This is politics, guy. It's a dirty business sometimes, and that applies to both major parties. Mining the DNC emails, and perhaps forging some, is not going to give you a balanced view, because it's going to be designed to make the DNC look bad, and is going to ignore what is common practice. As Otto von Bismarck said, those who like sausages and laws should watch neither of them being made.
Is it really your opinion that a level of patriotism that disapproves of invitations to an unfriendly major power to commit felonies in the US and interfere with US politics belongs in 1958? I'd say a minimal level like that is perfectly appropriate for everyone.
Russia isn't really our enemy, in a strict sense, although we've got pretty hostile relationships. Nor does this give "aid and comfort" in the strict sense. This isn't treason, according to the Constitution. I do consider it unpatriotic and disloyal. Since it was an exhortation for others to commit a felony, it's legally shaky, but I doubt anyone will prosecute.
The top article on Google said that Bill had been paid an unusually large amount of money by a huge for-profit University chain, and that Hillary had given tens of millions of dollars in business to the founder of the chain. It calls for further investigation. The rest of the page is from organizations that don't look particularly trustworthy (not that I'm fond of the Post as a source of facts).
In other words, you've got innuendo and speculation going for you, and a flexible interpretation of the law. If someone had solid evidence of wrongdoing, I'd expect to find mentions of it in a reputable news source. The best the Post could do was ask why nobody's looking into it.
As far as I can tell, the reason she hasn't been prosecuted is that she hasn't done anything to warrant prosecution. Nobody's been prosecuted for unintentionally having a small number of classified documents where they shouldn't be, with no evidence that this did any harm. Congress investigated Benghazi over and over, and couldn't find wrongdoing. What you call theft isn't theft, legally speaking, and it's not clear that there was any wrongdoing (although I always suspect for-profit Universities).
The downfall of the USA, if it happens, is likely to be related to people blindly accepting what others say, with no effort to see if what they want to believe is true. This is, I think, the most pernicious development on the Internet.
What Trump really said looked like a veiled invitation for Russia to hack in. If he'd been addressing US-based crackers, I'd feel slightly better about it, although he's still exhorting for violation of the CFAA, and the legality of that is questionable.
The comparison with Snowden's treatment doesn't work. Snowden's in Russia, sure. He's safer there. The Russians are offering him a place to live, free from US law enforcement, and that's all they're doing. They're not helping Snowden do anything against the law (unless not turning himself in is illegal). Trump says he wants Russia to commit illegal actions in the US, and that's considerably different.
Snowden gathered a lot of classified material and deliberately exposed it. I think he has done us a great service in revealing what the NSA is doing in the US, and a considerable disservice in revealing NSA operations in other countries. Trump apparently wants Russia to intervene in a case that is of no obvious national concern, reveal emails en masse, and to do that to act against his political opponent and influence a US election.
If Russia destabilizes the US, that's bad, very bad, no matter what else. I can't imagine a loyal US citizen thinking that might be OK.
As far as Clinton goes, why don't you do some research to see what's behind the character attacks? I haven't been finding support for a large number of the allegations.
Politifacts looked at the video claim. It isn't clear whether Clinton mentioned the videos to any of the families; some say she did, while Clinton and others say she didn't. It was an exremely stressful and emotional time, and it's no surprise that there are conflicting memories.
You don't seem to realize that lots of protests were going on elsewhere, and it wasn't clear at first that the Benghazi attack was a deliberate attack that coincided with the unrest. It was a confusing mess, and sending what security forces were available to Benghazi is obvious only in hindsight. It was entirely possible that, fifteen minutes after they were committed, they'd be wanted far more somewhere else.
The way to prevent that would have been for the Republican Congress to give Clinton the money she asked for for embassy security. Clearly, by your reasoning, Republicans should not be trusted in a kindergarten student council.
The Russians largely created the corruption scandal. It appears that some of the emails may have been tampered with, and the timing of the release is clearly intended to interfere in the US democratic process.
At least once things get halfway settled, there are cybercrimes that will be considered acts of war if state-sponsored. I don't know if there's anything definite now. Inviting a foreign power to commit an act of war isn't actually treason (Trump's comment isn't really an invitation, but it leans that way), but it's reasonable to be unhappy about it.
Yes. He put in some work, ran an e-commerce site, and got a decent income out of it. Anybody else could have done exactly the same, so if that became known as a way to make lots and lots of money without much work, there'd be so many people searching junkyards and putting up motorcycle windshield sites that it would become mostly unprofitable.
Your historian friend is in the same situation, except that he did a whole lot of work because he liked doing it, and that's a big competitive advantage. Any competitor would have to put similar amounts of research time into it, and the money alone presumably wouldn't justify the prep work that would have to go into it.
I haven't seen good evidence that Clinton is an undue supporter of Wall Street (she has to be some kind of supporter to keep the economy running), and AC didn't mention free trade. Some of the problems AC mentioned are related to free trade treaties, but can be addressed while having free trade treaties (maybe not the TPP, but Clinton has come out against the final proposal after supporting the negotiations).
AC is clearly against shipping jobs overseas, and that conflicts with some of Clinton's stances. However, even in a matter like this it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Clinton is the better choice, compared to Trump.
There are good reasons to allow the state to gather evidence, provided of course there are legal safeguards. You may think the reasons not to are more compelling, but there are real advantages for law enforcement, and hence the general public, in being able to get DNA, fingerprints, etc.
In a criminal case, last I looked it appeared questionable whether you're required to provide unlocking information for a device in some circumstances. You can't be required to do that if providing that information is potentially incriminating in itself, and you can be required to provide a password if it shelters stuff that is already known to be on your device (the first case, I believe, was the guy who showed some of his child pornography to a customs agent). As you point out, the civil rules are different.
What I don't know, because I don't think it's settled, is how much information I need to provide if accused of a crime. Assume there's a phone with a duress fingerprint that is connected with a crime, and it isn't clear that I know how to unlock it. I don't have to volunteer a thing about unlocking the phone, since that would mean incriminating myself. If the police require me to put a finger on the sensor, I have to comply, whether it's the unlocking or duress finger, and what will happen will happen. Any warning or refusal to use the duress finger would incriminate me. I don't know the rules if the phone is known to be mine, but I suspect I'd get into serious trouble if I didn't warn about the duress fingerprint.
If you want to weaponize a drone and call it an exercise of Second Amendment rights, go right ahead. You do realize that there are places where you can't bring your lawfully owned guns, don't you?
As far as criminal behavior goes, I'd suspect that we're dealing primarily with assholes rather than criminals, and assholes can often be stopped by regulations being enforced. I doubt that many criminals will benefit from chasing firefighting aircraft away.
Someday, probably, but the thing is taking off heavily loaded and flying through absolutely terrible flying conditions. Until we're reasonably sure that drone helicopters can do that halfway reliably, I think the human pilots will be necessary. Remote control isn't an attractive alternative, because it's not going to give the pilot the same feedback as being there, and it's going to be easy to make an otherwise avoidable mistake.
Granted that we've mismanaged some of our forests badly, we still don't have a time machine to go back and burn some of that biomass as it built up. We're pretty much stuck with the solutions we've got now until we can get more of that burned off safely.
Has it struck you that, when someone is doing something hazardous, it might be a good idea to reduce additional hazards to make it as safe as it inherently can be? We could fire random rifle shots into fires that are being fought, also, but I don't see anyone advocating that.
Does it make sense for everybody who lives there to build their own firebreaks, or to engage in a little collective action to save large numbers of houses?
You can't be compelled to divulge a password that's incriminating in itself. Assuming it's legal to compel your cooperation anyway, it's legal to compel you to enter it yourself.
The crashboot might be construed as obstruction of justice, since it's an intentional act that you do once you know that what you've got is likely to be evidence. If you worry about it, set your iPhone to wipe after ten failed login attempts and disable the fingerprint activation (or whatever the equivalent is for your phone) ahead of time. They can't complain about that.
Taking cheek swabs, forced fingerprinting, etc., are all things the police do to you. They will happen if the court orders, whether you agree or not. Since they can take your fingerprints no matter whether you're innocent or guilty, the act itself doesn't incriminate you. You can be compelled to do all sorts of things, as long as they aren't under your initiative, but if there's any decision you make then the fact that you can make that decision has evidentiary value and you may not be compelled. If you're ordered to enter a password, and there's any doubt you know it, and the phone has some connection to something illegal, then entering a password reveals that you know the password, and that may not be compelled.
"Papers and effects" have nothing to do with the Fifth. The Fourth doesn't prevent the police from doing any searches or seizures, as long as they have probable cause and go through the right formalities. They can conduct reasonable searches and seizures at their own discretion, and can seek warrants for all others.
You're confusing the Fourth and the Fifth. The Fourth shields you from unreasonable search and seizure and provides certain criteria for warrants. It doesn't stop the government from doing anything, provided they have probable cause and go through the formalities. The Fifth is absolute: the government cannot require you to say or type anything incriminating, no matter what. (If you are ordered to say or type something specific, that's not incriminating.) Exactly what that means in relation to passwords is not yet fully clarified in US law, but it's definite that you can't be compelled to divulge a password if there's any reasonable case to be made that it provides evidence. If they know the phone's yours, that's unsettled. If they know the phone is possibly evidence, and they don't know it's yours, then divulging the password is admitting that you're connected with the phone.
If you do have a duress finger, you could try not telling them. You can't legally prevent them from holding your fingers to the sensor, but I don't know that they can compel you to say which one. (If there's any doubt that the phone is yours, they probably can't.) However, there are people who, unlike me, have actually studied law and who can answer these sorts of questions much better than I can. Before relying on anything I may have said in a criminal case, ask one of those guys first.
Passcodes are inconvenient for objects that are part of our daily lives. However, Apple did plug that firmware hole in the 5S and later phones. There have got to be vulnerabilities still, because there always are, but Apple's closing them as they find out about them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is politics, guy. It's a dirty business sometimes, and that applies to both major parties. Mining the DNC emails, and perhaps forging some, is not going to give you a balanced view, because it's going to be designed to make the DNC look bad, and is going to ignore what is common practice. As Otto von Bismarck said, those who like sausages and laws should watch neither of them being made.
Is it really your opinion that a level of patriotism that disapproves of invitations to an unfriendly major power to commit felonies in the US and interfere with US politics belongs in 1958? I'd say a minimal level like that is perfectly appropriate for everyone.
Russia isn't really our enemy, in a strict sense, although we've got pretty hostile relationships. Nor does this give "aid and comfort" in the strict sense. This isn't treason, according to the Constitution. I do consider it unpatriotic and disloyal. Since it was an exhortation for others to commit a felony, it's legally shaky, but I doubt anyone will prosecute.
The top article on Google said that Bill had been paid an unusually large amount of money by a huge for-profit University chain, and that Hillary had given tens of millions of dollars in business to the founder of the chain. It calls for further investigation. The rest of the page is from organizations that don't look particularly trustworthy (not that I'm fond of the Post as a source of facts).
In other words, you've got innuendo and speculation going for you, and a flexible interpretation of the law. If someone had solid evidence of wrongdoing, I'd expect to find mentions of it in a reputable news source. The best the Post could do was ask why nobody's looking into it.
As far as I can tell, the reason she hasn't been prosecuted is that she hasn't done anything to warrant prosecution. Nobody's been prosecuted for unintentionally having a small number of classified documents where they shouldn't be, with no evidence that this did any harm. Congress investigated Benghazi over and over, and couldn't find wrongdoing. What you call theft isn't theft, legally speaking, and it's not clear that there was any wrongdoing (although I always suspect for-profit Universities).
The downfall of the USA, if it happens, is likely to be related to people blindly accepting what others say, with no effort to see if what they want to believe is true. This is, I think, the most pernicious development on the Internet.
What Trump really said looked like a veiled invitation for Russia to hack in. If he'd been addressing US-based crackers, I'd feel slightly better about it, although he's still exhorting for violation of the CFAA, and the legality of that is questionable.
The comparison with Snowden's treatment doesn't work. Snowden's in Russia, sure. He's safer there. The Russians are offering him a place to live, free from US law enforcement, and that's all they're doing. They're not helping Snowden do anything against the law (unless not turning himself in is illegal). Trump says he wants Russia to commit illegal actions in the US, and that's considerably different.
Snowden gathered a lot of classified material and deliberately exposed it. I think he has done us a great service in revealing what the NSA is doing in the US, and a considerable disservice in revealing NSA operations in other countries. Trump apparently wants Russia to intervene in a case that is of no obvious national concern, reveal emails en masse, and to do that to act against his political opponent and influence a US election.
If Russia destabilizes the US, that's bad, very bad, no matter what else. I can't imagine a loyal US citizen thinking that might be OK.
As far as Clinton goes, why don't you do some research to see what's behind the character attacks? I haven't been finding support for a large number of the allegations.
FTFY. Actually, I'd settle for his tax returns, at least for the moment.
Politifacts looked at the video claim. It isn't clear whether Clinton mentioned the videos to any of the families; some say she did, while Clinton and others say she didn't. It was an exremely stressful and emotional time, and it's no surprise that there are conflicting memories.
You don't seem to realize that lots of protests were going on elsewhere, and it wasn't clear at first that the Benghazi attack was a deliberate attack that coincided with the unrest. It was a confusing mess, and sending what security forces were available to Benghazi is obvious only in hindsight. It was entirely possible that, fifteen minutes after they were committed, they'd be wanted far more somewhere else.
The way to prevent that would have been for the Republican Congress to give Clinton the money she asked for for embassy security. Clearly, by your reasoning, Republicans should not be trusted in a kindergarten student council.
Heck, the right wing has been using fake dirt against the Clintons for decades for lack of the real thing.
The Russians largely created the corruption scandal. It appears that some of the emails may have been tampered with, and the timing of the release is clearly intended to interfere in the US democratic process.
At least once things get halfway settled, there are cybercrimes that will be considered acts of war if state-sponsored. I don't know if there's anything definite now. Inviting a foreign power to commit an act of war isn't actually treason (Trump's comment isn't really an invitation, but it leans that way), but it's reasonable to be unhappy about it.
I wouldn't want any of your "numerous folks" running for President either.
Crap, I got Windows 10 Pro, and completely forgot about upgrade rights to 7 or 8. I'll have to look into that.
Yes. He put in some work, ran an e-commerce site, and got a decent income out of it. Anybody else could have done exactly the same, so if that became known as a way to make lots and lots of money without much work, there'd be so many people searching junkyards and putting up motorcycle windshield sites that it would become mostly unprofitable.
Your historian friend is in the same situation, except that he did a whole lot of work because he liked doing it, and that's a big competitive advantage. Any competitor would have to put similar amounts of research time into it, and the money alone presumably wouldn't justify the prep work that would have to go into it.
I haven't seen good evidence that Clinton is an undue supporter of Wall Street (she has to be some kind of supporter to keep the economy running), and AC didn't mention free trade. Some of the problems AC mentioned are related to free trade treaties, but can be addressed while having free trade treaties (maybe not the TPP, but Clinton has come out against the final proposal after supporting the negotiations).
AC is clearly against shipping jobs overseas, and that conflicts with some of Clinton's stances. However, even in a matter like this it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Clinton is the better choice, compared to Trump.
There are good reasons to allow the state to gather evidence, provided of course there are legal safeguards. You may think the reasons not to are more compelling, but there are real advantages for law enforcement, and hence the general public, in being able to get DNA, fingerprints, etc.
In a criminal case, last I looked it appeared questionable whether you're required to provide unlocking information for a device in some circumstances. You can't be required to do that if providing that information is potentially incriminating in itself, and you can be required to provide a password if it shelters stuff that is already known to be on your device (the first case, I believe, was the guy who showed some of his child pornography to a customs agent). As you point out, the civil rules are different.
What I don't know, because I don't think it's settled, is how much information I need to provide if accused of a crime. Assume there's a phone with a duress fingerprint that is connected with a crime, and it isn't clear that I know how to unlock it. I don't have to volunteer a thing about unlocking the phone, since that would mean incriminating myself. If the police require me to put a finger on the sensor, I have to comply, whether it's the unlocking or duress finger, and what will happen will happen. Any warning or refusal to use the duress finger would incriminate me. I don't know the rules if the phone is known to be mine, but I suspect I'd get into serious trouble if I didn't warn about the duress fingerprint.
If you want to weaponize a drone and call it an exercise of Second Amendment rights, go right ahead. You do realize that there are places where you can't bring your lawfully owned guns, don't you?
As far as criminal behavior goes, I'd suspect that we're dealing primarily with assholes rather than criminals, and assholes can often be stopped by regulations being enforced. I doubt that many criminals will benefit from chasing firefighting aircraft away.
Someday, probably, but the thing is taking off heavily loaded and flying through absolutely terrible flying conditions. Until we're reasonably sure that drone helicopters can do that halfway reliably, I think the human pilots will be necessary. Remote control isn't an attractive alternative, because it's not going to give the pilot the same feedback as being there, and it's going to be easy to make an otherwise avoidable mistake.
Granted that we've mismanaged some of our forests badly, we still don't have a time machine to go back and burn some of that biomass as it built up. We're pretty much stuck with the solutions we've got now until we can get more of that burned off safely.
Has it struck you that, when someone is doing something hazardous, it might be a good idea to reduce additional hazards to make it as safe as it inherently can be? We could fire random rifle shots into fires that are being fought, also, but I don't see anyone advocating that.
Does it make sense for everybody who lives there to build their own firebreaks, or to engage in a little collective action to save large numbers of houses?
You can't be compelled to divulge a password that's incriminating in itself. Assuming it's legal to compel your cooperation anyway, it's legal to compel you to enter it yourself.
The crashboot might be construed as obstruction of justice, since it's an intentional act that you do once you know that what you've got is likely to be evidence. If you worry about it, set your iPhone to wipe after ten failed login attempts and disable the fingerprint activation (or whatever the equivalent is for your phone) ahead of time. They can't complain about that.
Taking cheek swabs, forced fingerprinting, etc., are all things the police do to you. They will happen if the court orders, whether you agree or not. Since they can take your fingerprints no matter whether you're innocent or guilty, the act itself doesn't incriminate you. You can be compelled to do all sorts of things, as long as they aren't under your initiative, but if there's any decision you make then the fact that you can make that decision has evidentiary value and you may not be compelled. If you're ordered to enter a password, and there's any doubt you know it, and the phone has some connection to something illegal, then entering a password reveals that you know the password, and that may not be compelled.
"Papers and effects" have nothing to do with the Fifth. The Fourth doesn't prevent the police from doing any searches or seizures, as long as they have probable cause and go through the right formalities. They can conduct reasonable searches and seizures at their own discretion, and can seek warrants for all others.
You're confusing the Fourth and the Fifth. The Fourth shields you from unreasonable search and seizure and provides certain criteria for warrants. It doesn't stop the government from doing anything, provided they have probable cause and go through the formalities. The Fifth is absolute: the government cannot require you to say or type anything incriminating, no matter what. (If you are ordered to say or type something specific, that's not incriminating.) Exactly what that means in relation to passwords is not yet fully clarified in US law, but it's definite that you can't be compelled to divulge a password if there's any reasonable case to be made that it provides evidence. If they know the phone's yours, that's unsettled. If they know the phone is possibly evidence, and they don't know it's yours, then divulging the password is admitting that you're connected with the phone.
If you do have a duress finger, you could try not telling them. You can't legally prevent them from holding your fingers to the sensor, but I don't know that they can compel you to say which one. (If there's any doubt that the phone is yours, they probably can't.) However, there are people who, unlike me, have actually studied law and who can answer these sorts of questions much better than I can. Before relying on anything I may have said in a criminal case, ask one of those guys first.
Passcodes are inconvenient for objects that are part of our daily lives. However, Apple did plug that firmware hole in the 5S and later phones. There have got to be vulnerabilities still, because there always are, but Apple's closing them as they find out about them.