Right. So my logic is faulty based on arrests that weren't reported, are unverifiable, and as far as I know don't exist? Ok. I say your logic is faulty based on twice as many imaginary crimes where no arrest was made because there was no news article.
So my logic is faulty based on arrests that weren't reported, are unverifiable, and as far as I know don't exist?
Yep, it's faulty because you're assuming that just because you're not aware of something, that something doesn't exist. It may or may not exist.
In this case, I feel it's a reasonable assumption that there have been e-commerce related arrests that didn't make it in the media simply because they are no longer novel or newsworthy. It counters your suggestion that in order to get a similar arrest you must first be featured in a major publication. I disagree.
Example: People get busted on ebay all the time; only a small percentage of it gets reported somewhere and even a smaller percentage makes it to any big media. You can do a search on sites that archive court records to see volume of such arrests.
Ok, I see what you're getting at and I agree. My point was that this should have been one of those cases. It should have been stopped when it was just a petty criminal being an ass and not a national issue. I mean this guy was willing to talk about his case to the New York Times. He couldn't have been that good at doing this.
