Slashdot Log In
Compensation for Bandwidth Costs is Extortion?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri Mar 05, 2004 02:53 PM
from the now-this-is-ovekill dept.
from the now-this-is-ovekill dept.
Tha_Big_Guy23 asks: "According to this article, a man who created a website for his local Sheriff's department is being charged with extortion. This was caused by taking down the website after repeated attempts to get compensation from the county to cover the bandwidth costs. As a result, all his personal computer property, and company computer property was seized and he was jailed."
"After being jailed he was charged with extortion, larceny by conversion, using a computer to commit a crime, and obstruction of justice. This website explains in more detail the circumstances surrounding the situation. Has anyone on Slashdot ever had an experience where a client was unwilling to compensate you for either your work, and/or the resources required to do your work?"
While the end result of this situation is a shame, let this situation serve as a warning for those of you who work, without a contract in place. While it is the general hope that people will behave in an honorable manner, sometimes this is just not the case, and contracts exist to protect both parties, when things go sour.
While the end result of this situation is a shame, let this situation serve as a warning for those of you who work, without a contract in place. While it is the general hope that people will behave in an honorable manner, sometimes this is just not the case, and contracts exist to protect both parties, when things go sour.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Funny)
Fox ?
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why Slashdot is relatively good journalism, IMO. Even when the submitters and editors are clearly biased, it is only a few comments into the following discussion that things get balanced out. How often do we see on the big cable and broadcast networks retractions and alternatives being shown within minutes? Almost never.
Even for the frequent story about Microsoft or SCO, there'll be at least a few comments among the flames adjusting the facts of the story. Actually, by being so harsh on these companies, for example, we can help the public better understand what is true and what is misrepresented regarding their actions. Hold the feet to the fire, so to speak.
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Interesting)
End result? More information from more points of view, and that's better for everybody.
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on my understandings of the problem, just looking at the current YRO frontpage [slashdot.org], two of the last four stories have blurbs that are just plain wrong ("Courts Overturn FCC - Return of the Monopoly?", "Do You Have A License For Those Facts?" (my debunking [jerf.org] and I'm a certified IP wonk). One of the others ("MSN Search Blocking Results For XFree86?") didn't really have enough data to prove or disprove (so it's probably not worth the 868 comments it attracted).
Now this article, where I think the blurb is deceptive enough to constitute being "wrong".
Slashdot editors, you are getting sloppy and going from moderate benefit (at least it provided some reasonably centralized source of information) to positive menace. Please, either spend more time digging into these stories, or stop posting the blurbs. You can disclaim responsibility for the accuracy of the stories until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that posting does constitute some degree of approval, since there is a selection process.
This is an intervention. Please stop damaging our cause. You're marginalizing all of us who are legitimately concerned about the way things are going when you post so much obviously wrong stuff under the guise of "being on our side".
(At least do us the courtesy of starting to shill for the RIAA and MPAA if you don't want to be bothered with improving your accuracy.)
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? if you either click on the link in the story, or go to msn.com, type "xfree86" in the box at the top, then click on search, you only get 1 result, which is porn and it warns you about.
If you go to any other search engine there is more than one result and it isnt this nightcrawler business. google has 2.4 million.
tellingly if you search on google for xfree86 nightsurf, you only get 28 results, none of which is the website that msn throws up.
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Funny)
Do not attempt to scam people who have the power to throw you in jail. The elderly are a much better target.
Thank you and goodnight.
-B
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't pay, he shut down the site. Explain the part of that you consider "unreasonable", please?
Whether or not you consider the magnitude of his bill to the county as reasonable, it boils down simply to "he provided a service, sent a bill, bill went unpaid, he stopped providing the service". Nothing more than that.
Theft of service also breaks the law. Key difference, a private individual doesn't have the power to abuse to have people from the country government frivolously arrested.
Also, RTFA (in particular, the second link). He did not send them a bill for $300k... He said his total expenses came out to $300k (not unreasonable, if he actually worked something resembling full-time for 2-3 years... That alone gives $200k+ depending on the going rate in his area for a network admin). He didn't even attempt to recover any of his past expenses on the project. He merely requested they start paying for his services, and when they refused, he stopped providing the service.
If this counts as extortion, it sets a VERY dangerous precedent... A precedent that basically makes slavery legal, by making it a crime to stop performing a voluntary service.
On the bright side, assuming he doesn't end up in prison for a few years, he has a fairly good case for harassment, with monetary damages resulting. He could end up getting considerably more than his $300k (which, again, he did not actually try to bill the county for).
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, and didn't mean to imply that he necessarily went about this with the best of intentions (not many people would blow $300k of their own money purely for the benefit of the county government).
But, I can't see any way that the this can count as outright extortion. Even if he did it for publicity or other non-monetary considerations, without a contract (which both articles make clear as one of the big problems in this situation), he has no obligation to continue providing the service.
So does the county "owe" him any money? I'd say morally yes, but legally no. But does he need to keep providing the service if they don't pay? Again, no. Not extortion, just basic capitalism. If I stop paying my cable, and my cable company shuts me off for not paying, I'd get laughed out of court if I cried "extortion!". Even lacking a contract (let's say I found the cable live when I moved in, and just started using it), I would get charged with theft of services when the CC noticed, not the other way around.
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, if this was any other business besides a government one (more specifically a police one), they would have to sue him like anyone else, not immediately seize all his gear. This is the problem with cops in general, they have the power to act and ruin your life, and ask questions later.
I don't care if this guy DID try to inflate the prices and such, I do not feel as though the police should have the right to do this to him without a court order.
Parent
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
uh, whatever! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's 3.5 million users per month...
42 million per year
115.5 million for the lifetime of the site
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The domain is registered to someone in Virginia (Score:5, Informative)
Fountainhead Media (MACOMBSHERIFF-DOM)
19950 Denby
Portsmouth, VA 23708
US
Domain Name: MACOMBSHERIFF.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Stanley, Michael (36687838P)
fountainhead_463@hotmail.com
Fountainhead Media
19950 Denby
Portsmouth, VA 23708
US
999-999-9999
Parent
Re:The domain is registered to someone in Virginia (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
"hits" is such a crappy way to measure bandwidth. Depending on how the site is built and which web traffic monitoring tool you use, a single unique visit to a site can result in hundreds of hits. My shitty site gets in the order of 50-70k hits a month and I know its only my mom.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Funny)
Should've posted the URL here, dude.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the second link in the article, he spent $300,000 of his own money and is not asking for his inventment back. He simply tried to tell the county that, going forward, he couldn't afford to pay for it himself. When they ignored him, he closed up shop to keep from losing more money. They retaliated by arresting him and slapping him with exortion and other charges.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re-read TFAs (Score:5, Informative)
The quotes you state are from the Justice 4 Pat campaign, an apparently biased source drumming up support for Pat.
Personally, I'd trust a newspaper over blatant assertions by an activist site any day.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we can settle anything about this case until we see documentation on this 300,000$. Either he's the stupidest web developer in the world, or he's a fraudster.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pat did not ask for payment of any of that investment, but simply explained to the county he could no longer afford to host and maintain the site for free. For 2 years the sheriff refused to negotiate a way to continue paying for the site.
Considering that it is undisputed that this guy donated nearly 3 years of his time to this county before asking for anything, I find it much more likely that his side of the story is more accurate. You don't see greedy/selfish people work selflessly for 3 years with no return on investment.
You do however, see greedy/selfish people willingly leach off of generous people for years, and then sue or otherwise take legal action when those generous people stop.
You seem to be very ready to believe that a guy would be willing to work for you pro bono for 3 years, then suddenly turn and try to extort you by withholding his free service? How am I the one with the tin-foil hat? I have more faith in people than that.
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the police dept. unwisely used a free service. At this point - make contracts that guarantee that the site is up and useful.
Where it is nice to get things started on a shoestring, at some point SOMEONE should have thought "Hmmmm... We are spending real dollars here to advertise this site - we should spend the dollars now to make sure that we can have access to this site at all times"
Parent
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fault for this even being an issue falls squarely on the collective shoulders of the sherrif's department. First of all, friends are friends, and business is business. If it's important to your business (the area residents and to a lesser but entirely legitimate degree all of the residents of the USA being the customers) then you need to treat it like a business, and document things, sign contracts, and so on. A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.
The fact is that it doesn't seem that he's broken the law. The site belongs to him. The domain belongs to him (and that's the department's own fault, since he offered and they could have told him no.) How is he not within his legal rights?
Parent
Wow what a site! (Score:5, Informative)
Written Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see something getting out of hand with just verbal communications, misunderstandings, etc.
Anyone providing or buying services ought to insist on a written contract that both parties sign. Then, there's no question of consequences if someone doesn't pay within 30 days, etc.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I see why they needed somebody else to build their web site -- they think they need a web page in order to receive email!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
A homepage is certainly not needed in order to recieve e-mail, but for giving contact information to the public it is very useful.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
MM
--
Parent
Ouch.. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank god I'm not going to be hosting it.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
The Guy Made Mistakes All Along (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the designer should have never shut the site down without sending the county properly served due notice. In other words, registered or certified mails, preferably coming from an attorney.
Finally, the designer should have sued the county, and then through the litigation a settlement would have been obtained -- most likely through binding arbitration.
But, at the same time, to settle a civil disagreement through criminal prosecution seems to be abuse of power at most naked.
Both of the parties should be spanked by their Mamas.
Re:The Guy Made Mistakes All Along (Score:5, Insightful)
Which should be a lesson to all of the conservatives out there who think that unlimited police power is only a threat to those who are doing something illegal. In reality, unchecked police power is a threat to anyone who annoys it, whatever the reason.
Parent
Clearly more here than meets the eye... (Score:5, Insightful)
The response of the Sheriff's Dept. is clearly overblown, but this guy was clearly not operating on the level.
To be honest, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.
Whack the new guy too (Score:5, Funny)
Their new web designer should probably go to jail too.
The Site in Question: (Score:5, Funny)
"Press YES if you have committed a crime, and wish to confess. Otherwise, press NO."
[Click]
"You have selected NO, which means you have committed a crime, but do not wish to confess."
"A padywagon is now speeding to your location."
"In the meantime, please look at our online store. You have the right to remain...Fabulous!"
This is an IP issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Demanding money to give a person something that he/she owns IS extortion. But does the Sheriffs department own the content, or does the hoster (since he was hosting it for free).
It should probably have been a civil case first to resolve the IP. The owner of the IP would then have had firm legal ground for whatever action they wanted.
But I don't agree with slapping him with a criminal suit right off the bat.
Another issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
One rule to live by... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, let's look at the charges:
Extortion: How could Pat Richard extort anyone by shutting off his own server? Imagine loaning your car to someone, then deciding you cannot afford paying the gas, the insurance, and the up-keep. You give him an ultimatum, either buy the car or I'll take it back. Under what system of justice could you be charged with extortion under that scenario?!
Larceny by conversion: How could he convert his own property? Via this charge the Sheriff's Office is essentially admitting that the website was theirs, but on the other hand, they refuse to pay for it. They should not be able to have it both ways.
Using a computer to commit a crime: Turning off your own server is a crime?!
Obstruction of justice: See above.
Not RTFA... RBTFA (b for BOTH) (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless, with the domain name it's IP, a civil issue. It's parked, so the sheriff's office can do the WIPO cybersquatting claim, but, AFAIK and IANAL, it's not criminal.
Who owns the content? If the sheriff's department does, holding the content hostage may be illegal. But then again, there was a private towing company that illegally towed my car from a private lot where I had a legal right to park, and would not return it. They violated two sections of the vehicle code in the illegal tow, then had additional violations (actually flaunting some of them) in the operation of their impound lot. What did the cops say? "This is a civil matter. Pay the impound fees and then sue them."
The cops probably threw him in jail to try to intimidate him, which forced the DA's hand to prosecute, or perhaps it's collusion between the DA and the cops.
The facts will come out at trial. Both sides will tell their stories, a judge and 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty will decide who is telling the truth, and regardless of the outcome, a civil suit will follow.
Welcome to America, where our courts, fine instruments of law, capable of incredible intricacy and precision in legal thought, are used to bludgeon people like a sledgehammer.
- Greg
Re:Yes, it is extortion (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue is whether he's owed money or not. As someone pointed out, he's basically asking for over $8,000 per month hosting what should be a relatively small local site (I'd like to see how his hits were measured -- if those are unique visits, I'd be pretty surprised). The article seems to imply that he already had a verbal contract to provide the service for free in return for publicity (as suggested by the article). If that's the case, then he's essentially trying to change the terms of his agreement unilaterally while holding the site hostage, and that's what's getting him the extortion charge.
Parent