Replies to post #117511 on Drone Services USA Inc. (DSUS)

[JRT]

I think that's wrong, I don't agree

[hoggydog]

My prediction is that there will be no "gift share" distribution and it will be blamed on some external interfering entity and soon after be replaced with the next in the continuing series of bait "offerings" that will in turn be enthusiastically received by the PVEC corps of followers.Meanwhile he will continue to dilute to everyone who is continuing to average down because they think it's absurd to believe any CEO could be this deceptive and dishonest.

[SweepsMcGee]

Some clarification regarding IP addresses as it pertains to this quote:

People should be aware that Kerry and Jason scrutinize IP addresses and will use such information to try to identify anyone who they believe is critical of the company. There is no "privacy policy" with the PVEC website. They will use your IP address any
way they want.

Unless a court order has been secured against an ISP (internet service provider), it's virtually impossible for an individual or entity (such as PVEI) to collect PII (personally identifiable information) based solely on an IP address. Now, if an individual chooses to make some or all of their PII available on the internet (which, in my opinion, would be very silly and foolhardy to do), that action could certainly increase the chances of the "dots being connected", so to speak.

With regard to this quote:

What IS uncommon is for the paid staff of a public company to scrutinize IP addresses of those who merely read a company forum with a corporate goal of attempting to identify and expose people who post criticism of the company.

I was unable to find any evidence that the company has a "corporate goal of attempting to identify and expose people who post criticism of the company". Nothing on their website that states that, nor in any PRs that the company has released.

Now, speaking to the practice of public websites (whether owned by an individual or a company such as PVEI) banning users via IP address: A federal judge ruled last year that "public website owners have the right to selectively block users from their sites; anyone who intentionally circumvents those blocks may be violating provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)." (quote courtesy of ComputerWorld). The case in question is "3:12-cv-03816-CRB", Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, and was tried in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No link to the dockets for this case, unfortunately, since you need to access it via PACER.gov for a fee.

Finally, I have to apologize for the tardiness of my reply. Unfortunately, I have a full time job that doesn't allow me to reply at the drop of a hat...unless I'd prefer to leave my bills unpaid, have my house repossessed, watch my dog leave me, etc. :-)