Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Submission + - UK judge calls for an "online court" without lawyers (thetimes.co.uk)

mi writes: A senior judge has called for the establishment of an online court that does not have lawyers and can deal with claims of up to £25,000.

The proposal is the centrepiece of a package of reforms to the civil justice system, drawn up by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge.

Just how exactly will this court ensure no one is, in fact, a trained professional on the Internet, where no one knows, who you really are, is not explained.

We discussed the idea last year. Apparently, it is still alive.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 915

That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.

Typically later actions are enough to prove intent.

Don't quit your day job. There are no later actions in this case that are strong enough to prove intent.

You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt,

Here's a tip for you - try only making arguments that you have a chance of supporting. This is not one of them.

and I understand that

No, you really do not. You assume that, and you assume incorrectly there.

But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.

Another strange assumption there.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, in fact I do.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - even though you have not once done the same for anyone in this discussion - and clarify what it was that I was asking you to provide a source for (as this is not a source for my request related to your earlier statement).

Your earlier claim was that the emails were deleted after the subpoena was issued. I asked you if you had a source to support that claim. The source you offered describes how they came up with the emails that were handed over to the state department, but says nothing about when emails were deleted. That is an important distinction, especially in the context of the allegations you are trying to level against Mrs. Clinton.

Nobody has shown that such an offense happened.

Yes, that's tampering with evidence.

Except it isn't, for reasons we have already discussed. Particularly as nobody can establish when the emails were deleted, it is impossible to state that anyone knew them to be evidence. Furthermore if they are only interested in emails that were official government correspondence then there should be copies of those emails on the other end as well.

Imagine a situation where someone close to you goes missing tomorrow. If the police thought you were suspicious would you immediately hand over ever email you ever sent to that person? What about ones that were deleted well before tomorrow? What if this is someone you have been emailing since the 90s, can you find the emails you sent to them back then?

Prosecutors

Don't get to decide the validity of a defense. Their job is to present the state's case as best they can.

judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.

That is a dubious claim based on dubious assumptions.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 915

All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.

she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good

Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere? Sure, she's a bit on the older side for a presidential candidate but I'm pretty sure her email server doesn't run directly on fire.

Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis

You're trying to read deeper into that statement than where it actually goes. Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 915

Illegal has a specific meaning...

Yes, and this falls within that meaning because the point was to evade official records statutes and control evidence of other wrongdoing.

That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.

Lost? You mean, "lost" as in misplaced, or "lost" as in deliberately deleted?

You are, again, claiming to know the intent of the user. You are also claiming knowledge of a timeline that you cannot possibly demonstrate.

And yes, we know it happened after the subpoena because Hillary's lawyers have admitted the process they used to comply with the subpoena.

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard anyone make that claim before. For such a claim to be true and to support your claim, it would require them to have done what you claim they did and then subsequently have gone and told their lawyer that they did it. Why would anyone ever do that?

In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.

Tampering with evidence carries a maximum sentence of twenty years.

Nobody has shown that such an offense happened. A conviction on such a charge requires showing that someone did that intentionally.

I'll tell you the same thing I've told the other people who have been running around with these conspiracies - there is plenty wrong with Hillary Clinton. Why not pick on her for something you can support with facts? When you instead put this much energy into propagation of conspiracies you just make yourself look silly and desperate.

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 226

I don't know if you were already aware of this or not, but the code that runs this echo chamber has been available freely for some time - although it hasn't been updated in some time either. A while back when there was a new beta being forced down our throats here, there was at least one site (soylentnews.org) that built a new site from modifications of the old code. While their community is not as large as the one here, they do cover similar material. More to the point, if you want to try to fund a specific improvement, you might find their crew more receptive than the guys who work on the code here.

They certainly aren't trying to engage in rational conversations

Currently, yes. A large portion of the conservative majority here has no interest in rational conversation; they just like to fling stuff around and see what sticks. However, this is not 4chan or townhall.com; historically slashdot has worked because of the community of users. It really should not be irrational to expect a sincere discussion here ... emphasis (unfortunately) on should.

They are insane (probably sociopaths or pathologically ignorant) or they are paid to act like they are nuts.

I think that depends on how one defines "insane". While we have had people here who fancied themselves "professional trolls" they have grown tired of their own act and left. I think what we're left with aren't necessarily trolls in the strictest sense of the word, I think rather they are people who actually believe what they say and don't give a shit about what anyone else has to say about it. Although if you consider that to be trollish behavior, then that would classify Drumpf as a troll and probably explain a lot.

Where does "profoundly stupid" fit in?

You and I don't have much of a history here, so you probably don't know my experience with that phrase and why I try to avoid it. A certain midwestern governor - who spent over 2 years running for the presidency only to drop out not long after his first Iowa straw poll - labeled a large part of his "home" state population with those exact words for disagreeing with him. I don't expect that you would have been aware of that before writing it but I do occasionally bring up that statement from the guy I call "The Teflon Candidate".

To answer your question though I doubt that truly stupid people would find this site to be worth their effort. While it is more politics - and less tech - than it used to be, it still focuses mostly on content that a lot of people wouldn't want to put time into.

Sincere religious delusions?

Religion and politics have become so intertwined - and indeed for some people indistinguishable - that you could call many of our biggest political parrots here religious zealots.

Or some kind of masochistic pleasure in losing arguments?

I don't think a troll is capable of admitting to ever losing an argument. Come to think of it, a slashdot conservative almost never is either - I suppose that supports your argument some.

Too much thought wasted on the trolls. Or is that their real goal?

I'm quite comfortable in my belief that they do not aspire to drive anyone to think.

Comment Re:oh if only... (Score 1) 233

It's actually a very beautiful mountain range to the West of Seattle, forming the break between the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound. The Olympics are snow-capped year-round, rugged, house the wettest place in the lower 48 States (Hoh river forest), and some great mountain goat, elk, and deer hunting.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 915

This was an attempt by Russia, who considers the US a rival and possible enemy, to create political upheaval in US and change the outcome of an election.

Imagine if a foreign nation conspired to funnel millions of dollars to a specific party in an attempt to influence the election? The upheaval and outcome of the election could be at stake!

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 915

If you or I got a subpoena to produce emails from an illegal email system,

Illegal has a specific meaning, and it is not at all clear that said meaning is an accurate description of the email server Hillary used as secretary. Short-sighted? Certainly. Peculiar? Yes. Illegal? Hard to say. If you pull your keys out of your pocket and a gum wrapper gets away from you in the process are your pants now illegal for not holding the gum wrapper?

then we produced a tiny fraction of the emails and deleted the rest,

There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued. And frankly why couldn't they recover them from somewhere else if they were so important? Supposedly the lion's share of her email went between her and State Dept. employees; if you want to see State Dept email it should be possible to subpoena the State Dept for those emails.

as he threw us in jail for decades.

In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.

Comment Re:Lockouts have you heard of them? (Score 1) 148

Some OSHA regulations

Not one OSHA regulation applies. this isn't America. We have standards which I- having worked with a number of American safety-responsible personnel - think are generally tighter. Those standards are designed by the Health And Safety Executuve and are enforced with the power of the criminal law. Directors of companies do get jailed for breaches on occasion, and HSE inspectors who achieve that are very happy to have achieved it.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A cucumber is not a vegetable but a fruit.

Working...