Probably not. But the Ukranians who've asked me not to call their territory The Ukraine were specifying protocol for English. It's a national identity thing with deep grudges about occupation by the USSR.
Calling Ukraine The Ukraine is by no means a criminal act or even a severe faux pas, but it is step towards the Ukraine peoples owning their own destinies rather than being walked all over and occupied like poor Poland.
So yes. They'll hire some law enforcement service as a mercenary gang to raid people's houses. I suspect they can do that in Canada as easily as they can do it in New Zealand. They might even be able to hire the local constabulary.
I think they latch onto shooting rampages because the people of the US love to agonize over a good massacre and ponder in panic what single factor went wrong to send this fellow amuck. Such stories may or may not be part of the agenda, but that's certainly the clown circus used to draw people to watch the news show.
I think that all news outlets are biased, even TechDirt and The Christian Science Monitor. The questions are to what degree, about what specific issues, and what efforts they make to disclose their biases. Those are what determine if a given news outlet is still useful regardless of its biases.
I don’t think we’re entirely done with the question of whether it’s okay for a search engine to link to criminal content on the web when the technology exists to identify and omit that content from search results.
Is this a philosophical argument over a conjectural supposition?
Because in the real world, you're going to need to specify what kind of criminal content (are we talking child porn or copyright violations?) and what kind of process is required to identify and remove it.
From what I understand about child porn, for instance, is that media files are analyzed for color spectrum and those with certain properties are flagged and then human beings go through the (countless) flagged files to determine whether or not they constitute child porn. That's not exactly technology, so much as a process with human techs in the middle.
And as has been seen on YouTube, the automated content detection system is lousy with incidents of blocking false positives and still has a substantial number of false negatives. So the technology in this case is dubious at best and pretty much just succeeds at annoying everybody.
So to say that technology exists is a presumption that delves into science fiction. Indulging that, search engines that censor results are going to struggle to compete with search engines that provide more comprehensive results, and will have to counter that with aesthetics, convenience, better search tools and and other features. In other words, it would have to take the Yahoo route to encourage people to go their first, and then choose lesser-featured engines when the engine of choice fails to yield results.
That said, since P2P-related content is omitted from Google search results (whether or not they're criminal) I simply don't go to Google when looking for P2P-related content.
When lobbying and cronyism provide a better profit increase than making product and there is no consequence to engaging in these behaviors*, it creates a moral hazard, and corporations are going to engage in those behaviors.
* This includes all scenarios in which consequence can be nullified, circumvented, reduced or delayed so that they're out of the scope of the current corporate management.
I think corruption is getting worse with time, as is to be expected in a system like ours with progressing regulatory capture, but I also think corruption is more visible given the internet provides a vector by which news is disseminated without interference by media owners and sponsors.
Right now, it seems companies are still unused to the new leaky information model so were seeing a lot of of their malfeasant behavior that they're used to doing without consequence.
Optimistically, this will prove an influence to reduce corruption due to fear of consequence. Cynically, I suspect they'll just start internet disinformation programs of their own in order to obfuscate real news that leaks.
Even if Dotcom is guilty of money laundering infringement that doesn't justify ICE's raid.
But considering that ICE was accompanied by MPAA advisors it appears they were more interested in copyright infringement, or at least appeasing the MPAA, who really had no cause to be at the Dotcom estate. The money laundering accusation remains dubious, and the necessary evidence wouldn't be at the Dotcom residence, rather in public records.
The double irish thing is abhorrent, but it was at the time "the law".
Interesting how you dismiss that, and don't even discuss my other examples, which have individually done far more damage to the world economy than Kim Dotcom could do with a lifetime of his schemes. This brings doubt to your sense of justice. It sounds like you are less about getting bad guys or guys who ruin it for the rest of us, but are out to specifically get Kim.
Maybe he kicked your puppy or something when you guys were mates
yeah, total bastards, trying to stop a criminal and all.
Sounds like once you're convinced someone's a black-hat you don't care about the truth so long as he's gotten. There are plenty in the US DoJ and courts that have a similar mindset, and that alone is adequate justification to avoid them like a Soviet gulag.
Even more conspicuous is your adherence to the notion that the US justice system is infallible (at least enough so to continue their contemporary methods with your blessing). That would include civil forfeiture, prosecutory discretion, surveillance overreach (and disregard of privacy), excessive SWAT raids, brutality with impunity, mandatory minimums, secret courts, secret interpretations of law.
If you would do me the favor and address these particulars (pro or con) I can get a better sense of why you would subject anyone to the US justice system and call it the service of justice, let alone Dotcom.
Either you really love and worship US law enforcement, or you deride and revile Kim Dotcom. Either way, it seems beyond rationality, and it's probably a good thing you're not in a position of authority regarding this case... or any case, for that matter.
...the CIA hacked phone thing has been around since at least the 60s. Usually some guys from the phone company would come in in coveralls to fix that recent static problem, and install the dialing module.
But I'm not seeing the part where he broke copyright law, any more than he provided a tool which could be used to pass along criminal data, but was also often used to pass along legitimate data (much of which was lost and never recovered after the seizure).
As for the system of companies, I'm not sure if this is particularly less ethical than the double irish and a dutch sandwich tax evasion scheme, or Bain Capital's company-acquisition-bankrupting scheme or the credit-overexertion scheme that caused the real-estate bubble or the LIBOR misinformation debacle that did a bit to wreck the entire world economy, yet there were no SWAT-style raids on anyone's houses, nor extradition issues on the accounts of any of these affairs.
I don't know much about Kim Dotcom, and he may be a total jackass, but I do know about Al Capone, and he was a murdering SOB, yet because we got him due to creative interpretations of the law, it's since become conventional to allow for creative legal interpretations to convert anyone else that the DoJ deems a bad guy. And today, bad-guys include you or me if ever we find ourselves on the inside of a police cruiser. Getting Capone wasn't worth the integrity of our justice system.
Even if Dotcom is guilty of copyright infringement that doesn't justify ICE's raid. It doesn't justify seizing his assets or labeling him a fugitive. It certainly didn't justify telling his legitimate clients to GFY because they dared to do business with what the MPAA decided was a villain.
Regardless of what Dotcom has done, what the DoJ has done is far, far worse, and reflects on what they'd do to you or me, if ever someone in their ranks wanted to destroy us.
That's the problem. And whatever you think of Dotcom himself is irrelevant to that problem.