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

Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#21

Post by merpnderp »

The government has been doing this for quite some time. Shake down a business, fine them, guide fines into politically allied advocacy groups. Nothing spells crapitalism like the government telling corporations how to spend their money and corporations making sure those in government stay there.

The biggest example is likely Bank of America's mortgage fines being guided into political advocacy groups with a $2 credit for every $1 donated. Relief for actual victims only gets a $1 credit for every $1. Harder to be more corrupt than that.

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#22

Post by textmode »

sverige wrote: post #13
textmode wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was also the first commercial ISP (UUNet), correct me if wrong.

According to Wikipedia, The World was the first commercial ISP in 1989. I do remember using MCIMail at a law firm around 1990-91 though, so they weren't far behind.

Looking at the USENIX entry at the bottom of that Wikipedia page, "Spike" states that it was Alternet (UUNet) that connected The World to the internet in 1990. Also in the Slashdot interview he admits in 1989 they still were not on the internet.

In 1989 the only internet connections I was aware of were via universities or government agencies. Maybe The World was offering copies of Usenet or mail forwarding prior to 1990, as were the people behind UUNet, but I would guess they must have first downloaded the bits from a university or government agency.

Can a company provide "internet service" before it is connected to the internet? :)

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#24

Post by stupang »

themartorana wrote: post #9
Dylan16807 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I'll copy a very impactful line that's only in that story: > FedEx says it repeatedly asked the government to supply a list of shippers it considered illicit so that it could cut off service, but that the government refused; the Department of Justice contends that circumstantial evidence should have been enough to alert the package shipment company.

Trying to get my head wrapped around this. Can't.

The lack of details in the new 'improved' link? I feel you.

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#25

Post by dang »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #4
dang wrote: post #2

Url changed from http://overlawyered.com/2016/06/justice-dept-case-fedex-coll... , which points to this.

Then I'll copy a very impactful line that's only in that story: > FedEx says it repeatedly asked the government to supply a list of shippers it considered illicit so that it could cut off service, but that the government refused; the Department of Justice contends that circumstantial evidence should have been enough to alert the package shipment company.

We definitely want the most substantive version of a story. That usually isn't found on advocacy sites, but perhaps this time it was? We rely on users to figure this out for us because it's impossible for us to study every article.

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#26

Post by pseingatl »

downandout wrote: post #8

Nothing surprises me with the government anymore. The DEA wanted to continue building a drug case, so they didn't give Fedex information that they would have used to immediately cutoff service to the suspects, which would have tipped them off that the Feds were onto them. That's certainly their right, but they can't then turn around and prosecute Fedex for not acting on information they never had. This was nothing mo…

Similarly, Kim Dotcom's Megaupload cooperated with the government and was even an FBI asset in investigations. All this was conveniently forgotten when they raided his home.

Re: Prosecutors Drop Drug Trafficking Case Against FedEx

#27

Post by avs733 »

HillRat wrote: post #7
avs733 wrote: post #3

From my memory and understanding, this reads similar in a lot of ways to the WorldCom anti-wiretapping stance and the resulting hyper-aggressive federal prosecution

You're thinking of Qwest's Nacchio and his insider-trading conviction. WorldCom was a few years earlier and an unambiguous case of massive financial fraud on the heels of Enron. Bernie and his cronies deserved every bit of what they got, and more besides.

Ah yes...thank you...wish I could correct that.
Post reply on HN