Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOJ to white-hats: If you see something, shut up, or face a felony
It's like grabbing the wrong leg in a pig wrestling contest. Isn't that what much 'law enforcement' consists of, nowadays? Someone wrestling a 'pig' on the ground so as to avoid assault, praying that the guy (as they generally are) doesn't shoot, tase, or pepper spray them.
You're missing the obvious; if someone pays to get their vehicle back, then the state gets their money, and if the fee isn't paid for whatever reason, then the state keeps the vehicle. Either way, the state gets to keep the assets of a citizen. What about that doesn't smack of asset forfeiture?
Except that Mike claimed Ulbricht said he handed the site over long before it was created, and the act of creation is distinct from the act of publishing. After all, something cannot be published if it hasn't yet been created. Simples!
So basically, this is a way of keeping out freelance journalists who are more likely to write things as they see them, simply because they have no job to lose should an editor from a lobbying news outlet not like what they have to say.
"Gird yourself for the cyber Pearl Harbor ." Would that be during the attack by the Japanese, then? So, why is the DHS so bad at this? Perhaps because all the modern alphabet soup agencies are oxymorons of the meaningful words in their names. So the FBI doesn't properly investigate real crimes, only the fake ones that it makes up; the CIA has no one with any intelligence in its leadership; and the NSA and DHS both know sweet FA about security. Simples!