Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 4, Insightful) 276

You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed) ... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).

Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 4, Informative) 276

we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms

Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 3, Informative) 633

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.

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 1) 633

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.

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 4, Insightful) 633

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.

Comment Re:Stop. (Score 1) 824

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.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 0) 824

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.

Comment Boat-Bomb Bait (Score 1) 178

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.

Comment Re:Why is Police band unencrypted? (Score 1) 82

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson