61–70 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody (in the us) is shipping people straight to prison on the basis of public admissions of guilt. You still shouldn't publicly admit to a crime.
Just pointing out how ridiculous some post on a forum being used as evidence sounds.
A recurring revenue opportunity for Reddit would be to forget about the old defender of online freedom image, and sell data. :) "How much is it worth to your case, to know who the commenters on this thread are?" "What would you pay to filter hiring candidates for ideology, troublemaker tendencies, or bedroom kinks that bother your conservative Chairman?" "Your own actuaries can tell you how much money this individual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the conversations went something like this: Film industry lawyer: Tell us everyone who pirated our movies. Frontier lawyer: We've told you everyone we know of. Film industry lawyer: What about those people on reddit bragging about getting away with it? Frontier lawyer: We don't have any way of knowing if those are actual customers, let alone if they're telling the truth. If you have a specific IP you want u…
I'm actually kind of surprised Reddit didn't just cooperate? As a company which frankly has been acting with particular contempt for users of late, how does Reddit profit from fighting this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be interesting to know if an admission to pirating content on Reddit is actually admissible. The problem here is tying the account to a real person. Technically anyone could be using that account, his daughter, brother, wife, etc., just like anyone could be behind the wheel of your car if it's used to commit a crime.
> Technically anyone could be using that account Not just the account but the internet service as well. Even if they get the IP addresses for the reddit posts, and they're Frontier IPs, it's still possible that the person who wrote the post submitted it/logged in/created their account over a loved one's home network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually kind of surprised Reddit didn't just cooperate? As a company which frankly has been acting with particular contempt for users of late, how does Reddit profit from fighting this?
On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate? There's no profit involved with procuring information for another for-profit entity that they have no business relationship with, and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data.
My thinking was, cooperating would mean they don't have to go to court, which costs money...
> and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data.
...I suppose that could potentially cancel out the savings. However, I would expect testifying to cost much less money than being sued!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI contacted me over a shitpost on Reddit using this exact process. Hilarious, but also very concerning.
Was there plausibly a threat in it? If it took the visit to realize that you're not very anonymous on the internet, you owe them for the lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody (in the us) is shipping people straight to prison on the basis of public admissions of guilt. You still shouldn't publicly admit to a crime.
Just pointing out how ridiculous some post on a forum being used as evidence sounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate? There's no profit involved with procuring information for another for-profit entity that they have no business relationship with, and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data.
> On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate? My thinking was, cooperating would mean they don't have to go to court, which costs money... > and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data. ...I suppose that could potentially cancel out the savings. However, I would expect testifying to cost much less money than being sued!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate? There's no profit involved with procuring information for another for-profit entity that they have no business relationship with, and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data.
> On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate? My thinking was, cooperating would mean they don't have to go to court, which costs money... > and then likely having to show up for some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of the data. ...I suppose that could potentially cancel out the savings. However, I would expect testifying to cost much less money than being sued!