I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-n... ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.
Apparently one of the charges against him is money laundering and that falls under the purview of the IRS. Remember, they put Al Capone away for tax evasion.
OK, but what made them illegal?
The original source of the money doesn't have to be illegal to trigger money laundering laws. It's the act of hiding transactions from the government (which may be otherwise legal or illegal) which is illegal. Even making repeated deposits or withdrawals in amounts just under $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements counts as money laundering even if there was no illegal activity involved in procuring the money.
We just saw an article explaining how China had just outlawed ad-blockers.
Does this mean China can accuse the maker of ad-blocking software with a major crime, and require that person to be extradited to China for trial?
Only if he's arrested in another country where ad blockers are illegal. Presumably aiding and abetting copyright infringement is illegal in Poland as well as in the United States.
In a fair economic situation every company would have total access to a competitor's data. That way they can price compete while both having all the information. In an unfair system what does it mean to cheat? Is it to the players' benefit that all the data is kept secret? After all if all know the truth the pay might be much higher.
The problem with your argument is there is a often a monetary value to information. Man hours have to be spent to collect and analyze this data. If it all has to be shared with competitors, there'd be no incentive for businesses to spend the resources to create that information in the first place.
How many people in the US have to die before we realize that private ownership of guns is terrible idea?
You don't need a gun. If you have one, you can dispose of it at any police station, no questions asked.
Although there may be some merit to what you say, I fail to see what it has to do with a password reuse tool.
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car. Median income in the US is ~$50,000 per year. So half the US population can only afford a are of $10,000. Good luck finding a new car at that price.
Where did you get the 20% figure? I typically spend about half my annual income on a new car. I start saving for my next car shortly after I buy one.
Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.
That would be a perfectly valid philosophy in a situation with a small population of people that know each other. Most people are honest, and most people don't want to be the jerk that screws things up for everybody. But that kind of thinking doesn't scale to large populations, especially where the "anonymity" of the Internet is concerned. There are people in the world, admittedly a small minority, that actually enjoy making life miserable for others. And if you have a sufficiently large population, it will include some of the those people. So building software with proper security shouldn't be limited just to banks.
Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.