Even one of the 110 instances is sufficient to prosecute, did the Clintons not have the powers that be bought off. Even one instance is worthy of 10 years in prison under the relevant US code (18 793(f)).
It has been established. None of the information in the 110 classified emails should have been on her unclassified server on the internet. They have to be kept on the dedicated classified networks built for such information. Such networks are not new, and they are isolated from the internet. The classified information has been tracked back to the source agencies, it was classified information (8 instances TOP SECRET) before it was put onto her email system, and could only have come to her via the classified networks (networks, physically separate networds, one for SECRET and another for TOP SECRET)). The senders could not have gotten the info from the press, it was only available on the classified networks until she or her aids put it on the unclassified network via email to and from her account.
You are right, he gave the information to his mistress/biographer who also holds a clearance. That was deliberate, a significant difference. But Hillary's actions are also felonies under USC Title 18 793. Specifically under sub para (f). Nishimura's case is more similar intentionally taking classified information out of the secure storage system, with no obvious intent to transfer.
Hillary's situation is the deliberate transfer of classified information to an unsecure email system on a non-classified network. That the server was hacked at some point only adds to the event. But the mere fact that she and her aids had that classified information on an unclassified network is a felony. It's gross negligence at the minimum (title 18 793(f)), it's also failure to report or act to stop or prevent such mishandling (also 793(f)) as well for her and her aids. Those charges can be applied per email or once each for the entire group. And each count can result in up to 10 years in prison, though I would expect her to plea it down as Petraeus did.
I used to deal with hundreds of pieces of classified information daily, had I put even one onto an unclassified network my ass would be in prison. She and her staff put at least 110 onto the interweb, on a server that was hacked. The issue has been investigated enough I agree, now it's time to prosecute.
Sorry you are wrong. You said 110 emails were classified. That is 110 violations of USC 18 793(f) negligent mishandling of classified information. Each count punishable by up to 10 years in prison. There most certainly is something to prosecute on. Intent is not a requirement in the requirement to protect and not mishandle classified information. Likely they could get her on a few counts of intentional mishandling as she supposedly ordered her aids to strip markings at one point.
As I said in another reply to someone else. Sprint's unlimited plan also has unlimited roaming. I live in the mountain west, there are very few areas I've traveled to where I don't have some coverage and Verizon users do. Such locations do exist but they are not common.
The few times I've found myself outside of Sprint coverage, I've been covered by the included unlimited nationwide roaming. Mostly on Verizon's network I'm sure since they've long had cross company roaming agreements. A couple remote areas (Out camping where I don't expect coverage anyway) only Verizon users have had signal but most areas I have some coverage too. p.s. I live in the mountain west where coverage outside the cities and freeway corridors always sucks for everybody (or it has since the old AT&T shut down their analog network).
Actually suicide is not impulsive. Attempted suicide can be but most actual suicides are planned out.
And that one Case was a nationwide case. It's far more conclusive than your normal study of a few hundred people. In fact it's an ideal study case, an Entire population. Australia's suicide average was already quite low, and had been on very gradual downward trend. Firearm suicide was not as significant a portion of the total suicides as it is in the US but it was still a significant portion and had been for decades. It virtually vanished as a cause when the confiscation went into effect. But the overall suicide rate didn't drop, it actually spiked for two years then returned to the same level and gradual downward trend.
Calling it non-conclusive when it provided an ideal study population, i.e. an entire isolated national population with a somewhat diverse population spread across rural/suburban and urban environments, and a long term baseline to note deviations from, is a lie. Simply you don't want it to be conclusive so you declare that it isn't simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.
As to the crime rate, it's lower in states with higher gun ownership. Guns are not increasing the crime rate. England and Australia both have much higher crime rates than when they imposed their bans.
Not true at all. Take a look at the suicide rates in Japan and South Korea. Very low number of guns, very high suicide rates. Guns do not cause suicide. In fact a point I usually leave off when mentioning Australia is that the two years immediately following the ban the suicide rate spiked before returning to the same levels and gradual downward trend it had been following for decades. I've never found any cause for the very significant spikes, but I wonder if it isn't because some of those who had decided to kill themselves and who would have tried a gun but found themselves unable to do it and were able to get help suddenly found themselves without the gun option and chose another less intimidating method and were able to go through with it. Again I never found any explanation for the spike and thus usually don't mention it as those two years (97 and 98) are an outlier to the norm.
Note also that the suicide rate in Australia dropped substantially from 2003 onwards because they redefined the criteria, relegating a number of cases that would have been suicides to being called accidents. Some have tried to claim this drop was due to the gun ban but the influence of the gun ban was seen immediately and the 2003 and since drop came after the redefinition.
Actually that would not be a good study. You need to remove suicide from the study to be accurate as to the risk of gun ownership. Guns do not cause suicide. They are merely a tool and as was seen in 1996 in Australia, if you remove guns their use for suicide will drop but suicide will not. Thus those individuals still died without the guns.
Good source check out More guns less Crime by John Lott Jr. He's been tracking this since the 80's and as we have seen gun ownership jump (especially over the last few years) and carry laws loosened across the country, gun violence is down over 50% since the 1992 peak. I'll try to remember to reply to this when I get home from work where my link list is stored. I have other good sources, just not on my machine at work.
It should not be any website's decision to redirect ME from the page I'm trying to read to the play store. That alone is a gaping vulnerability, if any web page can just call another app without my approval that is a vulnerability, not just an annoyance. Add in this malware and it becomes a potentially critical vulnerability.
Question: is Google planning on doing anything about the new trend in browser redirects that take you to the store? Can they do anything about it?
Combine that very annoying trick with this fake GooglePlay malware and I see a glaring vulnerability, in addition to the major annoyance of trying to read a website only to suddenly be yanked into the play store to install some dumb game.
You miss the point of most terror attacks, they won't go after cargo freighters or docks. They want splashy symbolic targets with high kill counts. And a Skyscraper is actually a rather tough target as seen in the first WTC attack in 93.
They want bold splashy kill counts, they want those kill counts to impact daily activities. Government buildings might work but most of any real value are already harder targets with armed and mostly alert security, lockdown systems and procedures and barricades keeping vehicle bombs at a distance. Stadiums for sporting events would be great targets, malls less now than in the past as malls are dwindling in importance in our society (at least in the US). Also with malls can you guarantee a substantial crowd at the time of the attack? In December they are better targets but with Ramadan (and the ISIS call to attack during the holy month) in June this year not so much.
Airports have been targeted historically because crowds are frequent, the ebb and flow of the crowds is easy to establish and map out based on flight schedules. Attacks can be timed to impact flights heading to specific targets (Hit the security line two hours before the flight for maximum effect). Add in our nervousness in regards to terrorism and air traffic and they become ideal targets. Historically Airports have been popular targets for bombs and shooting attacks.
I will agree that a Stadium filled full for a sporting or other event would be an excellent target, and the major league's demands that all attendees be disarmed makes it even better because there is less chance of a random attendee stopping an attack in progress at a gun free zone. (which gun free status the terrorists will of course ignore.)
Why should there be. This isn't a general news site. Such often gets onto/. but not normally. However a discussion of the vulnerabilities of airports as a result of the attack is a natural topic for/.
Airports don't have the potential that an airplane does, but they are still critical points to hit. At certain times a successful hit could kill or wound hundreds or thousands. Severely damaging a major hub airport can and will cause major widespread impacts to business and leisure travel. Shutdown Heathrow for example and the air traffic impacts would be global.
I'm honestly surprised they aren't attacked more often.
Number one weakness in the US is the Screening point. These three bombers visit any major airport at peak travel times, wait until they are well into the queue and then detonate and you have hundreds dead without firing a shot. They decide to shoot even deadlier results because those with guns are blocked away from them by the mass of people lined up waiting to be screened. Then there is the liquid limit which requires large trash cans right next to the lines, trash cans full of bottles of random liquids, that just might decide to blow up. Once through security it's a bit better because most people in there have been screened to some degree.
It works in that if you had win 7 or 8 and upgrade by the end date, you have a current windows license from now on. Windows is getting away from the old licensing scheme and now when you buy a new machine it will have Windows and will be updated for the life of the machine. Or you build a machine and buy a Windows license and it gets updates for the life of the machine, (which if you know what you are doing is indefinitely) Updates will be more like the cell phone market (except without carriers needlessly delaying upgrades because they have their own gui that they need to upgrade first (Samsung touchwiz)).
What's insane about allowing for the fact that vehicles in motion cannot stop instantly. They way you portrayed the rules every vehicle not in the intersection has to stop when the light turns yellow, even those vehicles just inches from entering the intersection. US and in fact every nation I've been in around the world uses the yellow light as designed. As a caution and warning that the light is about to change to red and you need to either stop if far enough back to safely do so, or if too close to safely stop then proceed through the intersection. From multiple nations in Europe, to a couple in Asia to central America they've all been the same.
What country do you live in that doesn't allow for obedience to Newtonian physics?
Actually it's to allow those approaching the intersection to determine if they can safely stop before entering the intersection or if they need to push through, granted many should stop who do not, but crossing into the intersection during a yellow is not wrong. If you are in the intersection when the light changes to red you are not in violation. If you cross the line into the intersection after it turns red, then you are in violation. There is a delay when all four lights are red to allow the intersection to clear of those caught in the intersection when the light turns red.
Slashdot Mirror
Deliberate mishandling of classified information is not amusing. It's a felony worth up to 10 years for every classified email on her server.
Even one of the 110 instances is sufficient to prosecute, did the Clintons not have the powers that be bought off. Even one instance is worthy of 10 years in prison under the relevant US code (18 793(f)).
It has been established. None of the information in the 110 classified emails should have been on her unclassified server on the internet. They have to be kept on the dedicated classified networks built for such information. Such networks are not new, and they are isolated from the internet. The classified information has been tracked back to the source agencies, it was classified information (8 instances TOP SECRET) before it was put onto her email system, and could only have come to her via the classified networks (networks, physically separate networds, one for SECRET and another for TOP SECRET)). The senders could not have gotten the info from the press, it was only available on the classified networks until she or her aids put it on the unclassified network via email to and from her account.
You are right, he gave the information to his mistress/biographer who also holds a clearance. That was deliberate, a significant difference. But Hillary's actions are also felonies under USC Title 18 793. Specifically under sub para (f). Nishimura's case is more similar intentionally taking classified information out of the secure storage system, with no obvious intent to transfer.
Hillary's situation is the deliberate transfer of classified information to an unsecure email system on a non-classified network. That the server was hacked at some point only adds to the event. But the mere fact that she and her aids had that classified information on an unclassified network is a felony. It's gross negligence at the minimum (title 18 793(f)), it's also failure to report or act to stop or prevent such mishandling (also 793(f)) as well for her and her aids. Those charges can be applied per email or once each for the entire group. And each count can result in up to 10 years in prison, though I would expect her to plea it down as Petraeus did.
His mistress and biographer, who also holds a clearance, for her work on his biography. The rest is correct.
USC title 18 793(f) for one. 110 felony counts worth up to 10 years per count on that crime alone.
I used to deal with hundreds of pieces of classified information daily, had I put even one onto an unclassified network my ass would be in prison. She and her staff put at least 110 onto the interweb, on a server that was hacked. The issue has been investigated enough I agree, now it's time to prosecute.
Sorry you are wrong. You said 110 emails were classified. That is 110 violations of USC 18 793(f) negligent mishandling of classified information. Each count punishable by up to 10 years in prison. There most certainly is something to prosecute on. Intent is not a requirement in the requirement to protect and not mishandle classified information. Likely they could get her on a few counts of intentional mishandling as she supposedly ordered her aids to strip markings at one point.
As I said in another reply to someone else. Sprint's unlimited plan also has unlimited roaming. I live in the mountain west, there are very few areas I've traveled to where I don't have some coverage and Verizon users do. Such locations do exist but they are not common.
The few times I've found myself outside of Sprint coverage, I've been covered by the included unlimited nationwide roaming. Mostly on Verizon's network I'm sure since they've long had cross company roaming agreements. A couple remote areas (Out camping where I don't expect coverage anyway) only Verizon users have had signal but most areas I have some coverage too. p.s. I live in the mountain west where coverage outside the cities and freeway corridors always sucks for everybody (or it has since the old AT&T shut down their analog network).
Or Sprint, a little more at $80 a month for unlimited data. Verizon users are fools to pay as much as they do for as little as they get.
Actually suicide is not impulsive. Attempted suicide can be but most actual suicides are planned out.
And that one Case was a nationwide case. It's far more conclusive than your normal study of a few hundred people. In fact it's an ideal study case, an Entire population. Australia's suicide average was already quite low, and had been on very gradual downward trend. Firearm suicide was not as significant a portion of the total suicides as it is in the US but it was still a significant portion and had been for decades. It virtually vanished as a cause when the confiscation went into effect. But the overall suicide rate didn't drop, it actually spiked for two years then returned to the same level and gradual downward trend.
Calling it non-conclusive when it provided an ideal study population, i.e. an entire isolated national population with a somewhat diverse population spread across rural/suburban and urban environments, and a long term baseline to note deviations from, is a lie. Simply you don't want it to be conclusive so you declare that it isn't simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.
As to the crime rate, it's lower in states with higher gun ownership. Guns are not increasing the crime rate. England and Australia both have much higher crime rates than when they imposed their bans.
Not true at all. Take a look at the suicide rates in Japan and South Korea. Very low number of guns, very high suicide rates. Guns do not cause suicide. In fact a point I usually leave off when mentioning Australia is that the two years immediately following the ban the suicide rate spiked before returning to the same levels and gradual downward trend it had been following for decades. I've never found any cause for the very significant spikes, but I wonder if it isn't because some of those who had decided to kill themselves and who would have tried a gun but found themselves unable to do it and were able to get help suddenly found themselves without the gun option and chose another less intimidating method and were able to go through with it. Again I never found any explanation for the spike and thus usually don't mention it as those two years (97 and 98) are an outlier to the norm.
Note also that the suicide rate in Australia dropped substantially from 2003 onwards because they redefined the criteria, relegating a number of cases that would have been suicides to being called accidents. Some have tried to claim this drop was due to the gun ban but the influence of the gun ban was seen immediately and the 2003 and since drop came after the redefinition.
Actually that would not be a good study. You need to remove suicide from the study to be accurate as to the risk of gun ownership. Guns do not cause suicide. They are merely a tool and as was seen in 1996 in Australia, if you remove guns their use for suicide will drop but suicide will not. Thus those individuals still died without the guns.
Good source check out More guns less Crime by John Lott Jr. He's been tracking this since the 80's and as we have seen gun ownership jump (especially over the last few years) and carry laws loosened across the country, gun violence is down over 50% since the 1992 peak. I'll try to remember to reply to this when I get home from work where my link list is stored. I have other good sources, just not on my machine at work.
It should not be any website's decision to redirect ME from the page I'm trying to read to the play store. That alone is a gaping vulnerability, if any web page can just call another app without my approval that is a vulnerability, not just an annoyance. Add in this malware and it becomes a potentially critical vulnerability.
Question: is Google planning on doing anything about the new trend in browser redirects that take you to the store? Can they do anything about it?
Combine that very annoying trick with this fake GooglePlay malware and I see a glaring vulnerability, in addition to the major annoyance of trying to read a website only to suddenly be yanked into the play store to install some dumb game.
You miss the point of most terror attacks, they won't go after cargo freighters or docks. They want splashy symbolic targets with high kill counts. And a Skyscraper is actually a rather tough target as seen in the first WTC attack in 93.
They want bold splashy kill counts, they want those kill counts to impact daily activities. Government buildings might work but most of any real value are already harder targets with armed and mostly alert security, lockdown systems and procedures and barricades keeping vehicle bombs at a distance. Stadiums for sporting events would be great targets, malls less now than in the past as malls are dwindling in importance in our society (at least in the US). Also with malls can you guarantee a substantial crowd at the time of the attack? In December they are better targets but with Ramadan (and the ISIS call to attack during the holy month) in June this year not so much.
Airports have been targeted historically because crowds are frequent, the ebb and flow of the crowds is easy to establish and map out based on flight schedules. Attacks can be timed to impact flights heading to specific targets (Hit the security line two hours before the flight for maximum effect). Add in our nervousness in regards to terrorism and air traffic and they become ideal targets. Historically Airports have been popular targets for bombs and shooting attacks.
I will agree that a Stadium filled full for a sporting or other event would be an excellent target, and the major league's demands that all attendees be disarmed makes it even better because there is less chance of a random attendee stopping an attack in progress at a gun free zone. (which gun free status the terrorists will of course ignore.)
Why should there be. This isn't a general news site. Such often gets onto /. but not normally. However a discussion of the vulnerabilities of airports as a result of the attack is a natural topic for /.
Airports don't have the potential that an airplane does, but they are still critical points to hit. At certain times a successful hit could kill or wound hundreds or thousands. Severely damaging a major hub airport can and will cause major widespread impacts to business and leisure travel. Shutdown Heathrow for example and the air traffic impacts would be global.
I'm honestly surprised they aren't attacked more often.
Number one weakness in the US is the Screening point. These three bombers visit any major airport at peak travel times, wait until they are well into the queue and then detonate and you have hundreds dead without firing a shot. They decide to shoot even deadlier results because those with guns are blocked away from them by the mass of people lined up waiting to be screened. Then there is the liquid limit which requires large trash cans right next to the lines, trash cans full of bottles of random liquids, that just might decide to blow up. Once through security it's a bit better because most people in there have been screened to some degree.
It works in that if you had win 7 or 8 and upgrade by the end date, you have a current windows license from now on. Windows is getting away from the old licensing scheme and now when you buy a new machine it will have Windows and will be updated for the life of the machine. Or you build a machine and buy a Windows license and it gets updates for the life of the machine, (which if you know what you are doing is indefinitely) Updates will be more like the cell phone market (except without carriers needlessly delaying upgrades because they have their own gui that they need to upgrade first (Samsung touchwiz)).
What's insane about allowing for the fact that vehicles in motion cannot stop instantly. They way you portrayed the rules every vehicle not in the intersection has to stop when the light turns yellow, even those vehicles just inches from entering the intersection. US and in fact every nation I've been in around the world uses the yellow light as designed. As a caution and warning that the light is about to change to red and you need to either stop if far enough back to safely do so, or if too close to safely stop then proceed through the intersection. From multiple nations in Europe, to a couple in Asia to central America they've all been the same.
What country do you live in that doesn't allow for obedience to Newtonian physics?
Actually it's to allow those approaching the intersection to determine if they can safely stop before entering the intersection or if they need to push through, granted many should stop who do not, but crossing into the intersection during a yellow is not wrong. If you are in the intersection when the light changes to red you are not in violation. If you cross the line into the intersection after it turns red, then you are in violation. There is a delay when all four lights are red to allow the intersection to clear of those caught in the intersection when the light turns red.
Dupes are a long time /. tradition, new ownership has nothing to do with the trend, just lazy editors.
Not when we have governments that just print more money. Deficit spending is certainly no obstacle to the current administration.