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