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

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#201

Post by nybble41 »

sneak wrote: post #128
notriddle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... really irrelevant. The point is that they were using shell companies to trick ARIN into reserving more netblocks than normal.

If an ARIN reservation doesn’t get you anything, then tricking ARIN to get more of them isn’t fraud.

It does get you something, though: the service of ARIN telling everyone that you "own" those addresses. Lying to someone so that they will perform a service for you is fraud even if you're not receiving any property. If you're running your own closed-off private network you can use whatever addresses you want, and I would agree with you that IPv4 addresses, as such, are not property. However, if you're connecting to the public Internet then your peers are going to care about whether the address ranges you claim were officially assigned to you by ARIN.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#202

Post by leetcrew »

burnte wrote: post #194
leetcrew wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is sort of like the "wage slavery is consensual because both sides agreed" argument. what realistic alternative does someone who doesn't consent to taxation have? renouncing US citizenship triggers a large tax on the total value of your assets if you are wealthy. even if you're not wealthy, the US charges a flat fee of about $2000 for the process. you might literally be unable to afford renouncing your citizensh…

If you're looking to leave the country over taxes, why the hell would them trying to tax your assets bother you? You're leaving. You are welcome to leave, no one is forcing you. It's the same argument with bringing jobs to dead small towns. No one ever promised everyone could get any job anywhere, sometimes you have to move. No one ever promised you could live in any country without help paying for the upkeep.

I think you may be missing the point of my post.

pragmatically, I don't object to the idea of taxation. the government provides some useful services and it needs a way of funding them. I'm also not actually interested in renouncing my citizenship, as I personally find US citizenship to be worth the tax obligations.

what I do object to is the common "social contract" argument for why taxes are legitimate. in particular, I strongly object to the idea that I "consent" to taxation merely by having been born here. I haven't consented to anything; I submit because an overwhelmingly powerful entity compels me.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#203

Post by kortilla »

jackcodes wrote: post #118
PappaPatat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first sale of my selfwritten software (about 35 years ago) was for a car driving instructor. The initial sales conversations where difficult. I thought they did not see the advantages of having their planning & bookkeeping in a computer... How wrong I was. It was their "creative bookkeeping" that worried them. When I offered to make that all possible ('zapping' as it is called now), they loved it. Based on their r…

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?

Well given that they were already doing this before software, probably not?

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#204

Post by kortilla »

burnte wrote: post #193
henvic wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On point. Tax is extortion. If you don't pay, they'll send the thugs after you. Try to stand your ground and they escalate the violence up to murder.

Taxes are dues for being part of a club. Any club will send security if you stay there, without paying, and refuse to leave.

No, a club will not imprison you in the club. They will just kick you out.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#205

Post by kortilla »

dragonwriter wrote: post #162
Kaiyou wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's odd how the people that think this are generally the same ones most likely to argue

Don’t attack strawmen, it’s boring.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#206

Post by saber6 »

ikeboy wrote: post #173
saber6 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims. Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not. Also, OP didn't "put together a model" exposing hidden relationships. Every company they named was already in the indictment from last May.

You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#207

Post by ikeboy »

saber6 wrote: post #206
ikeboy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims. Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not. Also, OP didn't "put together a model" exposing hidden relationships. Every company they named was already in the indictment from last May.

You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.

No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic.

You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Also, I'm not defending the fraud, but the (legality) of the parts of this that aren't fraudulent. I understand that you believe it's ok to smear anyone as long as they've done something else you dislike. I disagree.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#208

Post by burnte »

leetcrew wrote: post #202
burnte wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking to leave the country over taxes, why the hell would them trying to tax your assets bother you? You're leaving. You are welcome to leave, no one is forcing you. It's the same argument with bringing jobs to dead small towns. No one ever promised everyone could get any job anywhere, sometimes you have to move. No one ever promised you could live in any country without help paying for the upkeep.

I think you may be missing the point of my post. pragmatically, I don't object to the idea of taxation. the government provides some useful services and it needs a way of funding them. I'm also not actually interested in renouncing my citizenship, as I personally find US citizenship to be worth the tax obligations. what I do object to is the common "social contract" argument for why taxes are legitimate. in particula…

"I submit because an overwhelmingly powerful entity compels me."

This is also the "I don't want to be told what to do" argument, which PERSONALLY I find immature. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not calling you a name, we're having a reasonable discussion, I'm just saying that no one likes being given orders, but it's a part of life. You DO have the option of leaving and going somewhere without taxes. You're submitting because you have to in order to be where you want to be.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#209

Post by peapicker »

ryanmercer wrote: post #149
akg_67 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In lieu of the accuracy, you missed the essence.

Many on HN think everyone in the United States makes a 6-figure salary because they do. It's a common theme, I pointed out another potential instance. 40k of 200k doesn't make a big difference, 3016 of 15,080 (federal minimum wage @ 40 hours a week for a year) makes a HUGE difference as does 12,635.90 of 63,179. Why do you think waitstaff and the like prefer cash tips? because they feel that no one will know if they…

In the US, incomes between $9,701 to $39,475 are taxed at 12%, so the tax on 15,080 is actually $1,810 or 40% less than your estimate... at 63,179 the tax rate is 22% which is $13,899 - only a little higher than your estimate.

At $200K, the tax rate is 32%, so the tax is really $64K, 160% of your estimate. (all for single filers or married filing separately; married filing jointly has wider bands, and the rates are less overall at the given combined income levels)

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#210

Post by dragonwriter »

ikeboy wrote: post #190
dragonwriter wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says they responded to subpoenas for each entity. It says that when a parent company agent was in possession of a warrant addressed to the parent company at the location of one of the fraudulent “Channel Partners” they were ordered to interact with law enforcement as if they were exclusively an agent of the “Channel Partner”. Now, I suppose that could be argued to not be primarily intended to evade compliance wi…

>the fraud of the independence of the “Channel Partners” You still don't get it. The fraud was submitting false documentation to ARIN. Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal, as long as you don't submit false sworn affidavits and otherwise lie in the course of your activities. Responding to a subpoena as the entity it was sent to isn't lying. It says there was one occasion where the subpoena had both M…

> Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal

Sure, what's not is:

Having the registered principals of those shell companies be fictitious (as in this case).

Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front companiest (as, again, in this case.)

> Responding to a subpoena as the entity it was sent to isn't lying.

A subpoena or warrant is a command. Receiving it and not obeying the command fully is a crime.

> It says there was one occasion where the subpoena had both Micfo and a channel partners' info on

No, it says a warrant was addressed to Micfo but received by Micfo employees at the “Channel Partner”. It does not say it has both companies info on it. Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal.

> Regardless, it's not an act "in furtherance of a crime" - the crime was committed at the point they obtained the IP addresses.

If the intent was to preserve the illusion of the distinct identity of the channel partners tonorent discovery of the fraud, it absolutely was an act in furtherance of the crime, and a knowing participant (that is, knowing of the purpose, not just the act itself) in it would, even if they had no other connection to the concealed crime, be an accessory after the fact.

Post reply on HN