@ Anker.k1991: I'm glad to see you got BitLocker removed. I was in no way implying that you're a thief, I was merely putting forth the possibility that this could be the case. It is something that must be considered when people post this kind of thread online. It is, of course, also possible to buy a laptop from a seller that had forgotten they had BitLockered the drive without informing the buyer. But this would make me suspicious.
@ Zoso: I in no way made a direct statement accusing either the OP or his friend of theft: Analyze the following statements:
1. "In all likelihood your friend bought a laptop of dubious origin (i.e. stolen) and the thief didn't inform about BitLocker or hand over the password........because they didn't know it. For them the laptop is useless while passworded, so they sell it to an unsuspecting victim for money to fuel a drug addiction, etc".
Keywords: IN ALL LIKELIHOOD
2. "Unless and until the OP can provide conclusive proof that the laptop either wasn't illegally obtained or proof of ownership, then I would say no further efforts should be made to assist them."
Translate to: Not an accusation, just an assertion that no further help should be provided, beyond the advice to format the drive.
3. Zoso said: "the OP is not the one making the claim that it is stolen, burden of proof falls on the claimant."
Agreed, but since no claim was ever made by me, either directly or indirectly, then I am under no such obligation to prove anything.
4. Zoso said: "theoretically, the earth could be flat too and technically it requires a license to make a legal determination. (decode the codes)"
WTF?! I had simply stated that this site and its' owner could be held legally liable if the authorities determine that OP had obtained the laptop illegally (which is true). And then you come way out of left field with a totally unrelated statement. Besides, famed astronomers Copernicus and Galileo already posited centuries ago that the earth isn't flat, and provided preliminary proof for their belief. Therefore your statement is invalid. A license? By who? Who would be authorized to issue said license?
5. Zoso said: "or that real men or women acting as agents for legal fictions may have also."
What a great laugh/grin you put on my face. There is undeniable proof that agencies such as the NSA exist, any rational/logical person would agree. Or maybe you are one of those nihilist or non-existentialist (opposite of existentialism) types that believe that nothing is real, life is an illusion, and that life serves no real purpose, etc.
6. Zoso said: "for I concur, the "system" does indeed operate on presumptions and therefor I think it is best to properly rebut those presumptions."
All of life operates on assumptions/presumptions, especially assumptions made by humans, yet it is partly necessary for our survival for us to make certain assumptions. Such as:
When you walk out your front door in the morning, you generally don't suddenly think that the earth's soil will suddenly collapse beneath you, sending you falling thru the planet and into the cosmos.
Or, unless you're schizophrenic, that the sky is falling/will fall.
7. Zoso said: "Ive found it best not to "under-stand" the legal matrix overlay of any land myself. i; a man, have standing. i do not stand under legal fictions."
Then you just go around failing to understand and not wanting to understand "legal matrix overlay" of wherever you happen to be. See if I care. As far as I'm concerned it is best to study the laws of the land you're in, to understand what is considered right/wrong (irrespective of your personal beliefs), your rights under those laws, etc. You don't need to study the laws enough to be licensed as an attorney, of course. This is a large part of being a decent law-abiding citizen. You also need to understand civics. And it is an accepted norm in society. To know how your govt works. Etc.
8. Wonko said: "Sure, that's practice, but in theory you cannot seriously accuse Ankur.k1991's friend of being either a thief or a "fence", wouldn't that be a form of libel?"
Indeed it would, but only if I had in fact made an accusation against them. I'm under the assumption that libel is a written/printed accusation (contents on websites could be considered a modern form of printing), whereas slander refers to an accusation when spoken aloud.
The U.S. criminal justice system handles more criminal cases than all other nations/territories in the world *COMBINED* on an annual basis. We have more people in prisons/jails/correctional facilities than everywhere in the world combined. While the justice system is to an extent designed to punish criminals who deserve it, is is also designed in such a way innocent individuals are exonerated by a judge/jury/prosecutors dismissing charges. Oftentimes conclusive proof/witnesses cannot be furnished, and so, even though I partly disagree with a jury/judge's right to determine innocence/guilt, this is an acceptable method upon which to operate, since it is sometimes the only way a case will ever be resolved. Our justice system has also been partly perverted by those who would seek to make a profit by incarcerating people for as long as possible, regardless of innocence or guilt. It has been known for years here that the federal govt makes payments to states/counties/municipalities to keep people incarcerated and build more facilities ("compensation"). This provides an incentive to keep locking people up. Police have arrest quotas they must fulfill, regularly engage in profiling, commit acts of brutality, set up things like "bait cars"/drug deals/etc to entice people into committing crimes that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Drug offenders are simply incarcerated and treatment is a last consideration. Sex offenders are let off the hook with lenient sentences sometimes, and violent offenders sometimes don't get nearly as harsh a sentence as they deserve. As if this weren't enough, people that have been like convicted but sincerely want to change and be law abiding citizens, are usually ignored or not helped. They try to get employment but most employers simply don't want to give a 2nd chance to an ex-con regardless of past history. Landlords oftentimes don't want to rent to these people. Many people released from incarceration end up homeless upon release, because their prison counselors failed to help them plan in advance. Some people go right back into the same cycle of crime because they know it is difficult to get help, stay clean of addictions, etc. It is a force of habit for them. Society in this nation expects criminals to serve their sentences and be law abiding citizens, but at the very same time constantly shortchanges them and doesn't provide adequate help/opportunities. Then they act surprised and superior when the cycle of crime keeps repeating itself. It is due to a lack of understanding, capitalism, and other factors. I could go on, but wanted to paint a brief picture.
@ Zoso: And at http://reboot.pro/to...ypto-challenge/, you proceeded to falsely make accusatory implications against me concerning things which I had not actually stated myself, but which were instead based on your personal beliefs/conceptions. Then accused me of being an "Internet tough guy", probably based on some mistaken interpretation of what my username means. And so I believe you to be someone that is delusional, ignores things that have clearly proven to be either true/false in favor of your own opinions, prematurely jumps to conclusions without proper evidence, has a superiority complex, is most likely into some off-the-wall religious/spiritual BS that emphasizes ignoring logic/reason/rationality in favor of simply taking something as-is, and believing anyone outside of yourself/your group (that disagrees with you) to be "wrong" and an "enemy". I'm spiritual/philosophical myself, so I have nothing against those things at all. You clearly don't understand or refuse to try to understand proper English and grammar, and draw conclusions (about others) and as a result make statements about others based on your own twisted beliefs rather than considering what they have actually said themselves.
Someone may say as a rebuttal that I recently accused Wonko of being a spammer, and so I still would say that maybe he had no intention to spam, but in fact did so anyway as a result of his failure to not spam-click "Submit" multiple times. The forum may have been down, but I still believe it very unlikely that this forum would auto-post several identical topics by Wonko *if* he had not been careless/impatient (which is what I would say was probably the case). So he is not a spammer, per se, but the end result is that, intentional or not, the forum was spammed with several identical topics. Which would effectively make him a spammer for those particular topics.
If it appears that I have hijacked this topic (despite it being resolved) to turn it into a personal attack vector, then people may believe what they will and I don't/won't care, but I have simply did so in part to satisfy a personal vendetta/dislike against certain people, but mostly to put forth my opinions and what I consider to be valid points.