Elad Cohen

Thu Sep 19 01:35:01 UTC 2019

In message <ddb7a72a-eeea-bdfa-d234-f41d7422da8c at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> It is a well known fundamental tenet of logical reasoning and argument
>> that it is not possible for -anyone- to prove a negative, which is what
>> you've just asked me to do.
>
>So, Australian government does not think it is a victim of a
>crime. Right?

That's a two part question.  I'll answer each part.

Regarding "crime", there are crimes and there are Crimes.

It wasn't a Crime, until well after 2008, to sell stupid and naive
investors so-called "mortgage backed securities" which turned out
to be worthless, based on bogus financial projections.  The law had
not yet caught up to innovation in the financial sector.  But some
of the people who were selling this garbage to unsuspecting rubes
back in 2008 and earlier knew full well, in their heart of hearts,
that they were screwing people.  Mulitple email exchanges that came to
light after that showed these sellers -joking- about how they were
screwing people.  The same thing happened also in the case of Enron,
whose traders joked in email exchanges about how they were screwing
my own home state of California.

At present, the law has likewise not caught up to this "innovation"
called the Internet.  It has had 20+ years to do that, but it still
hasn't, in no small part because legislators the world over understand
the Internet even less than they now understand mortgage backed securities.

So, if you are looking for a Crime here, i.e. one defined under law,
there isn't one.  But the concepts of stealing and unfairness are even
older that the world's so-called oldest profession, and they are so
fundamental and apparent that one does not even need to be a "highly
evolved" human in order to grasp these moral and ethical principals:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

In short, stealing is stealing.  If I steal a watch out of the pocket of
a dead man, it is still stealing, even if there is no specific legislation
of the subject, and even if the dead man unhelpfully declines to file a
police report on the incident.

With respect to the Australian government's knowledge or lack thereof,
I really have no idea.  If you want to know what they know, or do not
know, I encourage you to ask them yourself.  It appears that this will
be rather easier for you to do, than for me to do, since you are in their
same general time zone, and I am not, and thus you have a better shot
at reaching them on the phone, during their working hours, than I do.

The relevant WHOIS contact info is reproduced below, for your convenience.

Regards,
rfg

=========================================================================
inetnum:        168.198.0.0 - 168.198.255.255
netname:        DOFD
descr:          DOFD Department of Finance and Deregulation
descr:          Australian Government
country:        AU
admin-c:        FIAR1-AP
tech-c:         FIAR1-AP
status:         ALLOCATED PORTABLE
mnt-by:         APNIC-HM
mnt-lower:      MAINT-AU-DOFD
mnt-routes:     MAINT-AU-DOFD
mnt-irt:        IRT-DOFD-AU
last-modified:  2013-07-24T04:25:39Z
source:         APNIC

irt:            IRT-DOFD-AU
address:        John Gorton Building, King Edward Terrace, Parkes ACT 2600
e-mail:         ipaddressing(at)finance.gov.au
abuse-mailbox:  ipaddressing(at)finance.gov.au
admin-c:        FIAR1-AP
tech-c:         FIAR1-AP
auth:           # Filtered
mnt-by:         MAINT-AU-DOFD
last-modified:  2013-07-23T04:50:09Z
source:         APNIC

role:           Finance Internet Address Registry - CIOD
address:        John Gorton Building, King Edward Terrace, Parkes ACT 2600
country:        AU
phone:          + 61 2 6215 2222
e-mail:         ipaddressing(at)finance.gov.au
admin-c:        FIAR1-AP
tech-c:         FIAR1-AP
nic-hdl:        FIAR1-AP
mnt-by:         MAINT-AU-DOFD
last-modified:  2013-07-23T04:27:45Z
source:         APNIC