democracy and capitalism with little understanding of either.