southsider2k5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) Your logic is just as circular here, but we're not going anywhere. I just think it's quite interesting, psychologically, that 2 crimes get committed, you have zero problem with the bank and the government and the people committing the initial crime, and I have no problem if people break the law to expose that crime. Now that is where your assumption is completely wrong. I NEVER said it was OK. What I said is that illegal means can't be used to justify illegal means. We give all criminals these rights. We can't pick and choose that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) But take note...(again assuming allegations are true) you're quite explicitly choosing which side has to respect the law. By your own standard...if there's no respect for the law then freedoms are a sham...so if a government and a corporation are failing to respect the law, then our freedoms are sham. Your logic is circular. If someone like Jared Loughner decides that Obama is committing crimes and breaking the law, should he be able to shoot him to solve that problem? What if he has evidence that Obama is breaking laws that he got from Wikileaks? Where exactly does the line of what you can do when someone else breaks the law end? Who gets to decide that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) As far as I can tell, the only reason why this is happening this way is that the governments involved are more than happy to look the other way, if everything alleged is true. Who do you turn to when the government protects the corrupt? You can't turn to some other part of the government. There has to be some sort of respect for law here, otherwise our freedoms are a sham. I know it isn't ideal, but I have said in other situations, that people will die because of our constitutionally protected freedoms. I see this falling under that sort of umbrella. People can't just decide on their own which laws are OK to break, and that be all right either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) So what do you do when the government decides to be in on it? Just put your fingers in your ears and send them a bigger check? No obviously you commit more crimes to justify it. Besides there is a massive difference between stealing and releasing private information, and reporting on wrong doing. This could be done a totally different way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) Honestly, I don't like it at all. And to me, it doesn't approach anything like what we are talking about here. #1 if it is legal, it is legal. #2, no ones private banking information and everything that goes along with it is being talked about here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) I've definitely gotten names along with salaries at public universities, quite commonly. Honestly, I don't like it at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) Here's the problem though...if a private financial institution is assisting people in breaking the law, and either a government or a set of governments is looking the other way...then we go in a different direction...because now we're going in whistle-blower directions. If there are people using these accounts to bypass tax law, and the bank knows this, then the bank itself is willfully breaking the law, along with the people who are using the accounts. If there are financial firms doing this and this government and other international governments have not stopped them, despite it being reported to them, then those governments are complicit in the scam, and your tax dollars are going to pay for it. I'm not a fan of deciding and changing laws as you go along. That is a major red flag for sacrificing the rights of individuals. That is slippery slope, ends justifies the means type stuff that everyone was against from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Yeah, I've gotten salaries, names, seniority info, etc., nothing I'd actually call private, but it surprised me to hear you say that was illegal to give out. I would hope anything more than pay and positions would be protected information. It certainly should be illegal to attach someone's name to those bits. All though we have salary information for every single office holder in the country, so maybe it is legal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) This irritates me - not your post, but this topic. For any given person on any given election in Chicago, once every two years or so, maybe once a year at most... you have zero to 8 Constitutional offices and maybe zero to 10 local offices to vote for. Why is it so beyond people to spend a f***ing hour once a year to make an intelligent decision about who represents them in government? I mean, I get that with judges and water commissioners, there is little or no info available. Fine, on those, use party or whatever. But your alderman? State rep? State Senator? It is just so frustrating to me that 99% of voters know nothing about these people. You are GIVING away your freedoms and rights by not paying attention. Yep. Agreed 100%. Yet everytime there is a public candidate forum, there are more candidates and staff than there are general public.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:08 PM) So is it wrong for websites to post the private financial information of my wife, who's a public school teacher? It certainly makes me a bit uncomfortable. Is it wrong, that as a business, I can call experian or dun and bradstreet and buy lists of your names, addresses and phone numbers based upon certain demographics that I give them, that is based upon your credit score? For example, give me a list of everyone in Woodridge, age 35 and over, with personal credit scores of 700+. What private information exactly are you talking about being posted? Salaries?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Wait, so who exactly is bribing Assange to stay in school? Anyway, this is a side issue. Here's my general point...I see why "releasing private financial information" gets your hairs to stand on end. I'm hoping you see why "Releasing private financial information of people who are knowingly violating tax laws" doesn't really bother me. If they release those documents and there is zero evidence of anything illegal or untoward, if there's no evidence in those records of tax havens or of willful avoidance of the law, then I'll agree with your grievance. That is the equivalent of illegal search and seizure being OK, because in the end, evidence of a crime makes it OK. That is also the same as it being OK for people to monitor your communications, because some people use them to commit acts of terrorism. If you don't protect the rule of law for all, you might as well not have it. You don't get to look for something illegally, just because you are pretty sure something illegal has happened. Our justice system doesn't work that way. Also if you don't see how money could be "donated" to Assange to damage specific parties, then you are playing dense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 08:11 AM) A lot of these zillion little NCAA rules seem arcane and wierd, but when you spend some time thinking about how they relate to the recruiting process and where the money is, they start making more sense. For example, selling memorabilia, one of the exact ones you cite, is a great way for people to buy off athletes to make decisions that a booster or gambler would want. Memorabilia in particular is odd because it's hard to come up with an exact value for it...the market value of the materials that go into making a Big Ten Championship ring could be $1000, but if I were a graduate of a Big Ten school and my team won a big ten championship, I might be willing to pay a lot more than that for the item and I could testify accurately about that. Meanwhile, the guy who sells me the ring, or pants, or helmet, whatever, gets $500,000 with the understanding that he's going to stay at Ohio State as a Senior rather than go pro. That's a great way to set up a bribery system. The one I always come back to is the Kelvin Sampson at Indiana mess. His biggest crime was sending too many calls and text messages to recruits. How awful is that right? He's just calling them too much. Big Deal. Well, for one coach to do it maybe it's not a big deal, but then the other 30 coaches trying to recruit that player realize the NCAA thinks it isn't a big deal, and next thing you know, the recruit isn't sleeping because he's spending 24/7 receiving recruiting calls. Free Tattoos? Fine. Where do you draw the line on free stuff that a player can get? The NCAA has chosen to define anything free as an inappropriate gift. Say you allow each gift if it's under $100 in market value. Hey, five star recruit, I've got 10,000 alums lined up each of whom are willing to give you a $99 gift. Oh sure, they're just coffee makers, baseball cards, and collectables, but you can sell them all off and pocket everything you want. Or, you're never paying for your own meals again, just come to our school I think it is funny that the same person made these posts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Who exactly is profiting off of it? Don't tell me that good ol hearted Julian isn't making a dime off of this. I don't believe that for a second.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information? Trying to think about these things individually, I think different arguments can be made. I can buy governments secrets having a better argument for being made public, versus private and corporate info. At least it can be said that the government belongs to the people. In the case of the financial information I don't think that applies at all. I would also think of it like this... If the police/FBI/CIA had disregarded the rules of evidence collection and obtained evidence of crimes illegally, it would be thrown out, and couldn't be used against the offenders. Why is this different? People do have rights to due process, even if they are scummy corporate types. If another company engaged in behavior like this, there would be howls of corporate espionage. I don't see how people committing crimes should be OK, even if there is a seeming "gain" in the end.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) I do see your point, I guess though there's the added layer of complexity because supposedly they're actually breaking the law in the process. That can also be reported to the proper authorities by the recipient of the info. I just can't see knowing that information is stolen, receiving it, and then profiting off of it, being OK.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) This is where the law gets complicated. If a classified document is leaked to the NY Times, but it's newsworthy, and the NY TImes publishes it, should I go to jail if I read it? Let's hypothetically say that someone leaks to the Times that the U.S. government is spying illegally on its citizens. Shouldn't there be some protection for people to know that information? You are a step past that though. We are to the stage where the NYT has the information. The first thing they should do is report it to the proper authorities. I'm not a big fan of people's personal information being stolen. Like I said, if that doesn't bother you, go ahead and offer yours up. I especially don't like it being used to someone's personal gain, which is pretty much what is happening here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) The Cubs spending that kind of cash? I'd be stunned. I don't see them having the money to spend like that. Ricketts hasn't shown any indications like that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) F***, I'm just off lately. If I read a Wikileaks document, have I committed a crime? How about if I steal all of your banks information and give it to someone else. You don't see a problem in that? How about posting it publicly, is that OK too? If it isn't a crime, it should be. That is personal financial information. If a person wants to whistleblow it, that's one thing, but this isn't going through legal means.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) So you can be proven before ever taking a major league at-bat or throwing a major league pitch? This is news to me. Anyway, I still can't think of one person that's ever wanted to trade Danks just to get a sexy collection of prospects back. It's all about maximizing his value while still under club control. Because if he hits FA then that's a wrap. The Yankees will be on him like a cat in heat. And they won't be alone.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) Think of all the unproven prospects we could get for him! Think of losing him for nothing to the Yankees!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) If I read a Wikipedia document, have I committed a crime? Where is Wikipedia stolen from?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) Danks is going to test the FA market. You can take that to the bank. They aren't even talking about a deal. That tells me a lot.

WTF are the Tigers doing up there? http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/tige..._medium=twitter

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Knowing someone else's SSN isn't a crime, committing fraudulent activities with it is. Not the same as possessing stolen information. If I stole files from a Swiss bank and relayed all of the information to you but in a different format, what crime have you committed? So basically if someone else steals your bank information, writes it down on a piece of paper, and gives it to me (with me knowing that it was stolen), that is OK in your opinion? I'm not much of a lawyer, but that sounds like some sort of a crime to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) Ok, replace it with their opinion on Roe v Wade or some other higher-level-than-what-we're-talking-about issue. How many examples of relevancy do there need to be to tell that it is relevant?