They are going to get him for destruction of evidence and obstruction of an ongoing investigation.
There was a similar case locally a few years ago, where a small mom & pop ISP got into a bit of a bind because they swapped to newer equipment (a new database server). The regional drug task force and the DEA + FBI had "requested" they maintain the older server while they completed the investigation of someone running a rather large meth lab who happened to be a customer of their ISP.
The new system they installed had software that was incompatible with the data formats they previously used for email and account storage, and when they swapped, the old stuff went "poof".
Needless to say the owner barely got out of being jailed themselves, but did have to pay a rather large fine, perform community service, and was reprimanded by a judge.
One of the ACs keeps carping on how PROTECT IP will somehow prevent payment processors, advertising networks, etc from working with these sites. This is patently untrue. What will happen instead, is that US-based payment processors, advertising networks, etc will lose business to ones that are not US-based, and in fact, more will simply crop up to serve this purpose.
They also carped on the fact that part of the bill addresses non-domestic domains. What is the definition of a non-domestic domain? Can a domain that has content served from a CDN in Canada be considered non-domestic? What about one that has the main domain registered in say, Belgium, but has email or other services provided out of the US and the owners and all other parts of the site/operation are in the US? Is that a non-domestic domain then?
How is this going to handle what may be infringing content posted to the European branch of Facebook for instance?
There are many other questions to ask surrounding this bill, and the least of it involves "piracy" of any sort. Much of it involving censorship, prior restraint, restrictions on trade, due process, etc.
I also wonder how countries like India will react when they find out their national sovereignty is impacted by a US law they had no say in (this law will impact legitimate business enterprises in other nations, of which those nations have the say over, not the US media content industry). What will the US do if these nations in turn decide they can seize US domains as they see fit? What would the US do, for instance, if an Indian pharmaceutical or chemical company successfully took the domain of Pfizer or DOW Chemical? What would they do if a Russian payment processing company successfully took the domain of Paypal?
What happens if the root DNS servers hosted outside of the US unilaterally blackhole the entire IP address space of the US government because a foreign government wins a court judgement to do so in retaliation for their corporations being impacted by this bill?
Something tells me this PROTECT IP act opens up a can of worms they are not expecting or are prepared to deal with, including the possibility of economic retaliations.
Anti-vaxers make me LOL. Right before they make me shudder.
There's been several investigative reports on PBS and the like about this bunch.
They've basically put everyone else in danger is what it boils down to. In areas where there are "significant" numbers of anti-vaxers, diseases which are normally only still prevalent in the 3rd World are having outbreaks and killing people.
Courts are also starting to prosecute these people if their children die from the preventable diseases. I believe criminal negligence and voluntary manslaughter were the latest successful charges brought against these nutjobs - anti-vax parents out in like Oregon or Washington State who let their daughter die because they refused to get her vaccinated.
Pastafarians have more scientific evidence in support of the FSM being the Supreme Divinity than the anti-vax crowd have against vaccines.
To be honest, vaccinations should be mandatory, period. I have no desire to live in a repeat of the age of Cholera, Yellow Fever, have my relatives go blind from measles, or have my son die because some jerkwad decided to be a DERP about a vaccination.
I think what he is saying, is that certainly there are those religious individuals who can reason, such as Sir Isaac Newton or Galileo. On the converse side, religion tends to attract those who cannot reason properly, and results in such as "extremists", the KKK, The Inquisition, etc.
This is the point I believe he was attempting to make.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by thejynxed.