Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#21

Post by Bud »

aaronem wrote: post #13
s73v3r wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is accusing him of anything other than hosting some poor joke domains. However, his domain was the one that the emails threatening several school districts came from. And while I'm sure they don't think he's the culprit, his server would still have some evidence on it.

Have you seen CBS's [1] and the Daily Mail's [2] hit pieces on him? Of the latter such flagrant nonsense is to be expected, but one generally doesn't expect to see CBS descend to the same level. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-nat... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-colleg...

That wasn't from CBS, it was from a local TV station, which is quite different.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#22

Post by razster »

aaronem wrote: post #13
s73v3r wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is accusing him of anything other than hosting some poor joke domains. However, his domain was the one that the emails threatening several school districts came from. And while I'm sure they don't think he's the culprit, his server would still have some evidence on it.

Have you seen CBS's [1] and the Daily Mail's [2] hit pieces on him? Of the latter such flagrant nonsense is to be expected, but one generally doesn't expect to see CBS descend to the same level. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-nat... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-colleg...

I've pretty much assumed all large news corps are the same. Pointless to even read them anymore - finding reliable news is getting harder.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#23

Post by leppr »

Bud wrote: post #19
leppr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "anonymous mail service with offensive names" could be made a standard indicator of a country's freedom of speech status. Actually, that'd be a good research project: setup and host such a service in as many countries as possible, wait as they get shutdown (+6 points)/subpoenaed (+3)/ddosed (+1) and make a map.

Not responsive or relevant to this situation, in two very important ways: first, this isn't just any email service, a threat which cost millions of dollars was made from this service. Second, and more crucially, the service was NOT shut down.

I'll just answer by emphasizing two words in the comment you replied to.

    a threat which cost millions of dollars was made from this service.
...anonymous mail service...

    the service was NOT shut down.
...wait as they get shutdown (+6 points)/subpoenaed (+3)/ddosed (+1) ...

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#24

Post by aaronem »

Bud wrote: post #21
aaronem wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen CBS's [1] and the Daily Mail's [2] hit pieces on him? Of the latter such flagrant nonsense is to be expected, but one generally doesn't expect to see CBS descend to the same level. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-nat... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-colleg...

That wasn't from CBS, it was from a local TV station, which is quite different.

It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#25

Post by fbbbbb »

Bud wrote: post #20
s73v3r wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is accusing him of anything other than hosting some poor joke domains. However, his domain was the one that the emails threatening several school districts came from. And while I'm sure they don't think he's the culprit, his server would still have some evidence on it.

Point of order: gratuitous use of the word "nigger" is not a joke. Jokes are funny, or at least attempt to be funny. This doesn't qualify. This is something other than a joke.

It doesn't qualify because you said so, really?

This is something else than a joke, because?

Speculation and assertion is not an argument.

If a statement is a joke is not defined whether someone finds it is funny or not, but by its intention. We don't all laught at the same jokes do we? In this case, we don't know the intention behind it, or at least our two comments didn't reveal it.

(It is so sad to see preconditioned impulsive disagreement, just because certain words are discussed from a neutral perspective)

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#26

Post by maxerickson »

aaronem wrote: post #24
Bud wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't from CBS, it was from a local TV station, which is quite different.

It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.

That's crediting this story as a source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor...

If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#27

Post by dogma1138 »

tomp wrote: post #16
runn1ng wrote: post #2

cock.li. The proud owner of nigge.rs, horsefucker.org and goat.si. RIP in peace

Tor browser. The proud enabler of child porn industry.

I'm pretty sure there's more child porn on P2P networks, Usenet and the just over private internet forums/sites than on TOR.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#28

Post by aaronem »

maxerickson wrote: post #26
aaronem wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.

That's crediting this story as a source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor... If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)

And? KCBS isn't an affiliate; it's owned and operated by the network. The difference in domain name is purely cosmetic; if CBS corporate weren't OK with the content of the story, the story would no longer be online, if indeed it had ever been published at all.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#29

Post by jacquesm »

s73v3r wrote: post #12
vox_mollis wrote: post #4

How, exactly, did German authorities come to decide that California has jurisdiction in Germany? Was this pursuant to MLAT?

Are you saying that one should be allowed to threaten to kill people in one country from another, and not be held accountable?

No, he definitely was not saying that.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#30

Post by maxerickson »

aaronem wrote: post #28
maxerickson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's crediting this story as a source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor... If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)

And? KCBS isn't an affiliate; it's owned and operated by the network. The difference in domain name is purely cosmetic; if CBS corporate weren't OK with the content of the story, the story would no longer be online, if indeed it had ever been published at all.

The difference between the entities is largely cosmetic, but it simply isn't accurate to say that "CBS News" is responsible for the content of the article that you linked. As I pointed out, CBS Radio is, so as you say, that points to "CBS corporate" still being responsible, but it's more fair to the people working at CBS News to not mis-attribute the story (I used the abc.com example to try to make it clearer that conflating a source mentioned in the headline with the attribution is a mistake).

edit (which I see you only said CBS, I got lost in the depth of the thread.)

Post reply on HN