Why aren't laws in place that REQUIRE, on a FEDERAL level people to report to the Attorney General, the company(s) involved with the theft, and the actions taken? California has something close to it, but something nation wide would be nice for the FASTEST growing crime in the US. http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/idthft_ncpw.h tm. (source)
The excuse they used that "We thought they knew" is total crap, you'd figure when the head of NNSA says to the ED "Oh hey, we had a security breach where information on 1500 people was stolen, just so you know" Bodman would say "Woooh there, what have you done about it?" as opposed to you know, saying "Mm kay, how about them bears?" and brushing it off...
Re:Unverifiable? Let's give it a go...
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
ARG, a fine point I entirely glossed over, good show.
Yea I saw that, and don't really doubt he could scam, but I also have the thought the people could just as well be lying (doesn't mean I don't believe it, but it's entirely possible.)
The entire argument went from me believing the website was extortion (which I still feel that way), to thinking the website is extortion with probable cause and he probably deserves it. Doesn't mean I believe everything stated either though.:)
The rest of the information always leads back to the buyer's statement, and the buyer's own word against the seller's, which holds about as much water as a sieve.
It is a circumstantial argument at best from the information provided through ALL the various links.
I've already stated that I doubt the buyer is lying, but I also stated that I doubt the "proof" provided. My speculation is hardly aimless, just pointing out the lack of anything substantial, other then words, as evidence.
Now if I wanted to follow the story aimlessly, without applying critical thinking, I'd have agreed outright to someone's word against another's without dissecting what was provided. As well as kept my opinion static as opposed to listening to other's arguments and deciding hey maybe I don't know the whole story, I'll move from strongly disbelieving to mildly disbelieving but needing more proof.
Which is really where I'm at, I mildly disbelieve but with evidence could easily believe what was stated.
Or the buyer is lying and using the stuff on the hard drive to extort a free laptop, GENIUS!
I really have gone from thinking one thing or another, but have remained static that I would need more information to make a decision, and that there are only TWO people who know the truth; the buyer and seller. The rest is an exercise in assumption which I exercised liberally.
It's the usual "It was on a webpage so it must be true!" mentality that goes on here. It's pretty sad actually. It's also nice to see someone get some real justice by having to involve the government/authorities.
See what I did there? Simply a different interpretation of the materials provided, it's how legal systems work. The only two people who know the truth, are the buyer and seller, I simply have my own doubt on the amount of proof given (None other then their own word).
In a story, not to far; for me to not have at least some doubt as to the authenticity of the story it requires more then "It was broke, so now I'm going to ruin your life".
I've gone back and forth on how I feel on wither or not he did it, but I have not gone back on my opinion that I believe the evidence is lacking.
After all, if it was me, I wouldn't want my name plastered all over the net because I was an idiot and didn't destroy my hard drive, especially if the laptop WAS working when I sent it!
As far as I have been concerned, it is indeed unverified information that the laptop was broken upon receipt. Does not mean I don't believe the story, simply I don't see the "evidence".
And I said "from the information provided" which tends to mean the link to the story, and any links from story to the source.
I've been steeped in the story as of the last few posts, and have differed my opinion, but I also had little desire to read past the story and it's source (as well as any links on the source, of which this one was not on there); so thank you for the added link. However the original story and link from it did have very very little proof other then what someone said was wrong, same with your link actually, it just speaks about the hear-say as well.
Also, all the papers use "Broken" or "Allegedly broken" as a reference to the laptop. So I still default to only the seller and buyer knows the truth.
Although lack of evidence, doesn't mean lack of guilt.
"Amir, if you want to refund my money you know where to contact me, and this page will disappear forever."
I interpreted that as intimidation; he demanded money, to make the website "disappear". Although coercion may be a better word to use, it still works as extortion.
Regardless, I've been shown a whole slew of stuff that countered my initial opinion from full doubt to needing more information to make my decision.
I agree completely with your assessment on extortion and consumer rights. Since I made the post have gone back and forth on how I feel about the issue.
I still feel that there is some unresolved parts though and default to only the buyer and seller really knows what is true or not.
And yes, if the buyer is lying, that is really a big bite of suck.
Still extortion, assuming it's based upon a lie, weither or not the damage is undoable.
Re:Unverifiable? Let's give it a go...
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
I claimed it off what I read and saw, I didn't have all those fancy links, nor did I try to discover them so thank you for that. The article it self leaves much to be uncovered.
I still would like to know more about what was "broke" with the laptop.
I am missing the place where it shows his -3 feedback, I see him having 50% positive feedback however from the listed site, -after- the auction ended.
And you are correct, I do have to use critical thinking skills, I just used them to point out what is possible and plausible from what I saw and interpreted.
Does not mean I am correct, does not even mean I am remotely close to the truth.
The only two people who know the truth, aside from divine entities, are the buyer and seller.
Re:Extortion
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Which goes back to where's the proof he committed fraud, the item was shipped, the person was able to access the hard drive (I know there are plenty of ways of doing so with and without a working laptop.), but there was no documentation as to what was borked on the computer.
He simply stated that it was broke.
No pictures of the broken item, no description of what was broke. Just a statement that the ram and DVD-Rom was wrong, again, -hear-say.
For all I can tell, it was missing a charger which can lead to all sorts of assumptions.
The extortion part comes in to play with the statement that boils down to you pay, it goes away.
Re:Extortion
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The photos are very difficult to deny, but all it proves is he does not know how to eliminate data.
It is also doubtful the laptop is stolen, it probably is indeed Amir's.
He also used a free service (Which supports AdSense if he took the time to set it up.), why would he need to worry about bandwidth?
Extortion is basically what it boils down to; "Amir, if you want to refund my money you know where to contact me, and this page will disappear forever."
The rest of the crap in the story is unverifiable from the information provided. It is just here-say.
I know better, because if someone's laptop alarm goes off they'll PROBABLY be right by it. It'd get REALLY annoying though, when someone loses their remote and the thing goes off ALL THE TIME!
There was a post on slashdot a while ago talking about why they forked it. This webpage is the webpage of Gaim-vv, and talks about how it is a "friendly fork whish will be backported".
Basically they forked to experiment, and will backport once it is tweaked to working.
Slashdot Mirror
Why aren't laws in place that REQUIRE, on a FEDERAL level people to report to the Attorney General, the company(s) involved with the theft, and the actions taken? California has something close to it, but something nation wide would be nice for the FASTEST growing crime in the US. http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/idthft_ncpw.h tm. (source)
The excuse they used that "We thought they knew" is total crap, you'd figure when the head of NNSA says to the ED "Oh hey, we had a security breach where information on 1500 people was stolen, just so you know" Bodman would say "Woooh there, what have you done about it?" as opposed to you know, saying "Mm kay, how about them bears?" and brushing it off...
ARG, a fine point I entirely glossed over, good show.
Yea I saw that, and don't really doubt he could scam, but I also have the thought the people could just as well be lying (doesn't mean I don't believe it, but it's entirely possible.)
:)
The entire argument went from me believing the website was extortion (which I still feel that way), to thinking the website is extortion with probable cause and he probably deserves it. Doesn't mean I believe everything stated either though.
The rest of the information always leads back to the buyer's statement, and the buyer's own word against the seller's, which holds about as much water as a sieve.
It is a circumstantial argument at best from the information provided through ALL the various links.
I've already stated that I doubt the buyer is lying, but I also stated that I doubt the "proof" provided. My speculation is hardly aimless, just pointing out the lack of anything substantial, other then words, as evidence.
Now if I wanted to follow the story aimlessly, without applying critical thinking, I'd have agreed outright to someone's word against another's without dissecting what was provided. As well as kept my opinion static as opposed to listening to other's arguments and deciding hey maybe I don't know the whole story, I'll move from strongly disbelieving to mildly disbelieving but needing more proof.
Which is really where I'm at, I mildly disbelieve but with evidence could easily believe what was stated.
Or the buyer is lying and using the stuff on the hard drive to extort a free laptop, GENIUS!
I really have gone from thinking one thing or another, but have remained static that I would need more information to make a decision, and that there are only TWO people who know the truth; the buyer and seller. The rest is an exercise in assumption which I exercised liberally.
It's the usual "It was on a webpage so it must be true!" mentality that goes on here. It's pretty sad actually. It's also nice to see someone get some real justice by having to involve the government/authorities.
See what I did there? Simply a different interpretation of the materials provided, it's how legal systems work. The only two people who know the truth, are the buyer and seller, I simply have my own doubt on the amount of proof given (None other then their own word).
In a story, not to far; for me to not have at least some doubt as to the authenticity of the story it requires more then "It was broke, so now I'm going to ruin your life".
I've gone back and forth on how I feel on wither or not he did it, but I have not gone back on my opinion that I believe the evidence is lacking.
After all, if it was me, I wouldn't want my name plastered all over the net because I was an idiot and didn't destroy my hard drive, especially if the laptop WAS working when I sent it!
As far as I have been concerned, it is indeed unverified information that the laptop was broken upon receipt. Does not mean I don't believe the story, simply I don't see the "evidence".
Which I agreed to. :)
And I said "from the information provided" which tends to mean the link to the story, and any links from story to the source.
I've been steeped in the story as of the last few posts, and have differed my opinion, but I also had little desire to read past the story and it's source (as well as any links on the source, of which this one was not on there); so thank you for the added link. However the original story and link from it did have very very little proof other then what someone said was wrong, same with your link actually, it just speaks about the hear-say as well.
Also, all the papers use "Broken" or "Allegedly broken" as a reference to the laptop. So I still default to only the seller and buyer knows the truth.
Although lack of evidence, doesn't mean lack of guilt.
It's late and both our minds are tired.
At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But thanks for the responces, it let me kill some time.
"Amir, if you want to refund my money you know where to contact me, and this page will disappear forever."
I interpreted that as intimidation; he demanded money, to make the website "disappear". Although coercion may be a better word to use, it still works as extortion.
Regardless, I've been shown a whole slew of stuff that countered my initial opinion from full doubt to needing more information to make my decision.
I agree completely with your assessment on extortion and consumer rights. Since I made the post have gone back and forth on how I feel about the issue.
I still feel that there is some unresolved parts though and default to only the buyer and seller really knows what is true or not.
And yes, if the buyer is lying, that is really a big bite of suck.
Still extortion, assuming it's based upon a lie, weither or not the damage is undoable.
I claimed it off what I read and saw, I didn't have all those fancy links, nor did I try to discover them so thank you for that. The article it self leaves much to be uncovered.
I still would like to know more about what was "broke" with the laptop.
I am missing the place where it shows his -3 feedback, I see him having 50% positive feedback however from the listed site, -after- the auction ended.
And you are correct, I do have to use critical thinking skills, I just used them to point out what is possible and plausible from what I saw and interpreted.
Does not mean I am correct, does not even mean I am remotely close to the truth.
The only two people who know the truth, aside from divine entities, are the buyer and seller.
Which goes back to where's the proof he committed fraud, the item was shipped, the person was able to access the hard drive (I know there are plenty of ways of doing so with and without a working laptop.), but there was no documentation as to what was borked on the computer.
He simply stated that it was broke.
No pictures of the broken item, no description of what was broke. Just a statement that the ram and DVD-Rom was wrong, again, -hear-say.
For all I can tell, it was missing a charger which can lead to all sorts of assumptions.
The extortion part comes in to play with the statement that boils down to you pay, it goes away.
The photos are very difficult to deny, but all it proves is he does not know how to eliminate data.
It is also doubtful the laptop is stolen, it probably is indeed Amir's.
He also used a free service (Which supports AdSense if he took the time to set it up.), why would he need to worry about bandwidth?
Forgive my spelling, the understood meaning remains the same.
Extortion is basically what it boils down to; "Amir, if you want to refund my money you know where to contact me, and this page will disappear forever."
The rest of the crap in the story is unverifiable from the information provided. It is just here-say.
"These rented songs can't be burned to CD and go silent if you stop paying the fees."
You should see...
:)
(Article stuff)[Right under article, in small font]
[+] bigbrother, fcc, freespeech, security, usa (tagging beta)
Examples: security, usa
Higher Education Fears Wiretapping La
Take a peek for it
The irony was that I was being serious :).
I know better, because if someone's laptop alarm goes off they'll PROBABLY be right by it. It'd get REALLY annoying though, when someone loses their remote and the thing goes off ALL THE TIME!
Will people ignore it just like a car alarm?
There was a post on slashdot a while ago talking about why they forked it. This webpage is the webpage of Gaim-vv, and talks about how it is a "friendly fork whish will be backported".
Basically they forked to experiment, and will backport once it is tweaked to working.