No, I'm replying to someone's ASSERTION that there are "ten people" running a company with $4B in market cap. Anyone who needs education before understanding that that's preposterous on the face of it cannot be helped by Googling things for them.
So, you don't actually know what SAP material is. Why can't you just say that? Don't be embarrassed.
If it's SAP, it's born classified. It doesn't matter how it's marked, or if markings have been removed by her or anyone who sent it to her. If it's on her personal server, and she knows it's there, she's a felon. It's that simple.
If you're paying attention to the industry and the hires, you know that there are a LOT more than "ten people running Magic Leap." That notion doesn't even pass the smell test.
In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.
Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.
She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels
No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.
In other words, all the steps have been followed.
No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.
Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.
This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.
Then what's a better term for speech intended to intimidate a particular class of people?
Doesn't that depend on why you're doing it? Let's say a class of people is ranting in the streets about wanting to imposer Sharia law in Lansing, Michigan. Is taking to social media to call for them to be shouted down intimidation, or a completely appropriate pushing-back against a group of people who themselves are trying to be intimidating? Is there ANYTHING wrong about counter-intimidating a group like ISIS and anyone and everyone who sympathizes with and supports them? In the wake of a 130 people being slaughtered in Paris by a "particular class of people," do you really think that saying we don't want more of the same (people coming in under false pretenses) is intimidation? He (Trump) called for a temporary suspension of refugee movement from that part of the world while we get the administration to show how they know that each of those people aren't another pair like the couple in San Bernadino.
You know what's a good example of trolling? Pretending that none of those factors are part of the conversation while condemning the people who talk about it.
So start you own service over which you have no control, and which you explicitly run as a venue where intellectual property rights are ignored. It can be the kind of place where it doesn't matter that the wise people running it don't realize that "ALOT" is not a word, but where it doesn't matter, because there are no terms of service that have to be read anyway.
Its time for new conversation about how far these platforms can stifle speech or if we need to legally limit their scope.
Who should be allowed to have that "conversation?" People who don't understand the conceptual difference between "its" and "it's"... or just anyone who wants someone else to foot the bill for a hugely expensive service but have no influence over how it's used? Let me guess - you like the favorite leftist solution of letting someone else risk hundreds of millions of dollars to build something that becomes hugely popular, and then using government power to take it over when you don't like another person's judgement about how the thing they built and own is used.
Classic progressive whiny approach to things... don't propose that hugely rich lefty public figures risk some of their cash to help build a competing system that uses Nanny State style powers to help you stay in your precious snowflake safe place. No, just suggest taking over what someone else has built and forcing them to make it comfortable for you, the person who didn't build it, doesn't have to use it, and isn't persuasive enough to talk investors into backing something more to your liking. What a bunch of craven, but entirely predictable, lefty nonsense. You are everything that's gone wrong with this country.
The bigger these things get, especially out in a place where you can't exactly put a fence around it, the more attractive it's going to be as a Spectacular Wackadoo Assault Target. Sit in a fishing boat and lop a few dozen armor piercing RPGs at crucial structural points, and kerplop. Whether it falls apart or not, it's trashed until millions of dollars of work is done to rebuild it.
So the FOP... who is involved in negotiating contracts with them? Elected officials. Don't like how they do it? Change them. While you're at it, support both legislatures and executives who promise to defang public employee unions so they can't hold their employers (the taxpayers) hostage for the benefit of a few corrupt union officials.
Every police department, in every jurisdiction (municipal, county, state, federal) reports to officials in the executive branches of government. The executive branch IS the law enforcement branch, and the executive branch is run by regularly elected people. If a county executive, a mayor, or a governor (or even the president) is doing such a bad job in telling their subordinate LEOs which policies to use in directing their actions, then that's an issue to bring up when those executives are next up for election (or, if it's bad enough, for impeachment).
No, police aren't elected (except for, in many places, sheriffs), but their bosses are - and the police, especially at the management/policy level, work for those elected bosses.
Who's using ad hominem, here? I conceded that some of your thinking was valid, but addressed the overall tone of your comment, which was you talking about the way you communicate. So I also commented on the way you come across in your communication.
Says who? I own many of them. Some are intended solely to break orange clay pigeons. Some exquisitely built just for very specific types of competitive target shooting (you know, not unlike archery, for example). Those that are more like typical weapons are - in my case - intended specifically to PREVENT maiming and taking of lives.
That razor sharp knife in that Leatherman multi-tool? It's only purpose is to cut through things. To render things apart - to drestroy things. Obviously the only reason someone might own or carry such a potentially lethal object is in order to destroy, right? No? Is it possible that both that very sharp, destructive knife and any other weapon are just inert pieces of metal, and they only become worrisome as offensive weapons when someone uses them as such? You know, just like a baseball bat? A baseball bat in intended to deliver a concentrated blow of enormous power to the object at which it is swung. But in your world, it's not a weapon or a worry, no matter who is using it or why, because it's not an evil gun.
This is why you are a republican; because you are real stupid.
Your personal need for childish ad hominem is a great example of why you're a liberal: because that camp relies on low-information appeals to emotion as a basis for policy. For example, you assume I'm a republican, despite my never having said so (I'm not). Your lazy bit of craven intellectual cowardice is certainly in keeping with your liberal fellows. Thanks for being so predictable.
Yup, so what you're saying is that, indeed, you have no idea what you're talking about. "Occupy" did forcibly take over "government facilities" (for months at a time), did use violence, and did seek to intimidate and destroy. The fact that you can't distinguish between not buying a bus ticket and preventing a dying person from getting to the hospital by chaining off government facilities, or destroying someone's property and source of income... that's all we need to know about your (lack of) critical thinking skills. More likely you do get it, and you're just being a disingenuous troll.
No, the feds very wisely didn't want a televised firefight between dozens of feds and dozens of civilians. Those same feds also resisted using lethal force when they and their local counterparts were violently actually assaulted by people with Black Lives Matter or Occupy [random] who rather than merely threatening to kill, actually tried to - with blows to the head from projectiles, firebombs, etc.
You're talking about the actions of a dozen or so people that you think are terrorists, but ignoring the violent actions of thousands across the country who were let of the hook because they weren't white. You've got it exactly backwards. Just ask the mayor of Baltimore, for example, who told law enforcement to tolerate violent assaults to their lives, and give the (black) residents "room to destroy" during their terrorist outburst.
Either be even handed in trotting out that word, or don't trot it out. And if you ARE going to, mention that you're talking about a tiny group on one hand, and a huge, violent group on the other that have actually tried (and succeeded) in taking lives, destroying public buildings and private property, and are completely let off the hook while doing so.
So what you're saying is that you really don't know what the phrase means. Or, you think you do, and you'd also say that the tens of thousands of people who made up the idiotic Occupy activities were also treasonous, right? Right? No? Oh.
You mean the one that involved the traffic stop? You're making it sound like there was some sort of firefight with the people sitting in the wildlife refuge. There was no such event.
the call for militia members to kill law enforcement personal
Do you mean personnel? Other than some hot air from twitter accounts, I don't recall anything that anyone was taking any more seriously than anyone seems to be taking those who associate themselves with the "Black Lives Matter" movement calling for the murder of police, and doing so repeatedly, for months on end. I'm sure you also speak out against them, of course.
You mean other than illegally carrying AR-15s with full body armor?
There's nothing illegal about a semi-automatic rifle. Are you saying that they were concealing them, or using unlawfully shortened barrels, that sort of thing?
And... do you know what "full body armor" actually is (other than being mostly a Hollywood trope)? There's a reason that police use large physical shields or hardened vehicles when they want "full body" protection. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about wearing any sort of protective clothing. Which item did you think was illegal, specifically?
Actually this is very similar to the Occupy people. Glad you mentioned it. Radicals and idiots.
The difference, of course, is that the Occupy idiots were deliberately looking to make other people's lives miserable, as opposed to these guys, who were sitting alone in the middle of nowhere - not yelling people's faces, not disturbing the peace with drumming and chanting, not threatening businesses, not blocking emergency workers, etc.
Who were they intimidating, being the only people there? Who were they compelling to do what?
Is this similar to the Occupy people intimidating store owners by blocking their doors and chanting, and compelling people to find other ways to try to get their jobs or other routes for ambulances carrying dying people to the hospital?
Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?
I am curious about which specific acts of lethal force these guys were using when they sat down in that wildlife refuge. Please be specific. Is it similar to the lethal force that the Occupy people used when, say, blocking first responders from getting to some old lady having a heart attack?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm replying to someone's ASSERTION that there are "ten people" running a company with $4B in market cap. Anyone who needs education before understanding that that's preposterous on the face of it cannot be helped by Googling things for them.
So, you don't actually know what SAP material is. Why can't you just say that? Don't be embarrassed.
If it's SAP, it's born classified. It doesn't matter how it's marked, or if markings have been removed by her or anyone who sent it to her. If it's on her personal server, and she knows it's there, she's a felon. It's that simple.
If you're paying attention to the industry and the hires, you know that there are a LOT more than "ten people running Magic Leap." That notion doesn't even pass the smell test.
the ten people running Magic Leap
So, pretty much you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You can just come right out and say it, if it will make you feel better.
Of all the emails, not a single one has yet to be shown it was CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT/RECEIVED! I can't state this enough.
Actually, you CAN say it enough. You already did. You're wrong, so continuing to say it is pointless.
Let's keep this simple. Do you understand what SAP material is? Yes or no. Just say yes or no.
In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.
Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.
She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels
No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.
In other words, all the steps have been followed.
No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.
Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.
This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.
Gotta wonder who provided the coins?
What difference [pounds desk] at this point, does it make?
Yup. A lot easier to service, that way, after the inevitable repeated crashes.
He has opinions about things that are completely outside his sphere
Whereas your opinions are limited strictly to areas in which you've been practicing professionally for at least 20 years, right?
Then what's a better term for speech intended to intimidate a particular class of people?
Doesn't that depend on why you're doing it? Let's say a class of people is ranting in the streets about wanting to imposer Sharia law in Lansing, Michigan. Is taking to social media to call for them to be shouted down intimidation, or a completely appropriate pushing-back against a group of people who themselves are trying to be intimidating? Is there ANYTHING wrong about counter-intimidating a group like ISIS and anyone and everyone who sympathizes with and supports them? In the wake of a 130 people being slaughtered in Paris by a "particular class of people," do you really think that saying we don't want more of the same (people coming in under false pretenses) is intimidation? He (Trump) called for a temporary suspension of refugee movement from that part of the world while we get the administration to show how they know that each of those people aren't another pair like the couple in San Bernadino.
You know what's a good example of trolling? Pretending that none of those factors are part of the conversation while condemning the people who talk about it.
Its time for new conversation about how far these platforms can stifle speech or if we need to legally limit their scope.
Who should be allowed to have that "conversation?" People who don't understand the conceptual difference between "its" and "it's" ... or just anyone who wants someone else to foot the bill for a hugely expensive service but have no influence over how it's used? Let me guess - you like the favorite leftist solution of letting someone else risk hundreds of millions of dollars to build something that becomes hugely popular, and then using government power to take it over when you don't like another person's judgement about how the thing they built and own is used.
... don't propose that hugely rich lefty public figures risk some of their cash to help build a competing system that uses Nanny State style powers to help you stay in your precious snowflake safe place. No, just suggest taking over what someone else has built and forcing them to make it comfortable for you, the person who didn't build it, doesn't have to use it, and isn't persuasive enough to talk investors into backing something more to your liking. What a bunch of craven, but entirely predictable, lefty nonsense. You are everything that's gone wrong with this country.
Classic progressive whiny approach to things
The bigger these things get, especially out in a place where you can't exactly put a fence around it, the more attractive it's going to be as a Spectacular Wackadoo Assault Target. Sit in a fishing boat and lop a few dozen armor piercing RPGs at crucial structural points, and kerplop. Whether it falls apart or not, it's trashed until millions of dollars of work is done to rebuild it.
So the FOP ... who is involved in negotiating contracts with them? Elected officials. Don't like how they do it? Change them. While you're at it, support both legislatures and executives who promise to defang public employee unions so they can't hold their employers (the taxpayers) hostage for the benefit of a few corrupt union officials.
Where do you live that the police are elected?
Every police department, in every jurisdiction (municipal, county, state, federal) reports to officials in the executive branches of government. The executive branch IS the law enforcement branch, and the executive branch is run by regularly elected people. If a county executive, a mayor, or a governor (or even the president) is doing such a bad job in telling their subordinate LEOs which policies to use in directing their actions, then that's an issue to bring up when those executives are next up for election (or, if it's bad enough, for impeachment).
No, police aren't elected (except for, in many places, sheriffs), but their bosses are - and the police, especially at the management/policy level, work for those elected bosses.
How is it that you don't actually know this?
Who's using ad hominem, here? I conceded that some of your thinking was valid, but addressed the overall tone of your comment, which was you talking about the way you communicate. So I also commented on the way you come across in your communication.
While you're not entirely incorrect, you are spectacularly pretentious.
A gun is intended to take maim and/or take lives
Says who? I own many of them. Some are intended solely to break orange clay pigeons. Some exquisitely built just for very specific types of competitive target shooting (you know, not unlike archery, for example). Those that are more like typical weapons are - in my case - intended specifically to PREVENT maiming and taking of lives.
That razor sharp knife in that Leatherman multi-tool? It's only purpose is to cut through things. To render things apart - to drestroy things. Obviously the only reason someone might own or carry such a potentially lethal object is in order to destroy, right? No? Is it possible that both that very sharp, destructive knife and any other weapon are just inert pieces of metal, and they only become worrisome as offensive weapons when someone uses them as such? You know, just like a baseball bat? A baseball bat in intended to deliver a concentrated blow of enormous power to the object at which it is swung. But in your world, it's not a weapon or a worry, no matter who is using it or why, because it's not an evil gun.
This is why you are a republican; because you are real stupid.
Your personal need for childish ad hominem is a great example of why you're a liberal: because that camp relies on low-information appeals to emotion as a basis for policy. For example, you assume I'm a republican, despite my never having said so (I'm not). Your lazy bit of craven intellectual cowardice is certainly in keeping with your liberal fellows. Thanks for being so predictable.
Yup, so what you're saying is that, indeed, you have no idea what you're talking about. "Occupy" did forcibly take over "government facilities" (for months at a time), did use violence, and did seek to intimidate and destroy. The fact that you can't distinguish between not buying a bus ticket and preventing a dying person from getting to the hospital by chaining off government facilities, or destroying someone's property and source of income ... that's all we need to know about your (lack of) critical thinking skills. More likely you do get it, and you're just being a disingenuous troll.
No, the feds very wisely didn't want a televised firefight between dozens of feds and dozens of civilians. Those same feds also resisted using lethal force when they and their local counterparts were violently actually assaulted by people with Black Lives Matter or Occupy [random] who rather than merely threatening to kill, actually tried to - with blows to the head from projectiles, firebombs, etc.
You're talking about the actions of a dozen or so people that you think are terrorists, but ignoring the violent actions of thousands across the country who were let of the hook because they weren't white. You've got it exactly backwards. Just ask the mayor of Baltimore, for example, who told law enforcement to tolerate violent assaults to their lives, and give the (black) residents "room to destroy" during their terrorist outburst.
Either be even handed in trotting out that word, or don't trot it out. And if you ARE going to, mention that you're talking about a tiny group on one hand, and a huge, violent group on the other that have actually tried (and succeeded) in taking lives, destroying public buildings and private property, and are completely let off the hook while doing so.
Levying war against the United States.
So what you're saying is that you really don't know what the phrase means. Or, you think you do, and you'd also say that the tens of thousands of people who made up the idiotic Occupy activities were also treasonous, right? Right? No? Oh.
the shootout with the FBI they had
You mean the one that involved the traffic stop? You're making it sound like there was some sort of firefight with the people sitting in the wildlife refuge. There was no such event.
the call for militia members to kill law enforcement personal
Do you mean personnel? Other than some hot air from twitter accounts, I don't recall anything that anyone was taking any more seriously than anyone seems to be taking those who associate themselves with the "Black Lives Matter" movement calling for the murder of police, and doing so repeatedly, for months on end. I'm sure you also speak out against them, of course.
You mean other than illegally carrying AR-15s with full body armor?
There's nothing illegal about a semi-automatic rifle. Are you saying that they were concealing them, or using unlawfully shortened barrels, that sort of thing?
... do you know what "full body armor" actually is (other than being mostly a Hollywood trope)? There's a reason that police use large physical shields or hardened vehicles when they want "full body" protection. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about wearing any sort of protective clothing. Which item did you think was illegal, specifically?
And
Actually this is very similar to the Occupy people. Glad you mentioned it. Radicals and idiots.
The difference, of course, is that the Occupy idiots were deliberately looking to make other people's lives miserable, as opposed to these guys, who were sitting alone in the middle of nowhere - not yelling people's faces, not disturbing the peace with drumming and chanting, not threatening businesses, not blocking emergency workers, etc.
Who were they intimidating, being the only people there? Who were they compelling to do what?
Is this similar to the Occupy people intimidating store owners by blocking their doors and chanting, and compelling people to find other ways to try to get their jobs or other routes for ambulances carrying dying people to the hospital?
Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?
I am curious about which specific acts of lethal force these guys were using when they sat down in that wildlife refuge. Please be specific. Is it similar to the lethal force that the Occupy people used when, say, blocking first responders from getting to some old lady having a heart attack?