Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1005

Technically, they could have charged Hilary Clinton under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors have convicted others for less than what she did. Go back and closely read what Comey said -- he all but said the reason they didn't recommend charges was because they didn't have enough evidence to win a conviction from a partisan jury.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1005

Should we congratulate you on learning how to lie by citing irrelevant numbers, or just remind you that Mark Twain enumerated the three kinds of lies long before you were born?

For example, despite your claim that "many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi", PolitiFact (or at least the distilled version you linked to -- which doesn't identify its sources in any useful way) doesn't say that more than 4 Americans died in all those attacks. It says only that three Americans died in those attacks. A useful comparison would exclude attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were engaged in military activity at the time.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1005

Why do you think she has stopped at "technically chargeable", or even "enough to convict a normal person"? It only takes one hold-out to hang a jury, and she has excellent odds of finding at least one person on any jury who will refuse to convict her unless there is crystal-clear video evidence of her emailing marked-classified information to Vladimir Putin.

Comment Re: The basest, vilest (Score 1) 1005

Pres. Obama also said that there was "not a smidgen of evidence" that his IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups before and during the 2012 campaign season. Then people found evidence the IRS did just that.

Often, when people say there is no evidence of something, they're talking about what they think others can show, rather than what the truth is.

Comment Re: Really? (Score 1) 130

"Nope" to you. Including those entities as "obligated entities" has the effect I described. 4AMLD requires that obligated entities not keep anonymous accounts, and if any anonymous account exists (from before the time it came into effect, or covered the account in question), that they do Customer Due Diligence before the account can be used.

Next time, do more than 30 seconds of research before spouting off your mouth. Governments make these regulations a nearly impenetrable maze on purpose.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 130

Bought bitcoins? Sold them? In exchange for what? Drugs? Guns or bombs? Pirated movies? This isn't looking very good for Bob the Bitcoin Launderer.

The police found out that wallet X is Bob's (because he exchanged bitcoins for something useful), and that Bob was illegally hiding ownership of that wallet. Bob is probably going to end up with the burden of proving that each transaction from wallet X was with a third party, rather than Bob trying to launder bitcoins to other wallets he controls -- after all, the government knows Bob was trying to hide his bitcoins. Otherwise the law might say he must forfeit a monetary equivalent to those bitcoins, even if he claims to not own them any longer. On top of that, Bob will need to pay a transaction fee whenever he shuffles bitcoins between wallets.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Interesting) 130

You overlooked the "self-declaration" forms for people using virtual currencies. That translates to making it illegal to use Bitcoin (etc.) without telling the government about your wallet(s) -- probably upon pain of hefty fines. You might not get caught if you only keep funds in Bitcoin form, but if you ever try to redeem it for goods or services in Europe, be prepared to fess up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...