17 ms·

I have no ill will against Sunde, I have used Piratebay from the start. But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected.

by nabla9 6y ago

I have no ill will against Sunde, I have used Piratebay from the start. But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason. Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.

pantalaimon 6y ago
Any conviction in any country?
FpUser 6y ago
>"But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason." Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Then broaden rules to disrespect people and you're set.
bborud 6y ago
I'd have to agree. If you are going to become a trusted party in a context where people have to trust that you are willing to follow rules, even when you may disagree with them, then you will have a problem with someone whose identity is to not follow rules. I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so. One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Wait, if I crossed a street on red signal, I now have a stigma for life for not following rules?
  - bborud 6y ago
    No, but if you were someone infamous for ignoring traffic rules systematically over many years, because you thought that there should be no traffic rules, resulting in very visible legal wrangling, it would be optimistic of you to apply for a position as someone who administers driving tests.
    - gknoy 6y ago
      As long as you administer the tests properly, I shouldn't care whether you oppose the basis for those tests politically.
      - bborud 6y ago
        You make it sound as we’re talking about someone who merely holds an opinion. Not someone who acts on those opinions. That’s a bit disingenuous.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      You extended to rules in general, not some specific rules.
hvdijk 6y ago
They don't have "that" box in the application (whether you have a conviction). They have a different box in the application (whether you have a conviction for fraud or similar) that according to the story, ICANN agree Sunde did not need to check.
mrweasel 6y ago
He has been punished for his wrong doing, which had nothing to do with DNS. The least ICANN could do it tell Sunde exactly what they are affaird he’ll do to misuse an accreditation. Some one with an accreditation sold Sunde and team piratebay.org, so they can’t be worried that he’ll register a ton of pirate domains, he can easily get those elsewhere. People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
- nabla9 6y ago
  > People shouldn’t be punished for life, You don't want to allow convicted people operate domain registrars. You don't want to give banking license to a convicted felon. It's very common practice to deny convicted people access to positions that require some amount of trust for the rest of their life.
  - hvdijk 6y ago
    In the country I grew up in, the Netherlands, not only is that not common practice, it cannot happen at all. What we have is people can ask the Ministry of Justice for a "Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag (VOG)", a declaration by the ministerial department that there are no relevant convictions that would get in the way of the job or role they are applying for. If you have no convictions, you get your VOG. If you have convictions but they are not relevant to the job or role you are applying for, you get the exact same VOG that you would if you have no convictions, so that there is no way for employers to know the difference. Your employer is not allowed to ask you directly about a criminal history (at least not in a job interview), they are only allowed to ask for a VOG. Yes, that means you can get a banking license with a criminal history, if the Ministry has decided that that criminal history is irrelevant. With a conviction for fraud, you won't get that license. With a conviction for assault, you might. That seems like a much fairer system to me and I wish more countries would adopt it.
    - duckfang 6y ago
      I think the system in the Netherlands uses a lot more secrecy surrounding the courts systems. In those cases, secrecy is default.. SO having a bureaucratic branch dedicated to determining relevant convictions makes sense. In the USA, came from the UK which was known (in the 1700's) for having secret trials, secret evidence, secret witnesses, and secret punishments. So the founders built this system to be transparent in many ways. And that meant public recording of crimes. Fast forward a few hundred years, and this computing thing takes off, and records everywhere are put in a system and easily searchable. Having the secret system in place in the Netherlands and the transparent/easily searchable system in the USA don't really mix all to well. (Admittedly, much of the courts systems are still opaque as mud, but some important parts are constitutional - like seeing/questioning witnesses, jury of your peers, etc)
input_sh 6y ago
That box said fraud or similar in the last 10 years. Even if you agree that his TPB charges fit the "and similar" part, he wasn't charged with anything in the last decade, since 2008 is over 10 years ago.
- annazinonos 6y ago
  https://anna-zinonos-bullied.blogspot.com/ https://anna-zinonos-bullied.blogspot.com/
  - annazinonos 6y ago
    Thank you for the downvotes. it proves you care a lot to protect the sanctity status of a professional manipulator (to me, to you he can be Jesus). Please when you downvote take the time to explain why you downvoted but dont insutl me or my gender or my country. If it unrelated to misogyny and hate for non-whites, then fee freel to explain exactly why you are downvoting me. I really want to know and engage in convo if your downvoting is made not out of political allegiance and blind following of the politics of Mr Kolmisopi but because as free thinking individuals you have a logical argument to downvote me. Thank you for the attention thus far.
ineptech 6y ago
Some of the existing board members tried to sell the .org registry to speculators for a quick buck. That seems worse.
honkycat 6y ago
How far into the future should a criminal be an outcast? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?
Zak 6y ago
As I understood the article, the application asks about convictions for fraud. Sunde was convicted of criminal copyright infringement, which is not fraud nor substantially similar. A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.
oscargrouch 6y ago
Sorry to say that, but this is 'ur-fascism' at its best. The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists). Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them. You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated. Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?) BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden. Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.
Griffinsauce 6y ago
Punishing people for having been punished is not "completely fair". It's irrational, vindictive and counter productive. Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.

by nabla9 6y ago

pantalaimon 6y ago

Any conviction in any country?

FpUser 6y ago

>"But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason." Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Then broaden rules to disrespect people and you're set.

bborud 6y ago

I'd have to agree. If you are going to become a trusted party in a context where people have to trust that you are willing to follow rules, even when you may disagree with them, then you will have a problem with someone whose identity is to not follow rules. I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so. One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Wait, if I crossed a street on red signal, I now have a stigma for life for not following rules?
- bborud 6y ago
  No, but if you were someone infamous for ignoring traffic rules systematically over many years, because you thought that there should be no traffic rules, resulting in very visible legal wrangling, it would be optimistic of you to apply for a position as someone who administers driving tests.
  - gknoy 6y ago
    As long as you administer the tests properly, I shouldn't care whether you oppose the basis for those tests politically.
    - bborud 6y ago
      You make it sound as we’re talking about someone who merely holds an opinion. Not someone who acts on those opinions. That’s a bit disingenuous.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    You extended to rules in general, not some specific rules.

hvdijk 6y ago

They don't have "that" box in the application (whether you have a conviction). They have a different box in the application (whether you have a conviction for fraud or similar) that according to the story, ICANN agree Sunde did not need to check.

mrweasel 6y ago

He has been punished for his wrong doing, which had nothing to do with DNS. The least ICANN could do it tell Sunde exactly what they are affaird he’ll do to misuse an accreditation. Some one with an accreditation sold Sunde and team piratebay.org, so they can’t be worried that he’ll register a ton of pirate domains, he can easily get those elsewhere. People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.

nabla9 6y ago
> People shouldn’t be punished for life, You don't want to allow convicted people operate domain registrars. You don't want to give banking license to a convicted felon. It's very common practice to deny convicted people access to positions that require some amount of trust for the rest of their life.
- hvdijk 6y ago
  In the country I grew up in, the Netherlands, not only is that not common practice, it cannot happen at all. What we have is people can ask the Ministry of Justice for a "Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag (VOG)", a declaration by the ministerial department that there are no relevant convictions that would get in the way of the job or role they are applying for. If you have no convictions, you get your VOG. If you have convictions but they are not relevant to the job or role you are applying for, you get the exact same VOG that you would if you have no convictions, so that there is no way for employers to know the difference. Your employer is not allowed to ask you directly about a criminal history (at least not in a job interview), they are only allowed to ask for a VOG. Yes, that means you can get a banking license with a criminal history, if the Ministry has decided that that criminal history is irrelevant. With a conviction for fraud, you won't get that license. With a conviction for assault, you might. That seems like a much fairer system to me and I wish more countries would adopt it.
  - duckfang 6y ago
    I think the system in the Netherlands uses a lot more secrecy surrounding the courts systems. In those cases, secrecy is default.. SO having a bureaucratic branch dedicated to determining relevant convictions makes sense. In the USA, came from the UK which was known (in the 1700's) for having secret trials, secret evidence, secret witnesses, and secret punishments. So the founders built this system to be transparent in many ways. And that meant public recording of crimes. Fast forward a few hundred years, and this computing thing takes off, and records everywhere are put in a system and easily searchable. Having the secret system in place in the Netherlands and the transparent/easily searchable system in the USA don't really mix all to well. (Admittedly, much of the courts systems are still opaque as mud, but some important parts are constitutional - like seeing/questioning witnesses, jury of your peers, etc)

input_sh 6y ago

That box said fraud or similar in the last 10 years. Even if you agree that his TPB charges fit the "and similar" part, he wasn't charged with anything in the last decade, since 2008 is over 10 years ago.

annazinonos 6y ago
https://anna-zinonos-bullied.blogspot.com/ https://anna-zinonos-bullied.blogspot.com/
- annazinonos 6y ago
  Thank you for the downvotes. it proves you care a lot to protect the sanctity status of a professional manipulator (to me, to you he can be Jesus). Please when you downvote take the time to explain why you downvoted but dont insutl me or my gender or my country. If it unrelated to misogyny and hate for non-whites, then fee freel to explain exactly why you are downvoting me. I really want to know and engage in convo if your downvoting is made not out of political allegiance and blind following of the politics of Mr Kolmisopi but because as free thinking individuals you have a logical argument to downvote me. Thank you for the attention thus far.

ineptech 6y ago

Some of the existing board members tried to sell the .org registry to speculators for a quick buck. That seems worse.

honkycat 6y ago

How far into the future should a criminal be an outcast? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?

Zak 6y ago

As I understood the article, the application asks about convictions for fraud. Sunde was convicted of criminal copyright infringement, which is not fraud nor substantially similar. A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.

oscargrouch 6y ago

Sorry to say that, but this is 'ur-fascism' at its best. The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists). Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them. You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated. Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?) BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden. Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.

Griffinsauce 6y ago

Punishing people for having been punished is not "completely fair". It's irrational, vindictive and counter productive. Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.