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

I Worked for a Criminal Organization

openmonstervision.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 234 posts

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#161

Post by tyfon »

speedplane wrote: post #93
tyfon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if the government can prove that you knew about it without telling, you can be charged with it.

>> So if for example I know that my uncle is not paying all his taxes I'm a criminal too unless I report him? Or is it only for bigger frauds? > Yes if the government can prove that you knew about it without telling, you can be charged with it. That's not generally true. In the vast majority of cases, simply knowing about a crime and not reporting it is not a crime in itself. You only become liable when you aid-and-a…

Yes, it's specific to tax evasion and money laundering.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#162

Post by dragonwriter »

Kaiyou wrote: post #155
jackcodes wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that taxes ultimately don’t result in lost schools and hospitals, as it’s never that 1:1, but do you ever think you could have cost your country a hospital, a new road, or a new warhead or whatever?

Taxes are pretty much theft at gunpoint, so I imagine nobody losing sleep over dealing with it in an appropriate way.

> Taxes are pretty much theft at gunpoint,

It's odd how the people that think this are generally the same ones most likely to argue that “positive rights” that impose a cost on others are an incoherent concept, and positive entitlement can at most be a limited privilege granted by others based on available resources and expected utility of the grant. But they fail to recognize that the “right” to wall off goods from the commons and exclude others by force—i.e., property—is very much a positive right that has a cost for others.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#163

Post by athenot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #92
normalnorm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one getting depressed with all the excuses and rationalizations in this thread? It's the same with "adtech" and the like... "Hey, I'm not killing anyone, what's the harm?" Technology has the potential to raise humanity above its current conditions and limitations. But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys. Take a big dump on all the ideals if this delivers the paycheck. "Bus…

You're not the only one. And don't even get me started on adtech. I share your sentiment 100%. See [0]. -- [0] - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html .

This is a great article.

> I remember reading about cases of scientific papers that were advertisements pretending to be research work. I'll update this point when I find some actual examples.

Not exactly the same but related: soda manufacturers have been stressing the correlation between inactivity and diabetes, and in the process sliding in the message that sugar intake is not that big of a factor. That messaging goes with ads of healthy people in movement enjoying life and drinking sugar water.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#164

Post by ikeboy »

saber6 wrote: post #52
ikeboy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article. The trial is about different alleged wrongdoings than OP is going on about.

You sound extremely defensive with regard to this article — to the point that I am speculating whether or not you have vested interest in shooting down legitimate commentary. You have responded to multiple comments with baseless FUD-like claims. To which I contend..... I smell Astro-turf!!!

I have no relationship to any of the entities involved. I'm just pointing out how clueless OP is.

And I was somewhat taken aback at how much pushback I got based on people completely misreading the article. It's one thing to disagree with me over what exactly is legal, it's another to start asserting that the company itself was running spamming services in the absence of any evidence. That surprised me. The government hasn't asserted it, the OP doesn't assert it, I can't find that claim anywhere but this thread.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#165

Post by ikeboy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
ikeboy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article. The trial is about different alleged wrongdoings than OP is going on about.

> No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article. Both a fraudulent system of shell companies and knowingly profiting by enabling spam are alleged on the article, and both have been the subject of criminal charges against the firm and it's CEO. [0] [0] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/05/a-tough-week-for-ip-addr...

>knowingly profiting by enabling spam

Your source doesn't say that. I read the indictment and it doesn't charge them for "knowingly profiting by enabling spam".

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#166

Post by ikeboy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #45
ikeboy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22361670 None of the things mentioned here are crimes, as far as I can tell. The crime they were actually charged with was using these shell companies to get more IP addresses than they were "entitled" to get. See the indictment at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.250342/...

> None of the things mentioned here are crimes, as far as I can tell The fake “Channel Partners” addressed in the article are paragraph 4 of the indictment. The article addresses some of the mechanisms by which they were used to evade legal process for the purpose of concealment, the indictment deals with the fact that they were used for that purpose. It seems preposterous to view those as unrelated.

>The article addresses some of the mechanisms by which they were used to evade legal process for the purpose of concealment

No, it doesn't. It says they responded to subpoenas for each entity.

>the indictment deals with the fact that they were used for that purpose.

Nope. The indictment is about using the shell companies to get additional IP addresses out of ARIN. It has nothing to do with any deficiency in responding to subpoenas, or any illegal use of the IP addresses by spammers, etc.

The article lists a bunch of things and either implies or explicitly says they are crimes, when none are. This includes having multiple shell companies, which is perfectly legal. Submitting false documentation for those shell companies is illegal, but is not mentioned by OP, presumably because they would not have been in a position to observe any of that documentation.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#167

Post by everdrive »

bArray wrote: post #50
samplatt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of non-regular-maintenance jobs are easy & quick to do but break the law - for example, deleting the catalytic converter or EGR from the exhaust system will give your engine better performance and economy, but is illegal since it increases emissions. Lots of places will do it anyway on a cash job if they think they can get away with it, because it's relatively easy money. A shop replaced my failed catalytic con…

> A shop replaced my failed catalytic converter ($1200+ > replacement) with a straight pipe ($20 pipe and $200 of > time) many years ago because they (correctly) assessed me > to be a broke-ass student who wouldn't tell on them. The mechanic may have even made even more money by scrapping your catalytic converter. In the UK, swapping the exhaust out for a straight pipe is a common (illegal) modification for greater p…

Frustratingly, removing your catalytic converter has a very tiny effect on performance, and an enormous effect on emissions. Kids into car culture tend to hold very superstitious ideas about cars and performance. (eg, the manufacturer intentionally hobbled your car with a restrictive cat-back exhaust, and replacing it with something loud and terrible will "unlock" a significant amount of hidden horsepower.)

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#168

Post by ikeboy »

normalnorm wrote: post #75
Koremat6666 wrote: post #15

May be I missed it but can someone tell me what was the crime the company was committing ? Almost any company will have defensive strategies such as stalling LEOs and Warrants in whatever way they can. A lot of this is not really "crime" as in kidnapping people or shooting people dead in some alley. Is having shell companies a crime ? I know a ton of bay area "startups" than engage in these sort of tricks to maximize…

Am I the only one getting depressed with all the excuses and rationalizations in this thread? It's the same with "adtech" and the like... "Hey, I'm not killing anyone, what's the harm?" Technology has the potential to raise humanity above its current conditions and limitations. But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys. Take a big dump on all the ideals if this delivers the paycheck. "Bus…

To be clear, my comments were pointing out that what's described was not criminal. I didn't take a position on what's ethical or not.

That said, I think helping VPNs is a good thing ethically. If he'd been arrested for running a Tor node that was used to download child pornography (which has happened), I suspect most people here would defend him.

Helping spammers is bad, but, at least as described by OP, not illegal.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#169

Post by saber6 »

ikeboy wrote: post #164
saber6 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound extremely defensive with regard to this article — to the point that I am speculating whether or not you have vested interest in shooting down legitimate commentary. You have responded to multiple comments with baseless FUD-like claims. To which I contend..... I smell Astro-turf!!!

I have no relationship to any of the entities involved. I'm just pointing out how clueless OP is. And I was somewhat taken aback at how much pushback I got based on people completely misreading the article. It's one thing to disagree with me over what exactly is legal, it's another to start asserting that the company itself was running spamming services in the absence of any evidence. That surprised me. The governmen…

This entity was a known spam shop. It took a while but someone finally put together a model showing the (what were thought to be) hidden relationships.

Don’t defend fraud artists dude.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#170

Post by henvic »

senorjazz wrote: post #140
jackcodes wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that taxes ultimately don’t result in lost schools and hospitals, as it’s never that 1:1, but do you ever think you could have cost your country a hospital, a new road, or a new warhead or whatever?

> or a new warhead Perhaps they thought they were saving the lives of innocents from collateral damage in wars of aggression?

They probably were!
Post reply on HN