dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
555
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Devil's advocate

If let someone sell drugs out of my house even though I'm not selling the drugs I can still be in trouble.

delusion ftl
@tmodns.net

delusion ftl

Anon

For selling drugs?
If you are the landlord and your tenant is selling drugs you get in trouble?
If your roommate in your apartment is selling drugs you get in trouble?
If your neighbor comes over and uses your internet connection to stalk or harass you get in trouble? (civil vs criminal)

Um nope. Not unless you are a willing accomplice, which just being the owner of the home does not show.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
If someone gets caught selling drugs in Macy's, does that make the CEO of Federated Dept Stores a drug dealer?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to delusion ftl

Member

to delusion ftl
said by delusion ftl :

For selling drugs?
If you are the landlord and your tenant is selling drugs you get in trouble?

If you know and you just don't give a shit. yes.

If your roommate in your apartment is selling drugs you get in trouble?

If the cops do a raid and you're there you're going to jail. yes.

If your neighbor comes over and uses your internet connection to stalk or harass you get in trouble? (civil vs criminal)

Once again if you know but don't give a shit, yes.

Um nope. Not unless you are a willing accomplice, which just being the owner of the home does not show.

Well in MY home I'm in charge so yeah I make sure nothing goes on. If something does then someone's day is going to be fucking bad. I guess in today's society being lazy is an excuse. "Oh you can't sue me I had no idea my teen-age son was illegally downloading gigabytes of porn every day. How could I have possibly known that?"
88615298

88615298 (banned) to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

If someone gets caught selling drugs in Macy's, does that make the CEO of Federated Dept Stores a drug dealer?

Really? more hyperbole please. So a CEO hundreds if not 1000s miles away = homeowner unaware of what other people in his home does?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

1 recommendation

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Well, hyperbole gets hyperbole... do you really equate letting someone use your Internet connection to selling drugs? If you are already so biased, how can anyone have a legitimate conversation with you?

I assume since you had a problem with the distance from the crime then the store manager for that particular Macy's must be a drug dealer?

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by CXM_Splicer:

If someone gets caught selling drugs in Macy's, does that make the CEO of Federated Dept Stores a drug dealer?

Really? more hyperbole please. So a CEO hundreds if not 1000s miles away = homeowner unaware of what other people in his home does?

So, any time someone uses a pay phone to commit a crime like extortion or bomb threats, the CEO of the company which owns the communication pathway and makes it available to anyone, for a profit, should be arrested as an accomplice? He KNOWS that pay phones are used to commit many crimes, yet because he wishes to make a profit he still makes them anonymously available. Same logic the porn copyright trolls are using.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I wish it was that easy. The problem is getting the cops to give a shit and do something.

DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium Member
join:2000-05-14
Hedgesville, WV
·StarLink
·HughesNet

DataDoc to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

Well in MY home I'm in charge so yeah I make sure nothing goes on. If something does then someone's day is going to be fucking bad. I guess in today's society being lazy is an excuse. "Oh you can't sue me I had no idea my teen-age son was illegally downloading gigabytes of porn every day. How could I have possibly known that?"

You're totally forgetting that your IP may be faked by someone. You have no control over that.

AnonPerson
join:2000-08-26
Lexington, KY

AnonPerson to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
You need to face it, at this point your argument is garbage. If my grandmother has her router security set to WEP, and her neighbor easily cracks the password then uses her internet for piracy, is she really a criminal?

If my same grandmother who knows nothing about technology leaves her router's wireless wide open, then her neighbor uses her wireless to download music. Is she really a criminal?

According to what you've stated, she is practically dealing meth from her living room. Come on, do you proof-read the things you type?

In this particular situation she isn't *allowing* anybody to use her router. They just are. No different than if you were on vacation and a drug dealer broke into your house and sold drugs out of your living room.

Acuity
join:2002-06-22
Londonderry, NH

1 edit

Acuity to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
If someone is selling drugs out of your house, there is reason for suspicion. You're there to see what's going on. Most likely you also know what's going on.

There are numerous legitimate reasons why someone would need to borrow your internet connection. Their connection could be down, they might not be able to afford it due to economic reasons, someone not from the area trying to look up a map, etc. Most of said reasons are legit in the eyes of the law (but not necessarily your ISP).

If someone asks to borrow your phone to make a quick call, you don't assume that they're communicating threats or sending inappropriate material to a minor. You assume it's important and try to help a fellow citizen out. The same can be said for someone in need for borrowing your internet access. What if it's not wireless a neighbor needs to borrow your computer to look something up? Do you just kick them out due to liability concerns or spy over their shoulder? Good Samaritan laws should definitely apply.

All WiFi hotspot businesses should come to the defense of this person. If a business can be held liable for content viewed/downloaded, we'll most likely see all WiFi hotspot locations go away. Goodbye Starbucks. I will miss you.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to 88615298

MVM

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

If let someone sell drugs out of my house even though I'm not selling the drugs I can still be in trouble.

If you specifically, and knowingly allow: Probably.

If someone is doing it out of your sight and knowledge? Investigated, yes, to determine if you are complicit (actively, or passively). But, absent evidence of complicancy, no trouble at all.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to DataDoc

Premium Member

to DataDoc
He won't answer that question. It blows a hole big enough for a train to pass through in his nobody will get accused unless they are guilty attitude.

I can fake UDP packets right now on my Backtrack distro.
DataRiker

1 edit

DataRiker to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

Well, hyperbole gets hyperbole... do you really equate letting someone use your Internet connection to selling drugs? If you are already so biased, how can anyone have a legitimate conversation with you?

I assume since you had a problem with the distance from the crime then the store manager for that particular Macy's must be a drug dealer?

+1

Spot on.

I guess he believes in guilt by proximity ( LOL )

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

said by DataRiker:

I guess he believes in guilt by proximity ( LOL )

No, Guilt by accusation by a Supreme Being (a Corporation). If your IP was spoofed you could be 1000 miles away and STILL be guilty in his mind.
Expand your moderator at work
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Devil's advocate

said by CXM_Splicer:

Well, hyperbole gets hyperbole... do you really equate letting someone use your Internet connection to selling drugs? If you are already so biased, how can anyone have a legitimate conversation with you?

How can I be biased when I've clearly stated I think 6 strikes and laws like it are completely stupid and utterly useless and pointless.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De ··· advocate

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to AnonPerson

Member

to AnonPerson
said by AnonPerson:

You need to face it, at this point your argument is garbage. If my grandmother has her router security set to WEP, and her neighbor easily cracks the password then uses her internet for piracy, is she really a criminal?

WEP might as well use nothing. Anyways who said anything about criminal? If you are being taken into court over copyright infringement that's CIVIL case. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics before posting.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

said by 88615298:

If let someone sell drugs out of my house even though I'm not selling the drugs I can still be in trouble.

If you specifically, and knowingly allow: Probably.

If someone is doing it out of your sight and knowledge? Investigated, yes, to determine if you are complicit (actively, or passively). But, absent evidence of complicancy, no trouble at all.

basically what I said. Thanks for agreeing. Unlike the others too caught up in hate to see anything logical.
jeffreydean1
join:2010-05-31

1 recommendation

jeffreydean1 to Anon

Member

to Anon
Holy hyperbole Batman!
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
Point taken... but your bias-ness is not in your devils advocate point of view, it is in your hyperbole. Dealing drugs?? Rape?? Come on now...

Your agreement with NormanS is also a little confusing. You are agreeing to how copyright infringement is handled now; if you let someone use your Internet connection knowing they are infringing, you are guilty of contributory infringement. If they use it without your knowledge, you aren't guilty of anything. That is not really a Devil's advocate position.

You also, unfortunately, missed my actual argument: Would your Devil's advocate position then be that the leaders and/or management of a corporation should be held liable for things that go on within their organizations without their knowledge?

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

basically what I said. Thanks for agreeing. Unlike the others too caught up in hate to see anything logical.

There is no hate involved, although accusing people of being hate mongers seems to be the latest trendy tactic when others don't agree with your viewpoint.

Pointing at an IP address and screaming INFRINGER is an absurd argument. There are many reasons that an address holder who has NOTHING to do with infringing has his/her IP show up in the flawed techniques the entertainment industry wants to use as a standard. We cannot accept that, we want at least a reasonable amount of proof. If they want the money, they simply must EARN it and prove their case which means going MUCH further than merely identifying an IP address. If they want to remain stupid, lazy, and unskilled they should be sent packing.

AnonPerson
join:2000-08-26
Lexington, KY

AnonPerson to 88615298

Member

to 88615298

said by 88615298 See Profile
WEP might as well use nothing. Anyways who said anything about criminal? If you are being taken into court over copyright infringement that's CIVIL case. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics before posting.

You made the correlation between somebody who's internet get unknowingly used, and somebody that knowingly allows a drug dealer to sell out of their house. The ladder clearly being a criminal act. So you are the one that mentioned criminal actions, which is why I then mentioned it. Before you get overly hostile with people on an internet forum, take the time to re-read your previous posts so you can remember what you typed to other people. There is no reason to be so negative.

And yes, WEP is basically nothing. Which is clearly why I mentioned it. Do you think my grandmother knows that WEP "security" isn't very secure? Nope. Should she be grouped into your same category as drug dealers, or somebody that allows drug dealers to sell from her living room? Nope.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to meeeeeeeeee

Member

to meeeeeeeeee
said by meeeeeeeeee:

Pointing at an IP address and screaming INFRINGER is an absurd argument. There are many reasons that an address holder who has NOTHING to do with infringing has his/her IP show up in the flawed techniques the entertainment industry wants to use as a standard. We cannot accept that, we want at least a reasonable amount of proof. If they want the money, they simply must EARN it and prove their case which means going MUCH further than merely identifying an IP address. If they want to remain stupid, lazy, and unskilled they should be sent packing.

This reminds me of a case here in Maryland. Two guys are involved in a drug shipment scheme. At least one works at a shipping company. The sender sends a big box full of weed to an address. Now, the person who lives at that address is not supposed to get the box but it will be intercepted by the guy working at the shipping company. Well, one shipment, he fails to intercept but the cops find out about it and decide to let it go to the address in question. The address belongs to the Mayor of Berwyn Heights (small town.) Instead of taking the box before it gets to the house, they let it get delivered and do an illegal "no knock" warrant against the occupants. (No knock warrants have to be signed off and this one wasn't because it did not meet the criteria.) They go in and slam 3 people (including the elderly mother of the mayor) and kill 2 Labrador Retrievers who ran from the SWAT team.

They finally arrested the right people and the police had to settle a massive lawsuit (and the sheriff who authorized this raid lost his bid to become county executive.)

»www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· 379.html

The point? Just because your info is thought to be part of a crime doesn't make you guilty.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Hopefully people will begin to sue the copyright trolls and their attorneys and make this kind of nonsense unprofitable.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
You are making an awful lot of assumptions as usual and you are speaking of a criminal offense (drugs) compared to a civil offense (copyright infringement).

2 words that can go a long way: Plausible Deni-ability