I believe I already said there was no evidence that Assange had committed a US crime. That applies to the Manning leaks as well as the Clinton-related leaks. However, the people who got those are criminals (Manning has been convicted and sentenced).
Obviously, Clinton was annoyed at Assange. Unofficially. That doesn't translate into official actions.
There is no evidence that Ecuador shutting off his web access involved any pressure from anyone. I don't know the relationship between Ecuador and Assange. It may well be that the government of Ecuador doesn't approve of official Ecuadorian facilities being used in certain ways. It may be that he's ticked them off, like he's ticked off so many others, and they're doing some petty revenge. Assange can apparently be a real pain to be around.
I'm emphasizing the criminality, because I don't consider criminals to be prima facie honest and truthful. If it was, as seems likely, a Russian operation, I especially distrust them.
I'm not a security guy, and haven't yet checked the cryptographic proof. However, AFAIK there is no such thing as proof that something came from somewhere or something, only proof that something was created or modified by someone with a certain private key, and it's going to be hard to show that no private keys were picked up in the hack. It is possible to run things so that the private key is never on the server, but I really, really doubt the emailers went through that hassle. FWIW, I don't think Assange has the ability to fake this, so any faking would have been done by the original criminals.
Are you trying to tell me that all you need is Cinton saying "The emails are in the large genuine, but some have been tampered with" and you'll drop the whole email issue? Would you believe her?
Um, where is your evidence that the questions were given to Clinton and not Trump? You said it was unfair that Clinton got the questions, I pointed out that it was unfair only if Trump didn't, and now you just state Trump didn't? If questions were provided and the audience was deceived, how is that in any way Clinton's fault?
Your characterization of me is ludicrous. I've been asking for evidence for the things people have said. I've pointed out where arguments are fallacious or evidence unreliable or simply wrong. You seem unbalanced enough to assume this is a result of being biased (I am) to the point of delusion (nope). You have made up your mind that Clinton is in the wrong about pretty much everything, and have no problems making baseless claims about her.
Okay. I'm not known for releasing fabricated evidence, so you should assume I'm telling the truth? That's what you seem to be saying. Assange has released stuff that appears to be genuine in the past, but it's impossible to actually check most of it. I still think that's weak evidence for trusting him.
My attitude on burden of proof is that it's on the people who claim to have obtained documents illegally, without being able to verify them. I also like judging things scientifically, based on the results if true. Clinton says nothing, so the emails must be legit. Clinton casts doubt on the veracity of all the emails, so the emails must be legit and Clinton is untruthful. Doubtless if Clinton said it was all a hoax you'd use that as evidence that she's lying (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). My conclusion is that, no matter what Clinton said, you'd think the emails were all legit. This means that you can't take anything she says or doesn't say as evidence for the emails. If not, please tell me what Clinton could have said that would convince you.
"From everything I've seen" is probably not the way I should have put it, since the evidence I've seen is a bit thin, but it does appear that the DNC servers were hacked by someone with Russian connections. We do know that most such leaks are internal, and that's what I'd assume in the absence of evidence otherwise. Obama is certain enough that it was a Russian state-sponsored attack to create a diplomatic incident about it, FWIW.
I seem to have two advantages over you in interpreting Assange's story: I know a little about how rape victims often behave, and I don't know the Swedish legal system so I don't make assumptions. I see nothing suspicious about the victims' behavior or the Swedish legal system. Rape's a tough crime to prove. However, Sweden, Interpol, and the UK thought that the evidence of the rape was enough to extradite.
I hadn't heard of Assange asking the US for promises. He did ask the Swedish government for assurances that they could not legally provide, since that would involve the executive branch committing the judiciary branch to something. He did annoy a lot of people in the US, and I'd suspect that lots of them were talking about kidnapping or killing him in their private conversations. Obviously, we can't kill Assange with a drone, so Clinton wasn't serious.
As for the mountain of evidence, people have been pointing me at a lot of mountains I can't see, and failing to deliver when I ask for a pointer to a pebble. It's actually kind of fun, calling people out on things they can't support.
So, what you're pointing at is emails and documents that were likely obtained by the Russian government, or at least someone in Russia, which means there's no reason to trust them. They're posted by a guy who has been making up stories about the US to the point where he doesn't like it (superpowers get people saying wild things about them). In any case, they were provided by one or more criminals or as an act of war, and transmitted through someone I don't trust. That isn't very good evidence of authenticity.
Under ideal conditions, it usually takes me a lot more than a second to get something to recognize my fingerprint. A gun requiring fingerprint verification to shoot is not worth having for self-defense.
Are you telling me that it's ludicrous that the Russian government would hack into servers and publicize contents to its advantage? How many rubles did you get for taking that position?
In general, the police have no right to tell me what to do unless they have a warrant. There are exceptions, such as at the scene of an incident when necessary to maintain control.
Thing is, the view from a drone is a lot worse than the view from a police officer, so it will be harder to tell if force is necessary. It would be useful in cases where the criminal is located in a place where he's otherwise difficult to neutralize.
Tasers can and do kill. If you have certain types of medical problems, they're more likely to kill. They should never be considered non-lethal. They're considerably less lethal than the officer's sidearm, but should never be used unless lethal force is justified.
Also, there are lots of cases of police officers using tasers too freely.
A test of predictions doesn't necessarily mean waiting. If you use the data available at the nominal time of prediction, and haven't used this particular prediction in your training data, it's perfectly valid.
How do you get that conclusion, or am I simply not on the right drugs?
The actions of US nationals are not per se US government actions, and the same is true of Russia. The CIA claims that the DNC hack was a Russian government attack, and they may well be right. Unless Jester is working for the US government, he's a private party.
Since the US apparently doesn't have an extradition treaty with Russia, they wouldn't extradite him anyway.
Clinton was negligent with classified material. That did not result in a criminal prosecution in other cases I know of (one guy agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but didn't have to follow through). Clinton was treated as anyone else would have been.
Would you care to prove that none of Powell's private email was classified? Neither Powell nor Clinton intended to have classified information on their private accounts, and while we know classified material ended up on Clinton's I don't think there's been a similar search of Powell's email.
Revealing which finger to use would seem to me like revealing a PIN, since it involves personal knowledge as well as having the right finger. The police may not appreciate the distinction, though.
The Fourth prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly, the "seizure" part is violated with civil forfeiture, and I'd love to see the Supreme Court acknowledge that sometime. Stop and Frisk itself is constitutional, as long as the police have enough reason to suspect, but the application in New York was held unconstitutional.
The police probably can find a judge that would issue such a building warrant. Whether it would stand on appeal is another matter. If the police hold everyone at the scene, they can frisk everyone for weapons.
It's worth knowing what will happen with repeated PIN entries. If the authorities only get to try a 4-digit PIN ten times, they've got a 0.1% chance to unlock the phone, which is going to be good enough for most people.
I'd advise someone to ask a real lawyer about this. In general, you aren't required to keep information that might be evidence until told you need to, and in the meantime you're free to delete as long as it's according with policy. I think you'd be OK with this eventually, although the police might be unhappy about it and you for a while.
Wikileaks has an excellent record of publishing stuff that can't be independently verified. Believing that they're 100% accurate is a leap of faith. They've also demonstrated no capability to correct what's given to them, so if the Russians were the hackers and they modified a few emails Wikileaks would be powerless to figure that out.
Exactly what could Clinton or the DNC say that would convince you that the emails might not be all legit? If they said, "These emails have been modified. They aren't the originals in all cases" would you say, "Gee, I'm glad they said that, because I was going to fall into the trap of believing them"? If you're not willing to believe them, why should they comment at all? If there's no reason for them to comment, then you can't derive anything from a failure to comment.
Leaked stuff frequently can't be verified, so saying that nothing's been shown to be false in ten years is almost meaningless. Besides, Wikileaks isn't a hacking organization, it's a publicizing one, so if Wikileaks is given modified information they're just going to pass it through.
The media quotes EVERYONE without context. You're asking Trump to get special kid-glove treatment here. If Trump's public statements need to be read between the lines, he's a terrible communicator and has no business being in politics or government. It would be refreshing to see Trump and his supporters admit that they're doing things way wrong and take some responsibility for it rather than expecting the media to be way different from what it is.
It's likely to be Russia, and Vladimir Putin would be proud of you anyway. Project Veritas is known for fraudulent videos that are set up to "prove" things that are false. I assume you place implicit faith in Michael Moore, if you believe PV. He's more truthful.
So, if the Clinton campaign doesn't say anything about the emails, they have to be authentic. If the Clinton campaign said the emails were tampered with, what would your conclusion be? That they were lying? This looks to me an awful lot like interpreting the evidence to suit the preconceived agenda.
The difference is that there's a right-wing gonzo with an agenda and no scruples who puts together deceitful videos that make Michael Moore look reasonable, and not a left-wing one. I'm not speculating on why this is, and statistical analysis of extreme outliers isn't going to get you anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe I already said there was no evidence that Assange had committed a US crime. That applies to the Manning leaks as well as the Clinton-related leaks. However, the people who got those are criminals (Manning has been convicted and sentenced).
Obviously, Clinton was annoyed at Assange. Unofficially. That doesn't translate into official actions.
There is no evidence that Ecuador shutting off his web access involved any pressure from anyone. I don't know the relationship between Ecuador and Assange. It may well be that the government of Ecuador doesn't approve of official Ecuadorian facilities being used in certain ways. It may be that he's ticked them off, like he's ticked off so many others, and they're doing some petty revenge. Assange can apparently be a real pain to be around.
I'm emphasizing the criminality, because I don't consider criminals to be prima facie honest and truthful. If it was, as seems likely, a Russian operation, I especially distrust them.
I'm not a security guy, and haven't yet checked the cryptographic proof. However, AFAIK there is no such thing as proof that something came from somewhere or something, only proof that something was created or modified by someone with a certain private key, and it's going to be hard to show that no private keys were picked up in the hack. It is possible to run things so that the private key is never on the server, but I really, really doubt the emailers went through that hassle. FWIW, I don't think Assange has the ability to fake this, so any faking would have been done by the original criminals.
Are you trying to tell me that all you need is Cinton saying "The emails are in the large genuine, but some have been tampered with" and you'll drop the whole email issue? Would you believe her?
Um, where is your evidence that the questions were given to Clinton and not Trump? You said it was unfair that Clinton got the questions, I pointed out that it was unfair only if Trump didn't, and now you just state Trump didn't? If questions were provided and the audience was deceived, how is that in any way Clinton's fault?
Your characterization of me is ludicrous. I've been asking for evidence for the things people have said. I've pointed out where arguments are fallacious or evidence unreliable or simply wrong. You seem unbalanced enough to assume this is a result of being biased (I am) to the point of delusion (nope). You have made up your mind that Clinton is in the wrong about pretty much everything, and have no problems making baseless claims about her.
Okay. I'm not known for releasing fabricated evidence, so you should assume I'm telling the truth? That's what you seem to be saying. Assange has released stuff that appears to be genuine in the past, but it's impossible to actually check most of it. I still think that's weak evidence for trusting him.
My attitude on burden of proof is that it's on the people who claim to have obtained documents illegally, without being able to verify them. I also like judging things scientifically, based on the results if true. Clinton says nothing, so the emails must be legit. Clinton casts doubt on the veracity of all the emails, so the emails must be legit and Clinton is untruthful. Doubtless if Clinton said it was all a hoax you'd use that as evidence that she's lying (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). My conclusion is that, no matter what Clinton said, you'd think the emails were all legit. This means that you can't take anything she says or doesn't say as evidence for the emails. If not, please tell me what Clinton could have said that would convince you.
"From everything I've seen" is probably not the way I should have put it, since the evidence I've seen is a bit thin, but it does appear that the DNC servers were hacked by someone with Russian connections. We do know that most such leaks are internal, and that's what I'd assume in the absence of evidence otherwise. Obama is certain enough that it was a Russian state-sponsored attack to create a diplomatic incident about it, FWIW.
I seem to have two advantages over you in interpreting Assange's story: I know a little about how rape victims often behave, and I don't know the Swedish legal system so I don't make assumptions. I see nothing suspicious about the victims' behavior or the Swedish legal system. Rape's a tough crime to prove. However, Sweden, Interpol, and the UK thought that the evidence of the rape was enough to extradite.
I hadn't heard of Assange asking the US for promises. He did ask the Swedish government for assurances that they could not legally provide, since that would involve the executive branch committing the judiciary branch to something. He did annoy a lot of people in the US, and I'd suspect that lots of them were talking about kidnapping or killing him in their private conversations. Obviously, we can't kill Assange with a drone, so Clinton wasn't serious.
As for the mountain of evidence, people have been pointing me at a lot of mountains I can't see, and failing to deliver when I ask for a pointer to a pebble. It's actually kind of fun, calling people out on things they can't support.
So, what you're pointing at is emails and documents that were likely obtained by the Russian government, or at least someone in Russia, which means there's no reason to trust them. They're posted by a guy who has been making up stories about the US to the point where he doesn't like it (superpowers get people saying wild things about them). In any case, they were provided by one or more criminals or as an act of war, and transmitted through someone I don't trust. That isn't very good evidence of authenticity.
Under ideal conditions, it usually takes me a lot more than a second to get something to recognize my fingerprint. A gun requiring fingerprint verification to shoot is not worth having for self-defense.
Are you telling me that it's ludicrous that the Russian government would hack into servers and publicize contents to its advantage? How many rubles did you get for taking that position?
In general, the police have no right to tell me what to do unless they have a warrant. There are exceptions, such as at the scene of an incident when necessary to maintain control.
Yeah, but I'd rather not expect the world to live down to CIA standards.
Thing is, the view from a drone is a lot worse than the view from a police officer, so it will be harder to tell if force is necessary. It would be useful in cases where the criminal is located in a place where he's otherwise difficult to neutralize.
Tasers can and do kill. If you have certain types of medical problems, they're more likely to kill. They should never be considered non-lethal. They're considerably less lethal than the officer's sidearm, but should never be used unless lethal force is justified.
Also, there are lots of cases of police officers using tasers too freely.
A test of predictions doesn't necessarily mean waiting. If you use the data available at the nominal time of prediction, and haven't used this particular prediction in your training data, it's perfectly valid.
How do you get that conclusion, or am I simply not on the right drugs?
The actions of US nationals are not per se US government actions, and the same is true of Russia. The CIA claims that the DNC hack was a Russian government attack, and they may well be right. Unless Jester is working for the US government, he's a private party.
Since the US apparently doesn't have an extradition treaty with Russia, they wouldn't extradite him anyway.
Who has filed an extradition request? Did he commit crimes in countries we've got mutual extradition treaties with?
Clinton was negligent with classified material. That did not result in a criminal prosecution in other cases I know of (one guy agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but didn't have to follow through). Clinton was treated as anyone else would have been.
Would you care to prove that none of Powell's private email was classified? Neither Powell nor Clinton intended to have classified information on their private accounts, and while we know classified material ended up on Clinton's I don't think there's been a similar search of Powell's email.
Can they get you to unlock a safe? Given a warrant, the police do have authority to open it however they want, but that's not the same thing.
Revealing which finger to use would seem to me like revealing a PIN, since it involves personal knowledge as well as having the right finger. The police may not appreciate the distinction, though.
The Fourth prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly, the "seizure" part is violated with civil forfeiture, and I'd love to see the Supreme Court acknowledge that sometime. Stop and Frisk itself is constitutional, as long as the police have enough reason to suspect, but the application in New York was held unconstitutional.
The police probably can find a judge that would issue such a building warrant. Whether it would stand on appeal is another matter. If the police hold everyone at the scene, they can frisk everyone for weapons.
It's worth knowing what will happen with repeated PIN entries. If the authorities only get to try a 4-digit PIN ten times, they've got a 0.1% chance to unlock the phone, which is going to be good enough for most people.
I'd advise someone to ask a real lawyer about this. In general, you aren't required to keep information that might be evidence until told you need to, and in the meantime you're free to delete as long as it's according with policy. I think you'd be OK with this eventually, although the police might be unhappy about it and you for a while.
Wikileaks has an excellent record of publishing stuff that can't be independently verified. Believing that they're 100% accurate is a leap of faith. They've also demonstrated no capability to correct what's given to them, so if the Russians were the hackers and they modified a few emails Wikileaks would be powerless to figure that out.
Exactly what could Clinton or the DNC say that would convince you that the emails might not be all legit? If they said, "These emails have been modified. They aren't the originals in all cases" would you say, "Gee, I'm glad they said that, because I was going to fall into the trap of believing them"? If you're not willing to believe them, why should they comment at all? If there's no reason for them to comment, then you can't derive anything from a failure to comment.
Leaked stuff frequently can't be verified, so saying that nothing's been shown to be false in ten years is almost meaningless. Besides, Wikileaks isn't a hacking organization, it's a publicizing one, so if Wikileaks is given modified information they're just going to pass it through.
The media quotes EVERYONE without context. You're asking Trump to get special kid-glove treatment here. If Trump's public statements need to be read between the lines, he's a terrible communicator and has no business being in politics or government. It would be refreshing to see Trump and his supporters admit that they're doing things way wrong and take some responsibility for it rather than expecting the media to be way different from what it is.
It's likely to be Russia, and Vladimir Putin would be proud of you anyway. Project Veritas is known for fraudulent videos that are set up to "prove" things that are false. I assume you place implicit faith in Michael Moore, if you believe PV. He's more truthful.
So, if the Clinton campaign doesn't say anything about the emails, they have to be authentic. If the Clinton campaign said the emails were tampered with, what would your conclusion be? That they were lying? This looks to me an awful lot like interpreting the evidence to suit the preconceived agenda.
The difference is that there's a right-wing gonzo with an agenda and no scruples who puts together deceitful videos that make Michael Moore look reasonable, and not a left-wing one. I'm not speculating on why this is, and statistical analysis of extreme outliers isn't going to get you anywhere.