Not sure you can defraud a criminal organization.

Did he really just leave his IP wide open? Or did they somehow manage to get through his seven proxies to find him?

I know I'm being paranoid. What I don't know is if I'm being paranoid enough.

The guy didn't lose anything. He will fund someone better.

Not sure if typo, or cynicism.

Never used plex. Finally got around to installing Jellyfin. Very happy with it.

The fact that he collected billions (worth of cash and financial instruments) in the first place is the problem. He should have been charging consumers less, and paying his workers more. He never should have accumulated his obscene wealth to begin with.

post incarceration.

Author of this article is serving a life sentence. He's been in prison over 15 years so far, and won't be eligible for parole for another 52 years, at which time he will be 97 years old.

"Post incarceration", he'll be mailed to his next of kin in a tiny plastic bag. There is no "rebuilding" of his life after incarceration. This is the rest of his life.

I do think he should be earning at least minimum wage for his work while imprisoned. But, $6.25 of his $7.25/hr wages should be garnished and divided among the estates of his victim(s). If they refuse the money, the state should offer the job to any other prisoner whose victims will actually accept restitution.

I'd go so far as to intercept up to 75% of the funds deposited into his commissary account as victim restitution.

Again: guns are an equal access opportunity for all social classes.

Yes, you've said that. You've declared that to be the problem. I quoted you saying that:

the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.

Solving "the real problem" as you described makes it no longer "equal access opportunity for all social classes". Solving "the real problem" denies that access to those dirty poors, without substantially affecting the middle class and the rich.

Your "real problem" argument only applies to the poor. I've given you every opportunity to back away from that, but you've doubled down on it twice now. I can only take you at your word that you have a problem with those dirty poors.

For less than a couple hours' minimum wage

Not sure if hyperbole or ignorance. I'll charitably assume the former.

That wasn't an assumption. That was your own words:

the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.

Your argument doesn't apply to middle class and rich "punks". They'll still be able to afford their guns. Your "real problem with gun ownership" argument only applies to the poor.

Pushing gun control with a sunset clause was pretty dumb, in hindsight.

Even then, they didn't have the support to implement it without that sunset. They hoped that support would grow and it would be easy to renew.

It didn't.

Rather than accept that gun control had become a losing issue, they doubled down, making it a central focus of every campaign across the country for the past 30+ years. They alienated more and more Democrats, year after year.

They claim they want "common sense gun control", then vote against measures that would actually achieve it, such as public access to NICS. Why? Because they don't want the public using NICS; they don't want the public selling guns at all. They took that approach straight out of the "Abstinence Only" playbook.

Dropping gun control, we would have had the political capital to enact universal health care, which would save several hundred thousand lives a year, and improve the quality of life of millions more.

Trying to force gun control got us Trump and UnitedHealth, without actually achieving gun control: no federal measures have passed since 1994, and 42 States have enacted pro-gun laws since 2004.

Was it worth it?

This is the attitude I'm talking about. "Poor people are punks, who will walk up behind you with a .38spl. Guns should be more expensive to keep those filthy poors from getting them."

Centrist, corporatist, elitist crap.

The assault weapons ban the US had from 1994 to 2004 didn't force the retirement of the entire set of politicians who voted for it. It simply drove the majority position across party lines, and left everyone wondering how the hell the Democrats become so out of touch with their own constituents.