Since when does a judge in NY get to tell Greenland they can't have their registrar sell to Anna's Archive?
Very strange how people under indictment by the United States of America keep dying in custody.
Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.
You're welcome to look into what those around him said regarding his detention and death.
He is just a well-publicized example.
Many of you here have probably used darknet markets, if so, your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
> your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
What in the world are you talking about.
Often even people envolved aren't even aware these technologies are being utilized, to those who are, their position is often simple: you do what we say or we torture you, even in protective custody, as surgery isn't really practical.
That claim falls apart as soon as it touches reality: there are a _lot_ of people who are involved in the drug trade, now and in the past. At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull (e.g. my dentist does a whole head CT every 5 years as part of the normal process and insurance pays for it). Surely _one_ of those people would have noticed a brain implant.
This sounds extremely made up.
The tech is adversarially designed, you're assuming the medical supply chains are not compromised, and are dramatically underestimating the sophistication involved here generally.
You can't even assume the people interpreting the results are uncompromised, are trained to interpret results in the context of adversarial technology, or are even physiologically able to accurately interpret what they are looking at. This has it's roots in military intelligence, it's not a trivial compromise.
Do you have literally any proof? Otherwise, this is all just a silly made up story as far as I’m concerned.
Unless you have proper clearance or are involved with one of the parties propagating them, anyway.
Then how do you know about it? This sounds extremely made up.
It's not just the drug trade, and torture isn't even the primary focus of the technology.
What does that even mean? Are you an InfoWars fan? lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_legal_assistance_treaty
Since September 30, 1998, when ICANN was founded in the US.
I wonder whether we wventually see some other power establish their own root servers which mirror only the parts of ICANNs DNS that are politically convenient to whoever does this.
These judgments aren’t always pointless. Many Internet companies and services intersect with the US in some way, so there could be an angle where this impacts them.
Businesses operating strictly in other countries don’t need to comply with foreign laws except in cases where they need to do business with those countries, at which point it becomes complicated and they may choose to comply to avoid problems or sanctions.
Crazy judgments happen because they give the impression of impartiality. An accused murderer with $10 to his name gets held on a $1 million bond. What's the point, why not just hold them without bail? Because the rules say you do it this way and shrugging and saying "it doesn't actually matter so who cares?" doesn't make people feel like the system has the proper attitude.
> However, most of the intermediaries are foreign entities. Whether they voluntarily comply with a U.S. court order remains to be seen. While some foreign companies have taken action following U.S. injunctions, others have historically ignored them, citing a lack of local jurisdiction.
It's called international law, trade agreements, treaties etc.