At my previous job, hospital IT, I used to get emails all the time because there was a doctor with the same exact name as me, but of course, since I started first, I got my name as my email address and his had to have a number added to it.
Though more often than emails, I would get pages, and would have to call back nurses and let them know they paged the wrong person...and no they probably don't want my advice on antibiotics.
Ahh the rule makers always love to complain about how people follow their rules.
Another way to say the same thing is that the export restrictions created a market for lightly processed oil products. If there is demand there is demand, it doesn't go away because you will it to. If that demand can be met in some way that fits in the rules and is still profitable, people WILL do it.
Trying to call that getting around a restriction is like the magic player complaining that someone insisted on playing stuff at the end of your turn after you said you were done. Duh read the rules, it isn't getting around anything...its what they say! Its following them.
> If the law was off the books tomorrow, virtually every open source project would welcome their > participation with open arms.
Them not being able to participate is a drawback. Frankly, ignoring laws that are wrong is a persons duty. There is no legitimate reason to bar their particpation. Resepect for laws that are wrong is disrespect for the laws victims.
I have yet to see any reasonable argument why anyone should see it as their duty to follow the law just because somebody made a law.
> Last month she linked to an article on entrepreneurs suffering depression
You are missing the obvious fact that comes up if you do any searching on her.
She was known for having launched a product, aimed specifically at Second Life. If involvement in second life isn't a marker for potential lifelong clinical depression, then I don't know what is.
Have you considered that she only saw the extreme edge cases? The vast majority of people who take LSD never end up in an emergency room because of it. The vast majority never end up hospitalised. She, by definition of her job, only saw the worst.
> Things going horribly wrong while on hallucinogens isn't exactly rare, and as such should really only > be used while under supervision. They are in fact so common, that they have an official slang term, > "bad trip".
Depends what you mean by "horribly wrong" or "bad trip". "Bad Trip" is used to describe any situation where a person has an emotional experience that they are having trouble handling. Yes, this happens. I have seen it happen. It can be loud, it can be scary, but it really turning into anything significant IS indeed rare.
In fact, if it wasn't rare, it wouldn't make the news.
Yes, its true, psychedelics can provide people with very intense emptional experiences, which are not always fun; anyone using them should be aware of and prepared for that. Anything beyond that is just unwarranted fear.
> - Also, if he went to a state college and now calls himself a libertarian, I have to call that out. > That is also a "Silicon Valley" thing.
so a person who uses any state resources which they and their parents before them paid for....this should limit what opinions they are allowed to form later?
I was raised catholic and took first communion, and later came to realize the whole God thing was a sham, am I stuck being Catholic?
Honestly I WOULD entirely agree if not for the MITM aspect.
If they really want to do that, setup a proxy and whitelist allowed sites. Deny SSL connections. Fine. Silent MITM attacks expose people in an unsuspecting manner; in ways that its unrealistic to expect most employees outside of IT to understand.
> Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression. You click it and > something happens no different than clicking a.exe.
No. A hyperlink is a pointer to something else. A hyperlink contains no instruction as to what to do with what is on the other end of that link, the action is entirely locally defined by the web browser. A hyperlink is functionally no different from a bibliographic entry in a book...it is a named pointer; which you may or may not look up if you so choose. I don't see how the ease of doing changes the situation fundamentally.
I think it is less about not trusting government specifically, and more about trusting vague sources that come with plausible sounding explanations.
Look at the hand waving BS about vaccinations, they are almost always centered around a grain of truth, a grain that is then added to and changed. Some great examples are "mercury" in vaccines or "hormones" in bovines.
The thing is, it is always presented as something "they" don't want you to know about, or are claiming is safe, so when you hear from an expert the 'truth' which is a) this is a real thing (just like they said!) and b) its safe (just like they said you would say!) - they have already been innoculated (is that a pun here?) against the truth.
Of course you think its safe, you were looking at all those fake studies done by researchers in the pocket of big pharma/big agriculture etc.
Certainly there are coverups and conspiracies and things people in power don't want us to know about, but most of those things can be much more complicated and messy.... people like a nice simple story...one they can remember and repeat.
OTOH the answer here is nothing really new. There were some surveys that asked people about vaccination programs. What they did was take the same information, same number of lives saved, same number of deaths etc, and wrote them up in two different ways: one which emphasized the decision based on lives saved, and another which emphasized the decision based on lives lost.
What was the outcome? Quite simply, people were more moved to support the vaccination program based on figures which put it in terms of avoiding losses than when put in terms of lives saved.
This seems like a very similar case. Talk all you want about benefits and safety on their own; you get people's attention by focus on losses. In the end, I think that is why the anti-vaccination stories tend to be more powerful: They focus on (imaginary) losses and avoiding those losses.
Yes but when you look at what people really want, war is a waste of time strategically too. Reducing war to a bunch of symbolic actions that give you an excuse to keep people on payroll and make some noise now and again really fills most of the real objectives of war anyway...or....does at least as good as real war but without all the mess.
The quicker you can get back to business as usual economic activity the bigger the win for everyone. The less disruption to that on both sides, the bigger the win for everyone....and if you can use it to justify some more military spending and keep those jobs well.... then all objectives are met.
I'm not a robber, but if I was, I'm pretty sure that if I was going to rob someone, I'm going to take their phone regardless of whether it can be bricked or not simply to reduce the likelihood of them calling the cops. In essence, it won't prevent the theft of phones, it will merely prevent the thieves from reselling them. Why not a remote kill switch for Rolexes?
Because everybody and their mother doesn't have rolexes? Notice nobody is taking about Rolex theft? Can you think of a single other device that can cost several hundred dollars, most people want, and everyone from little kids to 60 year old grandmothers carries around in public?
I am at a loss to come up with anything aside from cash itself that has similar properties. In fact, the main difference, aside from usage, is that if you whipped out a wad of cash equivalent to the retail cost of your smart phone, most people would advise you not to walk down the street flashing that wad in your hands.
I mean, I think you are right in one sence: Phones will still be stolen. It doesn't take away all reason, however, if all someone has is a cell phone, a kill switch would potentially decrease the value in robbing him; and robbers are back to trying to figure out who has money or other valuables.
Yes; and no that didn't happen at all. Actually, the experience was kinda bland. I distinctly remember thinking that a coke habbit would get expensive just in the amount of pot I would need to smoke to relax my jaw.
Overall it was kind of like drinking way too much coffee but a little stronger on the focus, with a little less jitter. It was pretty enjoyable for a little while but nothing I ever went back and did again.
Like anything, I am sure it effects different people differently, I know people who act like you describe from alcohol too.
Except that this case isn't really like any of those examples. In this case the government is mandating they provide a new service, to them; a service which doesn't benefit, and in fact, actually directly harms the privacy which the public/customer (an overlapping set) pay for.
Then they mandate that the company may only pass on the costs of this new service to the very customers who are being harmed by it.
Actually, I (ok my wife, but she doesn't read/. so I take the credit), grind fresh beans, and then use the keurig with an aftermarket refillable pod to brew the coffee.
I was against the Keurig at first myself for the same reason. The pods are expensive. I could see keeping around some as a novelty when I want a quick something different, but I drink coffee every day damnit. Its ridiculously wasteful to be tossing plastic bits with every cup of joe.
It came to the house at X-Mass time and for a while we used it only as a backup when we ran out of beans. Then we found the refillable cups, and the old coffee maker got set aside as the new backup.
Looks like Keurig doesn't like us very much of course, but they can suck it, I will go back to a mocha pot before I buy a coffee maker that tries to tell me what I can and can't use with it.
I am inclined to agree. However, by the same token, the alleged rape is over. Getting warrant is always going to be preferable to not getting one according to the courts. Getting a warrant will always result in a tighter case than not getting one..... the default action in ALL cases where there is no immediate emergency and thus a reason to do otherwise, should be to get the damned warrant!
It seems ridiculous to me that they would ever avoid getting a warrant, even if they don't technically need one.... get it anyway!
Every time they decide not to, they are risking the entire case they are trying to make.
âoeFor purposes of decision, however, we assume the police acted lawfully up to the point that they forcibly entered the apartment,â they wrote in their November opinion. âoeIt is not clear that there was ever a ruling on the legality of the cell phone tracking methods used below.â
So.... this particular question is excluded from this particular review, and that part of the investigation "we assume the police acted lawfully".
Am I correct in reading that this means; should the appeal fail; that another appeal claiming that the actions leading up to the search were not legal should be expected? Seems that such an assumption would mean there is another question which could potentially come into play in another review.
Seems like the police really screwed the pooch on this one. From a civil rights POV it is pretty clear they should toss the evidence and let this rapist go. Its sad when rapists get to go free on technicalities but, we can't forget,.....this is the Police's fault.
They risked letting a rapist go free so they could hide their techniques; and now....no only did they fail at hiding their techniques, but also failed to protect the community.
Not at all at this point. Hard to believe this went on for so long. If they had fixed it earlier, even a 5 or 10% loss would be a problem but, it would be something they could recover from. Down by half?
I mean, a 1% discrepancy in the books...shit, something is wrong, but you almost expect something like that now and again; hell my grandfather had an exta 10k in his account, and when he reported it to the bank they thanked him cuz they had been looking for where it was but couldn't find it....and 10k isn't even 1% of a small banks bankroll.
I would have considered it a temporary shut down emergency at somewhere under 10%.
If 1 in 10 of your assetts is vanished into thin air, isn't it past time to put everything on hold and investigate?
what bothers me here is that the law, in this case the constitution defines your home a place of special privacy. In fact, it is the only place specifically mentioned. It does not talk about a right to search or consent to a search.
I would submit that, if she allowed him to live there, and he was an occupent and not just a visitor, then the police should not have accepted her consent alone, knowing that he did not consent. Perhaps they should have requested that she accompany them as a witness or ask her to make a statement to bring with them to the judge for a search warrant, but, consent for a shared home should be unanimous of the occupants to my mind......
Nothing else would actually protect each individual's right to be secure within the shared domicile. Obviously emergency situations etc can warrant the relaxation of such a standard as needed but, we have already established that wasn't the case here.
Such strict adherence to principle can only strengthen their case.
> The weakness I see in this argument is that -any- occupant of the domicile at the time can consent, > even if they are the ones doing the crime (eg like a home invasion.)
I was thinking about this some more, and I think what is missing is the definition of occupant. The court talked about her right to consent to a search but, that is an invented right. The right in question is ones right to be secure in their persons and their home.
So to my mind, even if it is her place, if she allowed him to live there, and make it his home, I don't see how the police can allow her consent to trump his right to privacy in the place where he lived.
That isn't to say I feel she had some obligation not to consent, but that the police shouldn't have sought out her consent since it wasn't the consent they should have felt they needed; as she was not the subject of the search.
Straus and Gelles found that in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man struck the first blow; in 24% of cases, the woman initiated the violence. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.[20]
But of course men are arrested more often, even if they didn't initiate the violence, so I guess if you just look at arrest statistics and assume everyone arrested is guilty, I can see where you might think this isn't true.
I have actually seen men terrorized by violent women, seen those same men end up with bruises and restraining orders and court cases against them; calling them the abusers. Not only does it happen, but those men end up unfairly counted in the very statistics you want to use against them.
Which is just one of the problems with lobbing accusations based on statistics.
Yes this. They asked, they got denied. They knew they got denied already before they went back. If for no other reason than making sure there is not even the possibility of having such a case thrown out on a technicality, they should have gotten the warrant. Hell they should have gotten the warrant AND asked the ex-girlfriend (I assume they are not still together)
Also I find it a bit odd that she "looked beat up" but there is no allegation that she claimed he did beat her up or anything like that. For all anyone really knows she may have initiated any violence. The assumption that women are always the victims is not only sexist, its not always correct either.
Maybe this case really is as cut and dry as it sounds, maybe. However, professionalism by the police means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; which should mean erring on the side of getting the warrant rather than not if there is no emergency.
Last time I was there I picked up an LM7505 voltage regulator and a 24 V center tapped transformer. I mean yah, I would normally order that from mouser or someone else; or drive 45 minutes to the good hobby electronics store, but for just a couple of basic things, RS is not so bad.
Where does 7-11 keep those? Is it near the slurpees?
That is a pretty nasty accusation to make without any evidence. They were taking a fee on every transaction, making money.
Now maybe somebody on the inside did it, but I doubt highly that it was the owners.
Also bitcoins are regulated just like anything else. If that is what they did, it was still illegal because it was still fraudulent. Stealing or defrauding people out of bitcoins is every bit as illegal and regulated as anything else you would like to steal from them or defraud them out of.
> To be honest, MtGox hasn't been the main place to trade for at least half a year.
To be honest, I have been kind of busy with other stuff and only peripherally following bitcoin recently. However a friend of mine, who also has a few, has been following a bit more closely and, for at least the past few months, this is what he has been saying.
Long before the MtGox issues cropped up publically, they stopped being the largest exchange by volume.
Slashdot Mirror
At my previous job, hospital IT, I used to get emails all the time because there was a doctor with the same exact name as me, but of course, since I started first, I got my name as my email address and his had to have a number added to it.
Though more often than emails, I would get pages, and would have to call back nurses and let them know they paged the wrong person...and no they probably don't want my advice on antibiotics.
Ahh the rule makers always love to complain about how people follow their rules.
Another way to say the same thing is that the export restrictions created a market for lightly processed oil products. If there is demand there is demand, it doesn't go away because you will it to. If that demand can be met in some way that fits in the rules and is still profitable, people WILL do it.
Trying to call that getting around a restriction is like the magic player complaining that someone insisted on playing stuff at the end of your turn after you said you were done. Duh read the rules, it isn't getting around anything...its what they say! Its following them.
> If the law was off the books tomorrow, virtually every open source project would welcome their
> participation with open arms.
Them not being able to participate is a drawback. Frankly, ignoring laws that are wrong is a persons duty. There is no legitimate reason to bar their particpation. Resepect for laws that are wrong is disrespect for the laws victims.
I have yet to see any reasonable argument why anyone should see it as their duty to follow the law just because somebody made a law.
> Last month she linked to an article on entrepreneurs suffering depression
You are missing the obvious fact that comes up if you do any searching on her.
She was known for having launched a product, aimed specifically at Second Life. If involvement in second life isn't a marker for potential lifelong clinical depression, then I don't know what is.
Have you considered that she only saw the extreme edge cases? The vast majority of people who take LSD never end up in an emergency room because of it. The vast majority never end up hospitalised. She, by definition of her job, only saw the worst.
> Things going horribly wrong while on hallucinogens isn't exactly rare, and as such should really only
> be used while under supervision. They are in fact so common, that they have an official slang term,
> "bad trip".
Depends what you mean by "horribly wrong" or "bad trip". "Bad Trip" is used to describe any situation where a person has an emotional experience that they are having trouble handling. Yes, this happens. I have seen it happen. It can be loud, it can be scary, but it really turning into anything significant IS indeed rare.
In fact, if it wasn't rare, it wouldn't make the news.
Yes, its true, psychedelics can provide people with very intense emptional experiences, which are not always fun; anyone using them should be aware of and prepared for that. Anything beyond that is just unwarranted fear.
> - Also, if he went to a state college and now calls himself a libertarian, I have to call that out.
> That is also a "Silicon Valley" thing.
so a person who uses any state resources which they and their parents before them paid for....this should limit what opinions they are allowed to form later?
I was raised catholic and took first communion, and later came to realize the whole God thing was a sham, am I stuck being Catholic?
Seems like a raw deal to me.
Honestly I WOULD entirely agree if not for the MITM aspect.
If they really want to do that, setup a proxy and whitelist allowed sites. Deny SSL connections. Fine. Silent MITM attacks expose people in an unsuspecting manner; in ways that its unrealistic to expect most employees outside of IT to understand.
> Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression. You click it and .exe.
> something happens no different than clicking a
No. A hyperlink is a pointer to something else. A hyperlink contains no instruction as to what to do with what is on the other end of that link, the action is entirely locally defined by the web browser. A hyperlink is functionally no different from a bibliographic entry in a book...it is a named pointer; which you may or may not look up if you so choose. I don't see how the ease of doing changes the situation fundamentally.
I think it is less about not trusting government specifically, and more about trusting vague sources that come with plausible sounding explanations.
Look at the hand waving BS about vaccinations, they are almost always centered around a grain of truth, a grain that is then added to and changed. Some great examples are "mercury" in vaccines or "hormones" in bovines.
The thing is, it is always presented as something "they" don't want you to know about, or are claiming is safe, so when you hear from an expert the 'truth' which is a) this is a real thing (just like they said!) and b) its safe (just like they said you would say!) - they have already been innoculated (is that a pun here?) against the truth.
Of course you think its safe, you were looking at all those fake studies done by researchers in the pocket of big pharma/big agriculture etc.
Certainly there are coverups and conspiracies and things people in power don't want us to know about, but most of those things can be much more complicated and messy.... people like a nice simple story...one they can remember and repeat.
OTOH the answer here is nothing really new. There were some surveys that asked people about vaccination programs. What they did was take the same information, same number of lives saved, same number of deaths etc, and wrote them up in two different ways: one which emphasized the decision based on lives saved, and another which emphasized the decision based on lives lost.
What was the outcome? Quite simply, people were more moved to support the vaccination program based on figures which put it in terms of avoiding losses than when put in terms of lives saved.
This seems like a very similar case. Talk all you want about benefits and safety on their own; you get people's attention by focus on losses. In the end, I think that is why the anti-vaccination stories tend to be more powerful: They focus on (imaginary) losses and avoiding those losses.
Yes but when you look at what people really want, war is a waste of time strategically too. Reducing war to a bunch of symbolic actions that give you an excuse to keep people on payroll and make some noise now and again really fills most of the real objectives of war anyway...or....does at least as good as real war but without all the mess.
The quicker you can get back to business as usual economic activity the bigger the win for everyone. The less disruption to that on both sides, the bigger the win for everyone....and if you can use it to justify some more military spending and keep those jobs well.... then all objectives are met.
Because everybody and their mother doesn't have rolexes? Notice nobody is taking about Rolex theft? Can you think of a single other device that can cost several hundred dollars, most people want, and everyone from little kids to 60 year old grandmothers carries around in public?
I am at a loss to come up with anything aside from cash itself that has similar properties. In fact, the main difference, aside from usage, is that if you whipped out a wad of cash equivalent to the retail cost of your smart phone, most people would advise you not to walk down the street flashing that wad in your hands.
I mean, I think you are right in one sence: Phones will still be stolen. It doesn't take away all reason, however, if all someone has is a cell phone, a kill switch would potentially decrease the value in robbing him; and robbers are back to trying to figure out who has money or other valuables.
Yes; and no that didn't happen at all. Actually, the experience was kinda bland. I distinctly remember thinking that a coke habbit would get expensive just in the amount of pot I would need to smoke to relax my jaw.
Overall it was kind of like drinking way too much coffee but a little stronger on the focus, with a little less jitter. It was pretty enjoyable for a little while but nothing I ever went back and did again.
Like anything, I am sure it effects different people differently, I know people who act like you describe from alcohol too.
Except that this case isn't really like any of those examples. In this case the government is mandating they provide a new service, to them; a service which doesn't benefit, and in fact, actually directly harms the privacy which the public/customer (an overlapping set) pay for.
Then they mandate that the company may only pass on the costs of this new service to the very customers who are being harmed by it.
Actually, I (ok my wife, but she doesn't read /. so I take the credit), grind fresh beans, and then use the keurig with an aftermarket refillable pod to brew the coffee.
I was against the Keurig at first myself for the same reason. The pods are expensive. I could see keeping around some as a novelty when I want a quick something different, but I drink coffee every day damnit. Its ridiculously wasteful to be tossing plastic bits with every cup of joe.
It came to the house at X-Mass time and for a while we used it only as a backup when we ran out of beans. Then we found the refillable cups, and the old coffee maker got set aside as the new backup.
Looks like Keurig doesn't like us very much of course, but they can suck it, I will go back to a mocha pot before I buy a coffee maker that tries to tell me what I can and can't use with it.
I am inclined to agree. However, by the same token, the alleged rape is over. Getting warrant is always going to be preferable to not getting one according to the courts. Getting a warrant will always result in a tighter case than not getting one..... the default action in ALL cases where there is no immediate emergency and thus a reason to do otherwise, should be to get the damned warrant!
It seems ridiculous to me that they would ever avoid getting a warrant, even if they don't technically need one.... get it anyway!
Every time they decide not to, they are risking the entire case they are trying to make.
So.... this particular question is excluded from this particular review, and that part of the investigation "we assume the police acted lawfully".
Am I correct in reading that this means; should the appeal fail; that another appeal claiming that the actions leading up to the search were not legal should be expected? Seems that such an assumption would mean there is another question which could potentially come into play in another review.
Seems like the police really screwed the pooch on this one. From a civil rights POV it is pretty clear they should toss the evidence and let this rapist go. Its sad when rapists get to go free on technicalities but, we can't forget,.....this is the Police's fault.
They risked letting a rapist go free so they could hide their techniques; and now....no only did they fail at hiding their techniques, but also failed to protect the community.
Not at all at this point. Hard to believe this went on for so long. If they had fixed it earlier, even a 5 or 10% loss would be a problem but, it would be something they could recover from. Down by half?
I mean, a 1% discrepancy in the books...shit, something is wrong, but you almost expect something like that now and again; hell my grandfather had an exta 10k in his account, and when he reported it to the bank they thanked him cuz they had been looking for where it was but couldn't find it....and 10k isn't even 1% of a small banks bankroll.
I would have considered it a temporary shut down emergency at somewhere under 10%.
If 1 in 10 of your assetts is vanished into thin air, isn't it past time to put everything on hold and investigate?
what bothers me here is that the law, in this case the constitution defines your home a place of special privacy. In fact, it is the only place specifically mentioned. It does not talk about a right to search or consent to a search.
I would submit that, if she allowed him to live there, and he was an occupent and not just a visitor, then the police should not have accepted her consent alone, knowing that he did not consent. Perhaps they should have requested that she accompany them as a witness or ask her to make a statement to bring with them to the judge for a search warrant, but, consent for a shared home should be unanimous of the occupants to my mind......
Nothing else would actually protect each individual's right to be secure within the shared domicile. Obviously emergency situations etc can warrant the relaxation of such a standard as needed but, we have already established that wasn't the case here.
Such strict adherence to principle can only strengthen their case.
> The weakness I see in this argument is that -any- occupant of the domicile at the time can consent,
> even if they are the ones doing the crime (eg like a home invasion.)
I was thinking about this some more, and I think what is missing is the definition of occupant. The court talked about her right to consent to a search but, that is an invented right. The right in question is ones right to be secure in their persons and their home.
So to my mind, even if it is her place, if she allowed him to live there, and make it his home, I don't see how the police can allow her consent to trump his right to privacy in the place where he lived.
That isn't to say I feel she had some obligation not to consent, but that the police shouldn't have sought out her consent since it wasn't the consent they should have felt they needed; as she was not the subject of the search.
Yes statistics: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
But of course men are arrested more often, even if they didn't initiate the violence, so I guess if you just look at arrest statistics and assume everyone arrested is guilty, I can see where you might think this isn't true.
I have actually seen men terrorized by violent women, seen those same men end up with bruises and restraining orders and court cases against them; calling them the abusers. Not only does it happen, but those men end up unfairly counted in the very statistics you want to use against them.
Which is just one of the problems with lobbing accusations based on statistics.
Yes this. They asked, they got denied. They knew they got denied already before they went back. If for no other reason than making sure there is not even the possibility of having such a case thrown out on a technicality, they should have gotten the warrant. Hell they should have gotten the warrant AND asked the ex-girlfriend (I assume they are not still together)
Also I find it a bit odd that she "looked beat up" but there is no allegation that she claimed he did beat her up or anything like that. For all anyone really knows she may have initiated any violence. The assumption that women are always the victims is not only sexist, its not always correct either.
Maybe this case really is as cut and dry as it sounds, maybe. However, professionalism by the police means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; which should mean erring on the side of getting the warrant rather than not if there is no emergency.
Last time I was there I picked up an LM7505 voltage regulator and a 24 V center tapped transformer. I mean yah, I would normally order that from mouser or someone else; or drive 45 minutes to the good hobby electronics store, but for just a couple of basic things, RS is not so bad.
Where does 7-11 keep those? Is it near the slurpees?
That is a pretty nasty accusation to make without any evidence. They were taking a fee on every transaction, making money.
Now maybe somebody on the inside did it, but I doubt highly that it was the owners.
Also bitcoins are regulated just like anything else. If that is what they did, it was still illegal because it was still fraudulent. Stealing or defrauding people out of bitcoins is every bit as illegal and regulated as anything else you would like to steal from them or defraud them out of.
> To be honest, MtGox hasn't been the main place to trade for at least half a year.
To be honest, I have been kind of busy with other stuff and only peripherally following bitcoin recently. However a friend of mine, who also has a few, has been following a bit more closely and, for at least the past few months, this is what he has been saying.
Long before the MtGox issues cropped up publically, they stopped being the largest exchange by volume.
> If the guy had been home (he wasn't) and he had objected, they wouldn't have entered.
But he wasn't....because they arrested him. He did actually object when he was there. They knew that before they went back.