The headline is quite misleading, the real details are in the order that, thankfully, the summary links to.
Basically, the judge granted a protective order that lets the feds search for evidence of criminality (e.g. more info on those plans to dump butyric acid into the ventilation shafts or to chain trains), without the ability to go fishing around for evidence of other crimes they may have committed.
In short, it's a reasonable protective order that lets the feds do their job while addressing the privacy concerns. From the headline, you'd assume they lost, but if you look at the details, the feds will be able to search the site for evidence with the judge acting as an intermediary to ensure that all the searches are justified.
There are kinds of deception that are illegal, fraud & perjury both come to mind quickly. Making false medical claims can also run afoul of the FDA rules.
This is the kind of thing that depends on the circumstances of whatever is going on, not on merely whether or not someone said something that isn't true on the internet. Commercial speech, in particular, has more restrictions than other kinds, so there isn't just one answer that can sum up every case, you'd have to go through the law to see what does or does not apply to a particular case.
You're not likely to get any kind of useful answer out of Slashdot for a question like that.
Your link has nothing to do with the ODNI report, and ignores this part:
Burr told reporters the committee plans to conduct 25 more interviews with witnesses this month, but described his goal of finishing this year the main congressional investigation into Russian meddling as only “aspirational” at this point.
But there are no actual facts about anything in that article, so I can't say that I would bother to listen to it anyhow. People's opinions don't really matter to me at all, I care about actual, verifiable facts.
The report came from the politically appointed directors of the ODNI. It doesn't appear that the Coast Guard & the rest of the agencies had much input into the report. The analysis was simplistic and slipshod. They failed to analyze a number of very obvious things, like the fact that the IP addresses were Tor exit nodes and the fact that the malware used was some freeware called P.A.S.
They're going after people who read only headlines and who don't know what any of this stuff means.
Kind of like that utter nonsense Slashdot published months ago where someone spying on network requests found collusion between a 3rd party Trump company marketing site and a Russian bank. Except it was stray DNS queries caused by Russian spam. Few people bothered to question what the people spying on that network traffic were doing, exactly.
I discussed all the evidence of intent back here with full citations, including the entire Congressional hearing on the subject.
In Clinton's case, we have an email between her & Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the system. It's hard for me to read this and not think that either person knew exactly what they were doing.
C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016
Re: Question
From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
Subject: Re: Question
I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.
Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.
However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.
You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn't need to follow me. I relented and let one guy follow me one
> Nobody can take classified material home, ever. Nobody can put classified material onto an unapproved computer, ever. These are not things that change from contract to contract.
Well, unless your name ends with Clinton and it's only classified pictures of North Korea... which we know because we have the emails where they were trying to spin that with their political hacks and they were worried that part would bite them:)
> You think that the theft of her private emails and the sudden release of a large batch of them (which were completely innocent by the way, don't forget that) a couple of weeks before the vote, perfectly timed to cause maximum damage, was a coincidence? Even though the hacking has been linked to Russia.
I didn't realize Comey was linked to Russia now. I thought he was busy colluding with UK spies to buy opposition research that was coincidentally used by a 3rd party wedge candidate in Utah where they hoped to split the vote.
Anyhow, it was the FBI that released some of the worst stuff, like that email where she asked Colin Powell how he got away with using a Blackberry, in which he told us that he didn't think the NSA knew anything. There's a transcript of that PDF in my post history if you go back far enough.
In the videos, Planned Parenthood representatives discuss the demand for certain body parts, the manner in which patient consent is solicited, pricing considerations, and the methods by which doctors manipulate procedures to ensure that tissue and organs of fetuses remain intact.
In one video, a Planned Parenthood official discusses how doctors modify procedures to preserve intact fetal specimens that can be provided to research firms in exchange for money. The Planned Parenthood official also discusses how reimbursement amounts can be manipulated.
Clearly debunked! Nothing to see here, Citizen! Move along now. You'll have to ask CNN's Chris Cuomo for permission to look at real news. The media is special, they have more rights than you do. He's an attorney, he should know!
That depends on how far the DA wants to push the conspiracy charges and exactly how much they knew about the riot plans, actually. I tend to agree that actually charging them with a crime for merely that is unreasonable. I don't agree that they're automatically immune from further investigation.
I am not now a supporter of National Socialism, nor have I ever been, Mr. Mcarthy. And I don't have a Facebook account, either. I also detest the brownshirt types, like the terrorist group Antifa, who go around preemptively physically assaulting anyone who has a differing opinion. Not to mention the idiot racists often found on Slashdot.
I also know the various elements of conspiracy. It's reasonable to say that liking the Facebook page itself shouldn't be illegal, even if there might be a technical argument about trying to recruit people to an attempt to cause a violent riot. But it's not unreasonable to say that the police can't even investigate the people who publicly expressed support for an attempt at causing a riot. That's cause enough to investigate and see just what they were plotting and what steps they actually took to move forward with the conspiracy.
So in the end, I merely believe that we shouldn't prevent the police from investigating people who conspired to commit violent crimes. It's funny how agitated you get at the idea of that.
> And by "involved", you mean everyone who ever looked at their Facebook page?
No, everyone who decided to "like" it. That's literally the first line of the first link you posted, telling us that 6,000 people apparently like endangering lots of people by putting acid into ventilation systems and whatnot.
> You're citing Project Veritas videos as evidence, dude.
And you're leaving out the full story, once again. They have people on video, that's enough for police to investigate. It'll be pretty damned clear whether they were actually preparing or not once they investigate.
Anyone who disagrees with me is Russian, so I don't have to answer their points. Time to lament how we live in a post-fact world, that's another good way to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.
I note that you conveniently leave out the part where #disruptj20 was caught on camera plotting to attack people at the inaugural ball? Or how they planned to chain trains and otherwise shut down DC? Have we forgotten about violent assaults like the woman whose hair was lit on fire?
They're investigating all of the people who were plotting violent attacks, including the planned release of butyric acid into the ventilation systems of the ball. Oh, that's just a "stink bomb" you say, but c'mon, really? You expect people to identify which acid they're breathing in and not be forced to evacuate the building into a pile of police and protesters on a freezing cold day?
Sorry, but this is a criminal act that they're investigating. They're allowed to find out who was involved in it and given that #disruptj20 was criminal, they have reasonable suspicion to look at anyone involved. You don't get to plot crimes and then complain because the police are investigating. They're going after #disruptj20 because the leaders of it were caught planning criminal activity, not because they criticized the president.
The people who tried to attack others at the inauguration knew or should've known what they were getting into.
Everyone has a first amendment right to anonymous speech, but I guess the first amendment isn't very popular lately. I'm also very curious as to how you think a country can be blocked off without people routing around it. You'd need a constitutional amendment to do any of that and even then it simply wouldn't work very well on a technical level, as we can see from looking at China over the past 20 years or so.
Don't you think it's just a little weird that you want to turn the USA into China because you're scared of Russia?
* As part of the US Code, it's still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The courts have to decide if, in the context of some case, prosecution under that statute would violate someone's First Amendment rights even if the statute itself is considered constitutional in general. * Cases that truly satisfy it would fall generally under the "true threat" exemption, not "fighting words", because as I've just said, "fighting words" are face-to-face rather than "interstate or foreign commerce." These are legal terms and the distinction is important. "Fighting words" has a precise legal meaning and is in no way a synonym for "true threat."
You can find more information here and here on what "true threat" means, both described by a respected first amendment lawyer. Here's a snippet that more or less summarizes things. Note that the writer of the quote below was referring to then-President Obama, who was in power at the time these articles were written:
In short, much of the stupid and racist venting on Twitter does not constitute a true threat. The statements that are, at least, closer to true threats are the ones in which the writer says they will personally harm the President, but even those are unlikely to be taken as true threats unless the context shows that a reasonable person would take the threat seriously, rather than as hyperbole (and in some jurisdictions, also that the person meant for it to be taken seriously). Few pass that test.
This might seem like a minor quibble, but it's actually very important to get things like this straight in law. The two exemptions have different elements and mean very different things that should not be conflated. This kind of stuff is why you should always hire a lawyer if you're reading this for something other than idle curiosity, rather than doing internet research on your own. You will come to incorrect legal conclusions if you fail this kind of distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline is quite misleading, the real details are in the order that, thankfully, the summary links to.
Basically, the judge granted a protective order that lets the feds search for evidence of criminality (e.g. more info on those plans to dump butyric acid into the ventilation shafts or to chain trains), without the ability to go fishing around for evidence of other crimes they may have committed.
In short, it's a reasonable protective order that lets the feds do their job while addressing the privacy concerns. From the headline, you'd assume they lost, but if you look at the details, the feds will be able to search the site for evidence with the judge acting as an intermediary to ensure that all the searches are justified.
There are kinds of deception that are illegal, fraud & perjury both come to mind quickly. Making false medical claims can also run afoul of the FDA rules.
This is the kind of thing that depends on the circumstances of whatever is going on, not on merely whether or not someone said something that isn't true on the internet. Commercial speech, in particular, has more restrictions than other kinds, so there isn't just one answer that can sum up every case, you'd have to go through the law to see what does or does not apply to a particular case.
You're not likely to get any kind of useful answer out of Slashdot for a question like that.
Your link has nothing to do with the ODNI report, and ignores this part:
But there are no actual facts about anything in that article, so I can't say that I would bother to listen to it anyhow. People's opinions don't really matter to me at all, I care about actual, verifiable facts.
Right, but they were talking about printers, which have never been a part of HPE as far as I know.
The report came from the politically appointed directors of the ODNI. It doesn't appear that the Coast Guard & the rest of the agencies had much input into the report. The analysis was simplistic and slipshod. They failed to analyze a number of very obvious things, like the fact that the IP addresses were Tor exit nodes and the fact that the malware used was some freeware called P.A.S.
The original Hewlett-Packard split into HP Inc and HPE years ago. The old printer business is on the other side of the split.
They're going after people who read only headlines and who don't know what any of this stuff means.
Kind of like that utter nonsense Slashdot published months ago where someone spying on network requests found collusion between a 3rd party Trump company marketing site and a Russian bank. Except it was stray DNS queries caused by Russian spam. Few people bothered to question what the people spying on that network traffic were doing, exactly.
Wait until they figure out who all Microsoft has shared the Windows source code with.
I discussed all the evidence of intent back here with full citations, including the entire Congressional hearing on the subject.
In Clinton's case, we have an email between her & Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the system. It's hard for me to read this and not think that either person knew exactly what they were doing.
> Nobody can take classified material home, ever. Nobody can put classified material onto an unapproved computer, ever. These are not things that change from contract to contract.
Well, unless your name ends with Clinton and it's only classified pictures of North Korea... which we know because we have the emails where they were trying to spin that with their political hacks and they were worried that part would bite them :)
> You think that the theft of her private emails and the sudden release of a large batch of them (which were completely innocent by the way, don't forget that) a couple of weeks before the vote, perfectly timed to cause maximum damage, was a coincidence? Even though the hacking has been linked to Russia.
I didn't realize Comey was linked to Russia now. I thought he was busy colluding with UK spies to buy opposition research that was coincidentally used by a 3rd party wedge candidate in Utah where they hoped to split the vote.
Anyhow, it was the FBI that released some of the worst stuff, like that email where she asked Colin Powell how he got away with using a Blackberry, in which he told us that he didn't think the NSA knew anything. There's a transcript of that PDF in my post history if you go back far enough.
I had to do a double take because that was too similar to the original.
So you're saying that Prof. Bike Lock was merely pretending to be a liberal professor for their entire life?
Sorry, no, that doesn't really make any sense.
I guess that means you never saw the congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood that vindicated them, or the fact that full, unedited videos were received and reviewed by all committee members?
Clearly debunked! Nothing to see here, Citizen! Move along now. You'll have to ask CNN's Chris Cuomo for permission to look at real news. The media is special, they have more rights than you do. He's an attorney, he should know!
That depends on how far the DA wants to push the conspiracy charges and exactly how much they knew about the riot plans, actually. I tend to agree that actually charging them with a crime for merely that is unreasonable. I don't agree that they're automatically immune from further investigation.
I am not now a supporter of National Socialism, nor have I ever been, Mr. Mcarthy. And I don't have a Facebook account, either. I also detest the brownshirt types, like the terrorist group Antifa, who go around preemptively physically assaulting anyone who has a differing opinion. Not to mention the idiot racists often found on Slashdot.
I also know the various elements of conspiracy. It's reasonable to say that liking the Facebook page itself shouldn't be illegal, even if there might be a technical argument about trying to recruit people to an attempt to cause a violent riot. But it's not unreasonable to say that the police can't even investigate the people who publicly expressed support for an attempt at causing a riot. That's cause enough to investigate and see just what they were plotting and what steps they actually took to move forward with the conspiracy.
So in the end, I merely believe that we shouldn't prevent the police from investigating people who conspired to commit violent crimes. It's funny how agitated you get at the idea of that.
> If only the second line of the summary said "search warrant" ... Oh wait, it does
This is Slashdot. A few posts up, you'll find that even the submitter didn't bother read any of this stuff.
> And by "involved", you mean everyone who ever looked at their Facebook page?
No, everyone who decided to "like" it. That's literally the first line of the first link you posted, telling us that 6,000 people apparently like endangering lots of people by putting acid into ventilation systems and whatnot.
> You're citing Project Veritas videos as evidence, dude.
And you're leaving out the full story, once again. They have people on video, that's enough for police to investigate. It'll be pretty damned clear whether they were actually preparing or not once they investigate.
> The gov't should investigate people based on their threat risk
Why do you think they aren't?
Here's video evidence of some of the crimes #disruptj20 was plotting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjbkYLI1nY
And here is one of those 'peaceful protesters' at the inauguration lighting a lady's hair on fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY5WTDgV4ik
There's no reason for society to pick & choose, they should arrest ALL people plotting or performing violent acts.
Anyone who disagrees with me is Russian, so I don't have to answer their points. Time to lament how we live in a post-fact world, that's another good way to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.
I note that you conveniently leave out the part where #disruptj20 was caught on camera plotting to attack people at the inaugural ball? Or how they planned to chain trains and otherwise shut down DC? Have we forgotten about violent assaults like the woman whose hair was lit on fire?
They're investigating all of the people who were plotting violent attacks, including the planned release of butyric acid into the ventilation systems of the ball. Oh, that's just a "stink bomb" you say, but c'mon, really? You expect people to identify which acid they're breathing in and not be forced to evacuate the building into a pile of police and protesters on a freezing cold day?
Sorry, but this is a criminal act that they're investigating. They're allowed to find out who was involved in it and given that #disruptj20 was criminal, they have reasonable suspicion to look at anyone involved. You don't get to plot crimes and then complain because the police are investigating. They're going after #disruptj20 because the leaders of it were caught planning criminal activity, not because they criticized the president.
The people who tried to attack others at the inauguration knew or should've known what they were getting into.
Everyone has a first amendment right to anonymous speech, but I guess the first amendment isn't very popular lately. I'm also very curious as to how you think a country can be blocked off without people routing around it. You'd need a constitutional amendment to do any of that and even then it simply wouldn't work very well on a technical level, as we can see from looking at China over the past 20 years or so.
Don't you think it's just a little weird that you want to turn the USA into China because you're scared of Russia?
Russia much?
Amazing how much you guys will go to obscure Putin's little bitch beef with Hilary. Contemptible.
Way to be a sexist jerk, Ben.
A few points:
* As part of the US Code, it's still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The courts have to decide if, in the context of some case, prosecution under that statute would violate someone's First Amendment rights even if the statute itself is considered constitutional in general.
* Cases that truly satisfy it would fall generally under the "true threat" exemption, not "fighting words", because as I've just said, "fighting words" are face-to-face rather than "interstate or foreign commerce." These are legal terms and the distinction is important. "Fighting words" has a precise legal meaning and is in no way a synonym for "true threat."
You can find more information here and here on what "true threat" means, both described by a respected first amendment lawyer. Here's a snippet that more or less summarizes things. Note that the writer of the quote below was referring to then-President Obama, who was in power at the time these articles were written:
This might seem like a minor quibble, but it's actually very important to get things like this straight in law. The two exemptions have different elements and mean very different things that should not be conflated. This kind of stuff is why you should always hire a lawyer if you're reading this for something other than idle curiosity, rather than doing internet research on your own. You will come to incorrect legal conclusions if you fail this kind of distinction.
It's been the #1 related link to almost everything since I submitted it.