3 ms·

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 Cloud

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.)
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  I can’t get out of being a getaway driver for a bank robbery by claiming I once did a regular Uber. Of course you can. If it can be proven your intent was to help the bank robbers then you are complicit in the crime. If criminals used your service and you were either unaware or afraid for your life then at worst you would be a victim.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If criminals used your service and you were either unaware or afraid for your life then at worst you would be a victim If you repeatedly found yourself in that situation, got paid for it each time, never reported it and bragged about it, no, you would be an accomplice. You would certainly claim to be a victim. (Everyone in Silicon Valley is a victim nowadays.) But that would be a poor defence, certainly against criminal investigation.
    - LinuxBender 2y ago
      I acknowledge that is a poor defense. That said, all the CDN operators know of criminals on their network but will not take them down until either the government orders them to or until the bad publicity around a site can not be ignored 8chan as an example. Some of them talk about this. They do not want to officially get into the business of policing their customers or they would be expected to by the judicial system. To your point about money I think that is also a factor but in a different way. If every CDN/DNS/Registrar held their customers to the standards of their AuP/ToS they would lose most of their customers. When you get a chance read your AuP/ToS on your CDN/DNS/Registrar/VPS provider. Even lewd content highly subjective is an account terminating offense. They do this so they do not get sued or the suit is dismissed when they have to terminate an account but if they enforced it strictly nobody would invest in them and they would have no customers. I think I will leave the topic here since the thread was flagged. It has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. I must go feed the critters now.

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.)

LinuxBender 2y ago
I can’t get out of being a getaway driver for a bank robbery by claiming I once did a regular Uber. Of course you can. If it can be proven your intent was to help the bank robbers then you are complicit in the crime. If criminals used your service and you were either unaware or afraid for your life then at worst you would be a victim.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If criminals used your service and you were either unaware or afraid for your life then at worst you would be a victim If you repeatedly found yourself in that situation, got paid for it each time, never reported it and bragged about it, no, you would be an accomplice. You would certainly claim to be a victim. (Everyone in Silicon Valley is a victim nowadays.) But that would be a poor defence, certainly against criminal investigation.
  - LinuxBender 2y ago
    I acknowledge that is a poor defense. That said, all the CDN operators know of criminals on their network but will not take them down until either the government orders them to or until the bad publicity around a site can not be ignored 8chan as an example. Some of them talk about this. They do not want to officially get into the business of policing their customers or they would be expected to by the judicial system. To your point about money I think that is also a factor but in a different way. If every CDN/DNS/Registrar held their customers to the standards of their AuP/ToS they would lose most of their customers. When you get a chance read your AuP/ToS on your CDN/DNS/Registrar/VPS provider. Even lewd content highly subjective is an account terminating offense. They do this so they do not get sued or the suit is dismissed when they have to terminate an account but if they enforced it strictly nobody would invest in them and they would have no customers. I think I will leave the topic here since the thread was flagged. It has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. I must go feed the critters now.