Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) More guilty? It is guilty or not. They are each committing a distinct crime (I believe that possession of stolen items is a crime in Switzerland anyway). Is "Information" an item? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Reports for today... Homebuilder sentiment remains flat and low, a score of 16 on the Fargo scale (where 50 is the positive/negative inflection point). Expectations were for a small rise to 17. This is probably good, because it helps keep the glut down. NY Manufacturing index improved for January, up to 11.92 against December's 9.89 (basically in line with a 12 forecasted). Earnings from Citi and other bank stocks have been disappointing, and they (and Apple due to Jobs' new illness) are the only market laggards right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Is "Information" an item? Post your social security number on here if you don't believe it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Post your social security number on here if you don't believe it is. Knowing someone else's SSN isn't a crime, committing fraudulent activities with it is. Not the same as possessing stolen information. If I stole files from a Swiss bank and relayed all of the information to you but in a different format, what crime have you committed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Knowing someone else's SSN isn't a crime, committing fraudulent activities with it is. Not the same as possessing stolen information. If I stole files from a Swiss bank and relayed all of the information to you but in a different format, what crime have you committed? So basically if someone else steals your bank information, writes it down on a piece of paper, and gives it to me (with me knowing that it was stolen), that is OK in your opinion? I'm not much of a lawyer, but that sounds like some sort of a crime to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) So basically if someone else steals your bank information, writes it down on a piece of paper, and gives it to me (with me knowing that it was stolen), that is OK in your opinion? I'm not much of a lawyer, but that sounds like some sort of a crime to me. The NYT knew the Pentagon Papers were stolen and classified. I don't know the laws. The person who stole the information would be prosecuted. But what have you done wrong? Are you required to notify the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) Post your social security number on here if you don't believe it is. If I read a Wikipedia document, have I committed a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) If I read a Wikipedia document, have I committed a crime? Where is Wikipedia stolen from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) Where is Wikipedia stolen from? F***, I'm just off lately. If I read a Wikileaks document, have I committed a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) F***, I'm just off lately. If I read a Wikileaks document, have I committed a crime? How about if I steal all of your banks information and give it to someone else. You don't see a problem in that? How about posting it publicly, is that OK too? If it isn't a crime, it should be. That is personal financial information. If a person wants to whistleblow it, that's one thing, but this isn't going through legal means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) How about if I steal all of your banks information and give it to someone else. You don't see a problem in that? How about posting it publicly, is that OK too? If it isn't a crime, it should be. That is personal financial information. If a person wants to whistleblow it, that's one thing, but this isn't going through legal means. This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information? You are a step past that though. We are to the stage where the NYT has the information. The first thing they should do is report it to the proper authorities. I'm not a big fan of people's personal information being stolen. Like I said, if that doesn't bother you, go ahead and offer yours up. I especially don't like it being used to someone's personal gain, which is pretty much what is happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) You are a step past that though. We are to the stage where the NYT has the information. The first thing they should do is report it to the proper authorities. I'm not a big fan of people's personal information being stolen. Like I said, if that doesn't bother you, go ahead and offer yours up. I especially don't like it being used to someone's personal gain, which is pretty much what is happening here. I do see your point, I guess though there's the added layer of complexity because supposedly they're actually breaking the law in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) I do see your point, I guess though there's the added layer of complexity because supposedly they're actually breaking the law in the process. That can also be reported to the proper authorities by the recipient of the info. I just can't see knowing that information is stolen, receiving it, and then profiting off of it, being OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information? Trying to think about these things individually, I think different arguments can be made. I can buy governments secrets having a better argument for being made public, versus private and corporate info. At least it can be said that the government belongs to the people. In the case of the financial information I don't think that applies at all. I would also think of it like this... If the police/FBI/CIA had disregarded the rules of evidence collection and obtained evidence of crimes illegally, it would be thrown out, and couldn't be used against the offenders. Why is this different? People do have rights to due process, even if they are scummy corporate types. If another company engaged in behavior like this, there would be howls of corporate espionage. I don't see how people committing crimes should be OK, even if there is a seeming "gain" in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) That can also be reported to the proper authorities by the recipient of the info. I just can't see knowing that information is stolen, receiving it, and then profiting off of it, being OK. Who exactly is profiting off of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Who exactly is profiting off of it? Don't tell me that good ol hearted Julian isn't making a dime off of this. I don't believe that for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) Don't tell me that good ol hearted Julian isn't making a dime off of this. I don't believe that for a second. But he's not selling ads, and he's not selling the information. He is taking contributions, but that's a different thing in a tax and legal sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 08:11 AM) A lot of these zillion little NCAA rules seem arcane and wierd, but when you spend some time thinking about how they relate to the recruiting process and where the money is, they start making more sense. For example, selling memorabilia, one of the exact ones you cite, is a great way for people to buy off athletes to make decisions that a booster or gambler would want. Memorabilia in particular is odd because it's hard to come up with an exact value for it...the market value of the materials that go into making a Big Ten Championship ring could be $1000, but if I were a graduate of a Big Ten school and my team won a big ten championship, I might be willing to pay a lot more than that for the item and I could testify accurately about that. Meanwhile, the guy who sells me the ring, or pants, or helmet, whatever, gets $500,000 with the understanding that he's going to stay at Ohio State as a Senior rather than go pro. That's a great way to set up a bribery system. The one I always come back to is the Kelvin Sampson at Indiana mess. His biggest crime was sending too many calls and text messages to recruits. How awful is that right? He's just calling them too much. Big Deal. Well, for one coach to do it maybe it's not a big deal, but then the other 30 coaches trying to recruit that player realize the NCAA thinks it isn't a big deal, and next thing you know, the recruit isn't sleeping because he's spending 24/7 receiving recruiting calls. Free Tattoos? Fine. Where do you draw the line on free stuff that a player can get? The NCAA has chosen to define anything free as an inappropriate gift. Say you allow each gift if it's under $100 in market value. Hey, five star recruit, I've got 10,000 alums lined up each of whom are willing to give you a $99 gift. Oh sure, they're just coffee makers, baseball cards, and collectables, but you can sell them all off and pocket everything you want. Or, you're never paying for your own meals again, just come to our school But he's not selling ads, and he's not selling the information. He is taking contributions, but that's a different thing in a tax and legal sense. I think it is funny that the same person made these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) I think it is funny that the same person made these posts. Wait, so who exactly is bribing Assange to stay in school? Anyway, this is a side issue. Here's my general point...I see why "releasing private financial information" gets your hairs to stand on end. I'm hoping you see why "Releasing private financial information of people who are knowingly violating tax laws" doesn't really bother me. If they release those documents and there is zero evidence of anything illegal or untoward, if there's no evidence in those records of tax havens or of willful avoidance of the law, then I'll agree with your grievance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Wait, so who exactly is bribing Assange to stay in school? Anyway, this is a side issue. Here's my general point...I see why "releasing private financial information" gets your hairs to stand on end. I'm hoping you see why "Releasing private financial information of people who are knowingly violating tax laws" doesn't really bother me. Your point is in direct conflict with some of your own beliefs you have put in here over the years, just on different political subjects. For example, you didn't want the telecoms giving away your info to the government. Using your logic, if you aren't violating any laws, then there should be no problem, right? The protection of personal information cannot and should not be flexible based on some persons suspicion that someone might be doing something wrong. Evidence and rule of law must win out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 So is it wrong for websites to post the private financial information of my wife, who's a public school teacher? It certainly makes me a bit uncomfortable. Is it wrong, that as a business, I can call experian or dun and bradstreet and buy lists of your names, addresses and phone numbers based upon certain demographics that I give them, that is based upon your credit score? For example, give me a list of everyone in Woodridge, age 35 and over, with personal credit scores of 700+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:08 PM) So is it wrong for websites to post the private financial information of my wife, who's a public school teacher? It certainly makes me a bit uncomfortable. Is it wrong, that as a business, I can call experian or dun and bradstreet and buy lists of your names, addresses and phone numbers based upon certain demographics that I give them, that is based upon your credit score? For example, give me a list of everyone in Woodridge, age 35 and over, with personal credit scores of 700+. Yes, and it is per se illegal. Yes, but it is unfortunately completely legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) Yes, and it is per se illegal. It's illegal to post private financial information of teachers? Then why have I been able to find that information online for public teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Wait, so who exactly is bribing Assange to stay in school? Anyway, this is a side issue. Here's my general point...I see why "releasing private financial information" gets your hairs to stand on end. I'm hoping you see why "Releasing private financial information of people who are knowingly violating tax laws" doesn't really bother me. If they release those documents and there is zero evidence of anything illegal or untoward, if there's no evidence in those records of tax havens or of willful avoidance of the law, then I'll agree with your grievance. That is the equivalent of illegal search and seizure being OK, because in the end, evidence of a crime makes it OK. That is also the same as it being OK for people to monitor your communications, because some people use them to commit acts of terrorism. If you don't protect the rule of law for all, you might as well not have it. You don't get to look for something illegally, just because you are pretty sure something illegal has happened. Our justice system doesn't work that way. Also if you don't see how money could be "donated" to Assange to damage specific parties, then you are playing dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts