Compensation for Bandwidth Costs is Extortion? 865
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.
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.
Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh. (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with what he did? (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, he told them that he'd discuss pay at a later date since they were to busy to handle it to begin with. If I donated 2 years of my time, I'd sure as hell want compensation.
He did what any normal person would do: shut off their service since they didn't pay. In fact, he did one up on what most would do. They didn't pay for TWO YEARS and he let them go on that long. Try not paying YOUR hosting bill and see what it gets you. A shutdown site, that's what.
How the hell is this extortion? Not even REMOTELY. People are stupid. They don't realize it takes time and money, not to mention VALUE of what he had turned the site into.
Granted he didn't have a contract, but both parties are at fault. You can't NOT have a contract then call "extortion" and throw him in jail. Sorry, that's not how it works.
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.
Obviously this is a civil issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The evil webmaster then said, after 3 years and however many hits later, I need some cash. Pay me a lot of money or I'll shut it off to cut my costs.
Sheriff replies "Screw You!" and throws him in jail.
This is a Civil Issue, not a bullshit criminal case.
Re:Proof positive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd. I would say that it is proof positive that you should not, in any circumstances, commit a crime against an entire police department.
Why is the site even a .com? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which begs the question: Why does it have a
Of course, when I rule the world there will be different TLDs for individuals, companies, military, government, and nonprofits - and a commercial site would never be able to even claim an individual's web site is infringing (or whatever) since they will live in different namespaces.
Ironically, the alleged extortionist's domain is justice4pat.com, seeming to suggest that this is a business venture for him.
Or maybe he just decided not to use
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.
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
MM
--
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with what he did? (Score:3, Insightful)
Donate. [reference.com] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
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.
yeah, but lets have some perspective here (Score:2, Insightful)
Two Important Lessons (Score:4, Insightful)
- If you do decide your work is worth something then don't jump from free to $300,000
You shouldn't offer things for free if you really want to profit. All you'll do is make yourself miserable at best. If you're really stupid you might even lose touch with reality and demand $300,000. Did he really expect them to pay? Unbelievable...
Re:What's wrong with what he did? (Score:4, Insightful)
The agreement was that he would host it for free in exchange for the publicity it would generate for his firm Running Wolf [runningwolf.com]. It's not that they wouldn't pay -- the agreement between them was that they didn't have to. Then the guy pulls the site, asks for $300K, and won't put it back up unless they pay? Well, that borders on extortion. As other people mentioned, he should have contacted a lawyer first since he needs one now even more.
Re:What's wrong with what he did? (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's the case, I don't believe the guy behaved professionally or intelligently. He should have just cut off the website, or replaced it with a note saying that, due to an inability to reach an agreement with the sherrif's dept., the site was removed.
Alternatively, he could have sold them the domain for some reasonable price, and they could have kept their email up and running and so on.
Anyway, the Sherrifs were stupid to arrest him. At some point, it will probably come back and bite them. This guy will sue for false arrest or something, and the county will have to spend a bunch of money defending the suit.
MM
--
Re:Let's do some math here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Those rates are actually very resonable. It's obvious that most posters on
A dedicated T1 line, averages $400-600 a month, PLUS bandwidth charges. And only have 1 line is definitely not what you would call "redundant". What about his personal time invested? Oh I forgot, that ain't worth crap to the OSS society, right? Come on!
Really this is just a. A salesman at work and b. police using powers that only they have, for financial gain. Do you think YOU would have the power to do what they are doing? Guess we are all EQUAL though right?!
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we can settle anything about this case until we see documentation on this 300,000$. Either he's the stupidest web developer in the world, or he's a fraudster.
Re:Techincally... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
No good deed goes unpunished... (Score:4, Insightful)
To all of you posters claiming he should have had a contract, I say why... he offered to run the site for free, a site the HE OWNS and worked on. Was he supposed to contract with himself ? Or maybe a contract that states that he would work for free until such time as he didn't want to any longer ?
I don't get it ? Is there really any legal reason he can't pull down HIS OWN website ? If he approaches the Sheriff and suggests that he need money for bandwidth or he's turning HIS WEBSITE off, how is that extorting ?
All you William Hung fansites [williamhung.org] take note... don't take them down or else !
An arrest, possible prison sentence, confiscation of equipment... if anyone doesn't see this as a small-town Sheriff abusing their position they are missing the point.
It's not illegal to ask for money to support YOUR website...
Wouldn't that make Slashdot guilty of extorting money by withholding stories from non-subscribers [slashdot.org] ?
Nuts...
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clearly more here than meets the eye... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, this sheriff's department has been shown to be gullible incompetent fools, and now it's gotten them in trouble, so they think they can strong-arm this guy into compliance by throwing trumped-up charges against him.
The moral of the story? Nothing in life is truly free. It's just like the cocaine dealer giving you a free hit or two; you get hooked, but now he wants money for any more.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
not entirely correct. he *offered* to create and run the site as a free service years ago, in exchange for the publicity it would bring him. the sherriff's office agreed. 3 years later, the web site is on all the police cars & letterhead, is used for email and has become an integral part of the department.
Now, he's *backcharging* the department $300,000 for work he originally agreed to do for free. That number does not appear to be solely bandwidth costs, but seems to include other new and surprising charges. The department didn't go for the "altered bargain" right away, and rather than the obvious expedient of simply turning over the site contents/domain to them to maintain on their own bandwidth, he pulled the plug as a bargaining tactic.
so lets see:
sounds slimy to say the least. it's generally a bad idea to play evil hardball with attorneys general, because it really doesn't cost them anything to fight back.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you still don't agree with the above, there really is no explanation I can think of of why it would cost 300k to maintain a website for 3 years.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2, Insightful)
I really can't see how this can possibly be criminal extortion. Findlaw [findlaw.com] defines extortion as requiring the use of violence, damage to reputation, vandalism, or unfavourable government action.
The proper owner of the website was the web designer. He said "Pay me, or I take it down", they didn't pay, he took it down. Since the website was his to take down or not, I don't see any element of extortion that can apply.
....at least not by the web designer. The Sherrif's dept. might not be so lucky.
Pierre
Re:Written Contract? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wrote up a contract with milestone payments, was reasonable with the fee (I was in college after all, any money is money after all), and asked him to sign. My boss at my university job is a notary public, so I asked if she would notarize it.
He sends it back with some requested changes that were reasonable, so I made them. Then he told me to go ahead and start and he'd sign it and get it back to me. I'm thinking 'yeah, right' and tell him I can't start work until I have it signed, to protect both of us.
Well, it's over a year later. Still no signed contract, still no work done. I still have that feeling if I did the work, he wouldn't have paid me. But that's ok, I wouldn't have given him ANYTHING until I saw some monies.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he agreed to host it for free. Then, as soon as it became popular (and the cops came to rely on it), he started saying that he will shut it down unless they pay him an obscene amount of money. If he offered a reasonable price or offered to hand over the website to the department, he would be all right. That's not what he did, however.
No no no no no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, please RTFA. He OFFERED to run the site for free initially, I quote:
Doesn't sound like he was getting screwed to me. Sounds like he pulled a turnaround when he asked the county for $300,000 all of a sudden.
I've actually been in a situation when we've had to shut someone's site down because they wouldn't pay. It took us more than 6 months to do it though, because we were professional and considerate, and it wasn't even a big site, just one of our small clients. But we had to do it after a while because he was just totally ignoring our bills and communications. He did eventually pay a reduced sum that we agreed to through negotiations. We then surrendered his domain gladly. But my point is, we gave him a long time and we tried really hard to communicate with him before shutting him down. It was the most drastic thing I've EVER done to a client, and I still feel a little weird about it.
This sounds different. Sounds like ye old bait and switch to me. And it doesn't really sound like they were out of communication--something I'm sure should have been worked out before the drastic step of shutting down their site happened. ESPECIALLY considering this guy offered to do it for free initially. You don't just shut down someone's site, especially not a high profile client like this. You just don't. There are other avenues way before that happens.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
How'd he get $300,000? Easy: aside from the hardware and software costs, there was unpaid labor. All that time he spent on this free site was time he could have spent on other work; so yes doing stuff for free was costing him money. As there was no contract the sheriffs office could have argued that he knew what he was getting into, but that's a question for civil court. However, by impounding his equipment, arresting him, and threatening 20 years in prison, they have committed a HUGE abuse of authority. I hope the responsible officials are a) fired b) sued into the ground and c) sent to a pound-me-in-the-ass prison for as long as they're trying to send this guy there.
Not the way to make an offer (Score:4, Insightful)
He could then conclude the letter by informing them that he is willing to provide services to the county at less then his normal prices, and would be willing to consider a request for an extention of the deadline for a reasonable time if needed to ensure continuity.
Extortion charges are a bit extreme, but if he's trying to show his power over the site to the sheriff, he shouldn't overreach. He managed to get the sheriff to overreach as well, and while the charges will likely be overruled by a court, that isn't a fun thing to have to go through.
The Problem With Charity (Score:2, Insightful)
- scsg
uh, whatever! (Score:5, Insightful)
Eyesore designers should be put in prison (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh. And in response to the old 'designer', the only way you'd be getting 3 million hits on some small town sherrif page is if you're posting 'The Strip Search of the Day" gallery. It just doesn't happen.
This is just another in a long line of public battles of idiots, rife with overreaction and failures to communicate.
Just like the internet and small town politics.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not real familiar with North American "news" sources, are you? If they're not sensationalizing completely baseless conclusions drawn from inconclusive scientific reports ("the gay gene has been discovered!") they're just making shit it up and hoping nobody notices (NYTimes, anybody?).
I guess it was inevitable. Once slashdot got big enough and had a clearly defined set of agendas within the readership, sensationalizing headlines and distorting the actual news reports to play on the mores and taboos of the group became a good way to get eyes on stories and, in turn, a good way to get more hits for squeezing advertiser wallets.
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.
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.)
If you do someone a favor, don't stop (Score:1, Insightful)
The statement about him being "privileged" to provide the website gives me the chills. So working for the state for free is a privilege now? That's just plain scary.
There's something to be learned here... (Score:3, Insightful)
*laughs*
What was this fool thinking. And then the save pat website tries to make it appear as though all he asked for was them to pay for the bandwith.
There are definetally two extremely different sides to this story. Somehow, I sincerely doubt that the police are going to lie on a case they intentionally drew public attention to.
Regardless, I'm most certainly not going to donate money to help this persons legal fund - I find the statements made there to be very misleading and untrue.
The Sheriff's side seems to have quite a bit of supporting evidence. Most of which you can read on quotes in previous comments.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it factual, who knows. But you seem willing to believe him and not the police...because they're the police? Who's right? Do you personally know Pat Richard? Do you personally know the Sheriff involved? Then how are we to judge who is right and wrong given two conflicting views?
This matter will play out in court. Since you have faith in people, then you should have faith in the court system since it's run by people.
It's certainly an interesting case.
Re:Techincally... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you argue that the police were essentially selling advertising space, perhaps there was reciprocation.
But you can't find a term here. Hence, not a contract -- oral, written or otherwise.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the county free services for three years, then hit them with the price and tell them that they can't live without him... that's not true, the county can take those three years of free service and give him nothing but a thank you, and then take their business elsewhere.
While the extortion charge is a bit extreme, he's lost all hope of doing business with any local government in the area ever again. He should know that local governments have to follow strict purchasing rules, and usually any contract worth $300,000 a year has to go out to bid.
His claim of ownership of the domain is a bit weak. He's not the Macomb Sheriff. The sheriff's office could very well create a trademark and then sue for posession of the domain name.
bias (Score:2, Insightful)
To suggest that a newspaper, or for that matter any "press" source should be considered unbiased is is patently... foolish.
I challenge you, or any other reader to name a truly unbiased source for this or for news in general! At best you'll find sources that listen to "both sides"... But remember, these media "balanced" news outlets choose who they will interview/cite to represent these sides. And that is BIAS my friends.
CNN - Biased
FOX - Biased
ABC - Biased
CBS - Biased
NBC - Biased
BBC - Biased
Times (london) - biased
NYTimes - Biased
WSJ - Biased
WashPost - Biased
WashTimes - Biased
SticksvilleDaily - Guess
You may prefer a particular bias. But there IS bias.
Re:Proof positive... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two sides to this story, of course, but let's presume that the defendant is innocent (since that's what we're supposed to do in the U.S.).
One could counter that the accused will have his day in court and be able to sort it out before a judge. True, but the accused has lost his time, legal expenses and reputation, not to mention his computer gear which the police are not required to return.I've heard of a DA charging a robber with kidnapping because he forced the homeowner (at gunpoint) to walk to another room in the house. That action technically fit the wording of the kidnapping law. The robber was convicted of robbery, but the kidnapping charge was modded -1 Stupid.
Entrapment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how the hell can you donate something and then ask for money back? What the guy did is regular extortion. Go read up on it sometime. 1) Full time + hardware/hosting costs. But it doesn't matter, because the number is irrelevant.
2) Did you not even read the other article? Did you not read the original reply in this thread? Did you read anything beyond the immediate parent post? He contends that he did not ask for his initial investment back. He simply asked that they pay going forward. So, regardless of how real or ridiculous the $300k figure is, if he didn't ask for it back, your point is irrelevant. Also, if I choose to provide you a service for free, and I tell you I'm going to stop providing you my volunteer work unless I get compensated, to call that extortion is ridiculous. It's my time, if I don't want to donate it unless I get paid, I don't have to. No one is forcing you to hire me.
Fuck the Sherrifs (Score:2, Insightful)
It's Pat Richard's property, and if the Sherrif's office wants control of it, they need to compensate the man for the time and money he spent on it. The "priviledge" of developing a web site for a Sherrif's office such as one that would arrest a man after abusing his resources for so long must be quite an honor!
Macomb County Sheriff's Office: FUCK YOU. Freeloading losers.
Re:Re-read TFAs (Score:2, Insightful)
What exactly makes you think that they're any different?
The guy is in jail. Don't think for a second that a local paper is going to give him a fair shake. The local reporters need police goodwill to get the scoops from local cops. What the police do is an awfuly big part of local news.
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.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a break.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone reads it different (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, when you go into negotiations you frequently state your side as strongly as possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if he came in saying, "Look, I put $300k into this, let's talk about paying me *something* to keep running this. Make me an offer."
But of course when you deal with the law enforcement authorities, things like this go with the territory. Ever try disagreeing with a cop?
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
But even if it was a complex, graphically intensive site, the bandwidth bill for such a site would be tiny. I host several similar sized sites on a 10 dollar a month shared hosting account without the slightest problem. In short, the idea of this level of traffic generating a $300,000 bandwidth bill is laughable.
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.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
FLASH: Slashdot posters trained to read articles (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or has the volume of posters who admit to not RTFA gone down lately? Perhaps the outrageous slant used to announce stories is having a salubrious effect...
Welcome to Slantdot!
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
All that matters is who you believe owns the site.
If you believe the designer/operator owned the site then there is no extortion, regardless of what amount he asked for and when he asked for it. It was his to do with as he pleased.
If you believe the sheriff's department owned the site and the designer/operator threatened to keep the contents and the domain name unless he got money (regardless of how much or when he asked for it) then the extortion charges are approriate.
It doesn't matter if the guy is a jerk or not. It doesn't matter if he asked for a reasonable amount or not. All that matters is whether the site was his or theirs.
TW
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"
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?
I reserve judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
But... there were two links. One said he did NOT demand back-payment and just wanted forward-payment for his site. That is perfectly legal and if they refuse that, then he has the right to close it. It sux and is shitty business practice, but it's legal.
If he DID demand back-payment for that rediculous amount of money, he deserves trouble. 50 years is excessive. Give him 3 months and keep his computers...
Ever been in jail? Two nights feels like a month... trust me, he'll have plenty of time to think about it in a few months.
I think everyone should spend a weekend wrongly imprisoned in jail... just for the perspective. I did it (not by choice) and many of my opinions about the justice system changed drastically.
Stewey
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he actually write checks for $9,000 per month is true expenses? Electricity, new hardware, bandwidth charges from his upstream provider? I'm guessing no fscking way.
And according to the first article, yes he did plonk down a bill, a piece of paper saying something to the effect of 'you owe me $300,000'. They told him to get bent, then arrested him.
That said, I think this entire thing is stupid. No farm-team sheriff office needs a web site that has 3.5 million 'hits' a month from 60 countries. And for damn sure no farm-team sheriff office web site is worth $300,000 over three years, traffic or no traffic. Someone is about to earn a few whacks from the clue stick.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:1, Insightful)
Some would say that's the best thing about cops. After all, if it weren't for the social construct of legislation and justice, EVERYBODY would have the power to act and ruin your life.
Re:The Guy Made Mistakes All Along (Score:3, Insightful)
goddamn (Score:3, Insightful)
These charges are utter bullshit. So I do something for free for someone, I can't change my mind about continuing to do it for free?
I have a BIG problem with this.... (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, let's dispense with the "he said, she said" content here. My divorce lawyer once said to me: "There are three sides to every divorce: your side, her side and the truth!"
So, let's try to stick to the facts:
Fact #1. This guy built and hosted the web site and paid for the domain name. Last time I looked, it cost money for bandwith, so some one was paying something. The Sheriff's Dept. admits it wasn't them paying, so it must have been him. Bandwith for 3.5 million hits costs what? $1000.00/month? $5000.00/month? I don't know the exact amount, but this still is a tidy sum of money.
Next, someone paid for the computers to host this site, the rent for the place to house them, the electricity to run them, upgrading, maintenance, etc. Another fairly substantial cost.
Next, someone had to build the web site. It's likely quite slick to win all these awards, and took someone quite a bit of time, not to mention the cost of the computer programs used to create it.
Okay, no one disputes that the guy did all these things. Maybe in the beginning he DID offer to do them for free....
BUT.....(and this is a big but....)
A year ago, he went to the Sheriff's Dept. and told them he couldn't afford to do this for free any more. I'm sure that the bandwidth cost for millions of hits/month were getting pretty steep for him. I'm sure he had to provide mega large servers out of his pocket for hosting too. The Sheriff offered to help him by allowing him to sell ads on the site. It's fairly obvious that the Sheriff was getting MUCH MORE from this site then the guy was. I'm sure the site got much bigger then both of them ever expected it to... In any event, it's fairly obvious that the guy let the Sheriff know of his hardship at least a year before he actually pulled the plug. The Sheriff even admitted this when he allowed the guy the right to place ads on the site.
The way I see this is that it was unreasonable for the Sheriff to expect unlimited web hosting in perpetuity, especially where the costs of providing such hosting had obviously increased dramatically over when the offer was first made (of course, I'm assuming the web site didn't have 3 million + hits a month the first day it opened). There IS an implied contract here actually. That contract was to provide web hosting and email for a small county's Police Dept, NOT a mega site visited 3+ million times a month by people from over 60 countries. The fact that this guy offered his benevolence (and his money!)for as long as he did (in a major economic downturn no less!) should not be cause to put him in jail for extortion. The Sheriff should have known that the gravy train would eventually come to an end, and actually HAD a year's notice that it was fast approaching the station! This sheriff should be fired for several reasons. The first is stupidity. A high school student should have been able to see that this site was costing much more to run then one man can provide for free. Worse, the guy TOLD HIM it was a year BEFORE he pulled the plug! Second, is due to police brutality. There was NO criminal activity here! At best, this should have gone to a CIVIL court. Finally, for theft. The Sheriff had NO RIGHT to confiscate that computer equipment. By doing that (and jailing the guy), he likely put the guy out of business permanently. What a reward, huh? It's like giving the Sheriff a gun for his birthday and then having him shoot you with it!
With friends like that Sheriff, who needs enemies?
Re:bias (Score:2, Insightful)
At least the outlet supporting the guy is open about its intent.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly not extortion. It may be fraud. Depends on the nature of the bill, and the nature of the agreement. If there is a dispute abut the nature of the agreement, (abnd it appears that there is) then it is a civil matter. Not a criminal matter.
The first link (which goes to a somewhat unbiased newspaper) clearly says he asked for $300K.
Don't trust the media to get all the facts right. they tend to make small mistakes, and mishear things, and write what they think happened rather than what actually happened.
Blink, did I see a lot of Big Government Lovers (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, but I try to read Groklaw and so.. I think that if you are giving something away you can stop at any time. I run a mud at (www.mageslair.net cheap ad.. ) and if I wanted to I could stop it at anytime and those who are addicted (yep.. quite a few) could whine and complain but its MY mud and I only agreed to host it while I want to do so (going on 6 years).
This guy was spending lots of money and his advertising was not making up the difference. Its obvious it was a high quality website. Reading the Article(s) I get the impression he came and asked for money to continue the operation and the Sheriffs departnment said NO. 300k may be the monetary cost, but he had the right to CHANGE the deal at any time he wanted since there was no written contract (at least none stated). No contract is forever in perpetuity, there is reasonable costs associated to it as well.
So.. here is a guy who wants money to host a site and he may even ask for 1 million but he didnt.. and he is now in jail.
The Sheriff office made the decision to put the website addy on the car and the horse and buggy and the office pig. Why should he be held liable or CRIMINAL for stopping a service he was providing for free. The Sheriff office would obviously just STOP providing advertising for his company.. which of course they pretty much did not do anyways... and let the matter drop.
Police power gone rampant.
Support your local Police Department, Teach them that "Computers are your friend"
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the guy thinks to himself, after three years, "this is bull. I have worked on this site for three years and have yet to see any money from the publicity. I can't afford to float it along any more, and these guys keep making demands of me."
So he says to the Sheriffs, "Hey guys -- listen. I've lost about $300,000 of my own money running this site, and I'm going to need you to start paying for it. I'm turning it off, but I'll put it back on when you pay." The figure is an exageration (obviously). Maybe he's expecting a few hundred dollars a month.
And the Sheriffs hear this as, "Guys, I want $300,000 to bring your site back up." That IS extortion. And obviously, since it's not in the budget, they can't pay it. This is government -- you can't wipe your ass if it's not in the budget. That's why everything's budgeted so high.
So maybe the guy exagerates, and maybe the sherriffs hear the exagerated sum before the real one. Nobody thinks, because there's a lot of emotion.
Not saying that's what happened. Just saying that neither group has to necesarily be lying.
Re:What exactly is Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been reading ./ for years now, and I always thought that it was a BBS that was extremely popular because it linked to lots of news stories, which gave its members a constant stream of new topics to "discuss".
Slashdot is what happens after journalism.
what what what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care how much bandwith or server space you think you have, you are ill advised to offer site hosting for free to anyone. If folks are really that cheap and need cost effective hosting they can pay $9 a month (see sig...). You won't have any trouble from them later on, and you probably won't end up in jail as a result. $9 is not a lot.
Detroit Free Press article (Score:3, Insightful)
I think some of you relied solely on the poorly written and sheriff-friendly article at the Macomb Daily.
Why don't you see what a real newspaper like the Detroit Free Press [freep.com] has to say about the situation?
Mr. Richard did not ask for $300k. He only cclaimed that to be his previous investment. The only thing he asked for was help in the future.
He gave 12 months formal notice, and more than two years of informal notice, that he needed help financing HIS site. The sheriff refused to help. The site went down. Simple.
Re:bias (Score:2, Insightful)
One more thing... in the US, newspapers are almost NEVER found guilty of Libel. Even if they managed to have NO facts in the story they posted, the paper has almost no chance of losing a Libel case. (Also, the other site is just as culpable for Libel, and just as unlikely to lose. FYI)
In my more idealistic moments, I also would prefer to believe that a Sheriff wouldn't abuse his power. But even when these sureal moods hit me, I don't believe in unbiased, or even a fair, media coverage.
It comes down to this.. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) If this person can prove that they had been trying to negotiate a payment plan with the Sherrif, and that these subsequent charges against him are because he then stopped supplying the service when no settlement could be reached, then he will have a great case; and will probably win more than he says it all cost him.
2) He will go to jail, and has lost all of his computer equipment forever, and may even be restricted as to their use when all said and done.
Personally, I find this all to be an over-abuse of police power.. at this point. IF it turns out that there was no 'demand' for money, only a 'request', then the extortion charge seems pretty steep. Most of the other charges are just being used as 'add-ons' to that main charge - this was what was used in the committing of that crime etc.. However, they ARE serious enough to adequately destroy someones life and livelihood.
Was it reeally called for in this case? Why would they particularly need to seize his equipment and personal effects? Taking these things really do nothing to solve the 'case'.. if anything at all, maybe they would have wanted to server so they cold pull evidence of access logs etc from it, but beyond that, siezing all of his computer and electronic equipment associated with it, is just strong arm tactics.. I'm surprised more people aren't mentioning due process and reasonable search and siezure rules.
Still, the press is not a good place for finding out the 'truth' about such things.. after all, if you where to believe the press, then the Macomb Sherriff's office has enough problems as it is anyway, what with the Old Sherriff Hackell who was brought up on charges for rape (I think it was), and now his son taking over.. who is the currect Sherriff probably involved in this.
Basically, there's more to this than meets the eye, but I still feel there is something wrong when peoples property gets taken without there even being 'good reason'.
But that's just me I guess.. and I'm a bit of a SykeOpath
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yeah, but lets have some perspective here (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need severe limitations on the power of government despite what bureaucrats and Democrats and Republicans would have you believe.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you! This, perhaps, is the most important detail of this entire situation. This man was arrested for ceasing to perform a voluntary service at his own expense. Granted, he could have transferred the site to the county's control, and arranged for them to move the site to their own hosting service, but that still would have required the county government to provide money to do this.
In short, the sheriff's department of that county abused their powers and levied four criminal charges for a matter that, at most, should have been resolved in civil court.
I might also add that the second link in this article makes it clear that the site content was owned by the admin who put it together, not by the sheriff's department -- and this was stated clearly on the home page for the site.
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that leaves $295,710 or about $8,960 per month, which comes out to $107,530 per year. The kicker here if you read the exact statement on his offer to provide the service for free:
"Richard, a former reserve deputy in the sheriff's marine division, more than three years ago offered to provide the Web site at no cost to the county as an in-kind contribution. Hackel, who enthusiastically supported it, said Richard agreed to operate it in exchange for publicity for his company."
"IN-KIND" means "TAX WRITE-OFF." Since he was doing this under the auspices of a business and the in-kind agreement was for publicity, you bet your ass this guy has claimed a $107,530 write-off each year for this.
I have no doubt that he has gotten a friendly call from the IRS and has been playing K.Y.A. with that write-off. That he can no longer afford to provide the service for free is probably more an indication that his write-offs related to that account were suspiciously large compared to his total revenue and he can no longer afford to evade his tax bill and the mounting penalties, not the $130 per month this site was costing him.
The extortion charge is no doubt related to this little snipped:
"Simmons said the Web site included a disclaimer that said it was owned by Running Wolf Inc."
Now, that's just crass. He's talking about "People for the Ethical Treatment of Web Designers" and he pulls an "I own all of your content" bait and switch. Guess what, buddy, if you own it all, you didn't give shit "in-kind." The fact that you chose to retain ownership of something you can't sell to anyone but the original "customer" is your own damn fault.
All of it adds up to this guy is a sleazeball.
Re:Detroit Free Press article (Score:3, Insightful)
Hackel said Richard asked for $300,000 to keep the Web site going. Simmons said that figure wasn't his client's asking price, but rather the amount of money the Sheriff's Department would have spent on the site had it paid Richard his usual going rate.
Translation: both parties want to the other side to look bad. Who cares.
Some sheriff's departments, including those in Oakland and St. Clair counties, have Web sites run through the county. Hackel said he didn't want the county to run his department's site to ensure it wouldn't cost taxpayers any money.
Translation: Cheapass Sheriff wants award-winning Web site for free.
The sheriff's old site, www.macombsheriff.com, was shut down this winter. The address had been printed on the department's vehicles, business cards and letterheads. Hackel said it will cost the county between $6,000 and $7,000 to change.
Translation: Sherriff's department spent money advertising a Web site it probably didn't own and by its own admission did not pay for. Too bad. $300,000 may (or may not) be a reasonable number for the work Richard did for the department, but $6000-$7000 is certainly ridiculously low. They should figure they got off easy.
Hackel and his staff scrambled to create a new site at www.macomb-sheriff.com, though he said it doesn't measure up to the old one. Hackel said he'd like to reclaim the old site's name and features but run it in house instead.
Translation: Richard did one hell of a job on the site, but we didn't want to pay for it so we figured we'd just toss him in jail until he gives it back to us for free.
And they charged Richard with extortion. Incredible. Boggles the mind, it does. The Sheriff wasn't kidding when he said the new site doesn't measure up to the old one. Amateurish at best.
But seriously, I'm not a lawyer and I only know what little I've read about this case but
Re:Question on Extortion and IP (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't the right forum for such questions. Slashdotters will be happy to give you plenty of advice, but I'd take it with large grains of salt. If some idiot in a suit is making threats, go talk to a good lawyer, answer his questions honestly, and then have him send them an attitude adjustment via certified mail, return receipt requested. In any event, before this pointy-haired-CEO does something stupid, like actually suing you, get some good advice from a good attorney. In this country at least, nobody knows their rights unless they talk to a lawyer first.
Re:This is an IP issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if they make the formal request, they could almost certainly take control of the domain away from the ISP.
Sounds to me like the sherrif's department set themselves up, were stupid about it, then panicked and decided to throw their weight around without knowing what their legitimate options are. If they weren't the sherrif's department, I think they'd be in serious legal trouble...
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What exactly is Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really think that is true? I don't know how many slashdotters there are, but if we base it roughly off of id numbers, it's over 500,000. Even the most hotly debated articles rarely get more than 1000 comments. I think that most slashdotters don't post and don't read the comments at all. I think it's the same subset of people that post comments for each article. Maybe not the whole subset, but from the same pool.
I know a couple people where I work that read slashdot, but never click the read comments link.
Re:set of agendas (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thankyou sir (Score:5, Insightful)
I see. So if I do volunteer work for another entity without any sort of contract, with the clear disclaimer on all the work that I own it, and then I decide to stop doing it, I have to turn over my work for free or be thrown in jail?
Who "owns" a domain name? In this case, he offered to set up the site for publicity. He registered the domain name, the site always said that it was owned by his company, and then he stopped providing the free service (after a year of trying to negotiate a new deal where they would pay him for it). The domain name and the data has value to the sherriff's department (obviously), and they have NO AGREEMENT that he is to turn over the data or domain name to them if he stops hosting the site. So of course, it's perfectly understandable that they would throw him in jail and confiscate his equipment if he wanted them to pay for it.
He might have asked for an unreasonable amount, and he might have even felt a bit malicious about it. Certainly, he had them up a tree, but they did do a lot of the climbing themselves. Still doesn't seem to me to be that obvious that he committed any crime.
Re:Oh, gotta rant, gotta rant on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
BALONEY (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because the sheriff was stupid enough to rely on a free site that he did not own does not mean that the developer (Richard) was a criminal. This seems to be an abuse of police power to me. It is clearly a civil case and not a criminal case. If a business in town went to the sheriff's office with a similar claim of extortion they would tell him to sue the guy and then show him the door. Just because the Macomb sheriff has arrest powers doesn not mean he should abuse them.
I've been stiffed by clients before... (Score:2, Insightful)