Advice To Twitter Worker Who Deactivated Trump's Account: 'Get A Lawyer' (thehill.com)

An anonymous reader quotes The Hill: A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues has this advice to the unnamed Twitter worker said to have pulled the plug on President Trump's Twitter account: "Don't say anything and get a lawyer." Tor Ekeland told The Hill that while the facts of the case are still unclear and the primary law used to prosecute hackers is murky and unevenly applied, there is a reasonable chance the Twitter worker violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...widely considered to be, as Ekeland explained it, "a mess." Various courts around the country have come up with seemingly contradictory rulings on what unauthorized access actually means. Ekeland said the Ninth Circuit, covering the state of California, has itself issued rulings at odds with itself that would have an impact on the Trump Twitter account fiasco as a potential case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that employees do not violate the law if they exceed their workplace computer policies. It has also ruled that employees who have been told they do not have permission to access a system cannot legally access it. Depending on which ruling a court leans on the hardest, a current Twitter employee without permission to shutter accounts may have violated the law by nixing Trump's account.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.

Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.

Comments

Nonsense

[Hognoxious]

The greatest legal minds advise that if you have access to a system you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.

Re: Nonsense

[dougdonovan]

if you are going to do something wrong, in this case, STUPID, do it right and dont get caught. enjoy 3 hots and a cot. if it were going up against a yadayadayada politician, you may get off but trump is not a yadayadayada politician like we are used to. hes a marketing business man and now holds the most powerful position in the world.

Re:Nonsense

[mugurel]

if you have access to a system you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.

At least, that's what Trump himself seems to be doing...

Re:Nonsense

[slashrio]

And of course it was all done inadvertently.

Re: Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true. If true, I could take the entire mobility network down without consequences, because I have access to it.

Re: Nonsense

[Desty]

This is not true. If true, I could take the entire mobility network down without consequences, because I have access to it.

So people wouldn't be able to move around so much anymore?

Re: Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to skin the employee alive on national TV as a message.

In The Name Of OJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury Nullification! Cut the head off and the guts out of two people, and be set FREE! because, well, because if the glove don't fit you must acquit! And Forman said a naughty word. Don't forget that!

"In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always those to which the end always justifies the means.

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about this dumb ass president's Twitter account?? It's is just shit coming from it ans it's used as propaganda tool from an elected president ass hole. I would have do the same, and seriously, if it could stay closed, I would be happy! And Twitter is a private company, they can do whatever they want with accounts on their systems.

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a good link to a semi-literate gibberish to English translator?

Re: "In"security

[aevan]

A lot of people seem to. His haters cannot seem to keep themselves from immediately going ad hominem on every tweet, and echoing to each other how great their tweets are. If his account is removed, where will they find something with which to pass the time?

Not to mention, people are filing suit over being blocked. So yes, some people seem to care. Too much so.

Re:"In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya...like everyone on the Left

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s called âoeButt hurt liberaleseâ

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit about twitter?

Re: "In"security

[Zero__Kelvin]

You have trouble understanding his tweets too I gather.

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all actually.
Fifteen seconds to construct a tweet and the media goes batshit crazy for a day or two. Simple to understand really.

Re: "In"security

[Zero__Kelvin]

Ah, yes ... The "he just looks like a moron, but is secretly a brilliant mastermind" delusion.

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish Trump wasn't President but he has managed to accomplish a few noteworthy successes. He effectively pushed both the Democrat and Republican parties and their backroom handlers to the back of the bus. Think of the billions of dollars the Democrat and Republican franchise owners wasted on the last election. Nobody donates millions of dollars on a candidate without expecting a hefty ROI and this time around they ended up with nothing. It has also taken someone like Trump to expose the incompetence that is backed into the longstanding political parties. It was the establishment politicians and their back room money men who set the stage for Trump's victory. And the media finally came out of the closet showing they are totally incapable of impartiality and bias free journalism. The press is also responsible for getting Trump elected. And of course the people who are too blame for screwing things up so bad someone like Trump gets elected are trying to push the blame towards some mythical US-Russia collusion. Twitter and Facebook were so busy watching their stock earning reports they missed the fact that a nation state hijacked their platform to manipulate all the brain dead proles out there that spend the majority of their time tweeting and updating their FB page.

On the foreign relations front Trump has everyone, friend or foe, guessing what he may do. His early comments on NATO was just a light slap upside the head of all the NATO members who have not met their funding goals. After 40 years of failed diplomacy he finally said what a lot of people wanted to say themselves in regards to NK. While Kim may threaten the US with total destruction every day he cannot follow through with that threat and Trump's rhetoric is just a reminder that the US could, without any doubt, turn NK into the worlds largest glass bowl in a single afternoon. Trump has also gotten China too pull their thumbs out of their asses and start reigning in their chia pet before Trump does something unpredictable. NK actions have already resulted in China being surrounded by the most advanced anti-missile batteries that can actually weaken China's own nuclear deterrent.

So to recap Trump gave the Washington establishment some corner time coupled with a whole lot of powerful people losing a shit load or money which leaves them without the leverage needed to make sure the politicians at the top do what they are told. And he has reminded it's allies that US support is a two way street and the US is re-evaluating it's commitments by putting the interests of the US at the top of the list when comparing pros and cons.

Re: "In"security

[Zero__Kelvin]

That has to be some of the most stupid shit I have read in quite some time. Trump has everyone guessing what he'll do next because he is a mentally unstable sociopath who doesn't know what he is going to do next, and when he does things fails to grasp the gravity of what he has done.

Re: "In"security

[PlaynBass]

First, tRump has done NOTHING but support the big corporate and private spenders at every turn of the dial. They are still making tons of cash, and they are successfully getting some of their most important legislation passed, albeit not so well publicized (which is how they really like it). Consumer protection? GONE! Student loan forgiveness? GONE! ACA? Still pumping money into the insurance industry! Tax breaks? Nearly DONE!

Re: "In"security

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that eas great!!!! Well said

Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

U know it.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[dunkelfalke]

the sentence would probably be lower, though.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[ClickOnThis]

U know it.

No, I doubt it.

IANAL, but it is widely understood that the prosecution carries the burden of proof. In this case, the prosecution would need to prove that hate was a motivating factor in the crime, in order for it to be characterized as a hate crime. Deactivating Obama's Twitter account just because you don't like his politics would not qualify.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

U know it.

I hate Trump because of what he is doing to us as a country. He has normalized so many things that are just out right wrong and highly unethical. He destroys freedom of the press by destroying all credibility everywhere. He lies so often that you have to be paying exceptionally close attention and then fact check everything, to have any idea. He lies as easily as most people breath. If he doesn't get us into a war with North Korea, it won't be for lack of his best efforts. He is everything that people have complained about the Clintons, generally erroneously at least for the most part, taken to about an order of magnitude above that, so needless to say I'm not Trump fan. The day he is no longer the president I may very well get happily drunk.

All that being said, hate crime statutes, which are more of a democrat thing I guess are just out right stupid and wrong. They are like laws against terrorism and other such nebulous things.

If a person attempts to commit murder it is attempted murder. Hate is a motive not a crime. If a person actually commits murder it is murder. It is not more or less of a crime if the person belongs to a protected minority. That a person hates is not really relevant. Now I'm okay with the other way. If a person commits a crime in response to a crime committed to them or someone they care about, well it doesn't make the crime forgivable, but should at least be taken into account. Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to have a war with North Korea though. Their nuclear arsenal keeps growing. Should have been dealt with decades ago, but here we are. In another 5 years they may be able to nuke all of America, and will gladly do so.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[h33t l4x0r]

The motive would have to be color. Also, orange, unlike black, is not a protected class.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Pentium100]

Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.

People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.
The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that. Declaring illegals to be outside the protection of the law may be another.

It is similar to how drunk drivers are punished in my country. If you drive drunk and get caught, you get punished, that's obvious. But you may also be punished for an accident that you did not cause. In an effort to reduce the number of drunk drivers, the government in my country passed a new law. If there is an accident involving more than one car and one of the drivers is drunk, then he is automatically guilty of the accident

That means, if you are stopped at a red light and somebody rear-ends you:
1. You are guilty of the accident and will pay a fine for causing an accident while drunk (higher fine than just the accident or just driving drunk), they may even take your license for a few months.
2. Your insurance company may refuse to pay so you may have to fix the other guy's car from with own money.
3. Your insurance payment will definitely be higher for a few years because of this.

And this is just so driving drunk would carry more risk than the usual increased risk of an accident and the risk of getting caught.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to have a war with North Korea though. Their nuclear arsenal keeps growing. Should have been dealt with decades ago, but here we are. In another 5 years they may be able to nuke all of America, and will gladly do so.

I believe Bannon's figure was what 5 million south Korean causalities, or something like that?

I'm not a military expert, but that is a hard figure to ignore. Long term infiltration until you can decapitate the leadership and take over might work, but also might not and could take decades.

Also if you think a semi stable north korea is bad, just wait till it is falling apart. Lots of more potential terrorists there that have been indoctrinated from birth, and again, South Korea's losses would be devastating.

The only idea I can think of that might work, or might just trigger the war, is to get all the major powers to agree to take over north korea on a timetable over a period of say 30 years, just a little bit each year. You don't directly threaten the leadership. Leave them alone, but slowly take ground according to your public-ally agreed timetable. Include an offer for the leadership/generals/etc to retire in a country of their choice and keep your world. That is paramount. Trump's biggest tragedy is he will do things like tear up the agreement with Iran, which is the same as the US not keeping its word, and that is very bad. I can't think of a single thing that is worse, for credibility and trust lost is seldom regained. Yes, letting war criminals off is horrible, but millions of dead is worse, and if they do a single thing else you can go after them.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

He destroys freedom of the press by destroying all credibility everywhere.

The press and media have been working for years to destroy their own credibility.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.

People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.

I was more thinking of Gitmo, but I'd say punish them for crimes they commited, and perhaps a token amount for the costs to ship them out. If they commit a crime they must of course serve the time or face that punishment before they are allowed out. There is no reason to make it excessive.

The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that.

Create/use an identify check system. Punish the employers for hiring the illegals. Problem (mostly) solved.

Most illegals are from an overstayed visa from what I recall, so Trump's wall aint going to do much. It surely isn't going to stop drugs. I bet with a bit of work you could almost just catapult the drugs over into a nearby waiting truck. or, if it is the wall with the see through areas, you just slip a specially shaped pipe through and the person on the other end collects in a bucket, or possibly a heavy duty balloon. Use a minor bit of air pressure and it would be quick.

Could also use a single LVL from say the equivalent of menards. Nail some 2x2's on the side and you can climb almost any wall, then you just need a knotted rope to get down. Could also go to one of the coasts and just hold onto a board until you drift over to a beech, etc, etc. Hell I bet you could put together a big drone without any real trouble that people simply grab onto. They get floated over dropped off and return. Of course there is also all the freight we move back and forth. Lots of possibilities there. The wall also won't keep out terrorists, other than maybe the stupid ones. Besides many of the new terrorists grew up here and were radicalized here.

To be honest the biggest thing I think that might slow terrorism is if we did elect a devout Muslim president. I don't see that happening in my lifetime though. Hell, I'm not even sure a woman will get the job in my lifetime. The racists are going overtime since Trump said it was okay to be proud of your racism again.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Troy Roberts]

If you want to make it unprofitable for undocumented foreigners, then the government should prosecute the employers that hire them.

However, that won't happen, because the Republicans don't really want to change anything. They just want to use the issue politically.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Pentium100]

Nail some 2x2's on the side and you can climb almost any wall, then you just need a knotted rope to get down.

If you climb over the wall, you may be detected easier (it probably is possible to detect when something is climbing the wall), the wall may have barbed wire on the top and, if caught, you will not be able to say that you somehow managed to get here by accident ("I thought this was still Mexico").
At least this is my opinion.

As for a Muslim US President - well, that day I would be really happy with the government of my country, even if it is corrupt. Islam does not seem to be compatible with the Western way of life. Also, a Muslim President would be another problem IMO - it would be very difficult to criticize his policies (especially if those policies were even partially based on his religion) without somebody calling you a racist. That is, you can criticize a Christian politician for banning abortions as much as you want, but criticizing a Muslim politician for the same policy would be more difficult.

I personally do not consider myself a racist, but I would consider myself "behavior"-ist or "culture"-ist. That is, I really do not care about the color of your skin (Muslim is not a race by the way), as long as you behave the same as everybody else in the area. If you behave differently, then I will consider the differences and decide whether I like you or not. However, if a bunch of people who look similar are behaving the same, but it is different from the norm, then I may have a problem.
For example, a man behaving like an asshole towards his wife or women in general - well, he's just an asshole. A big group of men behaving like that is a problem though. And if more members of that group want to immigrate, I will be against it, we have enough assholes already. Either stop being an asshole or - if that behavior is normal in your country - stay in your country.

In my opinion, immigrants and refugees pose several problems:
1. They demand welfare from the government. Money, that could be used to support our own poor people. Some immigrants have the audacity to demand more money than the locals get.
2. If they do not want to assimilate into our culture then there will always be some friction between us.
3. The immigrants are more likely to be common criminals.
4. The immigrants and their children are more likely to be terrorists (this seems to be exclusive to Muslims).
5. They might reduce the salaries of locals by offering to work cheaper (this applies more to more wealthy countries).

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I say let Trump and KJ have a fist fight to the death. I don't even care if either of them wins. Let their egos duke it out.

But really, SK is going to lose a couple million people so time to cash out any Samsung profit. The US will get nuked, likely in Houston or SF and cancer in the NK will go to zero due to a spike in incineration and suffocation deaths. The prevailing winds will determine who else gets fucked. We are already a pariah on the world stage so it is just. A question of who nukes first.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're just a racist.

Sorry, you might think you're advancing logical arguments, but no, if that's the case you're just a delusional racist.

More likely, you're just a racist hiding behind the usual dog whistle talking points.

But either way, you're just a racist.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Jack9]

Racism would be the immediate claimed motive, by multiple organizations, with or without evidence.
That's the clear implication of the OP. How you choose to suspend recollection of the typical news cycle, seems a lot like noise farming.
If you have nothing to add, just being disagreeable isn't very interesting and makes you look overtly biased.

It would be a lot more useful to apply the tactics used to attack Trumps "racism", since similar tools would be employed.
Facts are not as compelling as they are portrayed.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Tony Isaac]

Your argument is logical. Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?

When it comes to political hot topics like race, verdicts are more or less random.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Powercntrl]

Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.

This wasn't "the left". It was a lone wolf performing an act of digital vandalism, and he'll face the consequences of his actions.

That being said, it might benefit his approval rating if Trump spent less time incessantly whining on Twitter about sensationalized issues du jour, and more time learning how to suck less at being president. He could start by reading the Constitution.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has read the Constitution. He's revoked orders Obama put in place regarding immigration because there was no law allowing those orders to be issued.

On the other hand, the Constitution plainly gives Congress the ability to write immigration law, and they wrote one that says the President can deny anyone or any group entry into the country for pretty much any reason. That's what the law, from the 1950s I believe, states very plainly. Using that law, Trump decided people from certain nations shouldn't come here, and some dumbass judge in Hawaii keeps blocking it because apparently, like you, he can't read the Constitution either.

So yeah, Trump has read the Constitution. Sorry if you don't like what it says.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical leftist. Someone makes rational arguments that you don't like, so you howl names.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is an accident involving more than one car and one of the drivers is drunk, then he is automatically guilty of the accident.

Which country is this? I want to make sure I never visit a place where actual facts have nothing to do with the laws. Nothing like being convicted of an action you didn't actually commit.

  Even in the US we at least pretend most of the time. This is quite possibly the dumbest law I've ever heard of and that's saying a lot.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, orange, unlike black, is not a protected class.

That's only because the Orange Man has no class.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent post meant Trump should _understand_ the Constitution. It'd help if he understood it better than you.

The Obama administration's immigration policies were perfectly constitutional. Are the police acting unconstitutionally when they fail to arrest me for jaywalking? No? Oh, then let's turn to your other piece of bullshit: the employment authorizations. You know, the ones that the AG/Director of Homeland Security can, according to legislation passed by Congess and signed by Reagan, give to ANYONE for ANY reason. Obviously it was way out of line to offer those authorizations to people Republicans don't like for reasons Republicans think are bad.

The problem with Trump's immigration orders, and the reason they're continually in court, is not because they exceed his powers, it's because he's too fucking stupid to keep his mouth shut and not implicate 14th Amendment concerns. All it would take for those orders to stand is an actual rational basis and, you know, some actual facts besides the fact that Trump _wants_ to discriminate.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

There wasn't a dept of homeland security when regan was president. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement to relieve any confusion.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[DNS-and-BIND]

We want E-verify, but evidently that's a hate crime. A lot of resistance to an obvious step. Other countries have it, I don't see why it's a big deal.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably true. While what this person did was obviously dumb and inappropriate, it amounts to a prank. To prosecute the guy over it is what one would expect from North Korea. But in the USSA, offending the president is unforgivable, so expect him to be charged and railroaded into a guilty plea.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you really meant to type --

Typical leftist - someone spouts shit that is provably false about 30 Y.O.refugee "children" and illegal immigrants, someone else calls them out with facts, and you go ape shit claiming their logic is "racist".

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy to answer.

Because it's far easier to call something a "hate crime" or a person "racist" than it is to actually use reason and logic to solve a problem.

Emotion always overrides a person's mental faculties.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We regularly convict drivers of getaway cars of robbery, even though they never actually held a gun in the teller's nose.

Ratchet down the moral outrage a bit please.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally do not consider myself a racist, but I would consider myself "behavior"-ist or "culture"-ist. That is, I really do not care about the color of your skin (Muslim is not a race by the way), as long as you behave the same as everybody else in the area. If you behave differently, then I will consider the differences and decide whether I like you or not.

That's good, because you're not a racist. You're by definition a xenophobe.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(...talks about politics, religion, culture...)

"You're just a racist."

WTF?

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[thegarbz]

Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?

Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that. Declaring illegals to be outside the protection of the law may be another."

Do you realize the vast majority of illegals are here because their family is here? Profit isn't a factor because people are willing to suffer extraordinary hardship for family....

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We want E-verify, but evidently that's a hate crime.

E-Verify is an exploitation of workers that puts them at the behest of unscrupulous employers.

What you should do, is punish the people getting rich off their labor.

A lot of resistance to an obvious step. Other countries have it, I don't see why it's a big deal.

A lot of countries have a lot of things, bribery, corruption, brutality, like the US has in its ginormous prison system, it's not exactly esteem-able.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so funny how you people run from your peers when they commit some crime or atrocity.

It's like you are desperate to not be tarred with the activities you so desperately clamor for. Fuck, just read the comments here and i the Leftist media. He is celebrated.

Contemptible people, you are.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to love the viewpoint of geopolitics coming from the mind of an 8 year old. Go play with your GI Joe's some more, Donald.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Xyrus]

His staff would have to create a specialized version of the Constitution for him to read. All bullet points, with no line being longer than 144 characters and no word beyond a third grade vocabulary. They'd also have to throw in a random statement on every page about how awesome he is or he'd stop reading after the first one or two bullet points.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Xyrus]

Yep, immigration is little more than a political football. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a lucrative alternative. And business wouldn't employ illegal immigrants if it wasn't so profitable to do so. Today's penalties for using illegal immigrant labor comes down to a finger wag and a slap on the wrist. As long as it remains more profitable to employ illegal immigrants than the penalties for doing so, they're going to keep doing it.

But you'll never see republican pushing for harsh penalties against businesses. You'll see them taking idiotic measures, like trying to spend billions on a border wall.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Zero__Kelvin]

This is simply untrue. For example, did you know that you are presumed innocent until trial, after which if you are not found guilty you are not considered innocent? That is every single criminal case, and yes I have had numerous lawyers look me straight in the face and tell me this is true, and that there is no logical inconsistency in that line of "reasoning."

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Zero__Kelvin]

He would have to start by learning to read first. He could stare at the Constitution all day, but he certainly couldn't read it in any meaningful way (i.e. understand it.)

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell us which country so we can avoid, thanks.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently logic is not your strong suit.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Cinnamon Beige]

Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?

Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.

Funny, that. Some of the laws that are getting activists pushing for them being dropped, the basic reason they're against them is because that is not at all the normal result. It's not news, because it's the normal situation--and, really, some of these laws seem to be inherently against logic.

It turns out that 'ability to use basic logic' is not a basic skill among those who hold elected offices.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

But yet he was smart enough to be elected president while all you can do is whine like a baby.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you are one phenomenally stupid motherfucker.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Zero__Kelvin]

You mean of course that he was *stupid* enough to get elected. He could have lived the rest of his life grabbing pussies and eating "beautiful chocolate cake", but soon he will be sucking dicks and giving his cake to Bubba. It takes a phenomenally stupid motherfucker to blow the free ride he was given and trade it for what he has coming to him now.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[gnasher719]

If a person attempts to commit murder it is attempted murder. Hate is a motive not a crime. If a person actually commits murder it is murder. It is not more or less of a crime if the person belongs to a protected minority. That a person hates is not really relevant.

There is actually a good reason for this, and that is maths. Assume you have 10,000 people, and 1,000 of them are member of some minority. And there are 10 people among those 10,000 who are willing to kill just because of someone's race. Nine from the majority, one from the minority. If you are a member of the majority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 9,000. If you are a member of the minority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 111. Clearly this is a good reason for laws protecting the minority.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[gnasher719]

Also, a Muslim President would be another problem IMO - it would be very difficult to criticize his policies (especially if those policies were even partially based on his religion) without somebody calling you a racist

London has a muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, and he is doing just fine. Doing a lot better than the former mayor, the incompetent and lying Boris Johnson, also known as mini-Trump.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.

Jeez, it's only a civil infraction.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to make it unprofitable for undocumented foreigners, then the government should prosecute the employers that hire them.

And prosecute their own political base? I think not.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so funny how you people run from your peers when they commit some crime or atrocity.

As opposed to what? Running toward them? I don't care if it's a peer or not, I'm not interested in people who commit some crime or atrocity.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it is applied to EVERYONE, then it doesn't cause any discrimination issues.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.

Ultimately, we can only deport what another nation is willing to accept. Otherwise it is an act of war (AKA, invasion).

Granted, there are SOME arrangements for this - many acutally. They scale into the hundreds, thousands approach hundreds of thousands (south of the border).

Not millions.

So your proposoal is take some 14 yo kid who is here "illegally" (I'm quoting your word, that is not sarcastic quotes, but YOUR claim), put them in jail for punishment which implies months and years, not weeks. So in 4 years, we have an 18 yo with 4 years in the system, learning the trade of criminality.

Who the fuck is going to want that? If they were 18, then 22. Who wants that? If they were 60 then 64 with a heart murmer - who the fuck wants that?

Keep in mind the tax burden to imprison might be $120,000 (4 yrs) while a young person working at least has the theoretical possibility of being a net contributor.

So what the fuck are you on about?

Here are your choices, pick one:

1) keep people OUT of the country
2) remove them QUICKLY
3) STFU

Part of Job Description

[Herkum01]

If they are authorized to disable accounts that violate their Terms of Use, it seems like it is part of their job. If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else is not the president of the US. Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy.

Likely nothing much will happen. But if you're Twitter the company, you have to be thinking that having the Feds crawl up your rectum looking for anything to charge you with has got to be a problem.

Because a $4 trillion federal bureaucracy can do a lot of damage to an individual or a company it doesn't like.

Re:Part of Job Description

[quonset]

Their job is to disable accounts when told to do so. Not whenever they feel like it. Not when they don't like what someone is saying. Not because they feel like it.

This is no different than an admin leaving or being fired and botching the system before they walk out.

Re:Part of Job Description

[mysidia]

Probably only designated personnel whose specific job is to do that are authorized to do so, but customer service representatives may have technical ability but No authorization to use that capability.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be that this person was a moderating who decides if a person violated the term of service based on the companies policies.
Maybe this person decided to finally correctly apply this to this twitter account.

If that is the case, the lawsuit is going to be interesting.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

A troll is a troll. A president is not above Law and private corporations have no obligation to service anyone, even a president.

Re:Part of Job Description

[ClickOnThis]

Anyone else is not the president of the US.

Irrelevant. The POTUS may be able to alter traffic and pre-empt television broadcasts, but on Twitter, he's just another user who is subject to their terms of service and various attached rules and policies.

Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy.

Okay, now that is relevant.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

You just keep telling yourself that the elite are not above the law. Lemme know how that works out for you.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Pentium100]

Yes, but if you are going to antagonize the government, then better make sure everything you do is squeaky clean, all papers are correct form, signed, all "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed. Because if you piss the government off enough, it will most likely find something to use against you.

Re:Part of Job Description

[kenh]

private corporations have no obligation to service anyone

I have some Christian bakers here who'd like a moment to rebut your assertion...

Re:Part of Job Description

[boudie2]

To paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson "The rest of your life will be a series of unfortunate coincidences."

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how many times Dumb Donald has violated the Twitter terms of use, the only surprising thing is that his account wasn't terminated ages ago. Unfortunately, the yob who finally did the right thing probably didn't have the authority, so s/he will likely be punished for doing the right thing. Meanwhile, Twitter milks the train wreck because it keeps people coming to watch...

Re: Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaka s chat!

Not all Private corporations are bakeries with retail store fronts. If you want to discriminate against gays, Jews, Milagros or whatever group of potential customers, you are free to do as long as you don't have a public operation.

Retail storefronts using public sidewalks and featuring and unlocked front door are not private. If you are in a mall, then the mall has its own rules and is subject to the same.

To put it another way, fuck off ya hypocrite.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Dutch Gun]

You seriously think TheRealDonaldTrump is "just another user"? Sorry, the fact that someone is POTUS is actually pretty significant. You'll note that while I can go in and edit most articles on Wikipedia, I cannot go and alter the article for Donald Trump or Barrack Obama, and for good reason. It has special protection against the inevitable vandalism that would occur otherwise from random idiots and zealots.

Why Twitter didn't think it necessary to put some special protections on high-profile accounts is beyond me. You can bet they'll be doing it now, though.

Re:Part of Job Description

[93 Escort Wagon]

If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.

All this worrying over nothing. I’m sure President Trump will take the high road and turn the other cheek.

Re: Part of Job Description

[I'm New Around Here]

Leaka s chat!

Not all Private corporations are bakeries with retail store fronts. If you want to discriminate against gays, Jews, Milagros or whatever group of potential customers, you are free to do as long as you don't have a public operation.

Retail storefronts using public sidewalks and featuring and unlocked front door are not private. If you are in a mall, then the mall has its own rules and is subject to the same.

So, all I need to do is own the sidewalk in front of my store? Really? That can be done.

I will buy a lot in an undeveloped block, clear the land, build a store, pour a cement sidewalk, and put a sign next to the building and sidewalk that I did put there: We only serve people of the correct race.

Does that pass your test of public vs private business?

Re:Part of Job Description

[ClickOnThis]

You seriously think TheRealDonaldTrump is "just another user"?

As far as Twitter is concerned? Yes. [And BTW, it's @realDonaldTrump.]

Sorry, the fact that someone is POTUS is actually pretty significant.

Yes, but not as far as the Twitter terms of use, rules, and policies are concerned. Twitter is no more obliged to offer an account to the POTUS than you are obliged to let him use your bathroom.

You'll note that while I can go in and edit most articles on Wikipedia, I cannot go and alter the article for Donald Trump or Barrack Obama, and for good reason. It has special protection against the inevitable vandalism that would occur otherwise from random idiots and zealots.

All of that is up to Wikipedia. Whether Twitter offers special protection for (or from?) some users is entirely up to them. It's their dojo.

Re:Part of Job Description

[mishehu]

You piss on the gov't, the gov't gets wet. The gov't pisses on you? You drown.

Re: Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that pass your test of public vs private business?

Nope! You forgot the door. You have to keep it locked.

But actually, you probably won't pass the zoning ordinances, which require a sidewalk easement. That means your sidewalk becomes public regardless. You probably will need to locate yourself in a rural area, and even then you may have issues. A lot of them do have signage regulations.

You may want to try terra nullis. Then you can be a racist bigot king all you want.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

> So - the perp was violating company policy.
I sure hope that violating company policy is not itself grounds for 10 years behind bars.

Re:Part of Job Description

[gnasher719]

Anyone else is not the president of the US. Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy

You got this totally wrong. This is not about whether he should have disabled this account or not. He shouldn't have, and would have been fired about it if he hadn't left already.

This is about whether he is guilty of abusing his ex-employer's computers. And he clearly was authorized to delete accounts.

A similar recent case was about a woman whose job it was to operate a computer that fills out lottery tickets, and take payment for those tickets from customers. She used the computer to fill out about 1,000 tickets per week for herself without paying. The result: Guilty of theft. Not guilty of abusing the computer, because she was authorized to operate it.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying we should make political position a protected class, like religion or sexual orientation?

Re:Part of Job Description

[jwhyche]

As far as Twitter is concerned? Yes. [And BTW, it's @realDonaldTrump.]

We'll Twitters very actions prove that they don't consider @realDonaldTrump just another user. The fact they shit all over themselves restoring the account in 30 minutes and then issuing press statements distancing themselves from the event prove that. I promise that if I had a twitter account and something happened to it, it wouldn't be head line news when it got disabled.

There is another reason that twatter, and faceboo, would be acting like this and treating the president with such gloves. While they are a private company there are calls on conservative sides for them to be treated as a public utility. Precisely because they control so much information and speech. The last thing they want is the government telling them how they can run their business.

If they where to start censoring public officials speech then public officials might fix that issue for them.

Re:Part of Job Description

[jwhyche]

An yes, I know only the government can truly "censor" someone. I'm just using as a figure of speech.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Known Nutter]

No... you (and a hell of a lot of folks) intentionally misuse the term "censorship". You know what it means, you know it doesn't fit your context but you use it anyway because it supports your narrative.

Re: Part of Job Description

[I'm New Around Here]

That's just it, I don't want to be a racist bigot king at all. But so many people in the world think I should be forced to do work for them against my will. Their rights override my rights, for some reason, when I really don't even care what group someone is a part of. As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.

Re:Part of Job Description

[ClickOnThis]

While [Twitter and Facebook] are [private companies] there are calls on conservative sides for them to be treated as a public utility. Precisely because they control so much information and speech. The last thing they want is the government telling them how they can run their business.

OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.

1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house.
2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any. And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality. Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities?
3. Facebook and Twitter do not "control" information and speech. They provide a service that allows people to express themselves. They reserve the right to step in and remove content they deem inappropriate because the service belongs to them, and they don't want miscreant users who negatively affect their business.

Re: Part of Job Description

[tbannist]

That's just it, I don't want to be a racist bigot king at all.

Then wake up to the fact that you are helping people to be racist bigots.

As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.

But so many people in the world think I should be forced to do work for them against my will. Their rights override my rights, for some reason, when I really don't even care what group someone is a part of.

And here you are actively encouraging the discrimination and the victimization of minority groups. The bakers in your example decided to discriminate against members of the public based on proscribed reasons. Reasons that are proscribed because they were actively and maliciously used to harass, impoverish, belittle, and dehumanize their fellow Americans. Do you understand that it's illegal because white people used to drive black people out their neighbourhood by denying the right to buy food, clothes and everything else? Do you understand the history behind the law? Do you really want to stand up for bakers who refuse to sell cakes to people based on the colour of their skin or the genitals of their spouse? When it's really none of their god damn business who the cake is for?

As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.

That's a bald face lie because here you are making it your business, quite voluntarily. The only person making it your business is you, and I'm pretty sure everyone else wants you to just stop lying to yourself.

Re:Part of Job Description

[tbannist]

1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house.

From context it's clear he means privately-owned company, and it's perfectly acceptable terminology in North America to call either Facebook or Twitter a private company even though they are traded publicly. The opposite, a public company would be one that is owned by the government, like the U.S. Postal Service and NASA, though I am not actually sure that either is exactly a company, but you should get the idea.

2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any.

Do you recognize the name Steve Bannon?

And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality.

As far as I can tell, most conservatives want to keep Net Neutrality, except for the trolls and the people who don't even know what it is, but oppose it because liberals want it.

Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities?

Most likely the actual Republican leadership doesn't want to do any such thing, because it would fly in the face of their aggressively anti-regulation posturing. However, they may want their base to want them to do it, so they can use the threat of regulation against Facebook and Twitter to induce "good behaviour".

Re:Part of Job Description

[jwhyche]

OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.

Like OMG, so much ignorance and arrogance bound up in one post. How efficient of you. Oh look, you even used a number list that I can use to correct you. Aren't you smart? Let us begin.

1. 1) Facebook and Twitter are private companies because they work in the private sector, as opposed to a public company that works in the public sector. A private company is owned by private individuals, be it one person or many through stocks. Where as a public company is owned by a government entity. An example of a public company is the Postal Service or many municipal services such as police and fire. What you are confusing is publicly traded companies, where they are traded on a stock market. They are still private companies.
2. Owning the pipes and wires, as you put it, is irrelevant. What matters is they own the social media that people post and use to communicate on. If government decides that regulating them would be in the best interest of the country they can and will do it. The government in the past has regulated many private companies in the public interest. These include at one point the banking and airline industry.
3. 2) Feel free to call bullshit on anything you want, doesn't make it any less true. I suggest you check out Tucker Carlson on Foxnews. He has been calling for government regulations on facebook, google, and twitter for several weeks. I believe Sean Hannity at some point has called for it too. Tucker Carlson, I know, has had congress critters on that agree with his option that they should be regulated. So yes, there are calls in some conservative sides to regulate facebook, twitter, and google.
4. 3) Facebook, Twitter, and Google most certainly do control information and speech. Almost everything you do now on the internet has some connection to google in it. Searches, advertisement, and even many times the phone you even use. How many people have facebook accounts? Billions. We now live in a world where is considered strange not to have one. Twitter is so big that matters of state are being express over it now.
5. All of these companies have shown they will manipulate data to fit their cooperate policy. Many times these policies conflict with conservative views. These three companies control so much information now they can actively affect polices and even elections. The world drops a collective brick in it's pants when NK responds to one of Trumps less presidential tweets. Since so much speech goes through these companies it is very easy to see where people are worried their polices might be a threat to free speech. Which leads to calls to regulate them.

There we go. You have been illuminated.

Re:Part of Job Description

[jwhyche]

Yes I do, and yes I did. Deal with it.

Re:So he could get a reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh he's getting a cigar alrighty.

Clinton style.

Fucked

[HornWumpus]

As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.

Remember how money gets distributed by courts. Lawyers first.

Re:Fucked

[PolygamousRanchKid]

As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.

He doesn't need a lawyer . . . Trump would not even bother to touch this guy or gal.

When push comes to shove, it won't matter about your political motivations concerning your actions at work.

Skank Donald Trump? Well, he seems to have his team to handle this.

Skank Hillary Clinton? Well, she will declare that she is responsible, but will clearly put the blame on someone else.

The person who did this will need to apply for a change of name. It doesn't matter if you are a democrat or a republican. Someone who fiddles with user ids is unemployable.

Re:Fucked

[Pentium100]

I also do not think that Trump would bother with the ex-employee, because if he wanted to sue somebody, he would sue Twitter and then let Twitter figure out what to do with the ex-employee. Though I do not think that he will sue Twitter for this either.

However, Twitter may try to preempt a lawsuit by Trump with a lawsuit against the ex-employee in an effort to show that "yes, we did not authorize this, he/she did this on their own etc".

Re:Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't need a lawyer . . . Trump would not even bother to touch this guy or gal.

Trump? No. Honestly, it's advantageous. Confirmation that the left loves censoring anyone who doesn't agree with them and all that.

But not needing a lawyer? He might. Ol' Jack had to quickly do damage control after a post effectively laughing at what happened to Trump. Twitter's already circling the drain. A little poutrage from the right and a scalp will need to be had.

Re:Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

On what grounds could Trump sue Twitter? Withdrawal of a free service? Discrimination?

A mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fucking travesty!

Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.

But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.

Re: A mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, Twitter should be prosecuted for turning the damn thing back on.

Re:A mess?

[quantaman]

It's a fucking travesty!

Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.

But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.

Why? Because a Twitter account got deactivated for a couple hours? Turn off Fox News and rejoin the real world.

Some contractor decided to pull a dumb stunt, the meaningful consequences of which were precisely zilch.

The guy should be sued and/or face some additional legal consequences, it should certainly impact his future employment prospects because he's proven he'll abuse his access.

But otherwise, it's just not that big a deal.

Re:A mess?

[drinkypoo]

Trump has been violating Twitter's policies almost as long as he has had a Twitter account, but double-especially since he became POTUS. The thing that will hang this contractor is that they were no longer a contractor when they deleted Trump's account.

Re:A mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you all losing your shit over this is Trump going after this guy not likely, you only defend him because this is the dirty tricks you wish you could pull because you think Hillary is the best candidate america has ever had.
Just grow up twitter has every right to go after this guy for breaking the rules and creating a lot of bad PR.

The left's non stop rage at Trump must be because your epic arrogance got him elected.

Contractor?

[slickwillie]

Maybe H-1B visa from India?

Without knowing any laws...

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I'd prefer if they let the guy just walk away. He made a fool of himself and achieved nothing, which is punishment enough. And he risked his own skin career-wise for what he believed in (or couldn't control himself about), which is something to respect.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[HornWumpus]

Impulsive pointless vandalism is something to respect?

No. He fucked himself sideways.

What's his name? He should be _radioactive_ in the job market. Risked? It's gone, over. He's going to be selling speakers out of a van. Staying out of jail? Most likely, but not until a google search of his name is forever toxic.

Re: Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

A typical snowflake reasoning out of rectum. Let criminals go.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Vigilantism is already at a dangerously high point. It will only escalate further the more they get away with.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Impulsive pointless vandalism is something to respect?

Yes, it's one of the most popular things in American history.

Of course, an Anti-american such as yourself, who was miseducated into thinking the Civil War was started by the Northerners being aggressive wouldn't know that, but that's because your Russian teachers never taught you to fake being a true Patriot very well.

No. He fucked himself sideways.

Hey now, that's a valuable job skill.

What's his name? He should be _radioactive_ in the job market. Risked? It's gone, over. He's going to be selling speakers out of a van. Staying out of jail? Most likely, but not until a google search of his name is forever toxic.

Oh yes, that's EXACTLY what you want to do, sell the message of permanent despite, just like you rambled on about sexual predators and serial criminals for decades, all to inculcate a doctrine of fear and terror for anybody who dares step out of line.

What an oppressive and tyrannical world you support, but no surprise from a hard-core wannabe authoritarian such as yourself.

You want nothing but obedient drones.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[iMadeGhostzilla]

He knew that was going to happen (he'd be just too dumb not to, which is a possibility, but less likely I hope), hence respect.

No harm is done, in fact it may have put Twitter under closer scrutiny so they'll make doubly sure a deleted account can be recovered. At most I think he'd need to get mandatory therapy so he learns to control his emotions.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Civil War *WAS* started by aggressive northerners. The provisioning of Ft. Sumter was an invasion of a sovereign nation - an AGGRESSIVE act committed by the NORTH. If Russia were to begin provisioning a military base in Washington state would you just consider that a friendly action?

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump? Is that you?

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Civil War *WAS* started by aggressive northerners. The provisioning of Ft. Sumter was an invasion of a sovereign nation - an AGGRESSIVE act committed by the NORTH. If Russia were to begin provisioning a military base in Washington state would you just consider that a friendly action?

Ah see, there you go! Repeating the mindless narrative of the Lost Cause. Here's a hint: Fort Sumter was the property of the United States, as was Fort Moultrie, and dozens of others constructed by the Federal government. If South Carolina wanted title to it, they should have had their Congressional representatives press for a law to revert it to the ownership of the state, rather than try to steal it. That's called theft, and when done for the express purpose of attacking the government, insurrection. You know, an actual crime which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to oppose.

Maybe you should ask yourself what your Russian masters would do if somebody came and tried to claim the Eberswalde Hoard was their property. Oh wait, you know they'd shoot first, and you'd declare it the truly righteous thing!

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[kenh]

The southern states in the Civil War are often referred to as "the states in rebellion" - kinda sounds like they the South started it, since the Northern army was fighting to PRESERVE the union, they are fighting to SECEED from the union.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

They was just a bunch of good ole boys, never meaning no harm.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[magzteel]

The southern states in the Civil War are often referred to as "the states in rebellion" - kinda sounds like they the South started it, since the Northern army was fighting to PRESERVE the union, they are fighting to SECEED from the union.

Did the southern states have the right to secede from the union? I believe they did, and if so, this was a war of northern aggression.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the southern states have the right to secede from the union?

Right to secede? Not by any law, treaty, or constitutional provision. At most, you could say they had the right to petition for it. The first amendment is very open-ended on that regard. They could write letters to Congress all day!

Unfortunately for them, their actions went beyond petition straight to insurrection.

The federal government does have the authority to suppress insurrections, and unlawfully seizing its property, interfering with its agents, and so forth, yep, that's pretty squarely under the aegis of insurrection.

I believe they did, and if so, this was a war of northern aggression.

You also believe in unicorns, don't you? Russian Unicorns that fuck you up the butt.

Re: Without knowing any laws...

[CrybabiesArePeople]

Lol

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but secession is illegal. There's no way any provisioning a legally established federal fort inside the United States can be considered an act of aggression, especially when it's done to protect the fort from outlaw traitors.

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[magzteel]

Did the southern states have the right to secede from the union?

Right to secede? Not by any law, treaty, or constitutional provision. At most, you could say they had the right to petition for it. The first amendment is very open-ended on that regard. They could write letters to Congress all day!

Unfortunately for them, their actions went beyond petition straight to insurrection.

The federal government does have the authority to suppress insurrections, and unlawfully seizing its property, interfering with its agents, and so forth, yep, that's pretty squarely under the aegis of insurrection.

I believe they did, and if so, this was a war of northern aggression.

You also believe in unicorns, don't you? Russian Unicorns that fuck you up the butt.

And this is why they kicked you off the debate team. You try to hide ignorance behind personal attacks.

Start your education here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Without knowing any laws...

[HornWumpus]

Brits funded themselves with a tea tax (80% of price IIRC). It was illegal for anybody except the English government's agents to import tea into the 'colonies'.

Drinking smuggled tea was an act of rebellion, dumping the king's tea in the harbor hit George right in the pocket.

And they got away with it. Neither pointless or impulsive.

Re: So he could get a reward?

[LordNelsonthe2nd]

Yeah, if 5000 $ is 10 a they should give him paid vacation for the rest of his life. The value of even just one minute the world is without Trumps Tweets can never be expressed in $! :P

Damage turning it back on

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the employee who turned it back on? How much damage is that?

Re:Damage turning it back on

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Epic response. +100 pts!

Oh The Hypocrisy of Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's perfectly legal to do what that the mad Twitter guy did because he made a Twitter account, that I can easily ignore, disappear for a few minutes and he had da acceessss!!!!. Forget that he damaged Twitter's reputation even more in the process."

"A mad guy disabled systems he had access to, so send him to prison!"

How about this: If you're going to be a malicious moron, expect to be told to get a lawyer.

Won't help.

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy is going to jail.
And twitter is going to blame him for lots of other stuff too.
scapegoat! under the bus you go.

Police are not required to know the law.

[sehlat]

If they aren't required to know (and obey) the law, why should anybody else be held to that standard?

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[JaredOfEuropa]

The police often have to make snap decisions under a great deal of pressure, which gives them some leeway. Maybe it shouldn't, but that's another discussion. But that doesn't compare to someone who, from the safety of his own cubicle, calmly decides to engage in a bit of petty cyber vandalism, knowing full well that he lacks the authority for his actions.

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the teenager who was tased into heart stoppage by a cop. Said cop then let him lie there, dying, for ten minutes until medics arrived. Ten minutes means severe permanent brain damage. The officer got four years. The victim got a life sentence.

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[kenh]

Said cop then let him lie there, dying, for ten minutes until medics arrived.

Yeah, that cop should have made him stand up and "walk it off"!

What should the cop have done for the victim, beyond basic CPR? Since I'm unaware of your story, I have no idea what said officer did or did not do - you aren't even clear if the teenager died or suffered permanent brain damage.

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[Pentium100]

If you don't want to get tazed or shot, do not try to fight with a cop.

In my opinion, if you try to fight with a cop, you should get shot. Though it is a bit different in my country, where criminals are considered above all the other people.

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, if you are a cop, you should get shot.

In America, the cops ARE the criminals. They assault, rob, and murder, and get away with it 99% of the time. More money was stolen in 2014 by cops using "civil" forfeiture than by burglary - $5 billion vs $3.5 billion.

Re:Police are not required to know the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, and slashot posters aren't required how to do links. Retard.

Part of Job Description:CYAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Larger picture is no one would be able to do their jobs without consulting a lawyer first.

Oh please a lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waste your money on hookers and booze instead.

Here's your defense: Discovery on all the complaints about Donald Trump received.

You'll walk right out with an acquittal.

yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

While these comments are fairly amusing, Trump and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement. This employee violated that agreement. Unless you are an expert in contract law, you can't begin to estimate the potential damage done or even which states rules apply. In fact, just pick a favorable State and sue. While Twitter claims they can terminate services for no reason, Twitter wasn't involved here. Civil suit damages can reach crazy numbers fast, so even if you don't see jail time aka CFAA, you may never make another dime.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't read Twitter's "Hateful Conduct Policy". Trump's account should have been disabled long ago.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[mysidia]

Trump's account never engaged in hateful conduct.
Some people/reporters who didn't like Trump made their own writings using innuendo to imply that Trump's tweets meant or implied hateful things that Trump never agreed to.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[h33t l4x0r]

Seriously? He hate-tweets his own staff. The one that always makes me cringe is when he made fun of the Morning Joe lady's facelift.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

https://twitter.com/realDonald...

https://twitter.com/realDonald...

And that's just off the top of my head.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[nedlohs]

Which bits of those do you think violate: "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease"?

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

"Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with ... repeated and/or or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone."

Reading be hard!

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[h33t l4x0r]

Keep going until you get to: "repeated and/or or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone". The Morning Joe tweet in particular was in clear violation of twitter ToS.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

If twitter was in the game of enforcing their ToS, they wouldn't have any users.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[h33t l4x0r]

I think it's interesting to look at the groups that Trump hates on

• * It's never jews. Trump is a business man, and when business men need money they go to the jews. Let's keep them happy. Also, he has jewish grandkids, to the dismay of his base.
• * It's rarely blacks or asians. Trump is a New-Yorker and running into blacks and asians goes with the territory. He will evict them in favor of whites, but other than that, they're cool.
• * It didn't used to be Puerto ricans. It's hard to imagine an adult New Yorker who doesn't realize that Puerto ricans are US citizens. but hurricane Maria may have triggereed some selective amnesia.
• * Oh boy, it's Mexicans and Muslims. Trump has probably never met a mexican/muslim but somehow he knows that they're all bad hombres and terrorists. Where does that shit come from? Not from personal experience, I can tell you that. It comes from not having met any of them, and watching Fox News. I think Trump could almost become a decent president if he just turned off the Fox and Friends once in a while. The problem is, they're the only ones who say nice things about him and he's hooked on flattery like a hooker on meth.

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[drinkypoo]

If twitter was in the game of enforcing their ToS, they wouldn't have any users.

By all means, keep moving the goalposts. If you move them far enough, Trump will wind up in the goal for sure!

Re:yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

While these comments are fairly amusing, Trump and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement. This employee violated that agreement.

From the "contractual agreement" between Trump and Twitter:

We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason

Twitter is well within its right to terminate Trumps account.

This is just a matter between the former worker and Twitter. Trump doesn't have a say in this.

Re: So he could get a reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you get back to sucking sand monkey cock, pussy.

Account terminated for violating terms of service.

[DonaldWilliamGillies]

I think the worker could pretty easily say that he terminated the account for hate speech, and he would WIN in court. Then the tables would be turned, and Twitter would be forced to justify why it has allowed a hate-speech account to violate its terms of service for such a long, long time ...

No way he can claim this was accidental

[thrillseeker]

Assumptions based on what I've read: The contractor's actions appear to have been intentional, applied after termination, done without company directive, and did harm to the business. I think this ticks a lot of the boxes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. While the action was "easily" (I assume) undone without loss of data, the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation. Hell, if Twitter doesn't sue the contractor then it can be viewed as condoning the act, and Twitter's public shareholders likely have a class-action suit ready-made for lack of effort regarding their fiduciary responsibility, since being publicly traded comes with a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and a multi-billion dollar company is a juicy target.

Re:No way he can claim this was accidental

[JaredOfEuropa]

applied after termination

That right there will (or should) hang him.

Re:No way he can claim this was accidental

[gnasher719]

Assumptions based on what I've read: The contractor's actions appear to have been intentional, applied after termination, done without company directive, and did harm to the business. I think this ticks a lot of the boxes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

There is one essential thing missing: He wasn't hacking into the computer. That's what makes the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" apply, and that's not there. For example, a bank employee who is authorised to give people loans and transfer money into their bank accounts, and transfers money into his own account, is surely guilty of theft - but the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" doesn't apply. As far as hacking laws are concerned, he wasn't hacking.

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this happened to a regular user instead of the President of the United States, what would be the recourse? I doubt there is one. I see conservative accounts banned all day every day - is this official policy or are the inmates running the asylum?

Re:Hmm.

[Lisandro]

If this happened to a regular user instead of the President of the United States, what would be the recourse?

No. This wouldn't even be a story.

It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.

Re:Hmm.

[kenh]

It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.

No, it doesn't - has the Whitehouse actually done anything about the 11 minute outage? An individual, even the President, merely "tweeting" about something isn't really anything at all... The issue is that the press/media are obsessed with all things that spill across the POTUS personal twitter account.

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaks volumes why the POTUS should NOT rely on a private service like Twitter for communications. But Trump isn't a normal POTUS, and Twitter has been his free-of-charge media shitstorm-generating machine since he bull-dozed into the Republican Primary just over a year and a half ago.

Re:Hmm.

[Lisandro]

Oh, but it so is. Trump has made a point, over and over again, of announcing policy over his personal Twitter account; he himself reminds us regularly that Twitter is the main way to "get his message out" (sic). The POTUS is effectively using social media as his main communication channel, which is absolutely insane.

Now ponder this: do you imagine this uproar over @POTUS being offline for 11 minutes? And what would've happened if instead of disabling @realDonaldTrump someone over Twitter wrote "I've instructed USPACOM to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea"?

Re:Hmm.

[Lisandro]

...But Trump isn't a normal POTUS...

^^^ This. For anyone else this would be a complete non-story.

Re:Hmm.

[Powercntrl]

Oh, but it so is. Trump has made a point, over and over again, of announcing policy over his personal Twitter account; he himself reminds us regularly that Twitter is the main way to "get his message out" (sic).

Seems like something out of Idiocracy, where you've got the POTUS giving his personal endorsement to a for-profit social media company.

That, and he pretty much uses it to slander every company he doesn't like. How that is even remotely considered acceptable conduct for the POTUS is beyond me.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Give an example of "hate speech" that trump posted.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[DonaldWilliamGillies]

It pretty clear that Trump is America's biggest online bully, and there is a policy against online bullying in the User Agreement, which is grounds for account deletion according to the terms of service:

https://support.twitter.com/ar...

We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Exactly the real problem

[SuperKendall]

the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation.

I don't care who this happened to; Trump, Omaha, some unknown janitor - it's hugely damaging to find out someone in such a low level position can so easily mess with an account without authorization from the holder.

We all know that support personnel have to be able to manage accounts to do their jobs, but remember they also always ask you questions as well related to the account that one presumes are also to give the system enough confidence the person is working on behalf of the account holder to make changes - especially in the case of something as extreme as account deletion of a verified account.

After this there are huge questions of trust in Twitter to disallow capricious change, that very much affect their worth as a company. Is every low level employee with a grudge against some high level Twitter user going to be able to execute account deletions going forward? That is why you are probably going to see very public action against the employee.

On a side note, trust is also a big issue for the employee who did this - how could any company hire them for a position of trust again? And these days, working with any computer system is pretty much a position of trust because of how fragile internal systems usually are.

Re:Exactly the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Every customer rep for almost every company has the ability to disconnect your service/shut your account down. Yes that includes outsourced reps as well. Your cell phone, your cable, your credit cards... all of them can be terminated by front-line low-wage script monkeys.

Its been this way pretty much since phone reps came into existence.

That Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, etc does this is no surprise at all, especially considering they are services you don't even pay for!

Re:Exactly the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea- all the reason you shouldn't outsource anything! My company is small and yet we have EVERYTHING managed in-house. And then we have a proper backup system with someone responsible in charge of testing backups. Both on-site and off-site. We have test and production servers. We have redundancy. We have it all. In 10 years we haven't had a single incident.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed; but only if the person was still *employed* at the time they did it. but i also suspect that twitter workers and contractors are under explicit instructions to *not* take action against certain 'high profile' accounts, regardless of content. so, probably more "insubordination" (and grounds for termination of employment) and not "illegal".

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[DonaldWilliamGillies]

The only reason Twitter didn't delete the account years ago is that the company is desperate to turn a profit ...

Tor?

[spudnic]

I find it amusing that "A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues," is named Tor. Great name for it!

Re:Tor?

[kenh]

Define "Prominent" - I've never heard of him, and I dare say most here have not - within what realm is he "prominent"?

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even read most of the responses to ANY Trump tweet? Yea...I don't think anyone is afraid to speak up against Trump.

Standing?

[llamahunter]

Who has standing to bring suit under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? IANAL, but it would seem to me that only Twitter was 'harmed' here, and could bring legal action. Trump doesn't own his twitter handle. Random joe user who reads Trump's tweets definitely doesn't own anything here. I think it's highly unlikely, given Twitter's executive-level dislike of Trump, that they will throw the book at this already ex employee. They're just gonna beef up internal controls and tell everyone that deactivating accounts without cause is a fireable offense.

Re:Standing?

[JaredOfEuropa]

IANALEither, but that makes sense if suspension of the account doesn't violate Twitters Terms of Service somehow, which is doubtful since Twitter dictates those. However, if I'm not mistaken, Trump can still bring a civil suit against that employee and make his life a living legal hell, even if Trump has nothing on the guy legally speaking.

Also: what if Twitter decides to thumb their nose at Trump, who then throws a hissy fit and in a rare case of sanity decides to push for legislation that would make Terms of Service for online stuff more even sided, i.e. in favour of the user? Twitter and Friends wouldn't like that one bit, no sir.

Re:Standing?

[thrillseeker]

If the action is viewed as criminal (intending to do financial harm?) then a federal prosecutor has standing. Twitter should hope DOJ does bring action - that way they can blame the evil Trump regime for forcing their hand to act

Re:Standing?

[kenh]

IANAL Either...However, if I'm not mistaken, Trump can still bring a civil suit against that employee and make his life a living legal hell, even if Trump has nothing on the guy legally speaking.

I'm having a hard time seeing how one can bring a lawsuit and make someone's life a "living hell" if they have nothing on the guy "legally speaking"...

Re:Standing?

[h33t l4x0r]

Maybe you enjoy being sued but for most people it's very unpleasant.

Re:Standing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having a hard time seeing how one can bring a lawsuit and make someone's life a "living hell" if they have nothing on the guy "legally speaking"...

Clearly you've never been on the weak side of a power imbalance. There are enough messed-up and contradictory laws available to cherry-pick from that someone with creative lawyers and tons of money to stoke their creativity can easily find some with which to vindictively go after someone without matching funds or lawyers.

Re:Standing?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL Either...However, if I'm not mistaken, Trump can still bring a civil suit against that employee and make his life a living legal hell, even if Trump has nothing on the guy legally speaking.

I'm having a hard time seeing how one can bring a lawsuit and make someone's life a "living hell" if they have nothing on the guy "legally speaking"...

You clearly have never stared down the barrel of a bogus lawsuit. Having "nothing legally speaking" is not a deterrent for filing a lawsuit and if the opposing party is wealthy, your life WILL be a living hell.

Re:Standing?

[nedlohs]

Welcome to America.

Re:Standing?

[mishehu]

Damn, the contractor here should be declared a national hero. Anything that gets Trump off of his Twitter pacifer and forces him to, you know, maybe at least put a slight bit more effort into actually performing the duties of POTUS, is probably beneficial to the entire country.

Re:Standing?

[mishehu]

You only need to familiarize yourself with Green & Fazio.

Re: Account terminated for violating terms of serv

[Anonymous Coward]

Google it yourself. Lots of examples

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be slow. Nearly EVERYONE is speaking up against Trump.

I'll also note that you switched your claim from Trump is perpetuating hatespeech to trump is an online bully (after it was pointed out your hatespeech claim was fairly imbecilic).

Get over yourself. You don't like the president but a lot of people do. Stop letting it cloud your judgement or you'll continue looking like a fool.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this employee was in the position to make this decision or take action after he was no longer employed by Twitter if the story's facts are to be believed.

Regardless of Twitter's TOS, they may not be able to just terminate a contract without cause. State and Federal override whatever silly rules you have written.

Re: Account terminated for violating terms of serv

[Anonymous Coward]

So, none then. Thanks for coming out.

So what have we learned?

[kenh]

Tech companies hire contractors,
"Hacking Laws" are a mess, and
A lawyer offered up the unsolicited advice that the contractor that may have violate a "messy" law should secure the services of a lawyer.

Wow, that Is "News for Nerds" - who knew any of the above?

Re:So what have we learned?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lawyer offered up the unsolicited advice

This. A lawyer is promoting himself, and the law is unclear on this topic. Nothing else to see here.

Tor Ekeland told The Hill...

that he thinks the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may, or may not, apply here, but that he is "prominent" and available for hire for anyone who might be frightened enough to think they are at risk. Cash-up-front preferred.

Punishment to fit the crime

[Austerity Empowers]

Seeing as how the experts canâ(TM)t figure out if it is a crime and the victim is the idiot a very large village had to try very hard to send away the most appropriate punishment is to throw he book at him.

By which I mean the biggest book Donald Trump can personally read and explain correctly. So basically pelt this guy with some Seuss and letâ(TM)s be done with it.

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[DNS-and-BIND]

Trump is the stupidest man in the world to buy his own 757.

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically pelt this guy with some Seuss and letâ(TM)s be done with it.

Haven't you heard that Dr. Seuss is no longer allowed because it's racist propaganda?

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[drinkypoo]

Trump is the stupidest man in the world to buy his own 757.

Trump has been outperformed financially by Paris Hilton. If he had just invested his money into various mutual funds, he would have more money today. He's a shit investor, but a pretty good criminal. However, that's not because he's smart. It's because of inertia. Without his father's money, you would never have heard of him at all.

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[DNS-and-BIND]

K, tell you what, take a few million and turn it into billions by real estate sales. No putting it in a safe space like index funds, no take the money yourself and swim among the sharks. You must outsmart people to whom money means nothing, they're purely into it for the thrill of fucking you over in deals. What do you think your odds are? Ready, go!

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[drinkypoo]

K, tell you what, take a few million and turn it into billions by real estate sales.

He did it with fraud.

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[Travelsonic]

Wat's wrong with the 757? Those RB-211s allow the aircraft to make mincemeat out of short runways. :D

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

K, tell you what, take a few million and turn it into billions by real estate sales.

He did it with fraud.

Prove it.

Your word is worth less than the people that scream "Lock her up!" over emails.

Re:Punishment to fit the crime

[Gussington]

K, tell you what, take a few million and turn it into billions by real estate sales.

Well most of us don't have millions to start with, but if Donald has increased his wealth by what 100x-1000x (?) over 40 years, I'm already beating him...

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[kenh]

Regardless of Twitter's TOS, they may not be able to just terminate a contract without cause. State and Federal override whatever silly rules you have written.

The ability to terminate at will, along with bottom-line savings of benefits costs, are the two main reasons companies hire contractors over full-time employees.

What law says you can't terminate a contractor at-will, any time for any legal reason - you can't fire them for being a member of a protected class, but that's about it.

Re: Account terminated for violating terms of serv

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why not provide an example?

"I could stand on fifth avenue and shoot someone"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and people would still vote for me."

Maybe not "hate" speech, but certainly "contempt" speech. Contempt for his loyal supporters. Contempt for you.

And yet, you still voted him to the White House. So you're basically all a bunch of fucking morons, and Trump himself agrees with me.

You all acted like a bunch of frustrated 14 year olds hitting a 7/11 just to get back at their parents.

Yeah, you got your voice heard. You pissed off a bunch of liberals, and you're all happy and giddy now. But at what cost. You just made everybody's life very complicated and miserable, yours more than anyone else's.

I bet you're all proud of yourselves. You're too stupid not to be.

New Flash!

[kenh]

Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.

Thank you Captain Obvious! YES, major tech companies hire contractors for non-technical positions, and you know what, they've even been known to hire consultants for technical positions too! (Ever heard the term H1-B visa?)

New Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump Violates it, so you could argue he was enforcing the policy stopping people whom are in conflict. Twitter Rules

Re:New Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Twitter should have deleted Drumpf's account years ago according to their own policies.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Making fun of a TV personality's facelift, for example.

Also, you probably found it cute, but retweeting a GIF of himself bodyslamming a news network is pretty terrifying.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

The terms of service exist to protect the company by constraining its users. Twitter is under no obligation to enforce these rules, consistently or at all.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Lisandro]

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

Get a lawyer is good advice for many who

[RightwingNutjob]

make an effort to make a splashy exit the last day at work.

If the Fastest Delete Key In The West here had been working for Microsoft or Amazon and deleted a bunch of high profile clients' cloud accounts on his last day, he'd want a lawyer just the same. The fact that he only did it to one user and didn't cost anyone any real productivity is probably the one good thing he's got going for him.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[bongey]

There is NO SUCH THING as HATE SPEECH, there is only SPEECH.

Please post his name

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that I and many others would adhere to our fiduciary duty to our shareholders to protect the interests of our companies by never, ever hiring this criminal.

Sorry, no crime here

[duke_cheetah2003]

If the employee did this after employment ended, we would have a problem. But you see, this employee was granted access to Twitter's systems freely by his/her supervisors. While the act was pretty childish and silly, it fails to meet the requirements of being a criminal act. Let it go, move on, geeze. No quantifiable damage was caused.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just not enough that Trump is a fool, people that don't like him want to prove that they're just as big a fool too.

We must not allow a foolishness gap!

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO SUCH THING as HATE SPEECH, there is only SPEECH.

Based on how the term has been most commonly used a definition of "hate speech" would be akin to "speech that I disagree with".

He may not have to claim it was accidental

[dcooper_db9]

The stickler on this is whether he was following company policy. Remember, they haven't cut off his access yet. It's likely therefore that he has not been given instructions to stop doing his job. Given that he's empowered to terminate accounts we can assume that doing so is within his job description. We also know that Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed the limits of Twitter's terms of service. Unless this person has been instructed otherwise, terminating the account could be entirely legal.

The real loser in this is likely to be the subcontracting company. I suspect that their contract with Twitter requires them to follow a procedure for terminating employees, and that they failed to do so.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[dcooper_db9]

Give an example of "hate speech" that trump posted.

Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

Sabotage!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a very strong case could be made that this was an act of sabotage.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Ho-Lee-Fuck you are next level retarded if you think that tweet constitutes hate speech.

Did your teachers at school welcome you every morning by bashing your brains in with a mallet?
You would literally have to have your brains pouring out of your nostrils from sever trauma to consider that tweet "Hate Speech".

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[zioncat]

Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

Yeah, I also remember Trump threatening Iran with "massive retaliation" if they attacked Israel and later clarified Iran's aggression against Israel "would provoke a nuclear response from the United States". Hate speech!

And what about that time Trump threatened to "erase North Korea from the map of the world"? So much hate speech!

Oh, wait...

Shareholders?

[ghoul]

Since when does Twitter have shareholders?

Re:Shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 2007 when it was spun out of its parent company.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060916/top-3-twitter-shareholders-twtr.asp
Any more stupid questions?

Not at all how jury nullification works

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of jury nullification is for jurors to judge the ethics of the LAW itself. In other words, regardless of what any judge or prosecutor says, the jury retains the right to acquit a defendant if they think the law itself is unjust or being unjustly applied. Judges and prosecutors routinely lie to jurors to tell them otherwise, but this is a well-established fact in the common law tradition. Bringing up OJ simply confuses the issue.

Details on jury nullification are available at http://fija.org/

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to point out that hate speech is awesome and a human right.

That is all.

Re: Account terminated for violating terms of serv

[Anonymous Coward]

High five mate!!!

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets to determine what is hate speech and not hate speech? Why would federal court interpretation of hate speech apply to private companies that don't need to follow the first amendment?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why is justice dependent on who is the victim?

[tom.wieland]

Why will someone doing this to Trump get a heavier sentence then someone doing it to a bot acccount or a random person? Isn't that fake equality? Fake justice? Will he shove the judge some money for a heavier sentence?

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.", you fucking imbecile.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Cederic]

That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.

It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.

Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.

If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible objections to it. Don't just fucking squeal, "HATE SPEECH!!!" and pretend you've won the debate. You've merely killed your own credibility.

punish them all!

[tero]

The American lawyer frenzy and harsh punishment driven mentality feel really strange to an outsider.

So deactivating Trumps account was probably a stupid thing to do, but c'mon 10 years in prison? Is that really productive?

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.

Denying Donald Trump's hate speech is like denying his dishonesty, crudeness and corruption.

No matter how much you blame everybody else for what you won't admit clearly exists, it's still there.

It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.

Nope, they just want to say the same things themselves, and rather quickly convert the criticism into an excuse for themselves. And they're not new, they've been around for quite a while, dog-whistling isn't new, it's been a theme since the early 1800s, and I wouldn't say that even the Revolution was free of it, and to be honest, I'd say it's in Shakespeare, Ancient Rome, Greece, China, and Egypt.

Quite a long story there. Trump isn't new. He's just the latest face on the demon.

Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.

Sure, you might not see it from one single tweet, but that's ok, some of us are capable of recognizing the substance of Trump's actions by examining the whole context.

If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible objections to it. Don't just fucking squeal, "HATE SPEECH!!!" and pretend you've won the debate. You've merely killed your own credibility.

That already happened, the arguments against Trump's mindless travel ban were manifold, and not just limited to his proclivity for making bigoted statements to express his furious outrage, but you can't ignore them and pretend it doesn't kill your own credibility. I mean really, the responses to that tweet list them in detail. The hate speech problem is just one of Trump's particular failings that applies here. It's one of the many flaws, but not the only one. For example, the haphazard implementation, the lack of clear reasoning, the exclusion of certain favored entities, it is all up there.

The real problem, is people like you, not realizing that Trump's attempts to cloak his actions in a veil of legitimacy don't make them any better, but that Trump's reckless disregard for not covering his actions with a layer of mud does make them far worse.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

he didnt redefine the term, that IS THE DEFINITION you twat

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO SUCH THING as PILLOW TALK, there is only TALK.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Mashiki]

Progressives really like "hate speech" laws. It makes it easier to censor people, you know, just like what is happening in Europe.

The contracting

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the more interesting tidbit to me. So even the big guys don't want to be responsible for employees? Disgusting. Their squawking about visas has nothing to do with values. They are the most unethical and disengenuous organizations on the planet, and I find it more and more difficult to support them, all of them.

The ninth circus

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone here really think the ninth circus will do anything to this former twitter employee? The ninth is no friend of this administration.

Their punishment should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

...having to work in the Out House with Trump for the next three plus years.

It was his job

[Anonymous Coward]

He was tasked with shutting down divisive and hate speech, it just happened to be the POTUS account.

Halloween Prank

[gregsim]

As a big Trump supporter, I find this story to be amusing, This act was certainly closer to a Halloween prank than to an assault on national security. I think that Mr Trump would also see the humor - although now that we have all had our laughs, I think Twitter needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Re:Halloween Prank

[Gussington]

I think Twitter needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Why? If I was a Trump supporter, I'd be hoping Twitter shuts him down permanently. I reckon he'd be a few points higher in the polls if he didn't keep making s fool of himself with his Twitter rants

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[dcooper_db9]

Progressives really like "hate speech" laws. It makes it easier to censor people, you know, just like what is happening in Europe.

Europeans have good reasons to see hate speech differently than we do in America. If Adolph Hitler had been muzzled early on millions of lives would have been saved.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

If Adolph Hitler had been muzzled early on millions of lives would have been saved.

I doubt it. People don't stop thinking what they're going to think just because it's illegal to speak or write it. Hitler was in fact imprisoned for a failed coup attempt before he was finally successful, just like others who have ultimately seized power in the past. For example, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Vladimir Lenin in Russia. Do you honestly believe that these people would have been permanently thwarted by hate speech laws and given up? Can you imagine Castro or Lenin saying, "Oh well, that's illegal to say so I guess I'll give up now, they got me." Censorship is essentially an attempt by authorities to ignore reality. It might be effective in the short run, but in the long run it's going to fail. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Wanker

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You're not as important as the President. When did you realize? Or do you still think you are and are complaining that your aren't being treated with due reverence?

you poor special snowflake arent the President

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like every news organisation, anywhere, ever.
You people complain about every news organization except fox, and think they are great instead. But you can't even figure out why you think that.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Lisandro]

That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.

That is the actual definition of hate speech. Are you really that illiterate?

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Gussington]

Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Cederic]

By your alleged definition, any critique of a population group, religion or nationality is hate speech.

Fuck that and fuck you. Sign me up for the hate speech bus because if telling cunts like you that you're cunts is hate speech then I'm right on board.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Those laws are not used to censor.

They can, however, if someone is found guilty of breaking them by a jury of their peers, remind people that they are responsible for the consequences of their speech, and remind them not to call on people to kill other people on the basis of their race/gender/sexuality/other intrinsic characteristic.

It's the modern equivalent of having to keep a civil tongue in your head lest you find yourself holding a duelling pistol or rapier.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Lisandro]

Fair enough. Sign up for whatever you want, but don't pretend something is not hate speech only because you agree with it.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Private contracts (like that between Twitter and its users) are free to use whatever language they like, including creating categories that don't (or shouldn't, in your opinion) exist in criminal law.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Mashiki]

Europeans have good reasons to see hate speech differently than we do in America. If Adolph Hitler had been muzzled early on millions of lives would have been saved.

Really? You mean the fact that the winners of WWI basically pissing on Germany had nothing to do with it? Or are you trying to say that if you censor views and ignore the issues they bring up you're making society better. I mean it's sure working well in the UK isn't it. Where the 13yr old rape victim was arrested and charged with hate speech because she called the muslim who raped her a bad name. Or the councils and government dry washing their hands for fear of being labeled 'racist' with all those "asian grooming gangs" and threatening people who want them charged and arrested.

Yep...that's not going to backfire at all...not a single bit..

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Mashiki]

Those laws are not used to censor.

Tell that to the people who've been charged with hate speech after being raped because she called her rapist a bad name. What didn't hear about that one? How about where thousands of girls were raped and used as sex slaves, but the police didn't do anything for fear of being labeled racist and even went as far as to threaten the families with prosecution if they said anything.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Mashiki]

Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....

Depends on what you define as "higher standards of living." If higher standards mean the police will charge you with hate speech after being raped, yes we sure don't want that here. If higher standards mean being threatened by police for not wanting illegals who refuse to immigrate into society turning your area into a ghetto? Nope don't want those 'higher standards of living' either.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Gussington]

Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....

Depends on what you define as "higher standards of living."

We don't have to guess at this. People smarter than us have already done the hard work https://www.mercer.com/newsroo...

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[Anonymous Coward]

13 year olds cant be charged with that sort of thing. You're obviously making shit up again.