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:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true

Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.

In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true

Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.

The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'

I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'

How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).

I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.

Comment Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence (Score 1) 801

Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.

I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.

Comment Re:What took them so long? Simple (Score 1) 130

Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

Screen, speaker and mic in front - check.
Front-facing camera and rear-facing camera with flash - check.
Rounded edges - check.
Uses an operating system that allows the installation of apps - check.

Got to admit it, the iPhone 6 does share those innovative and unique features. /s

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 4, Insightful) 742

Stepping into the discussion. I used to be a classifier in the government so have some experience with these areas.

Except it wasn't illegal at the time.

Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.

She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.

Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.

Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?

I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.

Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?

Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.

Comment Re:First Ammendment (Score 1) 74

Where in the Illinois law does it say you aren't allowed to slander someone?

Umm, 740 ILCS 145. As I said before.

In California it is in Cal. Civil Code 44 through 46. In Florida it is in Flor. Stat. 836.04. In most states though it is carried as part of Common Law.

I can slander all I want and the government can't (legally) do anything about it.

Partially true. It is against Illinois and federal law and grants the injured a private right of action. It isn't a criminal offense in those jurisdictions, it is a tort.

In some states though, like in Virginia, there are criminal laws that cover some forms of slander, such as Code of Virginia 18.2-417:

Any person who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning any female of chaste character, any words derogatory of such female's character for virtue and chastity, or imputing to such female acts not virtuous and chaste, or who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace or shall use grossly insulting language to any female of good character or reputation, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

You said "There is no law against slander in the US" and I quoted laws against slander as a rebuttal. Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "law" means in these contexts.

Comment Re:First Ammendment (Score 2) 74

There is no law against slander in the US. It's a civil matter.

While it isn't a criminal matter, it is a civil matter BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT!

At the federal level, the law is part of common law, but the definition is in 28 U.S. Code 4101. Also, all but three states have their own defamation laws; for example, Illinois' is 740 ILCS 145, AKA "The Slander and Libel Act".

Comment Only redacted most? (Score 1) 74

I don't understand the redacting methodology of these letters. Various pieces have been redacted, including the NSL number in the upper left of almost all the pages, but they left it at the end of one of the paragraphs, and also on the first page. Why redact it in some places but not others? Are they morons? (Occam's Razor would imply yes)

Comment Dave's Law (Score 1) 102

In the spirit of Murphy's Law and Godwin's Law, I present Dave's Law: If a law can be abused, someone will figure out how and do it.

In this case I feel both the abusers and the legislators share blame since these consequences were easily foreseeable, and they listened to their financial supporters over the best interests of their constituents. The company which "had nothing to do with it", is a lying piece of merde, but if the perpetrator(s) has in IQ of at least 80, they probably covered their tracks making it almost impossible to prove they were behind it.

Comment Re:Uh. (Score 2) 174

Another problem is multiple groups claiming responsibility so they can be feared. Unless one of them is actually credible (if any of them can be), then it is a problem of figuring out which, if any, did it. It could still be a group whose goal is to cause harm to the US to create a result they desire, such as by throwing blame on another group/nation and having the US shift focus, or financially cripple the US by taking out a city like New York so they can become more competitive, but a group who would prefer not having their homes turned into glass and so do not publicly claim responsibility.

For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want. Hell, a bomb goes off in a plane out of Egypt and the groups were lining up to take credit.

Comment Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . . (Score 1) 273

So what they want, is a master key, so they can unlock any iPhone whenever and wherever they want, without a big hassle.

No, no, no, no. All they want is a key to this one phone. Honest. That such a key would also work to unlock every other similar phone is pure coincidence. That wasn't their intention. Really. Though now that you mention it ... when we are done here, we have this stack of seized iPhones we want to talk about.

Comment Re:What a bullshit headline (Score 1) 78

Better also mention the entire pedigree of all the other software used in it. What about the TCP stack and the university that developed it?

And in other news:

Defense network "DARPANET" used to install malware! News at 11!

More like "Hackers using network access code developed for military to compromise systems! News at 10!" (I go to bed early)

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...