You are just in the middle of a class war in your mind. Most rich people earned it though working, at a job. Saying that managing others isn't an honest living or isn't work is nothing more than envy. Envy breaks one of the principles covered in the 10 commandments, don't you know.
There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being rich, nor is there anything morally or ethically wrong with earning wealth though legal means. And you have no cause to label rich people names using pejorative terms. Just because someone has more than you, doesn't mean they cheated, inherited or didn't earn their wealth and it doesn't mean that there is less for you to have, for wealth is not a fixed sum game.
Such attitudes towards the wealthy reminds me of the two year old child, sitting in the corner crying because another child won't "share" the one specific toy they want, regardless of the fact there there are multiple identical toys sitting idle in the toy box. All the crying child need to is pick up an idle toy, but it's not the toy they want, it's that they don't like to see another enjoying something, so they cry in selfishness, cry about how unfair it is that another is happy, cry that another is wealthy having fun with THAT toy.
Quit sulking in the corner, go earn some wealth if that's what you want, just stop blaming the wealthy for your unhappiness.
Apparently this woman is making this very argument, that the search was unreasonable.
So, where the courts may find the decision easy, the public will surely debate this. So it is up for debate, but the debate may not change the court's decision.
I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
It absolutely DOES matter if she was profiled. The 14th amendment offers equal protection to everyone under the law. That means that if you target one religion over another, or one race over another, it's unconstitutional.
It's a moot point. The question is if the search was legal in the first place. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, unless she's going to claim that she was searched because of the way she was dressed, but she's not making that claim in her suit as far as I can tell. It's just included as a side fact in the BBC story to imply something and justify why she's so upset about the data being deleted if it was collected in the first place.
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it.
its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
Yup.... Don't bring anything in to the country if you don't want to risk it getting inspected. I'd take a burner cell anyway, something prepaid and cheap, overseas. Just forward your local calls to the burner and leave your normal phone safely at home. Same with laptops and such. Don't take them, or wipe them clean before you do.
So the question boils down to this. Can Border Agents search you as you enter the USA or not? Does that include your phone and other personal effects?
On one hand, we have the 4th amendment which prohibits warrantless searches without legal review. On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying.
The whole argument about the content that might or might not have been on the phone is moot regardless of her religious views. If the data from the phone has been deleted or not is also moot. I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
My guess is the courts will hold it was legal to inspect the phone, demanding she unlock it and confiscate it when she refused. But that begs the question about it this is really how we want to do things.... I'm not so sure.
Like I said. Should you find yourself faced with this dilemma, I strongly recommend you discuss this with your legal counsel and take heed to their advice.
That being said, I strongly suspect that the advice you are going to be given is to stop the destruction of evidence and give it to investigators, despite your claim of 5th amendment protection. There is case law that shows what I'm saying to be true and that there is a risk of an obstruction charge for destroying evidence plus the ability of the prosecution to use this destruction of evidence to argue that you where hiding stuff from investigators. You don't have to show them where the damming evidence is, but you cannot prevent them from searching, assuming they have a warrant. Some judges have ruled that failure to unlock an electronic device, or failure to stop the destruction of evidence is both contempt and obstruction. I suggest you don't get into more trouble by doing what you suggest.
But, don't take MY word for it, consult a criminal defense attorney, and please do so BEFORE answering any questions.
The fact that this is public is an issue of and by itself. Voter data should have a limited lifetime and only be looked at after a procedure by a selected group of people.
But, the original poster said "if you collect it, it will eventually get out". I'm merely pointing out that we have to collect this information so the "just don't collect it" idea isn't possible.
I'm not so sure though, that public disclosure of this information isn't necessary as well. Records of *who* voted in what election are of vital importance and should be information which is collected and in order to provide evidence of free, open and fair elections. For that reason such records are indispensable and must be disclosed to at least some independent observers.
We may wish to discuss terms and procedures for such handling such information, but as the original poster points out. If you collected it, it will get out.
...the best solution to this is not the collect the data in the first place. If you collect data it will get out.
Let me get this straight.. Are you saying that we shouldn't keep voter registration rolls or keep track of who voted in an election?
You do realize that such voter information is public record and subject to inspection by anybody who asks, right? This stuff is generally for sale if you have money to buy it.
It looks like this information was just an archive of voter rolls, crossed with voter records and other public information.
This wasn't the elections office that had the data it was a private analytics firm working for a political party. How in **** did they get this data at all?
Simple: They paid for it. Voter registration data in the public domain and is for sale.
The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.
Good luck. May I suggest that impeaching the guy, but failing to convict him is pointless and may only make it easier for him to get re-elected. Yea, I know, you think this might damage him enough to make him lose the election in 2020, but what if it just ticks off the people who voted for him in the first place? Might not be a good thing if you are trying to get him booted though the voting booth.
Remember, the political rules of thumb don't seem to apply to this guy.
And you wonder why they don't knock when they have warrants..
I would suggest that if your phone is subject to a legal search, that you might want to discuss the issue with a lawyer before you let your phone automatically wipe itself clean. You could be convicted of destroying evidence which is a crime if you don't take the steps to stop it's destruction, further law enforcement can imply that your failure to do so was because you knew what they would find would be damming.
You may routinely destroy data and documents any time up to the point you become aware that the data or documents you are destroying are possibly evidence. The problem is, you may NOT destroy anything that could be construed as evidence the moment you become aware that it's evidence. So not stopping your phone from self erasing, is tantamount to willful destruction of evidence.
The legal issues here are not as easy as you might think.
There in you are incorrect. It is a very thin thread to argue that because it affected the campaign, it's a donation. Maybe it was a campaign donation in the eyes of Cohen, maybe it was just a pay off, like many others he's likely made, on behalf of Trump. But that side of the question is about what implicates Cohen, not Trump. If Cohen want's to plea to a campaign finance violation, it doesn't follow the Campaign or Trump are implicated too.
Assuming that Trump ordered this, making it a campaign issue to you, one must also argue that Trump didn't order this for any other reason. IF there is any other legitimately claimed reason by Trump for making these payments, neither he or Cohen committed a campaign finance violation. I suspect there are any number of reasons Trump can reasonably claim here for ordering this, including not disclosing this to his wife or business associates or to avoid personal embarrassment, which means it wasn't a campaign finance issue at all. I suspect he will claim any and all of these. So your whole basis here is on pretty thin ice.
Have to consider with encryption or secure apps that the feds probably have deals in place for back doors to gather evidence and do surveillance.
Why make this complex.. They simply searched his phone and found the information that way. They had a warrant, took the phones involved and searched them. It's not like they didn't know or couldn't find out who sent and received messages with Cohen.
Such tools only protect messages "in transit". Both ends have to be able to decrypt them. Take either device, then it's likely you can decrypt messages in transit if you captured them.
The moral of the story is that if you don't immediately delete these messages on both ends of the conversation, they can be found. Even then, best to delete the messages AND the application if you suspect law enforcement is interested in you.
When Trump gets impeached I guess you'll still be the desperate faggot Republican like you're being now? Aww, Trump's going to prison, are you sad? LOL
I'm just curious... Impeachment is possible, but only if the midterms go well for democrats, but there is zero chance that Trump is convicted in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be the "I'll just quit" type, so what's going to happen here?
What exactly are you trying to do and what do you hope to accomplish by doing it? Seems this whole narrative is focused on tactics and missing a working long term strategy.
Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources. This money did not come out of campaign funds, so Cohen is a idiot. That's easily traced.
Lots of lawsuits are full of hush money. Cohen is either really stupid, or is trying to stick it to Trump.
Cohen IS stupid, but I don't think he's trying to stick it to Trump, the prosecutor is. What happened here is pretty clear, Cohen is entering into a plea deal where he agrees he's guilty of a list of crimes, in the process he's getting to avoid an expensive trial and an extended stay in jail. The campaign finance "crime" he pleaded to only would involve Cohen regardless of Trump's involvement. The only way this blows back on Trump or his campaign is if the money came from the campaign, clearly it didn't. The plea deal specifically shows that Cohen paid the money then tried to bill for it.
So, if Trump ordered this and paid Cohen to do it either from his personal or business funds, it's legal all around. If Trump ordered Cohen to do this and didn't pay for it, it's on Cohen then too. If Trump didn't know it's the same, Cohen is the one this rests on.
The kicker here is that the theory that paying these two women is a campaign donation, is a real stretch. The rule is that if there is ANY other possible legitimate reason for the transaction, like avoiding embarrassing his wife or damaging his business interests, then the campaign finance rules do not apply at all.
Cohen is just trying to keep his jail time down and he agreed to a guilty plea to a crime that he may not have committed in the process. You can do that if the prosecutor insists on this to be a condition of the deal.
Those who break the law in civil disobedience, need to be ready to do the time, it's part of the being a martyr gig. But doing time doesn't make your crime civil disobedience or you a martyr.
There are legal contracts and illegal contracts. The contract she agreed to was a legal one, enforceable by legal means. A contract with the Mafia isn't not a legal contract, nor is it enforceable by legal means. But you knew this.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a hardware limit based on the Pi's cheapness... Can you hear me now?
A fan is nice, but what is this thing's environmental specs these days?
Linux at its best
Has nothing at all to do with Linux, but the hardware on the Pi. Ethernet connections go though USB 2.0, which limits the bandwidth.
It's GbE, but throughput is only 300 Mbps. that's f...ed up.
That's USB 2.0 limited speed which is how the Pi works for pretty much all it's basic IO ports. Love it or not, that's a Pi.
You are just in the middle of a class war in your mind. Most rich people earned it though working, at a job. Saying that managing others isn't an honest living or isn't work is nothing more than envy. Envy breaks one of the principles covered in the 10 commandments, don't you know.
There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being rich, nor is there anything morally or ethically wrong with earning wealth though legal means. And you have no cause to label rich people names using pejorative terms. Just because someone has more than you, doesn't mean they cheated, inherited or didn't earn their wealth and it doesn't mean that there is less for you to have, for wealth is not a fixed sum game.
Such attitudes towards the wealthy reminds me of the two year old child, sitting in the corner crying because another child won't "share" the one specific toy they want, regardless of the fact there there are multiple identical toys sitting idle in the toy box. All the crying child need to is pick up an idle toy, but it's not the toy they want, it's that they don't like to see another enjoying something, so they cry in selfishness, cry about how unfair it is that another is happy, cry that another is wealthy having fun with THAT toy.
Quit sulking in the corner, go earn some wealth if that's what you want, just stop blaming the wealthy for your unhappiness.
Apparently this woman is making this very argument, that the search was unreasonable.
So, where the courts may find the decision easy, the public will surely debate this. So it is up for debate, but the debate may not change the court's decision.
I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled. It absolutely DOES matter if she was profiled. The 14th amendment offers equal protection to everyone under the law. That means that if you target one religion over another, or one race over another, it's unconstitutional.
It's a moot point. The question is if the search was legal in the first place. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, unless she's going to claim that she was searched because of the way she was dressed, but she's not making that claim in her suit as far as I can tell. It's just included as a side fact in the BBC story to imply something and justify why she's so upset about the data being deleted if it was collected in the first place.
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds... probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it. its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
Yup.... Don't bring anything in to the country if you don't want to risk it getting inspected. I'd take a burner cell anyway, something prepaid and cheap, overseas. Just forward your local calls to the burner and leave your normal phone safely at home. Same with laptops and such. Don't take them, or wipe them clean before you do.
So the question boils down to this. Can Border Agents search you as you enter the USA or not? Does that include your phone and other personal effects?
On one hand, we have the 4th amendment which prohibits warrantless searches without legal review. On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying.
The whole argument about the content that might or might not have been on the phone is moot regardless of her religious views. If the data from the phone has been deleted or not is also moot. I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
My guess is the courts will hold it was legal to inspect the phone, demanding she unlock it and confiscate it when she refused. But that begs the question about it this is really how we want to do things.... I'm not so sure.
Like I said. Should you find yourself faced with this dilemma, I strongly recommend you discuss this with your legal counsel and take heed to their advice.
That being said, I strongly suspect that the advice you are going to be given is to stop the destruction of evidence and give it to investigators, despite your claim of 5th amendment protection. There is case law that shows what I'm saying to be true and that there is a risk of an obstruction charge for destroying evidence plus the ability of the prosecution to use this destruction of evidence to argue that you where hiding stuff from investigators. You don't have to show them where the damming evidence is, but you cannot prevent them from searching, assuming they have a warrant. Some judges have ruled that failure to unlock an electronic device, or failure to stop the destruction of evidence is both contempt and obstruction. I suggest you don't get into more trouble by doing what you suggest.
But, don't take MY word for it, consult a criminal defense attorney, and please do so BEFORE answering any questions.
The fact that this is public is an issue of and by itself. Voter data should have a limited lifetime and only be looked at after a procedure by a selected group of people.
But, the original poster said "if you collect it, it will eventually get out". I'm merely pointing out that we have to collect this information so the "just don't collect it" idea isn't possible.
I'm not so sure though, that public disclosure of this information isn't necessary as well. Records of *who* voted in what election are of vital importance and should be information which is collected and in order to provide evidence of free, open and fair elections. For that reason such records are indispensable and must be disclosed to at least some independent observers.
We may wish to discuss terms and procedures for such handling such information, but as the original poster points out. If you collected it, it will get out.
...the best solution to this is not the collect the data in the first place. If you collect data it will get out.
Let me get this straight.. Are you saying that we shouldn't keep voter registration rolls or keep track of who voted in an election?
You do realize that such voter information is public record and subject to inspection by anybody who asks, right? This stuff is generally for sale if you have money to buy it.
It looks like this information was just an archive of voter rolls, crossed with voter records and other public information.
This wasn't the elections office that had the data it was a private analytics firm working for a political party. How in **** did they get this data at all?
Simple: They paid for it. Voter registration data in the public domain and is for sale.
Don't. Mess. With. Texas!
Seems they left it the stuff on the front porch and said "Come and Take it!"
The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.
Good luck. May I suggest that impeaching the guy, but failing to convict him is pointless and may only make it easier for him to get re-elected. Yea, I know, you think this might damage him enough to make him lose the election in 2020, but what if it just ticks off the people who voted for him in the first place? Might not be a good thing if you are trying to get him booted though the voting booth.
Remember, the political rules of thumb don't seem to apply to this guy.
And you wonder why they don't knock when they have warrants..
I would suggest that if your phone is subject to a legal search, that you might want to discuss the issue with a lawyer before you let your phone automatically wipe itself clean. You could be convicted of destroying evidence which is a crime if you don't take the steps to stop it's destruction, further law enforcement can imply that your failure to do so was because you knew what they would find would be damming.
You may routinely destroy data and documents any time up to the point you become aware that the data or documents you are destroying are possibly evidence. The problem is, you may NOT destroy anything that could be construed as evidence the moment you become aware that it's evidence. So not stopping your phone from self erasing, is tantamount to willful destruction of evidence.
The legal issues here are not as easy as you might think.
There in you are incorrect. It is a very thin thread to argue that because it affected the campaign, it's a donation. Maybe it was a campaign donation in the eyes of Cohen, maybe it was just a pay off, like many others he's likely made, on behalf of Trump. But that side of the question is about what implicates Cohen, not Trump. If Cohen want's to plea to a campaign finance violation, it doesn't follow the Campaign or Trump are implicated too.
Assuming that Trump ordered this, making it a campaign issue to you, one must also argue that Trump didn't order this for any other reason. IF there is any other legitimately claimed reason by Trump for making these payments, neither he or Cohen committed a campaign finance violation. I suspect there are any number of reasons Trump can reasonably claim here for ordering this, including not disclosing this to his wife or business associates or to avoid personal embarrassment, which means it wasn't a campaign finance issue at all. I suspect he will claim any and all of these. So your whole basis here is on pretty thin ice.
How's this have anything to do with Stormy's agreement?
There ARE valid NDA's out there, there are ways to effectively "buy" silence though a contract. These methods are legal.
They don't guarantee silence, but they can make it a violation of a contract. You can violate an NDA, but if you do, it may cost you a lot.
For instance, I settled a lawsuit years ago, but I'm under an NDA contract regarding the terms.
They had warrants.
Have to consider with encryption or secure apps that the feds probably have deals in place for back doors to gather evidence and do surveillance.
Why make this complex.. They simply searched his phone and found the information that way. They had a warrant, took the phones involved and searched them. It's not like they didn't know or couldn't find out who sent and received messages with Cohen.
Such tools only protect messages "in transit". Both ends have to be able to decrypt them. Take either device, then it's likely you can decrypt messages in transit if you captured them.
The moral of the story is that if you don't immediately delete these messages on both ends of the conversation, they can be found. Even then, best to delete the messages AND the application if you suspect law enforcement is interested in you.
When Trump gets impeached I guess you'll still be the desperate faggot Republican like you're being now? Aww, Trump's going to prison, are you sad? LOL
I'm just curious... Impeachment is possible, but only if the midterms go well for democrats, but there is zero chance that Trump is convicted in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be the "I'll just quit" type, so what's going to happen here?
What exactly are you trying to do and what do you hope to accomplish by doing it? Seems this whole narrative is focused on tactics and missing a working long term strategy.
Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources. This money did not come out of campaign funds, so Cohen is a idiot. That's easily traced. Lots of lawsuits are full of hush money. Cohen is either really stupid, or is trying to stick it to Trump.
Cohen IS stupid, but I don't think he's trying to stick it to Trump, the prosecutor is. What happened here is pretty clear, Cohen is entering into a plea deal where he agrees he's guilty of a list of crimes, in the process he's getting to avoid an expensive trial and an extended stay in jail. The campaign finance "crime" he pleaded to only would involve Cohen regardless of Trump's involvement. The only way this blows back on Trump or his campaign is if the money came from the campaign, clearly it didn't. The plea deal specifically shows that Cohen paid the money then tried to bill for it.
So, if Trump ordered this and paid Cohen to do it either from his personal or business funds, it's legal all around. If Trump ordered Cohen to do this and didn't pay for it, it's on Cohen then too. If Trump didn't know it's the same, Cohen is the one this rests on.
The kicker here is that the theory that paying these two women is a campaign donation, is a real stretch. The rule is that if there is ANY other possible legitimate reason for the transaction, like avoiding embarrassing his wife or damaging his business interests, then the campaign finance rules do not apply at all.
Cohen is just trying to keep his jail time down and he agreed to a guilty plea to a crime that he may not have committed in the process. You can do that if the prosecutor insists on this to be a condition of the deal.
But you CAN contract it. Ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement?
Those who break the law in civil disobedience, need to be ready to do the time, it's part of the being a martyr gig. But doing time doesn't make your crime civil disobedience or you a martyr.
There are legal contracts and illegal contracts. The contract she agreed to was a legal one, enforceable by legal means. A contract with the Mafia isn't not a legal contract, nor is it enforceable by legal means. But you knew this.