FTC Takes Out Porn- and Botnet-Spewing ISP 263
coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission today got a judge to effectively kill off the Internet service provider 3FN, which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing, and all manner of malicious web content. The ISP's computer servers and other assets have been seized and will be sold by a court and the operation has been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC."
How is the porn part relevant? (Score:4, Interesting)
Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.
Is 3FN 3FN.NET? (Score:2, Interesting)
If so, it still seems eager to take my business:
http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/3FNNET.html [webhostingstuff.com]
Re:Today "malicious content" (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have an audience who wants something and there is no where else to get it (because it is illegal and actively destroyed) you can set a rather high price on it and run a business doing it. On the other hand, if there is so much free CP floating around because it isn't actively destroyed the few people with that fetish go to that and don't even bother to purchase CP destroying the economy of it.
There are lots of really, really strange fetishes out there but none are so financially successful as CP because of the presence of regulation. In order to fill the small number of people who like CP, more CP has to be produced because it isn't out there anymore which leads to more children being abused.
Re:How is the porn part relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.
Why is that always the example that gets trotted out? Did somebody actually do it?
Re:Today "malicious content" (Score:3, Interesting)
the only ground i would give on this issue is that some sanity should be employed as to what is considered "child porn"
1 father of a child has pictures of a non sexual nature OF SAID CHILD on his computer NOT PORN
2 parent of a child has pictures that include said child and possible other children (while not sexual) NOT PORN
3 Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed) PORN
4 a set of pictures of a child in various poses (and clothing) being sold PORN
5 naked pics of a child PORN
6 obviously sexual pictures of a child PORN (with bonus charges)
the trick is Intent of the Collection
What about the providers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is the porn part relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
..... in order to silence people who were protesting World War 1. And suffragettes protesting for the right to vote - they ended up in jail for the mere act of saying their opinions. That's a crime against individual rights.
Also it was an illogical argument. Protesting the War Draft on public property, and yelling fire in a private theater, are NOT the same thing. Nobody is harmed if I stand on a street corner holding a sign which reads, "Stop the Draft".
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ..... Their power all the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Re:How is the porn part relevant? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can’t sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize a movie without inherently promoting its production. That’s why the MPAA encourages piracy of movies.~
Re:How is the porn part relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
The other reason that's a lousy example is because it was the argument Woodrow Wilson used to imprison Alice Paul, suffragettes, and other people protesting World War 1 (Sound familiar? Almost like George Duh Bush). No leader or government should have that power to silence the people, even in time of war.
Too bad the current US President seems to be channeling Woodrow Wilson. The demonization of middle-age & senior citizens, often with children & grandchildren with them, that have protested this governments' irresponsibility (Tea Party), and the characterization of them as violent & dangerous, is the first step towards repeating, or even exceeding, Wilson-esque suppression of dissent. Particularly when coupled with the government wishing to be able to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial or due process on their whim.
Things in the US and the world are going to get real scary very, very fast. I expect within less than 5 years, maybe less than 2 years, state budgets will start defaulting on things like union pensions, etc and then the violent protests & riots will start, lead by unions. This has already happened in Greece and is starting to occur in the EU as well, as the economic avalanche rolls on.
This will prompt already-worried countries like China to start dumping our Treasury Notes and other international-borrowing financial instruments and refuse to extend the US credit unless the interest rate is raised far above present. This will drive the amount the US pays on the interest on the national debt through the roof.
This will cause the US Federal Government to default, and all the entitlements & programs will all but cease to exist. Then, the rest of the people will start to revolt and the fun will REALLY begin, as the US & EU collapses into a Progressive world government after a period of worldwide violence and death.
Have a nice day! :)
Strat