You are 100% right. But the law doesn't say "medical data". It says "data". The consent form I signed considered my SSN and DOB to be data. Your assertion that the law is wrong, but will be done correctly is beyond my faith in lawyers. It'll tie up every rule for 10 years, until the law makes it to the Supreme Court to define the term you assert is defined differently than the medical doctors conducting the experiments that would be covered by it.

I didn't see anyone on the right go after Cheney for doing the same thing. Most "official" correspondence was handled with "personal" email. And when confronted, those official dealings were "lost". Clinton claims to have followed the law, turning over all work emails from a personal acount. Cheney told the American people to fuck off, and the Conservatives loved it.

Someone else pointed out that Cheney used mostly personal email for government business, but not solely, so I guess that gets a pass.

Also I saw no rule that requires all official emails use government servers. That's what she is accused of actually breaching. At least according to the summary and posters here. There's very little fact into what she did wrong, and more a focus on blaming her for something, anything, so long as it's plausible.

She hasn't. At least based on the arguments here, I Haven't seen a single regulation that she breached. Just people that accuse her of things that are only backed by opinion, and unrelated to the topic of "is it illegal to use personal email for official business". Whether she used email, official or otherwise, to send classified documents to people not cleared to see them is unrelated to the question asked above.

She may have committed a security breach, but it's hard to tell, because of all the lies from the accusers, the answers get muddled. It's not illegal to exclusively use personal email for official work at the federal level (it is at the state level in Alaska, why Palin is held to a higher standard, as is continually pointed out by the Hillary haters). She broke no law simply by using email. Then the accusations move on to confidential information she "breached", but then, there are so many accusations that are guesses, that it's hard to tell which are based in fact.

And now your problem with her is on the level of "she made a single personal local call at no cost, from the government phone, and that's misuse of government equipment." The problem is, that everyone uses government equipment for personal business when it doesn't cause cost. The idea is that small amounts of "personal" use are "authorized" as under those rules.

I also saw where the existing security team said they didn't need it. You wouldn't find a group of marines that would hold up their hands and admit they can't hold an embassy. So who do you listen to, the trained security force, or a scared diplomat, who also wants more lobster shipped over.

EPA will have to prove reproducibility, not actually reproduce it. Read again, slower this time, and without the rabid frothing at the mouth.

The law requires it be reproducible. If someone claims it isn't. How do you think that would be settled in a lawsuit? I think the only way would be for the EPA to prove reproducibility of it. If you think that requires actually reproducing it, then that's your opinion, not mine, even if I were to agree with it, I hadn't said it.

So you prefer ones that shit on the Windows community? Windows is larger, and the people on it have proven they are willing to pay for software. Seems to be a better target market for a for-profit company.

File a FOIA request for what the head of the FBI had to eat yesterday. He replies that the FOIA request is denied, because National Security. You look and find he had lunch with the president, and that day's menu is on whitehouse.gov. So you know what he had for lunch, but he's denying other related things for National Security, when it's provably not true because you know some of it from other sources that don't think it's National Security sensitive information. Sounds like lies to get out of FOIA requests. I think that's the point.

If Canada sent him back, it's a deportation. Deporting your own citizen is called "exile" and is illegal under modern treaties and international law. He'd be deported again to Canada when he got back to DR, as he likely wouldn't have the right to stay there permanently.

Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.

And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.

I don't know what I did, or do, but I've never flown in the US without getting one of the TSA inspection notices put in my luggage, at least not since they started using them.

Do you think Canada wants a Detroit refugee? I didn't have any issues crossing in Montana. They were polite, but then they were polite at the US side when driving into Alaska a few days later.

In Windows, with file extensions blocked, you look at the "file type" field to make that determination. One would be notepad, one wordpad, and one I don't know how windows would report it. They are all uniquely identifiable. If associated with different applications, the application would be identified.

I disagree. I see people calling for perfection, and I think that if every car was self-driving next year and the death toll in the USA was 20,000 dead people, that there'd be lots of lawsuits as the great macro-level reduction in deaths was objected to on a micro-level.

People are irrational about driving, and any decision that the computer makes that isn't provably perfect, will be challenged later by someone who lies and says they'd have taken the better action.

You are being obtuse. The equivalent is that the anti-environment crowd is asserting that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't publish the weight of the apple that fell from the tree.

And there's a consensus that gravity exists, and is roughly equal to the product of masses of the bodies and a constant, divided by the square od the distance between them.

Are you arguing that there's no scientific consensus about the Theory of Gravity? Remember, "It's just a theory", as that's the battle cry for Luddites that don't like any other scientific consensus or theory, like the Theory of Evolution.