To be fair, he was refusing to face trial. And he is expected to plead guilty, so he isn't innocent.

That said, there may be legitimate questions about whether the United States should be entitled to exercise jurisdiction over foreign nationals who are not physically present in the jurisdiction for national security offences.

Heh. Imagine surviving a plane crash. Everyone is busy calling their loved ones, and I'm busy setting up my new Linux distribution on a laptop bought in duty free, using the Linux image in my pocket.

If you tried to run a fake, malware-laden website in a Western country you would eventually be shut down and prosecuted.

These scams mostly fester in nations with weaker institutions, not just Eastern Europe but also China and India. Their authorities are simply not interested in preventing this kind of unlawful activity.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/dismissal-of-assault-...

Maybe it's just more common in Canada for judges to be more forthright with their opinions.

[0] https://youtu.be/j4Ph02gzqmY

Generally the only way to stop bullying is to build resilience and fight back.

There are extreme cases where I agree it should be reported, including infliction of physical violence.

What evidence do you have, leaving aside speculation or conjecture? Can you state it any higher than it was possible they copied your hard drive? Is this a routine occurrence where you live?

The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.

You're looking at it too narrowly. AI-generated CSAM may facilitate a sexual interest in children among certain individuals. Development of such an interest makes it significantly more likely they will abuse children. So it ought be illegal.

(2) in particular is suggesting, effectively, that you should be allowed to circumvent a law you disagree with. In other words, you should be allowed to communicate unlawfully if you don't agree the communication should be unlawful.

That's just not how it works. As a society, your view is one of many. I'm sure many people involved in illicit activity disagree in their activity being characterised as criminal.

(1) undermines the fabric of institutions and assumes that law enforcement targeting criminals may do so for collateral purposes, so they shouldn't be allowed to target criminals just in case.

I don't agree with either.

Assume for sake of argument that it were possible to develop an encryption regime which protected bona fide users, but did not protect criminals. That would be a good thing.

As a matter of public policy, criminals shouldn't be given the right to communicate for the sake of furthering criminal activity without the possibility of lawful interception. It's here that some technologists lose sight of the real world. In the real world, society expects that authorities be able to fight crime using proportionate means.

The real issue is that you can't separate the two from each other - weakening encryption for criminals means weakening it for everyone.

If I click unsubscribe, and the form asks me to fill in information, it gets marked as spam. No, I'm not filling in my email, let alone completing a CAPTCHA, to ask you to stop sending me emails.

However, I don't click an unsubscribe link in an email where I suspect the unsubscribe link is itself a scam to collect information.

I'm inclined to think that applies more to Americans than people generally. Europeans and Australians can be quite content with smaller vehicles, smaller properties, and quite frankly smaller lifestyles.