4 ms·

>At best it says they had customers that broke the law. Did you see the part at the top where the CEO admitted to being all of those "customers"? They were pl

>At best it says they had customers that broke the law. Did you see the part at the top where the CEO admitted to being all of those "customers"? They were playing a shell game, and while this guy didn't do the criminal activities he definitely was working for the "legitimate front end" of a larger criminal organization.

ikeboy 7y ago
I read the entire post. Can you please quote the part you're referring to?
- ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
  "Within a week I was convinced Micfo encompassed more than just Micfo, but a handful of shell companies: This was later proved to be true when the CEO(Amir), admitted in the ARIN(American Registry for Internet Numbers) trial, he was really behind these entities."
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    As far as I can tell, those shell companies were to get additional IP addresses out of ARIN. It's not been alleged that they were customers of Micfo running spamming etc services, by anyone except you.
    - ajross 7y ago
      And the author. But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case. It's true that it alleges other stuff. That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        The author does not allege that. >But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case. Now you're misreading both OP and the response to my comment. ghostbrainalpha claimed that the OP says the CEO was the same as the customers that were allegedly committing crimes like spamming. The OP does not say this. >That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration. OP never mentions this as one of the crimes he's listing. He lists: 1. Mishandling of warrants 2. Child endangerment 3. Enabling spamming 4. Enabling ToS violations None of the things OP says are crimes are actually illegal, and none of them were at issue during the trial. That's what I pointed out.
        ajross 7y ago
        I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. The core allegation in the Micfo case is that the company fraudulently obtained 800k IP addresses from ARIN using fake companies. The author of this post corroborates handling large quantities of the the PTR record changes for these companies in exactly the manner described at trial. I mean, this is quite clearly related behavior. And yet you're all like "I can't believe anyone thinks this is related!" based on the fact that some other stuff alleged (which seems reasonably credible to me, and also plausibly illegal if you infer some context) wasn't part of the trial. But... so what? (Also: I don't understand why you're saying Child Endangerment isn't "actually illegal", it's literally a term of art in the field used in statutes all across the US! Obviously that's not proof of a crime here, but... no, you're wrong, "child endangerment" is an actual crime.)
        ikeboy 7y ago
        >The core allegation in the Micfo case is that the company fraudulently obtained 800k IP addresses from ARIN using fake companies. The author of this post corroborates handling large quantities of the the PTR record changes for these companies in exactly the manner described at trial. What? He says it was done for customers. Not for shell companies. >And yet you're all like "I can't believe anyone thinks this is related!" based on the fact that some other stuff alleged (which seems reasonably credible to me, and also plausibly illegal if you infer some context) wasn't part of the trial. But... so what? My main point is that nothing alleged in OP is actually illegal. OP implying otherwise is just ignorant of the law. Unethical, perhaps, although I'd defend at least some of the stuff described. The fact that it mentions the trial and mentions the (legal) practice of having multiple shell companies doesn't change anything. They weren't charged with having shell companies, but with using those companies to commit fraud. OP mentions none of that fraud. >I don't understand why you're saying Child Endangerment isn't "actually illegal", it's literally a term of art in the field used in statutes all across the US! Obviously that's not proof of a crime here, but... no, you're wrong, "child endangerment" is an actual crime. I'm saying the actions alleged in OP are not illegal, including the actions described in the child endangerment section.
busterarm 7y ago
Even if you take the OP at face value, they're an unreliable narrator at best. They have questionable character and moral standards by their own admission. That's before even considering the effects of their mental illness. I would never hire this "perpetually unemployed" person. Everything they say points to something being off.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- saber6 7y ago
  Flipside: This criminal enterprise spotted those same exact attributes, but the mitigating factor was technical competence and submissiveness. And if it came to be where they thought it would never end up (the situation today), someone would discredit them as crazy, given their background.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    Absolutely they did. I'm not discounting OP's story, I'm basically suggesting exactly what you're saying. I've seen a similar scenario play out before with another spammer and the kind of people he hired.
    - saber6 7y ago
      Gotcha. I misunderstood - I thought you were saying they were crazy and not to believe them etc.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
So 1%'ers can use shell companies to get what they want, but ordinary corporations can't use their free speech rights to spend money for the same?

ikeboy 7y ago

I read the entire post. Can you please quote the part you're referring to?

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
"Within a week I was convinced Micfo encompassed more than just Micfo, but a handful of shell companies: This was later proved to be true when the CEO(Amir), admitted in the ARIN(American Registry for Internet Numbers) trial, he was really behind these entities."
- ikeboy 7y ago
  As far as I can tell, those shell companies were to get additional IP addresses out of ARIN. It's not been alleged that they were customers of Micfo running spamming etc services, by anyone except you.
  - ajross 7y ago
    And the author. But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case. It's true that it alleges other stuff. That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      The author does not allege that. >But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case. Now you're misreading both OP and the response to my comment. ghostbrainalpha claimed that the OP says the CEO was the same as the customers that were allegedly committing crimes like spamming. The OP does not say this. >That doesn't make the IP fraud point somehow not corroboration. OP never mentions this as one of the crimes he's listing. He lists: 1. Mishandling of warrants 2. Child endangerment 3. Enabling spamming 4. Enabling ToS violations None of the things OP says are crimes are actually illegal, and none of them were at issue during the trial. That's what I pointed out.
      - ajross 7y ago
        I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. The core allegation in the Micfo case is that the company fraudulently obtained 800k IP addresses from ARIN using fake companies. The author of this post corroborates handling large quantities of the the PTR record changes for these companies in exactly the manner described at trial. I mean, this is quite clearly related behavior. And yet you're all like "I can't believe anyone thinks this is related!" based on the fact that some other stuff alleged (which seems reasonably credible to me, and also plausibly illegal if you infer some context) wasn't part of the trial. But... so what? (Also: I don't understand why you're saying Child Endangerment isn't "actually illegal", it's literally a term of art in the field used in statutes all across the US! Obviously that's not proof of a crime here, but... no, you're wrong, "child endangerment" is an actual crime.)
        ikeboy 7y ago
        >The core allegation in the Micfo case is that the company fraudulently obtained 800k IP addresses from ARIN using fake companies. The author of this post corroborates handling large quantities of the the PTR record changes for these companies in exactly the manner described at trial. What? He says it was done for customers. Not for shell companies. >And yet you're all like "I can't believe anyone thinks this is related!" based on the fact that some other stuff alleged (which seems reasonably credible to me, and also plausibly illegal if you infer some context) wasn't part of the trial. But... so what? My main point is that nothing alleged in OP is actually illegal. OP implying otherwise is just ignorant of the law. Unethical, perhaps, although I'd defend at least some of the stuff described. The fact that it mentions the trial and mentions the (legal) practice of having multiple shell companies doesn't change anything. They weren't charged with having shell companies, but with using those companies to commit fraud. OP mentions none of that fraud. >I don't understand why you're saying Child Endangerment isn't "actually illegal", it's literally a term of art in the field used in statutes all across the US! Obviously that's not proof of a crime here, but... no, you're wrong, "child endangerment" is an actual crime. I'm saying the actions alleged in OP are not illegal, including the actions described in the child endangerment section.

busterarm 7y ago

Even if you take the OP at face value, they're an unreliable narrator at best. They have questionable character and moral standards by their own admission. That's before even considering the effects of their mental illness. I would never hire this "perpetually unemployed" person. Everything they say points to something being off.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
saber6 7y ago
Flipside: This criminal enterprise spotted those same exact attributes, but the mitigating factor was technical competence and submissiveness. And if it came to be where they thought it would never end up (the situation today), someone would discredit them as crazy, given their background.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Absolutely they did. I'm not discounting OP's story, I'm basically suggesting exactly what you're saying. I've seen a similar scenario play out before with another spammer and the kind of people he hired.
  - saber6 7y ago
    Gotcha. I misunderstood - I thought you were saying they were crazy and not to believe them etc.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

So 1%'ers can use shell companies to get what they want, but ordinary corporations can't use their free speech rights to spend money for the same?