4 ms·

aiding and abetting Not a lawyer but I think that only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals and the selling points were to hide cr

aiding and abetting Not a lawyer but I think that only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals and the selling points were to hide criminal activity similar to some bullet-proof hosting solutions otherwise Akamai, Bunny, Cloudflare and many others would be seized as they have a myriad of criminals utilizing their network as well but I could be wrong. Was there solid evidence that this CDN was purpose built for criminal usage such as proof of intent?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit.
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit. I don't follow. I can brag about Akamai or Cloudflare being used for criminal activity and still use it myself or even promote it to others. That is a strong selling point in that if criminals can use it then it's less likely my crass meme sites might be taken down. Was the CDN he promoted only sold to criminals explicitly for criminal activity? e.g. not logging admin access, hiding identities of criminals, promoting the support of illegal content, etc... The difference in my eye is the intent to use for illegal means vs. the illegal usage of a generic tool as a by-product. Was he actively promoting illegal usage to the would-be clients? As for boasting about it to the FBI I would want to hear the actual dialogue. Media have been putting slants on details as they know crapping on DOGE is popular right now. In reference to intent an example would be if one hosts an anonymous forum or chan site and someone uploads illegal content they are protected from criminal prosecution assuming they quickly remove said content whereas if they host an anonymous forum or chan site and promote the sharing of illegal material then they are no longer protected.
  - danaris 2y ago
    > I can brag about Akamai or Cloudflare being used for criminal activity and still use it myself or even promote it to others. You're not running Akamai or Cloudflare.
    - LinuxBender 2y ago
      You're not running Akamai or Cloudflare. True, but I have used Akamai knowing full well it is used by criminals. Whether I am running or not is unrelated unless it is being promoted to criminals for crime. Intent is what matters here in my opinion. If it was purpose built for crime and/or I am promoting it to be used for criminal activity them I am complicit in the usage of said crimes. Was BigBalls promoting the CDN to potential clients for the use of criminal activity?
      - danaris 2y ago
        There is a material difference between "someone using it openly acknowledges it is being used by criminals" and "someone running it openly acknowledges it is being used by criminals". Is that difference enough to make it criminal? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But pretending the difference is meaningless is unhelpful.
        LinuxBender 2y ago
        Yeah I am not a lawyer either. I think it will be interesting to see where all of this lands. I appreciated the discussion and everyone's time. The thread was flagged so I must go get some chores done. Thankyou for the discussion.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Was the CDN he promoted only sold to criminals explicitly for criminal activity? Again, this is a nonsense test. I can’t get out of being a getaway driver for a bank robbery by claiming I once did a regular Uber. (I’m ignoring the irony of bending over backwards like this to exonerate a kid illegally mucking around in our agencies at the behest of our first felon President jailing folks without a trial or legal warrant.)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> only sticks if the CDN he managed was specifically built for criminals Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit.

LinuxBender 2y ago
Why? If he knew it was being used for crime sufficiently to let him brag about it to the FBI, he’s complicit. I don't follow. I can brag about Akamai or Cloudflare being used for criminal activity and still use it myself or even promote it to others. That is a strong selling point in that if criminals can use it then it's less likely my crass meme sites might be taken down. Was the CDN he promoted only sold to criminals explicitly for criminal activity? e.g. not logging admin access, hiding identities of criminals, promoting the support of illegal content, etc... The difference in my eye is the intent to use for illegal means vs. the illegal usage of a generic tool as a by-product. Was he actively promoting illegal usage to the would-be clients? As for boasting about it to the FBI I would want to hear the actual dialogue. Media have been putting slants on details as they know crapping on DOGE is popular right now. In reference to intent an example would be if one hosts an anonymous forum or chan site and someone uploads illegal content they are protected from criminal prosecution assuming they quickly remove said content whereas if they host an anonymous forum or chan site and promote the sharing of illegal material then they are no longer protected.
- danaris 2y ago
  > I can brag about Akamai or Cloudflare being used for criminal activity and still use it myself or even promote it to others. You're not running Akamai or Cloudflare.
  - LinuxBender 2y ago
    You're not running Akamai or Cloudflare. True, but I have used Akamai knowing full well it is used by criminals. Whether I am running or not is unrelated unless it is being promoted to criminals for crime. Intent is what matters here in my opinion. If it was purpose built for crime and/or I am promoting it to be used for criminal activity them I am complicit in the usage of said crimes. Was BigBalls promoting the CDN to potential clients for the use of criminal activity?
    - danaris 2y ago
      There is a material difference between "someone using it openly acknowledges it is being used by criminals" and "someone running it openly acknowledges it is being used by criminals". Is that difference enough to make it criminal? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But pretending the difference is meaningless is unhelpful.
      - LinuxBender 2y ago
        Yeah I am not a lawyer either. I think it will be interesting to see where all of this lands. I appreciated the discussion and everyone's time. The thread was flagged so I must go get some chores done. Thankyou for the discussion.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Was the CDN he promoted only sold to criminals explicitly for criminal activity? Again, this is a nonsense test. I can’t get out of being a getaway driver for a bank robbery by claiming I once did a regular Uber. (I’m ignoring the irony of bending over backwards like this to exonerate a kid illegally mucking around in our agencies at the behest of our first felon President jailing folks without a trial or legal warrant.)