For someone to be convicted of manslaughter, they need to have killed someone. For someone to be convicted of attempted murder, they need to have intended to kill someone. The FBI couldn't find any actual leak, and they couldn't find intent, so they couldn't find justification to prosecute.
The laws I've seen people quoting say that negligently leaking classified information is criminal, as is intentionally mishandling it. I haven't seen any quotes about laws concerning negligently handling classified information in ways that do not result in a leak. Do you have a law handy that says that's criminal?
Please specify the prison sentences given to people who mishandled a small number of classified documents that didn't actually get leaked and who never intended harm. As far as I can see, she's being held to the same standard.
If you'd done what she did, you'd probably be fired, perhaps put on a hiring blacklist, with your security clearance gone and without hope of getting another one. You wouldn't be in Federal prison unless you faced a hostile prosecutor and made a plea bargain. Clinton is fortunate in that she has the resources to defend herself in a trial, but that's the main difference.
Indicted for what specifically? The legal system isn't broken when there's no indictment without strong evidence that someone has done something specific that's against a law that makes it a crime. There's a lot of room between doing everything right and committing a crime.
Which specific statute are you referring to? The one I keep seeing says that leaking classified material through negligence is criminal, whether or not there was intent, and to convict her on that it would be necessary to show that classified material had indeed leaked.
Corney shared enough details to make it clear that she'd face administrative sanctions if she were still a government employee, but was clear that what she'd done was not enough for criminal prosecution.
Assange is not wanted for any crime relating to classified material, nor is he wanted by the US. He's wanted on rape charges by Sweden.
Snowden and Manning deliberately passed large amounts of classified material to people who weren't cleared for it. They committed serious crimes. This has nothing to do with morality, which should be reason for pardon rather than a perversion of the court system. Clinton's conduct, while reprehensible, turns out not to have been criminal.
Agnew resigned as Vice President, which seems a very significant penalty to me.
As far as I can tell, Clinton is being judged on the same rules, and that anyone who did what she did would not have committed a crime (partly by luck).
Deliberately setting up her personal server was intentional, but not itself criminal. A hundred emails is not a vast quantity, and the FBI couldn't find indications that they'd been transmitted to anyone not cleared for them. Failing to turn over emails isn't necessarily obstruction of justice.
Snowden, in contrast, did handle vast quantities of classified material, did get it to people without clearance, and did it deliberately.
Clinton was careless, not corrupt. The system is working, unless your idea of "working" is convicting people you don't like of crimes they didn't actually commit.
What did Bill's meeting with the Attorney General have to do with the FBI report? The FBI has a certain amount of independence.
Clinton mishandled classified data, and that would be grounds to revoke her clearance and never grant her another. Corney made that quite clear. She didn't actually leak it (I think she lucked out on that one), and she didn't intend to, so she didn't break significant laws. She violated policy, and would face administrative punishment for it if she were still a government employee. She apparently didn't violate the law significantly. The law establishes certain criteria to judge if her actions were criminal, and she didn't meet those criteria.
I don't approve of her actions, but I also don't approve of a lynch mob mentality that assumes she was guilty when she wasn't.
While I agree that the Swartz case was not well handled, the fact is that he deliberately used furtive measures in doing something that caused actual harm. Clinton was sloppy, and apparently managed not to leak classified information anyway.
If you want to talk about "Clinton's felonious actions", please either cite a conviction or at least specify an actual felony she actually committed, giving the law and specifically how she broke it.
You're wrong. Petraeus deliberately gave classified information to someone who wasn't cleared for it. Clinton apparently didn't (partly by luck) leak classified information. She had neither criminal intent nor is it clear that she caused significant actual harm.
When gross negligence becomes criminal depends at least partly on the law and act. In this case, negligence is criminal when it results in a leak of classified material, which apparently didn't happen. Corney did say that she would probably face administrative sanctions such as you mention if she were still a government employee, which she is not. I'm not happy about it either, but nobody's found any significant harm done (as opposed to risk incurred) or criminal intent.
Snowden actually gave classified information to people not cleared for it. Clinton didn't. The FBI couldn't find that her sloppy handling of classified material had actually allowed a leak. Snowden inflicted harm on the US intentionally, while Clinton neither inflicted harm nor intended to. There's no parallel here.
Corney said that anyone in that situation would face administrative sanctions, which can't be applied because nobody involved works for the government any more. He didn't say that anyone in that situation would be prosecuted, as that requires strong evidence of breaking an actual law that was in effect at the time*, which they couldn't find.
*What she did would be illegal now, due to a law passed about a year after Kerry took over at State.
Clinton accidentally leaked classified information to third party governments through known negligence.
The FBI could find no leak. Therefore, she can't be shown to have leaked classified information, and isn't guilty under that particular law. She limited the dissemination of classified material to people who had the clearance for it.
What she did was careless, and could have resulted in a leak, in which case she'd be guilty of a crime. It appears that the lax security procedures she used actually worked in this particular case.
So, she didn't significantly harm anything, and she had no evil intent. There's no basis for a conviction here.
There is a distinction between being careless and being negligent, and apparently the FBI couldn't come up with enough evidence that she was over the line. I don't approve of what she did, but I also don't approve of assuming that she must be guilty of a crime while the appropriate authorities can't find sufficient evidence.
She was extremely sloppy in an important area. That's really not all that bad for a Presidential candidate.
Why would a bomb in the cargo hold be safer with this design? If the passenger compartment is air-gapped, we're almost certainly talking about decreased structural strength, and a bomb that takes down the airplane at altitude is likely to kill everyone anyway.
For almost all statistical purposes, nobody runs around with explosives around their waists, except in the Middle East. Terrorism of that sort kills almost nobody. We need to stop obsessing on it.
They do not have the most memory, fastest processors,
True, but not particularly relevant.
they are not immune from hacking and viruses, they do not have the most useful OS.
They're a lot safer from hacking and malware than Android, due to the way they set up the market. The most useful OS depends on what you're doing with it, and normally can't be decided objectively.
What are these neat things Android can do that iOS can't? I use both, and find them similar. What I want in a home screen typically is access to the stuff I want to do on the phone, and that works well on both OSes. I don't care for the Android permissions system, and prefer what Apple does. My iPhone is snappier than my tablet, but then again I went low-end on my tablet (which serves my purposes very nicely anyway).
I understand that Apple has been relaxing the rules on competing with built-in apps, but I can't check that here because I don't have connectivity. In any case, I've found the built-in apps to be perfectly adequate for my needs. Someone else might have different needs, but I'd like to hear from an actual person on that rather than a figment of your imagination.
As far as cut-and-paste goes, it doesn't seem to be that important for what I want to do with a phone. To judge a system, you need to consider what people are trying to accomplish with it, not go through a checklist of features that you like. Reminds me of the time someone argued that you can't attach stuff to an email on an iPhone, and insisted that being able to attach something to an email is vital, as opposed to being able to email those somethings.
I'm not actually an idiot, but I don't know which apps contain malware or adware. The App Store isn't perfect, but it's well curated. I'm pretty safe installing apps from there, more than on Android. For most things you'd want an app for, there's a great variety. (I've got something like five calculator apps installed, including the Apple one you say Apple doesn't allow competition with. All of them are good, although Apple seems to have nerfed theirs in the most recent version. Fortunately, they haven't yanked my other calculators from the App Store for being competitive.) As I mentioned, I use both iOS and Android.
So, we see that you are apparently unable to understand why an intelligent person might disagree with you, and resort to insults instead. You're unable to understand what's good about iOS devices, and resort to insults and assume fanboiism that simply couldn't support the number of iPhones and iPads sold. I strongly recommend assuming for the sake of argument that people know what they're doing, and trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing. You'll still run into cases of people being stupid, but I learn quite a bit from doing this.
Apple can't do anything about external advertising. What they can do is prevent circumventing the rules on the App Store. I don't know what the rule specifically says, but Apple is within their rights to refuse to allow circumvention of the spirit of the rules.
The rule is to make sure an app doesn't have way to show users how to buy in-app purchases outside the App Store, depriving Apple of their cut. If a Spotify account didn't come with a signup invitation, I doubt Apple would care.
I know nothing of your client's app, and in particular don't know if it has in-app purchases. If it does, I'd imagine that the account doesn't have instructions on paying for them outside the app store.
If I violate someone's trademark, I'm liable. If someone else helps me, they're liable. It works much the same as copyright, except that the DMCA provides safe harbor provisions, so a website can host what I put up, no matter how flagrant a copyright abuse, and not be liable as long as they respond to a takedown request in a legally prescribed way.
I'm not sure what the legal penalties for trademark infringement are. The penalties for copyright infringement are horrifyingly disproportional to the harm, but again copyright law is not the same as trademark law.
Thank you for clarification on the takedown details.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone to be convicted of manslaughter, they need to have killed someone. For someone to be convicted of attempted murder, they need to have intended to kill someone. The FBI couldn't find any actual leak, and they couldn't find intent, so they couldn't find justification to prosecute.
The laws I've seen people quoting say that negligently leaking classified information is criminal, as is intentionally mishandling it. I haven't seen any quotes about laws concerning negligently handling classified information in ways that do not result in a leak. Do you have a law handy that says that's criminal?
That particular statute also specifies intent to do wrong, which the FBI couldn't find evidence of.
Please specify the prison sentences given to people who mishandled a small number of classified documents that didn't actually get leaked and who never intended harm. As far as I can see, she's being held to the same standard.
If you'd done what she did, you'd probably be fired, perhaps put on a hiring blacklist, with your security clearance gone and without hope of getting another one. You wouldn't be in Federal prison unless you faced a hostile prosecutor and made a plea bargain. Clinton is fortunate in that she has the resources to defend herself in a trial, but that's the main difference.
Corney was clear that that was the sort of thing people did get fired for. There's a difference between that and a felony confiction.
Indicted for what specifically? The legal system isn't broken when there's no indictment without strong evidence that someone has done something specific that's against a law that makes it a crime. There's a lot of room between doing everything right and committing a crime.
Neither Bernie nor Donald would accomplish anything significant as President, being fundamentally outsiders.
Which specific statute are you referring to? The one I keep seeing says that leaking classified material through negligence is criminal, whether or not there was intent, and to convict her on that it would be necessary to show that classified material had indeed leaked.
Corney shared enough details to make it clear that she'd face administrative sanctions if she were still a government employee, but was clear that what she'd done was not enough for criminal prosecution.
Assange is not wanted for any crime relating to classified material, nor is he wanted by the US. He's wanted on rape charges by Sweden.
Snowden and Manning deliberately passed large amounts of classified material to people who weren't cleared for it. They committed serious crimes. This has nothing to do with morality, which should be reason for pardon rather than a perversion of the court system. Clinton's conduct, while reprehensible, turns out not to have been criminal.
Agnew resigned as Vice President, which seems a very significant penalty to me.
As far as I can tell, Clinton is being judged on the same rules, and that anyone who did what she did would not have committed a crime (partly by luck).
Deliberately setting up her personal server was intentional, but not itself criminal. A hundred emails is not a vast quantity, and the FBI couldn't find indications that they'd been transmitted to anyone not cleared for them. Failing to turn over emails isn't necessarily obstruction of justice.
Snowden, in contrast, did handle vast quantities of classified material, did get it to people without clearance, and did it deliberately.
Clinton was careless, not corrupt. The system is working, unless your idea of "working" is convicting people you don't like of crimes they didn't actually commit.
What did Bill's meeting with the Attorney General have to do with the FBI report? The FBI has a certain amount of independence.
Clinton mishandled classified data, and that would be grounds to revoke her clearance and never grant her another. Corney made that quite clear. She didn't actually leak it (I think she lucked out on that one), and she didn't intend to, so she didn't break significant laws. She violated policy, and would face administrative punishment for it if she were still a government employee. She apparently didn't violate the law significantly. The law establishes certain criteria to judge if her actions were criminal, and she didn't meet those criteria.
I don't approve of her actions, but I also don't approve of a lynch mob mentality that assumes she was guilty when she wasn't.
While I agree that the Swartz case was not well handled, the fact is that he deliberately used furtive measures in doing something that caused actual harm. Clinton was sloppy, and apparently managed not to leak classified information anyway.
If you want to talk about "Clinton's felonious actions", please either cite a conviction or at least specify an actual felony she actually committed, giving the law and specifically how she broke it.
You're wrong. Petraeus deliberately gave classified information to someone who wasn't cleared for it. Clinton apparently didn't (partly by luck) leak classified information. She had neither criminal intent nor is it clear that she caused significant actual harm.
When gross negligence becomes criminal depends at least partly on the law and act. In this case, negligence is criminal when it results in a leak of classified material, which apparently didn't happen. Corney did say that she would probably face administrative sanctions such as you mention if she were still a government employee, which she is not. I'm not happy about it either, but nobody's found any significant harm done (as opposed to risk incurred) or criminal intent.
Snowden actually gave classified information to people not cleared for it. Clinton didn't. The FBI couldn't find that her sloppy handling of classified material had actually allowed a leak. Snowden inflicted harm on the US intentionally, while Clinton neither inflicted harm nor intended to. There's no parallel here.
Corney said that anyone in that situation would face administrative sanctions, which can't be applied because nobody involved works for the government any more. He didn't say that anyone in that situation would be prosecuted, as that requires strong evidence of breaking an actual law that was in effect at the time*, which they couldn't find.
*What she did would be illegal now, due to a law passed about a year after Kerry took over at State.
The FBI could find no leak. Therefore, she can't be shown to have leaked classified information, and isn't guilty under that particular law. She limited the dissemination of classified material to people who had the clearance for it.
What she did was careless, and could have resulted in a leak, in which case she'd be guilty of a crime. It appears that the lax security procedures she used actually worked in this particular case.
So, she didn't significantly harm anything, and she had no evil intent. There's no basis for a conviction here.
There is a distinction between being careless and being negligent, and apparently the FBI couldn't come up with enough evidence that she was over the line. I don't approve of what she did, but I also don't approve of assuming that she must be guilty of a crime while the appropriate authorities can't find sufficient evidence.
She was extremely sloppy in an important area. That's really not all that bad for a Presidential candidate.
Why would a bomb in the cargo hold be safer with this design? If the passenger compartment is air-gapped, we're almost certainly talking about decreased structural strength, and a bomb that takes down the airplane at altitude is likely to kill everyone anyway.
For almost all statistical purposes, nobody runs around with explosives around their waists, except in the Middle East. Terrorism of that sort kills almost nobody. We need to stop obsessing on it.
True, but not particularly relevant.
They're a lot safer from hacking and malware than Android, due to the way they set up the market. The most useful OS depends on what you're doing with it, and normally can't be decided objectively.
What are these neat things Android can do that iOS can't? I use both, and find them similar. What I want in a home screen typically is access to the stuff I want to do on the phone, and that works well on both OSes. I don't care for the Android permissions system, and prefer what Apple does. My iPhone is snappier than my tablet, but then again I went low-end on my tablet (which serves my purposes very nicely anyway).
I understand that Apple has been relaxing the rules on competing with built-in apps, but I can't check that here because I don't have connectivity. In any case, I've found the built-in apps to be perfectly adequate for my needs. Someone else might have different needs, but I'd like to hear from an actual person on that rather than a figment of your imagination.
As far as cut-and-paste goes, it doesn't seem to be that important for what I want to do with a phone. To judge a system, you need to consider what people are trying to accomplish with it, not go through a checklist of features that you like. Reminds me of the time someone argued that you can't attach stuff to an email on an iPhone, and insisted that being able to attach something to an email is vital, as opposed to being able to email those somethings.
I'm not actually an idiot, but I don't know which apps contain malware or adware. The App Store isn't perfect, but it's well curated. I'm pretty safe installing apps from there, more than on Android. For most things you'd want an app for, there's a great variety. (I've got something like five calculator apps installed, including the Apple one you say Apple doesn't allow competition with. All of them are good, although Apple seems to have nerfed theirs in the most recent version. Fortunately, they haven't yanked my other calculators from the App Store for being competitive.) As I mentioned, I use both iOS and Android.
So, we see that you are apparently unable to understand why an intelligent person might disagree with you, and resort to insults instead. You're unable to understand what's good about iOS devices, and resort to insults and assume fanboiism that simply couldn't support the number of iPhones and iPads sold. I strongly recommend assuming for the sake of argument that people know what they're doing, and trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing. You'll still run into cases of people being stupid, but I learn quite a bit from doing this.
Apple can't do anything about external advertising. What they can do is prevent circumventing the rules on the App Store. I don't know what the rule specifically says, but Apple is within their rights to refuse to allow circumvention of the spirit of the rules.
The rule is to make sure an app doesn't have way to show users how to buy in-app purchases outside the App Store, depriving Apple of their cut. If a Spotify account didn't come with a signup invitation, I doubt Apple would care.
I know nothing of your client's app, and in particular don't know if it has in-app purchases. If it does, I'd imagine that the account doesn't have instructions on paying for them outside the app store.
If I violate someone's trademark, I'm liable. If someone else helps me, they're liable. It works much the same as copyright, except that the DMCA provides safe harbor provisions, so a website can host what I put up, no matter how flagrant a copyright abuse, and not be liable as long as they respond to a takedown request in a legally prescribed way.
I'm not sure what the legal penalties for trademark infringement are. The penalties for copyright infringement are horrifyingly disproportional to the harm, but again copyright law is not the same as trademark law.
Thank you for clarification on the takedown details.