it's not clear from the article if the fraudsters are based in America (the Delaware modem suggests they could be, but this is hardly conclusive).
If they are abroad, enforcement may still be possible, as this is clearly an extraditable crime (whereas most types of spamming aren't). This of course depends on exactly where they are. Even if the US has no extradition treaty with their country, the fraud may still constitute a local criminal offence, and the US may be able to persuade local authorities to act.
A Ponzi scam is where you take money from new "investors" and use some of it to pay an apparently high return to your existing investors, grabbing the rest for yourself. Everybody's happy until (inevitably) you run out of new investors and the whole thing falls apart.
The 419 fraud involves a promise to transfer $millions into the victim's bank account, for some trumped up and obviously rather dubious reason. At the last minute you ask the victim to pay a "transfer fee" of perhaps a few $1000. You then vanish with the "transfer fee", never to be heard of again.
It's very strange that the UK and US authorities don't seem to have been pursuing this. This isn't some legal grey area: this is clearly an attempt at fraud on a significant scale.
If the spammers did follow through on the scam and extract money from someone's account then it should be relatively trivial to trace the money and find the bad guys. Certainly much easier than trying to find through technological means.
first question is easy: yes, they are liable. The general common law rule is that you are responsible for the acts of your agents and employees.
second question is very difficult: the areas of law in question (waiver and laches) are full of contradictory case-law; on top of this the fact pattern is likely to be extremely complicated, not to say controversial.
Peltiers are not great for this purpose: the "hot" side of the Peltier always gains significantly more heat than the "cold" side loses. So all you're doing is creating a new, worse, heat problem a couple of centimetres away from your original heat problem.
The only reason people use Peltiers to cool CPUs is that they allow you to get to sub-zero temperatures without having to fuss around with convention compression refridgeration systems. Perhaps useful for obsessed overclockers, but not for anyone else.
but what if all the inards are sealed with potting compound? If they can work out a way to do this without causing heat build-up then the innards will be untouchable without a serious amount of effort.
there are many reasons why a small surface craft might be heading towards you. There is only one reason why a small submersible might be headed towards you.
you don't have much time to react when a surface craft is heading towards you at 40 knots. A 5 knot submersible gives you *plenty* of time.
You are stretching the words of the statute too far: when interpreting criminal statutes, English courts will always have a view to the "mischief" the statute was enacted to cure amd will not interpret the words of the statute so strictly and so harshly that they hit someone the law wasn't intended to touch.
The Computer Misuse Act was enacted to target "hackers" (in the popular sense of the word, i.e. people who break into other people's computers to do damage).
So before a court will agree that someone has acted with intent "to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer" they will need to have done something rather nastier than just popping up a window that you can't see.
Also, no matter how much money you have, this isn't something you can test. This is a criminal offence and so it's not something you can sue for yourself.
More fruitful, if you wanted to waste money on lawyers, would be a civil claim, e.g. that in making your computer act in a way you didn't want it to X10 is commiting a trespassing to your property. I've no idea if such a claim could succeed, and there's no authority on the point, but it's certainly a point someone could research (if it hasn't been done already).
This relates to the rail link from the tunnel to London, and not the tunnel itself.
Also, haven't you misread? The hedging guarantees are stated to be GBP13 million, not billion. (although, because of the way interest rate hedges work, the actual exposure could be significantly higher if the rail link goes bust and interest rates go the wrong way)
nobody can be certain that Huitzilopochtli and the other Aztec gods don't excist.
So even if there exists in your mind a remote chance that the Aztecs could have been right and you will face Their judgment some day, it seems irrational to me not to sacrifice babies to Huitzilopochtli.
They're misunderstanding the law completely - copyright is created automatically and failure to register has certain procedural consequences (in the US, at any rate) but does not effect the creation or ownership of copyright.
Whether Roland is morally in the right is questionable. Whether they are legally in the right is indisputable.
it's a nasty idea, and I bet someone's doing it already. In Europe a provision like this would be unlawful under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, but in the US... ?
yes, a business run for profit has an absolute obligation to spend its time and money on something that won't return the investment, just to make you happy.
but what if the courts don't agree? you say they would "have to agree upon another court", but what if they don't?
you will inevitably end up with violent coercion, where the richer and more powerful party will crush the other. Are you really happier with this than a democratically accountable State having the monopoly on violence?
but how can purely private courts enforce tort actions at all? If my oil tanker dumps a million gallons of oil on your beach, how will I be *forced* to do anything?
Slashdot Mirror
it's not clear from the article if the fraudsters are based in America (the Delaware modem suggests they could be, but this is hardly conclusive).
If they are abroad, enforcement may still be possible, as this is clearly an extraditable crime (whereas most types of spamming aren't). This of course depends on exactly where they are. Even if the US has no extradition treaty with their country, the fraud may still constitute a local criminal offence, and the US may be able to persuade local authorities to act.
the 419 fraud isn't a Ponzi scam.
A Ponzi scam is where you take money from new "investors" and use some of it to pay an apparently high return to your existing investors, grabbing the rest for yourself. Everybody's happy until (inevitably) you run out of new investors and the whole thing falls apart.
The 419 fraud involves a promise to transfer $millions into the victim's bank account, for some trumped up and obviously rather dubious reason. At the last minute you ask the victim to pay a "transfer fee" of perhaps a few $1000. You then vanish with the "transfer fee", never to be heard of again.
It's very strange that the UK and US authorities don't seem to have been pursuing this. This isn't some legal grey area: this is clearly an attempt at fraud on a significant scale.
If the spammers did follow through on the scam and extract money from someone's account then it should be relatively trivial to trace the money and find the bad guys. Certainly much easier than trying to find through technological means.
Why isn't this being done?
and you think this lunatic owns Eros because... ?
from a legal point of view this would a very ill-advised thing for Microsoft to do, as it could find itself countersued by IBM.
Any US lawyers reading this care to elaborate on the US law approach to champerty and maintenance?
you think AIDS could have been developed with the technology of the 50s? Your foil hat needs changing.
first question is easy: yes, they are liable. The general common law rule is that you are responsible for the acts of your agents and employees.
second question is very difficult: the areas of law in question (waiver and laches) are full of contradictory case-law; on top of this the fact pattern is likely to be extremely complicated, not to say controversial.
Peltiers are not great for this purpose: the "hot" side of the Peltier always gains significantly more heat than the "cold" side loses. So all you're doing is creating a new, worse, heat problem a couple of centimetres away from your original heat problem.
The only reason people use Peltiers to cool CPUs is that they allow you to get to sub-zero temperatures without having to fuss around with convention compression refridgeration systems. Perhaps useful for obsessed overclockers, but not for anyone else.
what on earth do you mean?
but what if all the inards are sealed with potting compound? If they can work out a way to do this without causing heat build-up then the innards will be untouchable without a serious amount of effort.
You are wrong for two reasons:
there are many reasons why a small surface craft might be heading towards you. There is only one reason why a small submersible might be headed towards you.
you don't have much time to react when a surface craft is heading towards you at 40 knots. A 5 knot submersible gives you *plenty* of time.
I am an English lawyer. You are incorrect.
You are stretching the words of the statute too far: when interpreting criminal statutes, English courts will always have a view to the "mischief" the statute was enacted to cure amd will not interpret the words of the statute so strictly and so harshly that they hit someone the law wasn't intended to touch.
The Computer Misuse Act was enacted to target "hackers" (in the popular sense of the word, i.e. people who break into other people's computers to do damage).
So before a court will agree that someone has acted with intent "to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer" they will need to have done something rather nastier than just popping up a window that you can't see.
Also, no matter how much money you have, this isn't something you can test. This is a criminal offence and so it's not something you can sue for yourself.
More fruitful, if you wanted to waste money on lawyers, would be a civil claim, e.g. that in making your computer act in a way you didn't want it to X10 is commiting a trespassing to your property. I've no idea if such a claim could succeed, and there's no authority on the point, but it's certainly a point someone could research (if it hasn't been done already).
bang
This relates to the rail link from the tunnel to London, and not the tunnel itself.
Also, haven't you misread? The hedging guarantees are stated to be GBP13 million, not billion. (although, because of the way interest rate hedges work, the actual exposure could be significantly higher if the rail link goes bust and interest rates go the wrong way)
the idea is to keep the plug in but switch off the electrical socket: that way earth stays connected but live doesn't.
actually I think you'll find the Channel Tunnel was privately funded.
nobody can be certain that Huitzilopochtli and the other Aztec gods don't excist.
So even if there exists in your mind a remote chance that the Aztecs could have been right and you will face Their judgment some day, it seems irrational to me not to sacrifice babies to Huitzilopochtli.
Perhaps you're being sarcastic.
They're misunderstanding the law completely - copyright is created automatically and failure to register has certain procedural consequences (in the US, at any rate) but does not effect the creation or ownership of copyright.
Whether Roland is morally in the right is questionable. Whether they are legally in the right is indisputable.
you're crazy.
Your beef is with the shop that won't let you return the software, and the shop's attitude can't affect your (separate) contract with Microsoft.
And you may think this is "duress" but the legal definition is way narrower than the colloquial use of the term.
it's a nasty idea, and I bet someone's doing it already. In Europe a provision like this would be unlawful under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, but in the US... ?
Not anywhere I've been - didn't everyone realised it was a hopeless technology about five seconds after the hype started?
Text only? Feeble baud rates? Unable to read standard sites? Pur-lease...
is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.
And the network effect he mentions is really just a more sophisticated version of the "everybody uses Windows" argument he disparages.
I'm not qualified to comment on his technical arguments...
yes, a business run for profit has an absolute obligation to spend its time and money on something that won't return the investment, just to make you happy.
but what if the courts don't agree?
you say they would "have to agree upon another court", but what if they don't?
you will inevitably end up with violent coercion, where the richer and more powerful party will crush the other. Are you really happier with this than a democratically accountable State having the monopoly on violence?
but how can purely private courts enforce tort actions at all? If my oil tanker dumps a million gallons of oil on your beach, how will I be *forced* to do anything?