Bypassing IP Bans on Websites you are not supposed to is now ILLEGAL.

[Cloud`]

And one of the people in that cort will be you Death'

For all we know he could be a previous scammer.

[Death']

This is for US people only, I am British, and I don't expect that law to last long as a lot of people change their IP's every day

[Jim]

Who actually follows internet rules?

[CrankcaseROTF]

Who actually follows internet rules?

No one, we don't care if the FBI arrests us.

[liettuva]

Speak for yourself lol. I'm shit scared of those things.

[Transfixed]

So is Ethen gonna get sued yet?

[Azathᴏth]

So is Ethen gonna get sued yet?

No, because Mr.Deepthroat Mc****** hasn't been IP banned yet.

[Transfixed]

No, because Mr.Deepthroat Mc****** hasn't been IP banned yet.

Aww that sucks

[[MPGH]Ghost]

i like this, alot

[[MPGH]Disturbed]

1. Legal precedent isn't the same as legislation.

2. You would have to prove the individual or party in question intentionally changed their IP address to bypass your IP block.

3. Any other judge can decide otherwise in a similar case, and...

4. ..State or federal agencies won't actively pursue prosecution of this, since this is nothing but a civil suit ruling. You won't have the FBI knocking on your door. All this means is that other companies/people can start a civil suit over this with at least some expectation of success.


This article is sensationalized bullshit using the shock factor for easy hits. Anybody who actually understands the basics of american courts and/or how the internet actually works will know it's a complete crock of shit. The writer has danced on a very fine line where they haven't explicitly mislead anybody, but the average joe reading their piece will get the same impression that you did.

[ypmagic]

1. Legal precedent isn't the same as legislation.

2. You would have to prove the individual or party in question intentionally changed their IP address to bypass your IP block.

3. Any other judge can decide otherwise in a similar case, and...

4. ..State or federal agencies won't actively pursue prosecution of this, since this is nothing but a civil suit ruling. You won't have the FBI knocking on your door. All this means is that other companies/people can start a civil suit over this with at least some expectation of success.


This article is sensationalized bullshit using the shock factor for easy hits. Anybody who actually understands the basics of american courts and/or how the internet actually works will know it's a complete crock of shit. The writer has danced on a very fine line where they haven't explicitly mislead anybody, but the average joe reading their piece will get the same impression that you did.

1) A judge ruled that bypassing a webpage where the offender was previously banned from is prohibited, and therefore lawyers are able to use it in other trials as a relevant source. The US Judicial Branch is considering of reforming the CFAA which practically governs the Internet internationally, to make this happen.

2) With a warrant, all investigatives are entitled to personal information such as the databases in the connection of VPNs or public proxies.

3) A judge doesn't decide what happens. A jury does. A judge that overpasses the jury's decision is basically a fraud, and there's no reason to be facing a jury when the judge is in his office ready to make his/her decision. There's a reason why there's lawyers.

You don't know a thing about law, yet you talk. Stfu is my advice ^^

[[MPGH]Disturbed]

1) A judge ruled that bypassing a webpage where the offender was previously banned from is prohibited, and therefore lawyers are able to use it in other trials as a relevant source. The US Judicial Branch is considering of reforming the CFAA which practically governs the Internet internationally, to make this happen.<br>
<br>
2) With a warrant, all investigatives are entitled to personal information such as the databases in the connection of VPNs or public proxies.<br>
<br>
3) A judge doesn't decide what happens. A jury does. A judge that overpasses the jury's decision is basically a fraud, and there's no reason to be facing a jury when the judge is in his office ready to make his/her decision. There's a reason why there's lawyers.<br>
<br>
You don't know a thing about law, yet you talk. Stfu is my advice ^^

1. Yeah, in a civil suit. But just because a judge ruled it was illegal doesn't mean police agencies will actively prosecute it, like they normally would if legislation had been passed. They don't treat it the same, and won't until they are either directed to do so by more powerful parts of the executive branch, or the laws are reformed.


2. You don't get a warrant based on accusations alone. The accuser has to present some sort of evidence that the individual in question has committed the crime before one can be granted. The individual will have no threat of being served with a warrant simply because they changed their IP address; there's no way to prove what their intentions were.


3. This one is completely irrelevant:

a) The right to a trial by jury is usually not used for civil suits for reasons that should be obvious. They aren't mandatory, and the right is usually waived by the defendant in civil suits. In such cases, the judge has the final say on guilt.

b) If only a jury can make this kind of decision, then this ruling-THAT WAS HANDED OUT BY A JUDGE, NOT A JURY-has absolutely no effect on law in the U.S. Hurr Durr.

c) A judge can throw out a case for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the law(s) in question not being constitutional.

d) A judge almost always decides what happens in a courtroom. That's their job, they are the judge.

e) Ever heard of jury nullification? A judge usually has something similar at their disposal. (IE when a judge throws out a case).



Bottom line, only companies have something to fear from this. It will not affect end users. This article is a sensationalized piece of shit. It's kind of like how they rarely bother with piracy on the individual scale, and prefer to go after the large groups and websites hosting torrent search engines and files. The individual has nothing to fear from this ruling. The FBI won't be knocking on your door if you change your IP to get around a IP ban on MPGH for example.


And suck on it, ******. I'll talk about whatever the hell I want, and you can play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself.

[jaredo88]

Who is going to waste their time taking someone to court, unless they were doing something really bad.

[ypmagic]

1. Yeah, in a civil suit. But just because a judge ruled it was illegal doesn't mean police agencies will actively prosecute it, like they normally would if legislation had been passed. They don't treat it the same, and won't until they are either directed to do so by more powerful parts of the executive branch, or the laws are reformed.


2. You don't get a warrant based on accusations alone. The accuser has to present some sort of evidence that the individual in question has committed the crime before one can be granted. The individual will have no threat of being served with a warrant simply because they changed their IP address; there's no way to prove what their intentions were.


3. This one is completely irrelevant:

a) The right to a trial by jury is usually not used for civil suits for reasons that should be obvious. They aren't mandatory, and the right is usually waived by the defendant in civil suits. In such cases, the judge has the final say on guilt.

b) If only a jury can make this kind of decision, then this ruling-THAT WAS HANDED OUT BY A JUDGE, NOT A JURY-has absolutely no effect on law in the U.S. Hurr Durr.

c) A judge can throw out a case for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the law(s) in question not being constitutional.

d) A judge almost always decides what happens in a courtroom. That's their job, they are the judge.

e) Ever heard of jury nullification? A judge usually has something similar at their disposal. (IE when a judge throws out a case).



Bottom line, only companies have something to fear from this. It will not affect end users. This article is a sensationalized piece of shit. It's kind of like how they rarely bother with piracy on the individual scale, and prefer to go after the large groups and websites hosting torrent search engines and files. The individual has nothing to fear from this ruling. The FBI won't be knocking on your door if you change your IP to get around a IP ban on MPGH for example.


And suck on it, ******. I'll talk about whatever the hell I want, and you can play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There's a fucking division in the FBI dedicated to tracking down bitches like you. This country was based on the opinions of the general people, and if the jury doesn't decide shit in the court, then this country's gone to shit. There's no point in the 3 branch system when you can have the President to decide who dies and who doesn't.

[[MPGH]Disturbed]

You seriously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There's a fucking division in the FBI dedicated to tracking down bitches like you. This country was based on the opinions of the general people, and if the jury doesn't decide shit in the court, then this country's gone to shit. There's no point in the 3 branch system when you can have the President to decide who dies and who doesn't.

Yea bro, I'm totally on the FBI's most wanted list. They can't catch me though, i'm too 1337 for them.
Don't worry though, ron paul will save us from the horrors of government and deliver us into salvation.




Dumbass.