Who are some people who tried to "blow things up from inside"?
This sounds like it would make for an interesting HN discussion.
I vaguely recall a CEO they had who, after leaving, asked to see the books and was stymied.
Thanks for this one. I could always use more comically vulgar metaphors.
But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason.
Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.
People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
Also https://njal.la/blog/we-dont-have-enemies/ - another reason to dislike him.
In the USA, came from the UK which was known (in the 1700's) for having secret trials, secret evidence, secret witnesses, and secret punishments. So the founders built this system to be transparent in many ways. And that meant public recording of crimes. Fast forward a few hundred years, and this computing thing takes off, and records everywhere are put in a system and easily searchable.
Having the secret system in place in the Netherlands and the transparent/easily searchable system in the USA don't really mix all to well.
(Admittedly, much of the courts systems are still opaque as mud, but some important parts are constitutional - like seeing/questioning witnesses, jury of your peers, etc)
I imagine if you have a valid reason and petition the court you can have the identity revealed?
For some people and some cases this is not possible. Sometimes there is a publicly known person involved, like the case of Keith Bakker which is in the Dutch news today. He has been a lot on TV in the past. Another case was the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a well-known politician, where everybody knows the name of the killer and he is now somewhat forced to live in another country. Mostly the news talk about Jos B. or similar semi-private namings. People closely involved know who it is about, but it doesn't need to be on TV or in the newspaper.
About your other question though: one of the courts states in an answer to one of their frequently asked questions, https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisati..., that a copy of a verdict will always be anonymised. No suggestions are made for when you want to apply for an exception to that rule and I suspect it is not possible at all. I am also struggling to come up with a valid reason for such a request; if it is indeed impossible, that might not be a problem.
Example: I own and live in a condo apartment in a housing complex where the legal entities for my building and four other buildings are all members of one overall legal entity for the complex. Some of the other legal entities, and some of their administrators, are currently suing the overall legal entity with various claims. The management notified all owners that this was happening, as they're required by law to do, but didn't give the full complaint. (They did name the individuals and legal entities who filed suit, including the administrator roles of the individuals.) I'd like to read the full details.
Where I live, I can go to the public library or the courthouse, search for the involved parties in a database, and read the specifics. I don't have to prove that I am indirectly a partial owner of the entity being sued (though I am); this is available to the general public.
How would this work in the Netherlands if public access is anonymized?
Criminal status is protected.
So if you're 22, the crime you committed when you were 19 won't count against you, but when you turn 23, it starts counting again?
This leads to the odd scenario where someone born 16y364d ago can get it on with someone born 16y363d ago, then the very next day it becomes illegal, and the day after that it becomes legal again.
And what kind of results do they get? (I'm genuinely asking)
Any time I hear about a "you can apply for X" series of bureaucratic hoops one can jump though I can't help but wonder if it's like getting a building permit in SF or a handgun license in NYC where only the people who've made the right donations to the right people can get what they want and everyone else gets the bureaucratic run around.
Yes I do. A Judge decided what was a fair punishment for the offense. They sat through an entire trial and made a decision about what was an appropriate sentencing.
Once that appropriate sentence has been serve there should be no further punishment. If the Judge decides the felon should never be able to work in banking they can, in most countries, make that happen.
What's the point of having a judicial system if everyone is going to take the matter in their own hands anyway?
Well, erased is not really exact. It won't be accessible by anyone and you will have the right to be treated as if you were never convicted.
So, Peter's original sentence was like 8 months? After so many years I believe nobody should hold his TPB involvement against him anymore.
Why not? "Convicted felon" encompasses a lot. Being convicted of felony drug possession when you were 19, for example, has very little to do with one's ability or trustworthiness to run a bank.
Sure, maybe we don't give banking licenses to people who have committed financial crimes (though a lot of corrupt investment bank executives seem to have no problem doing business), but that's not the same thing.
This idea that committing a crime should lock people out of many life activities is one of the things that leads them to committing more crimes. The punishment was a fine or jail time; let's stop punishing people for the rest of their lives.
Overreliance on the category "felon" also shows up in a recent Gorsuch take on the Fourth Amendment: "We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there's not an American alive who hasn't committed a felony in some—under some state law. And in a world like that, why doesn't it make sense to retreat back to the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which I'm going to oversimplify, but generally says that you get to go into a home without a warrant if the officer sees a violent action or something that's likely to lead to imminent violence… Why isn't that the right approach? (Lange v. California)
(I mean, I'm generally against the level of private gun ownership we have in the US, but given 2A, it seems like a violation to deny anyone their constitutional rights based on a broad label like "felon".)
In certain parts of the world. Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't try to ruin the whole lives of people who made a mistake and already paid for it by serving their time in prison (or whatever the court ruled).
I find the idea that a single crime you commited makes you somehow less of a human being incredibly backwards and brutal. Plus, it seems to be not very effective.
From what I read there are complex socio-economic reasons for the system to be shaped that way, but from an outsider perspective - so without caring about said reasons - it looks absolutely crazy.
That might not be fair, but that's how it is.
Firstly, this ignores the fact that most crime occurs due to socioeconomic reasons. So you're kicking someone in the head after they're already down and have served a punishment doled out by a judge.
Secondly, obviously the -type- of crime should make things more difficult or impossible in certain cases. But arbitrarily punishing people for having any conviction at all is the opposite of what a healthy society should be doing. This thoroughly ensures that recidivism rates will remain high, because what's the point in trying to cooperate with a society that brands you as a criminal no matter what punishment you serve or what you do throughout the rest of your life?
We need to focus on rehabilitation, not continuing to punish people for the rest of their lives.
"That might not be fair, but that's how it is."
Sorry to be blunt, but hopefully this punitive attitude will die out as older people die out. This is one American attitude that I absolutely despise.
If it’s the job of the state, it should be the job of the state.
To control the application of violence and to make sure the preexisting rules are being followed before it is applied.
If you don't have any verification that the rules are being followed, those in power tend to do pretty horrible things. At the same time, if those in power use no violence, the populace tend to resort to extra-legal violence to deliver what they see as justice, which results in a different class or horrible things happening (and threatens the government's monopoly on legitimized violence).
It's basically a local maximum that still kind of sucks, but works better than anything else we've tried at scale.
We've tried getting the government involved in social punishment, but it tends to work out very poorly and it seems best just to have them not enter that sphere.
> what's the point in trying to cooperate with a society that brands you as a criminal no matter
Potentially nothing, but that's a question for society, not for the government/legal system. Society is supposed to control the government, not the other way around (or at least that's the theory, practice is sometimes pretty spotty).
It should also be noted that there's no requirement for people to add these extra punishments. So, it should be pretty easy to turn around if people ever pull their heads out of their asses.
It doesn't have to be, though, and it's something that can be changed. And it must be, else the US will collapse under the weight of its own incarceration and injustice.
Can we have a Poe's Law that compares "hard nosed realism for" versus "agitation against" the Western Liberal Project?
That's basically all anyone is being asked to do here.
An entity as ICANN should not necessarily be based on US norms.
As (almost) always when "Europe" comes up in the comments of this site to oppose it with the USA: *Europe is not a thing* (as in: it is not an homogenous thing at all, it covers many different countries with many different situations, laws and everything).
At least in France, quite many jobs require a criminal record to be presented, to check that you were not sentenced for a crime/offence deemed incompatible with the specific position.
It is less invasive, and less public than in the USA, but it pretty well exists and is perfectly legal.
But we're talking about a crime that is not incompatible with the specific position.
I'd prefer to get some data on what the risk is here. Among criminals, how many commit their second crime while running a DNS registry? If we don't know, I am not sure it's rational to give someone a life sentence in that domain. It's just punitive, not intelligent risk management.
Which is why this notion stinks.
How about when you’re convicted of an offense you have to wear a letter on your chest representing that offense? The shame and additional punishment should go on indefinitely long after the actual punishment has ended, right?
A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.
Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.
The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists).
Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them.
You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated.
Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?)
BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden.
Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.
I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so.
One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)
Ironically, this was a better proof of transparency than what most "problematic" people would subject themselves to. If any vanilla oligarch wanted to be in those circles, he would just pay some squeaky-clean individual to be his stooge, and then make it known, after registration, who the real power is. Sunde could have configured himself as a freelance consultant to his friends, and he would not have appeared on any radar. This would have made his business work, but it would not have advanced the perennial conversation about ICANN's original sins, which have become more and more untolerable with the years.
ICANN were pretty stupid to just veto his admission. That's not how you deal with institutional critics. They could have simply brought him in, then informally and formally vetoed anything he wanted to do. They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario. Or they could have given him something, enough to behold him, so he'd have an incentive to stay in the tent and piss outside rather than the other way around.
This attitude proved Sunde is fundamentally right on the subject matter, like him or not as a person.