Yet James Comey releases this statement to the press (excerpts from his actual statement):
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
It took the study... 17 years to reach the conclusion many of us reached way back in early 2000s?
Wasn't song piracy cut immensely with iTunes legal model of 99 cents per song?
If the MPAA/entertainment industry only got their heads out of the sand, and afforded easy access to their content; most would happily pay $4-$5 conveniently to click and watch a high quality version of the media. Even at the price of half of the movie ticket, the volume from legalized offering and the relatively inexpensive infrastructure investment would rake in immense profit. The market for piracy will automatically diminish; incentives to cheat the producers out of the money when the cost to legally obtain it is low enough will be reduced.
But.... no.... let's threaten and bully and make it difficult to access our content because it's too difficult to change.
No country or countries will be governing the Internet. Control over ICANN will be done by ICANN, which pretty much means they do exactly what they've been doing since 1998 except the USA doesn't get to assert legal dominance over them.
People saying China or Russia will take over are just handing out FUD. ICANN has its own interests. It has an advisory board consisting of reps from most nations of the world, but Russia and China are just two voices in a large crowd and have absolutely no influence over the board. The USA is going to still be the largest voice because of its dominant commercial interests.
Releasing ICANN is better for free speech than it remaining under USA legal control, because US courts will no longer be able to seize domain names based on US law.
And the right response is buried here. The above is the truth, everything else is FUD ITT.
With all due respect, in most respects this change is cosmetic and comes across looking good for the US, while ceding minimum pragmatic control. You know that stick we wave at the world shouting "freedom, democracy, and free speech"; this is one way we show the world that we are committed to it equally as a matter of human rights and not just "freedom, democracy and free speech as long as I control it".
Slashdot Mirror
The entire text is at FBI.gov: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Why not read the actual text? Afraid it does not suit your spin?
It took the study... 17 years to reach the conclusion many of us reached way back in early 2000s?
Wasn't song piracy cut immensely with iTunes legal model of 99 cents per song?
If the MPAA/entertainment industry only got their heads out of the sand, and afforded easy access to their content; most would happily pay $4-$5 conveniently to click and watch a high quality version of the media. Even at the price of half of the movie ticket, the volume from legalized offering and the relatively inexpensive infrastructure investment would rake in immense profit. The market for piracy will automatically diminish; incentives to cheat the producers out of the money when the cost to legally obtain it is low enough will be reduced.
But.... no.... let's threaten and bully and make it difficult to access our content because it's too difficult to change.
No country or countries will be governing the Internet. Control over ICANN will be done by ICANN, which pretty much means they do exactly what they've been doing since 1998 except the USA doesn't get to assert legal dominance over them. People saying China or Russia will take over are just handing out FUD. ICANN has its own interests. It has an advisory board consisting of reps from most nations of the world, but Russia and China are just two voices in a large crowd and have absolutely no influence over the board. The USA is going to still be the largest voice because of its dominant commercial interests. Releasing ICANN is better for free speech than it remaining under USA legal control, because US courts will no longer be able to seize domain names based on US law.
And the right response is buried here. The above is the truth, everything else is FUD ITT.
With all due respect, in most respects this change is cosmetic and comes across looking good for the US, while ceding minimum pragmatic control. You know that stick we wave at the world shouting "freedom, democracy, and free speech"; this is one way we show the world that we are committed to it equally as a matter of human rights and not just "freedom, democracy and free speech as long as I control it".