4 ms·

Note the journalistic bias - describing Kim Dotcom as "notorious".

by mckoss 11y ago

Dylan16807 11y ago
That sounds like a fair description to me, and I want him to win this case.
- josefresco 11y ago
  Notorious implies he did something bad. In this case, the definition of bad means different things to different people.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    He's already been previously convicted of doing bad things, so the description is just fine.
    - josefresco 11y ago
      "youthful foolishness".
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        Hardly.
DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
I've interviewed with him once for a job in his Munich based company DataProtect back in 2000 when his name was still Kim Schmitz. Back then it was unclear where his money came from (insider trading and before that credit card fraud) and the engineering community thought he was just that much of a successful and technically knowledgeable guy. I don't hold a grudge for not getting the job as a security engineer because the personal impression I got was more than shady and the following years proved that it good that I didn't. So "notorious" sounded right to me too.
- DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
  huh? what's with the downvote guys?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    A single downvote can be an anomaly (accidental tap, for example), best not to worry about.
  - newuser88273 11y ago
    You're downvoted because your comment implies that "just following orders" at companies with morally questionable business models might reflect back on the one taking orders. For more downvotes, try suggesting that working for an adware and spyware based company could (and should!) lower your social status, even if not yet in the eyes of other people working for adware and spyware giants. But with growing awareness in the wider population, the outcome is inevitable.
    - DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
      Interesting, so I could work for the NSA or CIA and still get all the street-cred with you guys? Sorry but this is exactly the reason why I'm running my own business since 18+ years and never looked back since. If being "sheep" is what this job is now all about please kill me now. EDIT: actually your comment is exactly what I despise because thinking like this makes you a non-free person. I'm sure people who worked for the Stasi or currently justify the actions of their employers (Google, Facebook and other FVEY collaborators) would exactly justify their existence with similar reasoning. Point being, if you feel that your employer does something shady it's up to you to change it. If this process makes you unemployable or an outcast in your current environment then I'd still have more respect for you serving me at McDonalds than doing what you do.

Note the journalistic bias - describing Kim Dotcom as "notorious".

by mckoss 11y ago

Note the journalistic bias - describing Kim Dotcom as "notorious".

Dylan16807 11y ago

That sounds like a fair description to me, and I want him to win this case.

josefresco 11y ago
Notorious implies he did something bad. In this case, the definition of bad means different things to different people.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  He's already been previously convicted of doing bad things, so the description is just fine.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    "youthful foolishness".
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      Hardly.

DyslexicAtheist 11y ago

I've interviewed with him once for a job in his Munich based company DataProtect back in 2000 when his name was still Kim Schmitz. Back then it was unclear where his money came from (insider trading and before that credit card fraud) and the engineering community thought he was just that much of a successful and technically knowledgeable guy. I don't hold a grudge for not getting the job as a security engineer because the personal impression I got was more than shady and the following years proved that it good that I didn't. So "notorious" sounded right to me too.

DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
huh? what's with the downvote guys?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  A single downvote can be an anomaly (accidental tap, for example), best not to worry about.
- newuser88273 11y ago
  You're downvoted because your comment implies that "just following orders" at companies with morally questionable business models might reflect back on the one taking orders. For more downvotes, try suggesting that working for an adware and spyware based company could (and should!) lower your social status, even if not yet in the eyes of other people working for adware and spyware giants. But with growing awareness in the wider population, the outcome is inevitable.
  - DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
    Interesting, so I could work for the NSA or CIA and still get all the street-cred with you guys? Sorry but this is exactly the reason why I'm running my own business since 18+ years and never looked back since. If being "sheep" is what this job is now all about please kill me now. EDIT: actually your comment is exactly what I despise because thinking like this makes you a non-free person. I'm sure people who worked for the Stasi or currently justify the actions of their employers (Google, Facebook and other FVEY collaborators) would exactly justify their existence with similar reasoning. Point being, if you feel that your employer does something shady it's up to you to change it. If this process makes you unemployable or an outcast in your current environment then I'd still have more respect for you serving me at McDonalds than doing what you do.