Assume for a moment, that he had stolen money from American Paypal accounts through phishing. Does the argument still make sense? I think is does not. The ar

Assume for a moment, that he had stolen money from American Paypal accounts through phishing. Does the argument still make sense? I think is does not. The argument is visceral, nothing more. She makes a straw man argument about '.com' and '.net' that is completely irrelevant, but attracts the pitchforks and fools. How does the original comment have anything to do with jurisdiction?