Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Non-removable battery (Score 1) 88

My view is just the opposite. Dating back to my first cell phone in 96, I have never sent a phone swimming. (Knock on wood). I have frequently extended the life of a phone by replacing a dying battery that won't hold a full charge anymore. Non-removable battery is a no-go. Water resistance is a gimmick.

Comment Already exists (Score 1) 275

WMD app on Android, similar apps on other devices. Hand over your phone, leave customs, borrow another phone, send a text and it's wiped. Also most phone carriers give you a web based service account that also includes a remote wipe function. Corporate Cell phone access and management tools also include this capability.

Comment Re:They're getting over turned because SCOTUS (Score 2) 126

Actually the court was a balanced 4-4 with Kennedy swinging back and forth based on the case merits. Currently it's a 4-4ish tie but again Kennedy is likely to swing his vote based on the topic of the case. On social issues he's usually going to side with the left side of the court. On law enforcement type issues he leans to the right.

But don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Comment Re:It's just a power grab (Score 1) 126

Yet Trump has yet to get any court nominations confirmed. All sitting Federal Judges are from prior Presidents, not Trump. The everything is his fault line just doesn't work this early in his administration.

And yes there is talk (but no action yet) of breaking up the 9th circuit into two circuits. Which makes sense for more reasons than the fact that it is by far the most overturned court in the nation.(80% of rulings in 2015 were overturned, that's a pathetic performance. It's also the most overworked with the largest population covered. The Idea is to split it to reduce the workload, nothing more. But if it improved their record that would be a bonus.

Comment Re:People are a problem (Score 2) 125

Legislation by Proposition or Initiative is a scourge on our Representative Republic and should be prohibited. When the legislature (national or state) proposes a law, the bill goes through debate and legal and financial reviews to determine the impacts and constitutionality. Now these reviews are not perfect but they usually do a decent job of making sure most bad laws don't become law.

With Proposition, if put forward by a well funded group, they advertise and convince the people the law will be good but most voters don't have the time or inclination to really look into the props to see if they are completely good or if they will run afoul of some constitutional issues or have some potential unexpected (or downplayed) negative consequences. Like the way Prop 13 has sincerely hamstrung the ability of CA to use property taxes effectively.

And with sufficiently loud supporters, those who do study the proposition and see the obvious problems are shouted down and silenced. We are not a Democracy, passing laws democratically for a Representative Republic is a sure way to undermine that Republic. Democracy is mob rule and the mob is easily swayed to support bad props that would never make it through the legislative process.

Comment Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score 1, Informative) 326

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (paragraphs e and f) Marked or unmarked is irrelevant. As is intent. She signed a SF 312 Non-Disclosure agreement that outlined quite clearly her obligation to protect the classified information she was entrusted with due to her position. Your claims of alternate facts are the only thing Alternate. Everyone granted a security clearance signs the same NDR form and faces the same penalties for failure to comply. And as per 18 793 (f) intent does not matter, negligence is still a crime.

Others have addressed your falsehoods about deleting the emails.

Now that we have a new AG, I expect charges to come soon. Though the super citizen protections she seems to enjoy might still prevent them.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 2, Informative) 326

USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.

Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.

The law is clear the penalties are clear and those punished for such crimes? Many, some much more egregious as hers due to being intentional attempts to spy. But here is a list of some so prosecuted for violating this law.
If you continue from that point down to the 21st century you find Kenneth Wayne Ford, who never transmitted to an unauthorized person but simply retained classified information. I have a much more detailed list of individuals convicted at home but am at work currently.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 1, Informative) 326

Comey lied when he said that. Mishandling classified information via negligence is still a felony that has no intent requirement. The act of being negligent with classified information is a felony crime.

Please cite the actual ties to Russia that you claim Trump has. He's complimented Putin a few times for being a real leader as opposed to Obama. But I've seen no evidence of any actual ties.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 4, Informative) 326

What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?

Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.

Comment Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score 2) 326

And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.

Comment Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score 1) 326

It depends, is it actually the administration? or is it the RNC or Trump Campaign? Both are private organizations not required to retain/release such info, and legally required to not use government IT resources. If the Administration then yes and as a staunch Republican I'll readily agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed to bring them in compliance. But if the RNC, or Trump Campaign then no it's not a concern, they are free to secure and destroy their communications.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.