"We were hacked by Russia" seems to be the latest excuse for poor security.
Correct. Blame a security breach on an entity who people believe has advance hacking weapons, and you can claim no matter what steps you took, they would have got in. They think it will get them off the hook for their poor practices.
Trouble is, I can see why Russia WOULD do this, either to tamper with data on Russian athletes to remove harmful info, or to tamper with other athletes' info then have Russia point at the hack "by someone" and say the previous bad doping results for Russian athletes were a setup, and the database hack was only now discovered. Their athletes should be exonerated!
49,999 invasions of privacy for one apprehended suspect. suspect probably didn't harm anywhere near 50k people. Even five persons would be exceptional. The numbers don't look good for you unless your value system is fucked up.
So you are saying police cannot look around to see if they see a suspect because they will almost certainly see a lot of non-suspects before they may see the suspect? They can't look at cars hunting for the robbery getaway vehicle because all those other innocent drivers on the public road would be having their privacy violated? So police must now walk and drive around blindfolded lest they "invade the privacy" of those out in public? If police are not allowed to look for suspects, or even watch for crimes being committed (the logical consequence of you position), how do you expect them to find any criminals?
Tell me where you live because I don't want to live anywhere near it - it sounds like a criminal's paradise because the criminals are writing the rules.
>> using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period.
Among those 335 million pieces of metadata, how many of them actually pertain to anything related to terrorism? My guess..less than.000001%.
Police believe a known terror suspect is at a football/baseball/soccer/quidditch game and scan the crowd looking for him, and eventually find him. Of the 50,000 fans in the stadium, they examined 49,999 innocent people to find the one they were looking for. Are you saying since only 0.002% of the data points examined pertained to the terror suspect, the police should be prohibited from looking through crowds for suspects?
It's like running a wireshark capture to watch connections to a server. Even though you give it filter criteria, the capture machine has to collect everything on the wire then look through it for the packets the user wants. Same idea for the satellites - they have to collect and comb through a ton of data to find the nuggets they want.
Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?
(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.
Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.
Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.
Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.
Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?
Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?
Meta-Monkey didn't say it means it can't be true, so that is a strawman. I is both fair and reasonable to look at the potential motives of the players to determine how it may impact on the credibility of their statements. Ignoring potential motives would in fact be illogical.
This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.
And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.
You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.
Honestly, I would have been a lot more surprised if they weren't discovered trying to hack their perceived opposition. Based on history, it is the first thing I expect them to do after they make their veiled public threats.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'
I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'
How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).
I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.
Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.
Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?
Screen, speaker and mic in front - check.
Front-facing camera and rear-facing camera with flash - check.
Rounded edges - check.
Uses an operating system that allows the installation of apps - check.
Got to admit it, the iPhone 6 does share those innovative and unique features./s
Stepping into the discussion. I used to be a classifier in the government so have some experience with these areas.
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
No doubt someone is up for execution for this embarrassing string of events.
Nah, they will put them on the next test launch to debug the problems in real-time. It's a massive career "boosting" opportunity! (Or so the Glorious Leader was heard to say)
Where in the Illinois law does it say you aren't allowed to slander someone?
Umm, 740 ILCS 145. As I said before.
In California it is in Cal. Civil Code 44 through 46. In Florida it is in Flor. Stat. 836.04. In most states though it is carried as part of Common Law.
I can slander all I want and the government can't (legally) do anything about it.
Partially true. It is against Illinois and federal law and grants the injured a private right of action. It isn't a criminal offense in those jurisdictions, it is a tort.
In some states though, like in Virginia, there are criminal laws that cover some forms of slander, such as Code of Virginia 18.2-417:
Any person who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning any female of chaste character, any words derogatory of such female's character for virtue and chastity, or imputing to such female acts not virtuous and chaste, or who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace or shall use grossly insulting language to any female of good character or reputation, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
You said "There is no law against slander in the US" and I quoted laws against slander as a rebuttal. Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "law" means in these contexts.
There is no law against slander in the US. It's a civil matter.
While it isn't a criminal matter, it is a civil matter BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT!
At the federal level, the law is part of common law, but the definition is in 28 U.S. Code 4101. Also, all but three states have their own defamation laws; for example, Illinois' is 740 ILCS 145, AKA "The Slander and Libel Act".
I don't understand the redacting methodology of these letters. Various pieces have been redacted, including the NSL number in the upper left of almost all the pages, but they left it at the end of one of the paragraphs, and also on the first page. Why redact it in some places but not others? Are they morons? (Occam's Razor would imply yes)
In the spirit of Murphy's Law and Godwin's Law, I present Dave's Law: If a law can be abused, someone will figure out how and do it.
In this case I feel both the abusers and the legislators share blame since these consequences were easily foreseeable, and they listened to their financial supporters over the best interests of their constituents. The company which "had nothing to do with it", is a lying piece of merde, but if the perpetrator(s) has in IQ of at least 80, they probably covered their tracks making it almost impossible to prove they were behind it.
Another problem is multiple groups claiming responsibility so they can be feared. Unless one of them is actually credible (if any of them can be), then it is a problem of figuring out which, if any, did it. It could still be a group whose goal is to cause harm to the US to create a result they desire, such as by throwing blame on another group/nation and having the US shift focus, or financially cripple the US by taking out a city like New York so they can become more competitive, but a group who would prefer not having their homes turned into glass and so do not publicly claim responsibility.
For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want. Hell, a bomb goes off in a plane out of Egypt and the groups were lining up to take credit.
Slashdot Mirror
Californian once more proves it needs to slide off into the ocean and be gone....
Didn't Hollywood recently make a movie about that?
make sense of that paragraph
I think I found your error
"We were hacked by Russia" seems to be the latest excuse for poor security.
Correct. Blame a security breach on an entity who people believe has advance hacking weapons, and you can claim no matter what steps you took, they would have got in. They think it will get them off the hook for their poor practices.
Trouble is, I can see why Russia WOULD do this, either to tamper with data on Russian athletes to remove harmful info, or to tamper with other athletes' info then have Russia point at the hack "by someone" and say the previous bad doping results for Russian athletes were a setup, and the database hack was only now discovered. Their athletes should be exonerated!
49,999 invasions of privacy for one apprehended suspect. suspect probably didn't harm anywhere near 50k people. Even five persons would be exceptional. The numbers don't look good for you unless your value system is fucked up.
So you are saying police cannot look around to see if they see a suspect because they will almost certainly see a lot of non-suspects before they may see the suspect? They can't look at cars hunting for the robbery getaway vehicle because all those other innocent drivers on the public road would be having their privacy violated? So police must now walk and drive around blindfolded lest they "invade the privacy" of those out in public? If police are not allowed to look for suspects, or even watch for crimes being committed (the logical consequence of you position), how do you expect them to find any criminals?
Tell me where you live because I don't want to live anywhere near it - it sounds like a criminal's paradise because the criminals are writing the rules.
>> using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period.
Among those 335 million pieces of metadata, how many of them actually pertain to anything related to terrorism? My guess..less than .000001%.
Police believe a known terror suspect is at a football/baseball/soccer/quidditch game and scan the crowd looking for him, and eventually find him. Of the 50,000 fans in the stadium, they examined 49,999 innocent people to find the one they were looking for. Are you saying since only 0.002% of the data points examined pertained to the terror suspect, the police should be prohibited from looking through crowds for suspects?
It's like running a wireshark capture to watch connections to a server. Even though you give it filter criteria, the capture machine has to collect everything on the wire then look through it for the packets the user wants. Same idea for the satellites - they have to collect and comb through a ton of data to find the nuggets they want.
Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?
(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.
Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.
Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.
Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.
Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?
Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
And then what do you think the government is going to do with all those bit they now control?
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?
Meta-Monkey didn't say it means it can't be true, so that is a strawman. I is both fair and reasonable to look at the potential motives of the players to determine how it may impact on the credibility of their statements. Ignoring potential motives would in fact be illogical.
Car driver gets in accident. Blames anything and everything for the accident besides himself. And in other news, water is wet.
This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.
And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.
You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.
Um, the Spanish-American war was 118 years ago. It wasn't even in the 1900's. I think the "or so" is a stretch.
I know the dates since my grandfather fought in the Spanish-American war. I guess I'm showing my age.
Honestly, I would have been a lot more surprised if they weren't discovered trying to hack their perceived opposition. Based on history, it is the first thing I expect them to do after they make their veiled public threats.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'
I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'
How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).
I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.
an ETF credit was applied to his account in Dec. 2014, but "through some error the refund check never generated."
So, Comcast's story is basically the dog ate it?
Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.
Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?
Screen, speaker and mic in front - check.
/s
Front-facing camera and rear-facing camera with flash - check.
Rounded edges - check.
Uses an operating system that allows the installation of apps - check.
Got to admit it, the iPhone 6 does share those innovative and unique features.
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
Everything old is new again.
Well, since everything "new" seems to be old, that makes sense.
No doubt someone is up for execution for this embarrassing string of events.
Nah, they will put them on the next test launch to debug the problems in real-time. It's a massive career "boosting" opportunity! (Or so the Glorious Leader was heard to say)
Where in the Illinois law does it say you aren't allowed to slander someone?
Umm, 740 ILCS 145. As I said before.
In California it is in Cal. Civil Code 44 through 46. In Florida it is in Flor. Stat. 836.04. In most states though it is carried as part of Common Law.
I can slander all I want and the government can't (legally) do anything about it.
Partially true. It is against Illinois and federal law and grants the injured a private right of action. It isn't a criminal offense in those jurisdictions, it is a tort.
In some states though, like in Virginia, there are criminal laws that cover some forms of slander, such as Code of Virginia 18.2-417:
Any person who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning any female of chaste character, any words derogatory of such female's character for virtue and chastity, or imputing to such female acts not virtuous and chaste, or who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace or shall use grossly insulting language to any female of good character or reputation, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
You said "There is no law against slander in the US" and I quoted laws against slander as a rebuttal. Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "law" means in these contexts.
There is no law against slander in the US. It's a civil matter.
While it isn't a criminal matter, it is a civil matter BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT!
At the federal level, the law is part of common law, but the definition is in 28 U.S. Code 4101. Also, all but three states have their own defamation laws; for example, Illinois' is 740 ILCS 145, AKA "The Slander and Libel Act".
I don't understand the redacting methodology of these letters. Various pieces have been redacted, including the NSL number in the upper left of almost all the pages, but they left it at the end of one of the paragraphs, and also on the first page. Why redact it in some places but not others? Are they morons? (Occam's Razor would imply yes)
In the spirit of Murphy's Law and Godwin's Law, I present Dave's Law: If a law can be abused, someone will figure out how and do it.
In this case I feel both the abusers and the legislators share blame since these consequences were easily foreseeable, and they listened to their financial supporters over the best interests of their constituents. The company which "had nothing to do with it", is a lying piece of merde, but if the perpetrator(s) has in IQ of at least 80, they probably covered their tracks making it almost impossible to prove they were behind it.
Another problem is multiple groups claiming responsibility so they can be feared. Unless one of them is actually credible (if any of them can be), then it is a problem of figuring out which, if any, did it. It could still be a group whose goal is to cause harm to the US to create a result they desire, such as by throwing blame on another group/nation and having the US shift focus, or financially cripple the US by taking out a city like New York so they can become more competitive, but a group who would prefer not having their homes turned into glass and so do not publicly claim responsibility.
For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want. Hell, a bomb goes off in a plane out of Egypt and the groups were lining up to take credit.