Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ikeboy 2311 days ago
I have no relationship to any of the entities involved. I'm just pointing out how clueless OP is.

And I was somewhat taken aback at how much pushback I got based on people completely misreading the article. It's one thing to disagree with me over what exactly is legal, it's another to start asserting that the company itself was running spamming services in the absence of any evidence. That surprised me. The government hasn't asserted it, the OP doesn't assert it, I can't find that claim anywhere but this thread.
1 comments
saber6 2311 days ago
This entity was a known spam shop. It took a while but someone finally put together a model showing the (what were thought to be) hidden relationships.

Don’t defend fraud artists dude.

link
ikeboy 2311 days ago
I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims.

Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not.

Also, OP didn't "put together a model" exposing hidden relationships. Every company they named was already in the indictment from last May.

link
saber6 2311 days ago
You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.
link
ikeboy 2311 days ago
No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic.

You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Also, I'm not defending the fraud, but the (legality) of the parts of this that aren't fraudulent. I understand that you believe it's ok to smear anyone as long as they've done something else you dislike. I disagree.

link
saber6 2311 days ago
> You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Ok chief. I'll wait to see the outcome of the legal case. That has 10000x more weight than a random internet commenter that appears to be continually injecting FUD.

Also, just incase you missed my prior comment: Don't defend fraud artists.

link
ikeboy 2311 days ago
If and when they get sued and found guilty of spamming or improper handling of subpoenas, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

Just in case you missed all my previous comments: lying is bad regardless of the target.

link