Slashdot Mirror


Hacker 'Guccifer,' Who Uncovered Clinton's Private Emails, To Be Extradited To US (rt.com)

schwit1 writes: Guccifer, the infamous Romanian hacker who accessed emails of celebrities and top US officials, will be extradited to the United States after losing a case in his home country's top court. Reuters reports that Lehel will come to the US under an 18-month extradition order, following a request made by the US authorities. Details of the extradition have not been made public, however. Marcel Lehel, a 42-year-old hacker better known by his pseudonym "Guccifer," achieved notoriety when he released an email with images of paintings by former President George W. Bush, including a self-portrait in a bathtub. He also hacked and published emails from celebrities Leonardo DiCaprio, Steve Martin and Mariel Hemingway. Perhaps most notably, Lehel was also the first source to uncover Hillary Clinton's improper use of a private email account while she was Secretary of State, which the FBI is investigating as a potential danger to national security.

210 comments

  1. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steam on Linux exists for the Steam Box. Any numbers beyond that is icing on the cake, whether it's 1% or 0.001%.

  2. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure never to install Linux ever again. Long live King William of Gates!

  3. This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Clinton's improper use of a private email"

    No. If that was true, the FBI would have charged her long ago.

    1. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. She already confirmed she did nothing wrong.

    2. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She showed just how bad government IT is since she had to spend money out of her on pocket to get working email.

    3. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great point. She has always been awesome at getting things done.

    4. Re:This site is so biased now! by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahaha

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    5. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wouldn't give the "sysadmin" immunity if they didn't have anything on her. She's screwed and she knows it. Whether it will be held in reserve for leverage or not is now the question.

    6. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If she did nothing wrong, then neither did he. If she actually did something wrong -- like exposing state secrets to Romanian hackers -- then she goes to jail, and he is a whistleblower, a Romanian hero who did a great favor to American people.

    7. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my problem with what the FBI is doing. They are refusing to do their job in order to keep a cloud over her candidacy. They are influencing an election.

    8. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what Monica is thinking...

    9. Re: This site is so biased now! by youngone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then she goes to jail

      As if! She's far too rich and far too white to go to jail in the US.

    10. Re: This site is so biased now! by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If she did nothing wrong, then neither did he.

      Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. It depends on how exactly he unearthed details of Clinton's personal server.

      From TFS:

      Hillary Clinton's improper use of a private email account while she was Secretary of State, which the FBI is investigating as a potential danger to national security.

      I suspect that, if Lehel actually got into the server, the hacking charges might be dropped in exchange for his testimony. His viewing classified data, or even getting that close as a foreign national will be used as the evidence of damage in a trial against Hillary. It goes from a potential danger where 'sensitive material could have been at risk' to an actual incident.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:This site is so biased now! by cosm · · Score: 2

      What, like wipe it with a cloth?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    12. Re:This site is so biased now! by KGIII · · Score: 2

      There's a documentary called "The Worst Town on the Internet" and it has him in there. He didn't think he did much wrong and was pissed about having gotten a long sentence in his come country. He's gotta be right pissed now that he's gotta come to the US and face more time.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re: This site is so biased now! by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Non-sequitur. It does not follow, for those playing the home game. Hacking an account is illegal. To say that if she'd not had encrypted email on there that it is not a crime is, well... Stupid. I'm not sure who moderated you up.

      Even if she had done no wrong, his actions are still illegal. They are different crimes (maybe) but they are still going to be charged with other crimes.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can only hope! She is a sociopath, a megalomaniac. I find it incredible that she runs for president.

      Why is this surprising? Most people who run for President are megalomaniacs—they believe they are qualified to be President

    15. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To say that if she'd not had encrypted email on there that it is not a crime is, well the law.

      She has the responsibility to ensure state secrets are kept safe by her position. If she did not, then she broke the law. Due care is what she failed to have by not utilizing encryption.

    16. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Hacking an account is illegal.

      Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?

    17. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hacker 'Guccifer,' Who Uncovered Clinton's Private Emails, To Be Extradited To US renamed Sir Guccifer and given a medal for service to our country.

    18. Re: This site is so biased now! by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If she goes to jail then Powell and Rice should also go to jail for setting the precedent. Either the State Secretary's correspondence is private, or it's not. The republicans can't have it both ways.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re: This site is so biased now! by haruchai · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The republicans can't have it both ways" - you have a LOT to learn about Republicans.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    20. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are waiting to charge her, until obama is out of office, such that he cannot pardon her

    21. Re: This site is so biased now! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    22. Re: This site is so biased now! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Well, you are better to believe you are qualified for the presidency if you are running for it rather than the reverse. I don't know how someone could convince anyone else to vote for him if he thinks himself he is not qualified. Pretty much stupid reasoning. This is not enough to qualify someone as megalomaniac. And the same applies to yourself. You don't apply on jobs you do not believe you are qualified for. Are you megalomaniac when you show up at an interview trying to sell yourself as the best candidate for the job?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    23. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Her shit is brown alike the shit of other human being in the world, maybe she eat caviar but her shit smells like shit.
      Truth.

      Her husband cheat her without having sex, it just was oral sex but not sex.

      Oh comerican biased people.

      (Coward? nah... just tired and I don't want to fix my grammatical.)

    24. Re: This site is so biased now! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 0

      Not that insightful, It may not be illegal to hack an email account in France, Germany or Japan. It may not be illegal to hack an account in France, Germany or Japan from the USA. It may not be illegal under certain consideration to even hack an account in USA, if you have a warrant, for example.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    25. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      FBI would have charged her long ago

      From the public's perspective, key questions remain:

      1. Who sent her the (alleged) classified info?

      2. Was the info classified at the time it was sent?

      3. Was it realistic for her to know she received classified material? (Or material she should have known should have been classified or treated as such.)

      4. Did she knowingly forward or fail to report classified info?

      5. Did she put such info at risk by having a home server? (The "regular" office email server was NOT designed for classified info either. Seems it was pretty generic.)

      6. Was a home server against the law? (The legal consensus seems to be "no", but she may not have disposed of the info properly when her term ended, although that's an involved claim.)

    26. Re: This site is so biased now! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      > Hacking an account is illegal.

      Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?

      Nothing is illegal when you're friends with enough soldiers.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    27. Re: This site is so biased now! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

      NSA doesn't do warrants - they're spies. The FBI may require warrants but they don't operate outside the USA.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    28. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaaaat?! I thought she was the next black President. Niggas be dumb and shit.

    29. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for that, but she goes first.

    30. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is illegal when you're friends with enough legislators.

      It's not difficult to understand really. "Hacking," like any statutory crime, is illegal if you fall within the statutory definition of the offence and there is no exemption or defence available to you. What the NSA does is not illegal (at US law) since they have explicit statutory permission to do it. The French, Germans and Japanese may beg to differ, of course. But then the little matter of enforceability comes into play.

    31. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah so *that* is why there are no white people in US jails. I was wondering about that.

    32. Re: This site is so biased now! by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?

      If you haven't been able to work out the difference between "illegal" and "illegal with a powerful enough government/agency backing you up" by now...

    33. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget legal or not, let's be nice and coldly Machiavellian:

      If there was any possibility that an executive branch agency - the FBI - were going to charge Clinton with anything, the Administration would've known long before anyone else not directly involved. They would've quietly demanded that Clinton withdraw her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the sake of the party; Clinton, being the personification of the establishment, would've fallen on her sword.

      Whether you think that's because there's nothing to charge, or that Obama's DoJ is leaning on the FBI, that she is defacto the Democratic nominee at this point says quite loudly that the party and the Administration both believe she will not be charged.

    34. Re:This site is so biased now! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The answer to 2 and 3 are "yes" and "yes." For example, this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:This site is so biased now! by DarenN · · Score: 2

      That link is of a conversation where she tells an aide to remove the classified material and headers.
      Effectively, she told the aide to do something similar to the process where documents are released redacted. If the classified portion of the material is removed before transmission, the remainder is no longer classified and can be transmitted.

      Seriously, if it were as simple as portrayed, this would be a non-issue because she would have been charged.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    36. Re:This site is so biased now! by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      This site is biased? Because you felt the need to come and defend her for some reason? The FBI would have charged anyone else long ago - especially a Republican. The reason it took so long, which you seem to forget, is that Hillary literally spent years fighting the release of any of her emails, the state dept trying to cover for her, and people like you who refuse to see the obvious. Everyone here on Slashdot knows the reason one sets up a private email server and routes all your official mail through it, is to avoid oversight. Everything else - especially anything she says about the matter - is just a distraction.

    37. Re: This site is so biased now! by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      That's great to hear! Because I know every time the FBI offers immunity for my tech guy to testify, and has over 150 career officers working my case...it's usually a a bad sign...good thing you know the truth. Keep up the good work!

    38. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hacking an account is illegal.

      Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?

      Of course you can ask.

    39. Re: This site is so biased now! by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Nothing is illegal when you can buy enough legislators.

      I don't think friendship is sufficient, I think they expect financial reward.

    40. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't buy them. It's "lease to own", and somehow the warranty always runs out before you can complete payments.

    41. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a professional systems administrator, The entire concept of a foreign government compromising my accounts or my companies private computing infrastructure because national security. That there is some special group of privileged people who are above the law, above morality, above redress is the very definition of a totalitarian regime .

      Thanks to Snowden, we discovered Law Enforcement in the US were cheating via "Parallel construction" of court cases. Ever since then, many of their toys and tactics have been coming into question.

      The reason this guy is being extradited isn't because he hacked some celebrities and the aristocracy wants revenge. It's because he compromised the accounts of a high ranking government official which can lead to compromising peace at the worst and at best cause trust and jobs to be lost. The spin here is also outrageous; they add in that celebrities line to get the bleeding hearts to follow suit on the retardation.

    42. Re: This site is so biased now! by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends. If Powell and Rice were also sending classified information using private email, then yes, they should also go to jail. If they used personal email for non-classified correspondence then they violated retention policy, not the law.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    43. Re: This site is so biased now! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Hacking an account is illegal.

      Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?

      Please. I would gladly support this action. Even if you can't get the low level guys even getting the ones at the top would be worthwhile, unfortunately, French, German, and Japanese jails are far too nice for these people.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    44. Re:This site is so biased now! by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      The answers as the FBI will consider:
      1) Probably multiple people
      2) Likely yes as reports indicate information that is classified when it is created was in the emails on her server.
      3) If the Secretary of State can't identify classified information when she sees it, then she is incompetent to handle classified information. If she couldn't identify it and didn't bother to ask government agents whose job is specifically to rule whether or not information should be classified, she is incompetent to handle any sensitive written material at all.
      4) Probably, but the better question is if she gave specific orders to remove classification markings or migrate classified materials to an insecure location.
      5) Yes, beyond a doubt, yes. There is a specific secure system for discussing classified materials. Even using the regular government email to pass along classified information is against policy and probably illegal to some degree.
      6) No, a home server is not illegal. What is sent to that server may be illegal depending on content. If it was at all related to the work she was doing as Secretary of State, for it to be legal she should have submitted a copy of all communications to the National Archives when she left office.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    45. Re: This site is so biased now! by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      I'm only 99.999% sure that the GP was joking.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    46. Re:This site is so biased now! by Holi · · Score: 1

      It said improper not illegal.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    47. Re: This site is so biased now! by Holi · · Score: 1

      He hacked President GW Bush's email, they are not going to drop anything.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    48. Re: This site is so biased now! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with that logic.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    49. Re: This site is so biased now! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      100% correct. The only way you can run a successful nationwide election campaign is if you truly believe that you have all the solutions, and that everyone else is less capable. How else would you ever get > 50M people to vote for you?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    50. Re: This site is so biased now! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Were the circumstances exactly the same? Sending classified materials to non-governmental email servers without authorization?

      If so, then you are absolutely correct - they should see the inside of a courtroom just the same. "But my political opposition did it first" is not a valid legal defense, no matter how much some politicians and their sycophants would like it to be.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    51. Re:This site is so biased now! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Unless he comes to the US, and cuts a deal in order to testify as to what he found on Clinton's email server while hacking it, e.g. testify that he saw classified documents that weren't there.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    52. Re:This site is so biased now! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      you forgot:
      7. Did she knowingly direct employees of the US Department of State to forward classified information through the private email server?

      Which also sounds like 'yes', but I'm waiting to hear something other than rumor and innuendo before making a final decision.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    53. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, lame heads, I'll step. You see, if it was improper for her, it would have been improper for the president also. Here's an odd tidbit. Remember George? And the lost eight years of records? The Republican national email server, and the piolet who died under unusual circumstances? Seems we lost a bunch of history then. So, it wasn't against the law, till the rules were changed. When? During the time period when the CIA took over control of state. Hmm, and el cheapo visited the US after escaping? He didn't run across the sand like his brethren would he? And back again? More el contra. That's right, those were pardoned...

    54. Re: This site is so biased now! by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. She already confirmed she did nothing wrong.

      This is Guccifer's problem. If he would just come out and confirm that he did nothing wrong in a press conference then it would all go away.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    55. Re:This site is so biased now! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      The FBI is currently investigating her. Move along Potsy.

    56. Re: This site is so biased now! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      What the NSA does is not illegal (at US law) since they have explicit statutory permission to do it.

      It's not treated as illegal since they won't be prosecuted for it.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    57. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The critical parts of the law that Clinton broke were written in because Powell and Rice did something that was insecure but was not a violation at the time. They stopped, it was written in, and now you idiots keep acting like Hillary should only be held to laws that were in effect while her husband was president.

    58. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Private" had nothing to do with it. "Top Secret," however certainly does.

    59. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with backdoors is that they make it possible for ANYONE who knows how to use it to gain access.

      Oh, this one guy did it.

      I see the media is spinning 'no proof hacked'. Except that one guy.

      "Beyond Top Secret".

      Seriously.

    60. Re: This site is so biased now! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      They are refusing to do their job in order to keep a cloud over her candidacy. They are influencing an election.

      What? This would have been over years ago if SHE hadn't deliberately stonewalled and dragged her feet on compliance not only with the requirement that she turn over all her records as she left office, but promptly honored requests associated with all sorts of FOIA, investigative, and even subpoena demands. She's the one that caused this to be happening during campaign season, not Obama's DoJ/FBI people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    61. Re:This site is so biased now! by Xamindar · · Score: 1

      That link is of a conversation where she tells an aide to remove the classified material and headers.

      She said nothing about removing any classified material, just the headers. Do you like making things up?

    62. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI does not charge.
      The FBI investigates and arrests.
      The Federal Attorney charges.
      The Federal Judge concurs or rejects the charges.

      Stupid American

    63. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacking Cheney's e-mail would have been serious. With Bush, all he'd get is the CliffsNotes for My Pet Goat.

    64. Re:This site is so biased now! by clong83 · · Score: 1, Informative

      As the head of the department of state, she is the ultimate authority on what is "classified" and what is not, at least for information originating in the state department. While the vast, vast majority of federal workers could not do such a thing without going through a lot of bureaucratic channels, she is one of the very few people who can simply look at something and say "That document is not classified. Remove those headers and send it to me via email", and it is perfectly fine.

      Not saying that is definitely what happened here, or that that situation accounts for 100% of the emails in question. But people seem to think she was a lot less powerful than she was. She was one of the top bureaucrats in Washington. Since I don't have access to all the ins and outs of her emails and what exactly they contain, I will be content to let the FBI sort it out and wait for their conclusion.

    65. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work with classified shit everyday. And as much as you may want her to not be guilty as sin....she is. if I did just 1% of what she did I'd be in prison already without any chance of ever getting out. She thinks she can do whatever she wants and not be held accountable to the law like the rest of us. That isn't the way this system is suppose to work, there isn't one set of laws for the "important" people and one for the commoners, it's one set for all of us and I REALLY hope she goes to prison for life over this not because I hate democrats but because a message needs to be sent to ALL the people in upper government that they WILL be held to the fire for shit like this.

    66. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never got into her private email server, he was merely made aware of her non .gov address after gaining access to her creepy advisor's (Sidney Blumenthal) aol account and reading their correspondence.

    67. Re: This site is so biased now! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand that many conservatives and independents would like to see anyone who engages in that go to jail. I long for a country where there's one set of rules for everyone. No exceptions. If that means both D and R go to jail I'm fine with it because I'm confident if I did it then I'd be behind bars now.

    68. Re: This site is so biased now! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The NSA uses warrants. They are processed by the FISA court in accordance with the FISA act.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    69. Re:This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She said nothing about removing any classified material, just the headers. Do you like making things up?

      How do you know that? I believe you're the one making things up. You've seen a handful of emails and are jumping to conclusions about what hasn't been said.

    70. Re: This site is so biased now! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, the law on private e-mail servers was changed after Powell and Rice. It was also changed after Clinton. If Kerry or future Sec.States did it, it would be illegal. Under Clinton/Powell/Rice, it was legal.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    71. Re: This site is so biased now! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes the land of the free's Star Chamber.
      Those warrants aren't supposed to be used against friendly foreign countries, are they?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    72. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That article is misleading. We've been over that on another /. story. Dailymail has not proven to be a reliable source.

    73. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If the Secretary of State can't identify classified information when she sees it

      Why would we expect her to know all the possible source nuances and details of a given message? That's what staff is for. She's NOT a detective. There may be some obvious possible violations, but not all will or could be obvious.

      if she gave specific orders to remove classification markings

      That's being addressed in a nearby thread.

      for it to be legal she should have submitted a copy of all communications

      All communications? Also, if she sent or CC'd a gov't employee, then a copy would exist on a gov't system automatically. Her copy is redundant info. The rule said nothing about it being in a convenient or contiguous format.

      Yes, beyond a doubt, yes. There is a specific secure system for discussing classified materials.

      Beyond a doubt? You are drama-queening. It's possible OTHERS sent TO her the classified materials.

    74. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Normally it's "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.

      Then again, in politics it may be the other way around if you have enough money to rub it in.

    75. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

      You missed his point: No one is really qualified for be President.

      What makes the right qualifications?
      Being a lawyer?
      Being an actor?
      Being rich?
      Representing a state with millions of people?

      None of these qualify you to be the President of the United States. Pretty much the only thing that might qualify is serving a first term.

    76. Re:This site is so biased now! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Dailymail has not proven to be a reliable source.

      Yeap (and that has nothing to do with being 'liberal' or 'conservative,' it's just plain unreliable). I was reticent to post it, but it had copies of the actual emails in the article, so you can ignore the text and focus on the emails themselves.

      Anyway, certain communications are classified by default, and apparently those showed up in her emails too.

      Anyway, the cleanest way to deal with it would be to wait until after she wins/loses the election to indict her, so it doesn't put too much influence on the election (and she can pardon herself anyway if she wins).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    77. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Anyway, certain communications are classified by default

      It could be indirect spillage. For example, any information from Agency X may be deemed classified by default.

      But, let's say worker Y removed the fact the info came from Agency X and sent it to Mrs. H.

      Mrs. H would not know where the info came from because that was removed before it was sent to her. But, technically that would still make the info itself classified by the existing rules, even though it would not be obvious to the receiver.

      Thus, it could be a variation of the Game of Telephone.

    78. Re:This site is so biased now! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well, I've read that there is stuff that was classified, and that she should have known was classified at the time, but tbh it's not a topic I care enough about to research deeply into to be sure.

      One interesting aspect of the case: it shows that working for the government can be dangerous. If she had been working for a private company, at worst she would have been fired (maybe sued). But working for the government, suddenly the full weight of the law can fall on you like a ton of bricks.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    79. Re: This site is so biased now! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's well and good and has nothing to do with my post. Her breaking the law does not mean he didn't break the law. This shouldn't be complicated for you. You should have learned this in Kindergarten.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    80. Re: This site is so biased now! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, be my guest. I'll even help fund their trip to your particular country so that you can try them there.

      I'm not sure what your point is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    81. Re:This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, I've read that there is stuff that was classified, and that she should have known was classified at the time

      Do you have a link? Anything concrete, or just pundits bloviating?

    82. Re:This site is so biased now! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      nope lol, can't remember where I read it. Maybe I'm wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    83. Re: This site is so biased now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The retention policy is vague because at least one copy usually ends up on a gov't system anyhow via CC's etc, and some argue that fits the policy. The policy said nothing about convenience of querying or contiguousness.

    84. Re:This site is so biased now! by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      First, some stuff is nuanced I am sure. Some stuff, like SAP level material that the FBI has said was in the contents of some of the emails is obvious even to someone like me with no classification training. I am just some civilian who works in a desk job, but I would probably assume that spy satellite photos, names and locations of moles, and other such material probably shouldn't get out. In my job, I'm expected to protect "company secrets" which aren't well defined and aren't marked. I'd be an idiot if I sent any company processes or procedures to a personal email address and I could get fired on the spot and potentially litigated for damages if I released them or caused them to fall into the wrong hands.

      She may not be a detective, she's the head of a department that deals with classified information. She had training on the classification requirements and probably had to sign something where she accepted the responsibility for identifying classified materials. Assuming she was incompetent in that regard, she was apparently also incompetently putting incompetent people on her staff. The staff that was sending her materials that were classified.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    85. Re: This site is so biased now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GET THE BLANK ATM CARD AND BECOME RICH
      Hackers with the above email: hackerslord94@gmail.com is at it again!! Cool way to have financial freedom!!! Are you tired of living a poor life; here is the opportunity you have been waiting for. This is a testimony that I myself have experience and I can tell us it is 100% real. Get the new ATM BLANK CARD that can hack any ATM MACHINE and withdraw money from any account. You do not require anybody's account number before you can use it. Although you and I knows that it’s illegal but the government cannot put money in our pocket, there is no risk using it. It has SPECIAL FEATURES, that makes the machine unable to detect this very card and its transaction can't be traced. You can use it anywhere in the world. With this card, you can withdraw nothing less than $2500 a day. So far I have been able to withdraw $65,000. I don’t know why am posting this but I believe it can help someone else in need of money. To get the card, reach the hackers via email address: hackerslord94@gmail.com

  4. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my pleasure. My goal is only to warn and inform.

  5. General Alexander to be extradited next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No?

  6. Re:romania gets paid by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    will need to get past trump

  7. just remember... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you are free to hack and extort from the little people, just don't mess with the people running the show or they will burn you alive. he would have been safer and richer if he just proliferated ransomware.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:just remember... by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      This is true. The Germans were quite "meh" when it came to the NSA intercepting German email, until it came out they were also targeting Chancellor Merkel. Then the sh*t suddenly hit the fan.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  8. Shame on Romania by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shame on Romania for extradition of one of their own nationals. He should have been prosecuted in his home country.

    1. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Shame on Romania for extradition of one of their own nationals. He should have been prosecuted in his home country.

      Prosecuted for what? Exposing the stupidity of US politicians is not a crime in Romania.

      Still shame on Romania, have agree on that.

    2. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Prison in the USA is better than free life in much of the world.
      Sadly for the rest of the world. It is one of the reasons people want to come here, at least according to Fox news which I have been assured is a reliable source for news and information.

    3. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, he is in prison and will be returning to prison once the USA is done with him. That is if he can make it by Killary's Crime Syndicate.

    4. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton will probably have some goons waiting to torture him until he goes nuts and changes gender when he goes home.

    5. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faux News is very entertaining! I watch it all the time! It's like watching Jerry Springer but it's on 24x7 and rips exclusively on Democrats! Democrats deserve it. Most Democrats are chronic liars (see Hillary). When Hilary goes to church does she think, "I wonder if I sweat like a whole in church?"

    6. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have been to prison, I have ben in most other countries.

      You are wrong, prison in the US is nasty, just one step above death. Life in other countries is as good or better than life in the US.

    7. Re:Shame on Romania by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Prosecuted for what? Exposing the stupidity of US politicians is not a crime in Romania

      I can guess getting unauthorized access to an information system is probably an offense in Romania. And the attacked party an claim for damage in civil trial. All the procedures could have occurred in Romanian's courts, there was no need to go to the US.

    8. Re:Shame on Romania by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Talking Mexico, Joaquín Guzmán aka El Chapo himself would like to be jailed in USA rather than Mexico.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    9. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romania kind of likes its economy and would like to keep it and have it grow. What is one man - and a criminal to boot - when the wellbeing of the whole populace is at stake? Don't bother answering, it takes a grown-up to understand the stakes and act for the good of the most.

    10. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have been prosecuted in his home country.

      But the crime didn't occur in that country and the USA owns the internet anyway, they said so!

      Unfortunately, Romania agreed to the (unilateral) extradition treaty and it's difficult for them not to obey it: They don't have the leverage to flout the law that the USA or even Clinton has. That said, yes; these countries should force the USA to provide a high standard of care (living conditions, health care, legal defense, contact with the outside world), not abandon their citizens to US politicking like Australia abandoned David Hicks.

    11. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death is better than prison in the US.

    12. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also takes a grown-up to understand that maintaining a state of law, due process and respecting jurisdiction are more important than whatever stakes.

    13. Re:Shame on Romania by war4peace · · Score: 1

      As a Romanian, I say you're full of shit.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    14. Re: Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you can rather have those nice things, and then tell your people they can eat them. The fact is, you don't challenge the big guy.

    15. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison in the USA is better than free life in much of the world.
      Sadly for the rest of the world. It is one of the reasons people want to come here, at least according to Fox news which I have been assured is a reliable source for news and information.

      Free "pound in the ass" included. Where do you get that in much of the world?

    16. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. You guys seem to not only tolerate prison rape but even appear to be obsessed with it. Solitary confinement is also common in the US, whereas it is considered a serious crime and completely unconstitutional in many other civilized countries. Moreover, typical sentences seem to be roughly 10 times higher in the US than anywhere else.

    17. Re:Shame on Romania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, stick to making stuffed cabbage rolls and delicious sausages.

    18. Re:Shame on Romania by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Life in other countries is as good or better than life in the US.

      Which explains why a country of 321,000,000 people has an immigrant population of 61,00,000. They're just confused and thought they were heading somewhere else, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:Shame on Romania by war4peace · · Score: 1

      With those, we shall rule the world! :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    20. Re:Shame on Romania by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      these countries should force the USA to provide a high standard of care (living conditions, health care, legal defense, contact with the outside world),

      ... a trial in the extradited person own language...

  9. Re: BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the top 1%!

  10. Re:romania gets paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This does not sound lawful. IANAL
    Romania has just killed off its internet business of everything for caving to American pressure. Nobody will trust Romanian ISP's ever now - good-bye easy $USD for them.
    I doubt Romania could extradite an American citizen for the same offense. Also if convicted, he should spend his time in a Romanian prison, and any time served concurrently. Taking a prisoner from his locale, state, let alone country is cruel and unusual punishment. Sounds like make up law.

  11. I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by trout007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course she didn't have anything illegal in her emails.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hillary is not tech-savvy enough to hack. Her emails revealed she had trouble working her desktop email client, preferring her Blackberry to process emails.

      Democrats sure like their Blackberries. I'm surprised they didn't try to bail out that company like they did GM :-)

    2. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I gather it's the same situation you see at any organisation. The IT department sets up elaborate security systems - multi-factor authentication, resources that can only be accessed from physically secured locations, the works. But all that security greatly annoys the users, so they go behind IT's back and start using their personal email address instead. Because it works, and is more convenient.

    3. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the Government did that at the time.

    4. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, she had her own personal e-mail server.... That's more convenient???
      I would assume that as Secretary of State, she could have directed IT to review/update/change the rules.

      So why did she do it?

    5. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The "regular" office server she "should have" been using was NOT designed for classified info either. The same risk would exist had she simply used the generic office email server. The wrong info would have ended up on the wrong server regardless.

    6. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why would somebody who is not tech savvy ask for such? Unless somebody points out a clear example/risk of such, the trade-offs will be over her head.

      So far I have not heard one. The "regular" office email server was not designed for classified info either.

      Some dummy went and put the wrong info on the wrong box. It still would have been the wrong box if she used the office email for ordinary work.

      Who that dummy is, we don't know yet.

    7. Re:I'm sure he will get 1 year like Palin's hacker by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I have to deal with potential ITAR information all of the time. We make sure to either use specific databases to manage that information or if you need to use email you need to use the provided PKI encryption. We need to take training every year.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  12. Not on US Soil by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws? This is all bullshit.

    If you have a server then it's up to you to secure it. Your failure; then arrest yourself. Otherwise don't connect the server to the outside world.

    And as general policy there should be no hacking laws. All traffic over a computer network is speech.

    If I hook a bomb up to a computer and put it on the internet and someone hacks it who is responsible for the damage? Answer: The idiot that hooked the bomb up to the internet.

    1. Re:Not on US Soil by MrDoh! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This might just be due diligence by the FBI to get everything lined up before going after Hillary. And/or they're after the emails she's scrubbed if this guy has copies.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    2. Re:Not on US Soil by swb · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws? This is all bullshit.

      Say what you will about the United States, but I don't think there's too many crimes you can commit here that will result in you being extradicted overseas. But there sure seems to be a lot of things you can do overseas that will result in your ass getting shipped to the US to be tried and convicted.

    3. Re:Not on US Soil by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      The powers that be view it like this...

      The hardware was on US soil. The alleged crime took place at that physical point. The crime is on US soil.

      'Snot my fault but that's their reasoning. It makes sense, at least at first blush it does. People should lock their doors but it's still a crime to enter an unlocked home in my jurisdiction.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Not on US Soil by jIyajbe · · Score: 1

      If I build a house and install a flimsy lock on its door, and someone breaks through it into my house, I'm not the one who committed a crime.

      --
      "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    5. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you Think You can Break the Law in Other counties from your home country ans face no repercussions, Surprise! You can't.

      By Mail, Phone, or Internet, don't get caught.

    6. Re:Not on US Soil by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws? This is all bullshit.

      Most likely what he did was illegal in his own country as well. That's one of the things they look at when deciding whether to extradite someone or not.

      And as general policy there should be no hacking laws. All traffic over a computer network is speech.

      You could make a convincing argument for "with a computer" laws being a bad idea. But then cracking could be covered by a law against using deception to access information that you should have known you were not intended to access. Speech/writing can be illegal, for example fraud.

    7. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has extradition agreements with quite a few countries and have honored extradition requests from other countries. The vast majority of these requests are not news worthy and fly under the radar. They even honor extradition requests from countries that are not parties to the treaty. I am waiting for Russia to submit an extradition request for someone they really want and the US uses that request as leverage to get Snowden shipped back to the US. The US and Russia do not have an extradition treaty but they do have a long history of making exchanges for those wanted by either country.

    8. Re:Not on US Soil by aevan · · Score: 2

      Which is amusing when it comes to things like "Yes, your servers are in another nation, but you are American/do business in America, therefore we demand to see what's on your servers.'

      Pretty much distills to: "whatever view favours us"

    9. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what you will about the United States, but I don't think there's too many crimes you can commit here that will result in you being extradicted overseas.

      The US refuses to extradite known IRA terrorists and bombers. That's all you need to know. Fuck the silly / trivial laws. The US govt are happy to protect people that murder children in high streets who are innocently shopping for Mothering Sunday gifts.

    10. Re:Not on US Soil by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have a server then it's up to you to secure it. Your failure; then arrest yourself. Otherwise don't connect the server to the outside world.

      This is fucking idiotic logic. I suppose if you have a wallet and get mugged you should be prosecuted for not securing it. Got tail ended by a drunk driver, your prosecuted for causing an accident by not getting out of the way.

    11. Re:Not on US Soil by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you are subject to the laws of other countries

      Attacking my computer isn't free speech. You want to speak, get a cardboard sign and march around my neighborhood with it and say whatever you want. Don't pretend that breaking into my computer and stealing my email is you freely speaking.

      You sound like a burglar blaming his victims for not having better locks on their doors.

    12. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends entirely on what your own country and the other country are. It even depends on who you are. The US government has been violating foreign laws on an extremely large scale for the last decades and they have never even been tried by another country's legal system.

    13. Re:Not on US Soil by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Should I be extradited if I send anti-Chinese-gov't documents to someone in China? This isn't a precedent we want to set.

      That said, I do think it's a special case and not the beginning of a slippery slope. I just don't like the logic being applied.

    14. Re:Not on US Soil by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      That's a horrible example. Of course the guy who made the bomb would be responsible, because it's illegal to make bombs. But the guy that hacked it also committed a crime - unauthorized use of a computer system.

      Better example: I leave the front door of my house unlocked, and someone comes in and steals all my shit while I'm away. Is that person not a thief, because I didn't secure my house?

      Use your brain.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re:Not on US Soil by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You might not be that far off. I'm sure that the FBI wants to have an absolutely ironclad case before they go after any politician, much less one running for President. If they were to charge early without having a complete case, ready to go, they would look like they are tampering in a national election while being wholly incompetent.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:Not on US Soil by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      No, because anti-China speech is protected in the United States under the First Amendment, and the US would have absolutely no problem telling China to pack salt on that. No country extradites (or at least, shouldn't) for crimes that aren't crimes where they are too. I'll bet that unauthorized use of a computer is a crime in Romania, just like it is here in the US.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:Not on US Soil by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Oh, right....pre-coffee I can be pretty dumb.

    18. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened to my family and I once. And yes, the police specifically stated no crime was committed because the omission of the act of locking the door was equivalent to inviting the thieves in to steal our crap.

      Was he right? No, he shouldn't be. But we were unable to get anyone with authority to do or say anything differently.

    19. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful.

    20. Re:Not on US Soil by ventsyv · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws?

      Yes it does. If you commit a crime in a country that has a treaty with the USA, that country can ask that you are extradited to stand a trial there. That includes North & South America, most of Europe, some (or maybe most?) Commonwealth states (India, Egypt, Australia etc) and some other.

    21. Re:Not on US Soil by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If even a financial transaction hits a bank in the US (not even owned by a company that is headquartered in the US but simply passing through their bank) then it also magically becomes a US' jurisdiction. There's not a damned thing more that I can do about it. It is what it is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Not on US Soil by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws? This is all bullshit.

      If you have a server then it's up to you to secure it. Your failure; then arrest yourself. Otherwise don't connect the server to the outside world.

      Oh right, I'll remember that next time any crime is committed. You should have not allowed me to rape you, it's all your fault....

    23. Re:Not on US Soil by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Which is amusing when it comes to things like "Yes, your servers are in another nation, but you are American/do business in America, therefore we demand to see what's on your servers.' Pretty much distills to: "whatever view favours us"

      And you think this is a bad thing?
      Your choice is whtever favours us, or whatever favours them. I know which I prefer.

    24. Re:Not on US Soil by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      This is fucking idiotic logic....

      Unfortunately this is Slashdot these days...

    25. Re:Not on US Soil by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Just ask Kim Dotcom. He never set foot in the US.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    26. Re:Not on US Soil by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

      I'm genuinely asking. If a person makes scamming/threatening phone calls from another country, can they be extradited because the person they're calling is somewhere else? It should be the same for data, whatever that is.

    27. Re:Not on US Soil by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If they have an extradition agreement then the answer is generally yes, and more likely yes if there's also an equivalent crime in the caller's jurisdiction.

      I think a lot of folks (specifically here) don't want this to be the case but it makes sense. The "you" is generic, a royal "you" and not to mean "you personally."

      If you hack a computer on US soil and the US is able to show reasonable probable cause then you're coming to America to stand trial. If there is no extradition agreement then you may still be coming to the US to stand trial - just because they don't have an agreement does not, in fact, mean that they will not choose to extradite you. (That's mostly a movie myth, the host country may still opt to extradite.)

      Now, if your country has a law that says hacking is illegal (assuming you are from outside the US) and you hack a computer in the US then you're almost certainly going to be extradited. In this particular case (I've seen him in a documentary) he is in prison (a five year sentence, as I recall) for hacking in his home country. What he did was illegal in his country. So, he's coming here to the US for committing the crime on US soil which is in addition to the crime he committed on his host country's soil.

      This does not fall afoul the double-jeopardy restrictions. His actions in his country where illegal. That's one end of it. His actions in this country are illegal. That's the other end of it. That is a second offense.

      I'm having a hard time thinking of an analogy. If I stand in Canada and shoot someone across the border, I've committed an offense in both countries. I don't know what will be charged but it's surely something in each of them even if it's just illegal discharge of a weapon on the Canadian side. Even if it's reckless misconduct or what not.

      If you go into a bank with a pistol and fire a shot in the air and then you rob the place, then there's a whole host of things they can charge you with. They may charge you with discharging a firearm in city limits, armed robbery, criminal threatening, illegal possession of a firearm (if you weren't eligible to own it, terrorizing, criminal misconduct, assault (but not battery), and probably a bunch of other things.

      They do not normally charge you with all of that - but they can. They may charge you with all of that if some of the facts are in question. They'll throw all the charges they can think of against you and see how many they can get to stick.

      So, that's the other end of it. You've got the potential for multiple charges and the crime took place in multiple jurisdictions. Thus, he may stand trial in those jurisdictions. Theoretically, if his packets crossed other borders and entered other jurisdictions then he might be charged in those jurisdictions too. I've never seen that done, I don't think it has been done, but it's quite possible for those theoretical countries to seek extradition and charge them.

      We Slashdotters, some of us, don't think it should be that way. Which is funny because some of those same people hold the position that just because it's done on a computer shouldn't make a difference, especially where copyright or patents are concerned. It's a bit hypocritical.

      I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. If you are going to hack Mrs. Clinton's email server then consult a qualified legal professional in your particular jurisdiction. I am, however, a wee bit of a law geek and I owned my own business and dealt a lot with lawyers and the courts so I'm quite familiar with the processes and laws but not an expert. I've done my own defense, filed my own motions, requested hearings, and things like that. I've even aided others in their defense. I make it a habit to go and observe the courts, in person, and to learn about the process.

      So, take it for what you will. That's my understanding of it. I'd say that I'd not swear to it in a court of law but, in all actuality, I would.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Not on US Soil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's still a thief
      but I'm betting your home owners policy won't pay off
      when they find out your door was unlocked.

  13. 42 year old hacker!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's never even touched a woman; that is punishment enough.

  14. Clinton just lost my vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Clearly this is part of the power games that scum like Hillary Clinton play.

    She will get terminal cancer soon, and I will have a party to celebrate.

  15. The elite few might send us a copy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Where they will be held without bond for the duration of the current U.S. Presidential election cycle. They'll get to enjoy a theatrical re-release of the movie "13 Hours of Benghazi" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4172430/) but of course heavily redacted to show that nobody in the State Department/Executive branch was to blame for the death of Chris Stevens or any of the operators that responded to the tragedy.. it was just a local protest about the release of a movie "The Innocence of Muslims"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

    1. Re:The elite few might send us a copy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it Matter?
      If Being wrong is a crime why don't you complain about Bush being wrong. How many dead for the WMDs?

  16. Re:romania gets paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stopping Trump is the Republican's responsibility. If the rest of us have to stop him in the general election, it will mean that the Republicans are so far gone that a demagogue who panders to the worst among us will have become face of the Republican party. The Republicans have to stop Trump and nominate a sane candidate if the party is to have a future.

  17. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only there was some mechanism by which people could submit these news items to slashdot...

  18. Re:romania gets paid by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Trump can run as independant. There is no need for him to run as a Republican, it is just convenient for him. If the Republicans are throwing him through the window, they may pay the price if he decides to run for the presidency as an independant. The Republican candidate will lose a large chunk of votes.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  19. Premature accusation by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

    improper use of a private email account

    That has NOT been proven in a court of law yet. Many experts say the laws at the time were poorly written such as to make prosecution very difficult.

    Bad judgement, yes. Illegal? Subjective.

    1. Re:Premature accusation by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Who is saying that? The law is very clear, classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period.

    2. Re:Premature accusation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing the law with common sense. Common sense is that classified information should not be allowed on personal email servers. The Law can be quite a bit more convoluted than that, unfortunately.

    3. Re:Premature accusation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I've argued elsewhere it's NOT common sense. There is no clear-cut benefit of one over the other; the differences are subtle and involved.

      Classified info didn't belong on the "regular" office server EITHER. The same problem would have existed even IF she had only used the office server. It's comparing Chevy's to Chevy's, and not a (home) Chevy to an office Cadillac. (There is a separate system for classified stuff, but it's not email as we know it.)

    4. Re:Premature accusation by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Who is saying that? The law is very clear, classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period.

      If it's clear then perhaps you could quote the actual law here? Because I'm sure the wording doesn't actually say "classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period."

      This is why we have lawyers, because regular folks seem to have no clue about how the law actually works.

    5. Re:Premature accusation by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      18 U.S. Code  1924 subsection A in particular.

      a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    6. Re:Premature accusation by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      at an unauthorized location

      The server was in her home which is "an authorised location". Case closed.
      There is nothing about "personal email servers" which is why she's off the hook. The law is too vague to withstand even a basic defence.

  20. And I just finished watching House of Cards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spooky coincidence.

  21. Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    El Chapo can escape from the ones in Mexico. If he were incarcerated in the USA, he'd be behind bars for the rest of his life with no legitimate possibility of escape.

    1. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      El Chapo can escape from the ones in Mexico. If he were incarcerated in the USA, he'd be behind bars for the rest of his life with no legitimate possibility of escape.

      He would have private television in his cell. He would have easy access to drugs in his cell. He would have access to female prostitutes in his cell. He would have an easy life in his cell. In a federal prison anywhere in the United States of Amerika.

    2. Re: Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, please look up ADX Florence to see what awaits Mr Guzman once he is extradited and convicted...

      In short, you are completely out of your fucking mind if you think that place is camp cupcake.

  22. Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully, the FBI is going to offer him an immunity deal and jail the Medusa of Arkansas for life.

  23. FBI says they operate internationally. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful
  24. Re: BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link is called submit and is at the bottom of the main page.... sigh am I just feeding a troll ?

  25. Re: romania gets paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw, come on: all of Europe has caved in to the US orders despite so much posturing and blustering. It didn't hurt them so much. The alternative would have hurt them more.

  26. Off to the Land of the Free... by Marquis231 · · Score: 2

    ...never to be seen again. I'm sure they have places worse than ADX Florence specially reserved for people that embarrass the top brass.

  27. He's here to make a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To avoid the most severe penalties he will deliver up those emails that Hillary conveniently deleted. That way the NSA doesn't have to burn any political bridges by coughing them up. We know he has some of them since he published screenshots of some classified emails that never quite made it to the FBI. Sucks to be caught between two government agencies trying not to look bad...

  28. Re: romania gets paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Trump were running as a Democrat, you know that evangelical Christians would be saying how terrible Trump is. Since he is running as a Republican, the right-wing Christian base loves him.

  29. Re:romania gets paid by war4peace · · Score: 1

    The fuck are you talking about.
    Maybe you'd like to learn how Teo Peter died. Or, rather, was killed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  30. Yey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free trip to the US! And all he had to do was pretend to be a hacker and then pretend to fight extradition. Way better than queuing at the US embassy for a visa.

  31. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bother, nobody cares.

  32. Re: BREAKING NEWS!! by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Not so much a troll as a woosh.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  33. Any bets he gets more time in jail than Hillary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She is holding Top Secret documents in an unsafe location. She was sending Top Secret documents across open networks.
    He found out about it.
    She has a team of top lawyers and the POTUS in her pocket.
    He gets jail, she continues running for office.

  34. Congressional Medal of Honor by Trachman · · Score: 1

    Congressional Medal of Honor is an award that needs to be considered.

    Get this: to make the point that she did nothing wrong Miss Clinton would continue to use home server and would state that we have always been doing this and there was never a problem.

    In the future, reflecting past and reconsidering their path to success president Bernie, Donald or Cruz, whoever the president at the time, will probably pardon this dude.

  35. Clinton 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!

  36. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    I shall repeat this message several times in the coming days.

    Uh...why? I'm seriously asking here. What's your motivation behind this?

    If you just want to annoy us, go for it, I guess. But comment spam is always specific enough that I feel there's a goal behind it. Why do you feel this is the most important story we could be reading right now?

  37. Leak of SAP information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the lack of charges, the FBI has identified several emails containing Special Access Program (SAP) information on her email server. SAP data is quite literally our nations most closely guarded secrets - above Top Secret. The fact that this data was on the server which was hacked constitutes a greater breach of national security than Snowden's leaks.

    1. Re:Leak of SAP information. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's a big deal. The problem is the Republicans gave her cover with the insipid Benghazi probe. The real issue was the private email server containing classified information. FYI the FBI is investigating. Charges come later.

    2. Re:Leak of SAP information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time in America, getting an Ambassador executed through gross negligence in refusing security and refusing to send adequate assitance would have been something worth probing. Heck, simply getting caught bold face lying to the American People over and over again trying to cover up the reason for the attack and blame an American for making a video, would have been worth probing. We probed Bill's lie about having "sex with that woman"... Lying to us about a terrorist attack on a US Ambassador seems a little more probe-worth, and not at all insipid. Oh, but it's Hillary so the same rules don't apply.

  38. Re:romania gets paid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    If only saying so on Slashdot made it true.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  39. Re:romania gets paid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to pay that price to not have a proto-facist sitting in the Oval Office.

    And yes, I'm a registered Republican that cannot believe what has happened to this political party. I may be going independent soon.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  40. Re:She did by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Bullshit alarm!
    Bullshit alarm!

    We have here a case of utter bullshit being spouted!

    No, the information was HUMINT, it was classified at the source and had the classification markings removed. HUMINT is always classified top secret as exposing it would expose the source, who would be arrested or killed for revealing the information.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201...

    Trying to claim that these emails were retroactively classified shows your lack of knowledge of how the system works.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  41. Re:She did by Straif · · Score: 1

    Most of the classified emails made public so far (after appropriate scrubbing) were classified at the time they were sent.

    Things like foreign intelligence information, CIA asset details etc. are considered 'born classified' meaning the documents were classified as soon as they were created. Other things like State Department schedules can be retroactively classified if something important happens and they want to cover up who was present. Since both types of documents exist in Hilary's email cache the 'retroactively classified' defense died a very quick death almost as soon as it was made, and it's only repeated by die hard Hillary supporters (usually the same people who claim sexism as a defense for every attack).

    The State department has been spending a considerable amount of effort to get things declassified to try and save face for Hilary but since they were not the source for many of the classified emails on Hilary's server they have no power to do so.

    Powell used email in it's infancy at the State department when simply cc'ing a .gov address was considered ok. He was partially responsible for starting the move to update the email systems at State. There have also been no reports of any external agency classified emails present in any of his records the State department has searched, and they did, all the while claiming NOT to have the resources necessary to meet the court mandated date to search Hilary's.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  42. Hillary extradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we extradite Hillary to Benghazi for prosecution to?

  43. Re:BREAKING NEWS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two things:

    That doesn't say that it's falling, users on other platforms could simply be rising and the number of Linux users staying the same. Way to not include any evidence for your claim.

    Second, so what? It's not breaking news, does any one really care? I mean, the numbers have no impact on what myself, my users, or my friends are doing.

  44. Re: romania gets paid by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    It's not that simple.

    Trump is obviously not a religious person. There's very little record of him being much of a church-goer, and what little religious background he has is non-evangelical (Presbyterian in particular).

    His biggest opponent, Ted Cruz, is very religious and is an evangelical. If evangelicals really cared about supporting their own, they'd be voting for Cruz in the primaries.

    However, Trump is getting a surprising amount of support from the evangelicals (though a lot are voting for Cruz). There's various theories about this. A lot of people don't trust Cruz at all, think he's a big liar, etc. Some could be bad blood because of how Cruz's campaign fucked over Carson's campaign (and Carson was a favorite with the religious set for a while, since Carson is super-religious too).

    But the biggest factor in Trump's popularity overall is that his base is working-class white people, of all stripes. They don't feel the Democrats represent them (and they're right, if they look at ones like Hillary who are in the pocket of Wall Street and push free-trade deals and more immigration), and they've finally figured out the mainstream GOP politicians are working against their best interests too. So Trump is basically the best choice they have, in their perspective, because he appears to be working in their best interests.

    Right-wing Christians are frequently working-class, so it makes perfect sense that they support the one candidate who appeals to that group.

  45. Re:romania gets paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually at this point he can't.
    You have to register to run as an independent something like 180 days prior to an election, which he has not done. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, he's out of the race for this election.

  46. Re:This site is so biased now! [headers] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is Hillary's response to the "header" incident.

    In short, she says her experienced colleague, Jake Sullivan, knew what she actually meant such that her instructions were short-hand shop-talk not to be taken verbatim.

    Whether that's true to not is probably part of the investigation.

  47. The Red Queen says: by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    http://cheezburger.com/8751507200

  48. Hillary's thug squad by spkay31 · · Score: 1

    We Hillary's muscle get a hold of him he'll be wishing he was sent to Guantanamo Bay

  49. No USA law broken by Occams · · Score: 1

    It is not possible for a Non American who is living outside of the USA, and not visiting here, to break a US law. The USA has no jurisdiction to make laws that are binding on citizens of another country in their homeland. So no crime was committed under a US Law. Why was he extradited?

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  50. IRRELEVANT! Hilary screwed up... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Irregardless of whether Hilary Clinton send secure or insecure emails via her personal account, it shows ineptitude. Enough to warrant NOT voting for her for any further US office! DUH!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  51. Re:Any bets he gets more time in jail than Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the world keeps spinning.

    What part of "this is business as usual" don't you understand?