Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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).