The pirate ponzi fiasco - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: ?? on ??

Irrelevant. International criminals can have warrants waiting for them if they ever choose to enter the country, and if you are in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, depending on the severity of those emails, you won't have to choose.

If you're in Canada, you're hosed (seewhatIdidthere?) as US courts will happily entertain criminal and civil cases against Canucks.

US courts don't really care about jurisdiction, especially if there is racketeering or conspiracy involved.

Quote from: reeses on April 02, 2012, 11:55:51 AM

I love Internet lawyers. Especially ones who make up laws in their heads.

(seewhatIdidthere?)

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: imsaguy on August 30, 2012, 09:30:46 AM

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 09:28:37 AM

Monitoring and moderating has not resulted in actual liability in any case, even though the law firm circulars caution against doing too much. The safe harbor is actually quite large unless he's actually contributed toward the content. That doesn't happen by removing posts and banning scammers. A contrary rule would harm the industry, so any site operator sued on such a flimsy bases will receive top-notch industrial support. That ain't happening here, Mr. Internet Lawyer, your threats notwithstanding.

Perhaps, but Theymos has already admitting to participating in the 'scheme'. So now he's just not a spectator, he has/had an active role in it.

I agree there could be a colorable claim for that. Such a claim could be maintained whether or not he allegedly waived Sec. 230 safe harbor protection by monitoring the PMs of scammers (hint: he didn't).

Silly talk about CDA Sec. 230 just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.

IANAL nor do I fake to be.

Frankie

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: imsaguy on August 30, 2012, 09:30:46 AM

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 09:28:37 AM

Monitoring and moderating has not resulted in actual liability in any case, even though the law firm circulars caution against doing too much. The safe harbor is actually quite large unless he's actually contributed toward the content. That doesn't happen by removing posts and banning scammers. A contrary rule would harm the industry, so any site operator sued on such a flimsy bases will receive top-notch industrial support. That ain't happening here, Mr. Internet Lawyer, your threats notwithstanding.

Perhaps, but Theymos has already admitting to participating in the 'scheme'. So now he's just not a spectator, he has/had an active role in it.

I agree there could be a colorable claim for that. Such a claim could be maintained whether or not he allegedly waived Sec. 230 safe harbor protection by monitoring the PMs of scammers (hint: he didn't).

Silly talk about CDA Sec. 230 just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: cedivad on August 30, 2012, 09:41:47 AM

Internet and law has always been a pain. You have to comply with every single law in every single country that your website is accessible from, and, let me say it, it won't happen.

And I hate all of this Americanism.

this is an american site.

If nothing else, its a .org which does end up pushing certain legalities on it.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

Internet and law has always been a pain. You have to comply with every single law in every single country that your website is accessible from, and, let me say it, it won't happen.

And I hate all of this Americanism.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 09:28:37 AM

Monitoring and moderating has not resulted in actual liability in any case, even though the law firm circulars caution against doing too much. The safe harbor is actually quite large unless he's actually contributed toward the content. That doesn't happen by removing posts and banning scammers. A contrary rule would harm the industry, so any site operator sued on such a flimsy bases will receive top-notch industrial support. That ain't happening here, Mr. Internet Lawyer, your threats notwithstanding.

Perhaps, but Theymos has already admitting to participating in the 'scheme'. So now he's just not a spectator, he has/had an active role in it.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: kmettke on August 30, 2012, 09:26:08 AM

well a complete backup would secure and maybe dispose to investigating people pm's and entries which are not relevant to this... so i think he needs to sort out... but actually i gonna be checking our laws in detail on that....

How about actually waiting until a subpoena happens before going and filtering?

Frankie

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 07:32:03 AM

It's actually very difficult to waive protection of Sec. 230 of the CDA unless the management actually contributes the content. For example, even if you intentionally disseminate an email you know to be false and probably libelous, you're OK as long as someone else wrote it (i.e. it was another "information content provider").

Precisely my point. §230 protects carriers who do not moderate or monitor content. Once you start contributing, you're boned.

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 07:32:03 AM

Deleting spam and scams would almost certainly not invoke the paradoxical wrath of the good Samaritan duty. What would expose thymos to liability is not investigating some scams while failing to shut down others (see Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 830 (2002)), but contributing to tortious speech by, for example, writing prose or headings for the scam. Cf. Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005) Maybe he did that somewhere else, but checking his SQL queries sure doesn't cut it, Mr. internet lawyer.

Theymos did not mention his location. Given that my expertise is in international and IP law, I am very well aware of the implications of both common carrier status and the various definitions of good samaritan laws in different jurisdictions (and that they do not exist everywhere). Theymos has admitted that he fucked up both of them.

Nice googling, even if it took you hours. Maybe you can save up for the monstrosity that is gems.

Monitoring and moderating has not resulted in actual liability in any case, even though the law firm circulars caution against doing too much. The safe harbor is actually quite large unless he's actually contributed toward the content. That doesn't happen by removing posts and banning scammers. A contrary rule would harm the industry, so any site operator sued on such a flimsy bases will receive top-notch industrial support. That ain't happening here, Mr. Internet Lawyer, your threats notwithstanding.

kmettke

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

well a complete backup would secure and maybe dispose to investigating people pm's and entries which are not relevant to this... so i think he needs to sort out... but actually i gonna be checking our laws in detail on that....

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: kmettke on August 30, 2012, 09:09:20 AM

well since theymos was just securing evidence to a possible crime, he was right to check the pm's.. he is in charge of this forum i believe,so he is responsible that if somebody makes criminal activities around here, that there has to be a possibilty to save the evidence... (at least in my country in europe he would be required to do so) which he checked.. so no point of him overreading the pm's... if u wanna communicate in silence, use encryption and most important, private communication channels...

cheers

this mess is funny

Wouldn't a db backup do just as much to 'secure' evidence. Pretty sure reading/scanning messages isn't required.

kmettke

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

well since theymos was just securing evidence to a possible crime, he was right to check the pm's.. he is in charge of this forum i believe,so he is responsible that if somebody makes criminal activities around here, that there has to be a possibilty to save the evidence... (at least in my country in europe he would be required to do so) which he checked.. so no point of him overreading the pm's... if u wanna communicate in silence, use encryption and most important, private communication channels...

cheers

this mess is funny

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: Frankie on August 30, 2012, 07:32:03 AM

Mr. internet lawyer.

I can assure you, he's not an internet lawyer. Let's not get into personal name calling. You know as well as I do that if it goes legal, it will get messy for a bunch of people, regardless of how tenuous of a relationship they might seem to have.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: ribuck on August 30, 2012, 05:51:01 AM

Couldn't we just encourage Pirate to have sex with some women in Sweden, then let things run their course?

Frankie

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

You are now responsible for maintaining and monitoring criminal or tortious activity on the forum. This post is sufficient for a court to reject any claims of protections based on USC § 230¹. Maged and you are in a position to be named codefendants with pirate as accessories and possible other charges due to your stated status as intermediaries. Given that it can be shown that you acted on this information by participating in the "betting" and the inducements to start pass-throughs, you may want to lawyer up.

Not a smart move. Keep in mind that deleting your posts or backups at this point will compound your potential trouble.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

It's actually very difficult to waive protection of Sec. 230 of the CDA unless the management actually contributes the content. For example, even if you intentionally disseminate an email you know to be false and probably libelous, you're OK as long as someone else wrote it (i.e. it was another "information content provider").

Deleting spam and scams would almost certainly not invoke the paradoxical wrath of the good Samaritan duty. What would expose thymos to liability is not investigating some scams while failing to shut down others (see Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 830 (2002)), but contributing to tortious speech by, for example, writing prose or headings for the scam. Cf. Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005) Maybe he did that somewhere else, but checking his SQL queries sure doesn't cut it, Mr. internet lawyer.

zyk

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 101

Quote from: theymos on August 30, 2012, 01:05:00 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

In many places it is illegal to do what you are doing with out a warrant and many other places highly illegal to make private messages public.

There are millions of laws. I'm probably breaking dozens right now somehow. I'm not going to let these laws stop me from doing what's best. As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure what the best course of action is with the Pirate case -- I'll decide this later after some public discussion.

At least every user has to be made aware ( or better asked before ), when you are reading his posts, independent of the justification!!!

If your access is declined, then you should search for public discussion to have a just case which backs the intrusion.

We really need to be attentive now not to loose common sense in our bitcoin community and keep rules equal to all of us !

Thanks for consideration

Zyk

Frankie

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: bigasic on August 30, 2012, 01:22:53 AM

I believe that when a ponzi is detected, they will actually try to collect money from those that made more than their initial investment.. This will be very very difficult to prove, especially with bitcoin.. I would think that a lot of pass through operators are going to get sued. (Granted, I don't know how many of them let their true identity be known.)

Several shills bragged about gambling on house money. That's a place to start.

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1060

Couldn't we just encourage Pirate to have sex with some women in Sweden, then let things run their course?

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: ?? on ??

Theymos do you mind my posting (making public) the few PM's we shared on the topic?

Please do. I've been getting annoyed with you constantly saying that I asked you to do it as a favor. I suggested it.

Quote from: theymos on May 20, 2012, 04:12:42 AM

It'd be cool if you or someone else with a BS&T account created a GLBSE asset that's more pure/direct than PPT. You could offer 6.5% weekly interest and keep the remaining interest as a fee.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: theymos on August 28, 2012, 11:41:05 PM

BTW, the forum has lots of good IP addresses logged for pirateat40 (he never used Tor) and 4077 PMs to/from him. This should help the investigation. I'd prefer to release this stuff privately to police, though I may release it publicly in a few months if no police officers contact me about it.

Does the forum DB archive deleted PMs from a User's Inbox ?

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bitlane on August 30, 2012, 03:37:58 AM

Did you claim your steak dinner under 'capitol gains' on your income tax ?

If so, please forward me the amount, as I need to claim that same amount as a LOSS.

thanks,
bitlane

A) Capital gains
B) My applicable corporate and personal fiscal calendars follow the annual calendar, so my detailed filings are not due until April 2013.
C) De minimus fringe benefit.
D) It was not a taxable investment event as no btc were exchanged, sold, or otherwise transferred.
E) Sucks to be you.

Thankfully my failed attempt at sarcasm wasn't wasted on you when I used the term 'capitol'.

Topic: The pirate ponzi fiasco - page 4. (Read 10215 times)