alf6300

Mark, Tim,
I hope I don't sound patronizing, it's not my intention. BUT.

There is the "letter" of the law, which by its nature has gray areas.
And then there is common sense ("spirit of the law").

Goals and circumstances have weight in law.
Fighting to gain control of an aircraft, is a very wrong and very unlawful thing to do for a passenger.
But if you invoke "literal law" on Flight 93, you are a moron or worse.

Most jurisdictions, especially "common law" ones (such as the U.S.), acknowledge the limits of the "literal law". Ample latitude is given by the law itself to common sense - which is a good thing when done with balance.

(Here's some examples. Judges shape the interpretation of the law in the real world; jurors add a human point of view to dry law texts; an elected sheriff won't be re-elected if she ignores common sense. Etc. Etc.)

So I'm very suspicious when someone invokes the literal law against the spirit of the law. More often than not, the "tied hands" approach is a self-serving approach - even when you have a room of nodding lawyers on your side.


Most people on this board are genuinely trying to do the obviously right thing - I.e., help cleaning up the industry from occasional scumbags who effectively deal with CP.

If one knowingly gets (a lot of) money from sites that sell CP, one becomes direct accomplice in CP. There's no way around it. (Incidentally, one also seriously jeopardizes the clean side of the industry).

That's true even if you have a long disclaimer in your TOS, and if you setup your corporate structure right, and if you pretend that you "didn't know it".

Such defense, in most cases recently discussed on this board, crumbles under the scrutiny of common sense.
And we all know this if we are honest. By the way, jurors in a court case would know it too, very well.


I believe ASACP's statutory goal is to fight CP. The discussions on this board are helping this fight, by showing some dirt that was too long left under the carpet.

I still want to believe it is not your intention, but the tone of your posts sounds a lot as a "Please shut up" and "You are risking your own ass if you report such stuff".

I honestly don't read a prevalent concern for the abused kids, in your language - which is what I would instead expect from ASACP.


Finally, the timing of this reaction also gives the really bad impression of a concerted PR offensive.

This really bad impression of a PR offensive, is reinforced by the official financial ties that CCbill has with ASACP, according to the joint press releases on ASACP's website.

Sorry for the long post, and I'm sure you can help clarify your true intentions for the benefit of everybody.

__________________
--