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 ×

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 1) 801

Just because she may be exonerated under 18 U.S. Code 793 (a) and (b), doesn't mean she didn't violate (f).

Understand each of those sections is separate - they aren't all "anded" together.

Again:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

tl;dr - Whoever...through gross negligence permits [stuff]...to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined...or imprisoned.

Comment Re:Gross negligence == extremely careless... (Score 1) 1010

She asked people to send classified documents to her - that makes her culpable.

Any classified documents sent to an unsecured private server are by definition delivered in violation of trust, and by negligence.

As for the law, congress makes it, the executive enforces it. Asserting that you'll ignore the plain reading of the law in the name of "discretion" is an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature. If the law needs to be changed, the president can propose new legislation, or could even offer blanket pardons if he wished - simply letting Hillary off the hook for what was plainly illegal sets a poor standard for our leaders.

At the end of the day, we should insist that cops are more careful with their guns than civilians, and government leaders should be more careful with their classified documents than their subordinates. If there is going to be a differential standard, it should be one that imposes more severe penalties on our leaders.

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 1) 801

I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.

Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.

But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 1) 801

She consciously refused a state.gov email account.

She voluntarily setup a private email server.

Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.

tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 1) 801

knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location

Okay, so she's guilty under that as well :)

You can't setup a private server "unknowingly", she can't possibly claim the private server was an "authorized location", and she had every intent to retain those documents there by mere fact of ordering it set up.

As for 18 U.S. Code 793 (f), " through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody " - the proper place of custody was secure government networks, not her private servers.

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 1) 801

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.

This is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent :)

Comment Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro (Score 5, Informative) 801

18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.

Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.

Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.

Comment Re:Gross negligence == extremely careless... (Score 1) 1010

"proper place of custody" isn't "my private email server open to the internet" :) You might argue that classified documents *created* on her server weren't "removed from its proper place of custody", but any classified docs *sent* to her server were obviously removed from the proper place of custody (secure government networks).

Again, actual intent, or actual harm isn't required to violate 18 U.S. Code 793 (f).

I think there's a strong case that setting up a private server in the first place demonstrates "intent" since that clearly cannot happen by accident, but even putting that aside, Hillary should be on the hook for a 10 year stint in the pokey.

The real kicker here, though, is that as Comey stated, anyone on those classified email chains should have known that the private server address was improper, and showed gross negligence in continuing correspondence with Hillary on her private server. My bet is that one of those people who also violated 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) has the initials "BHO" :)

Comment Re:Gross negligence == extremely careless... (Score 1) 1010

18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.

Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.

Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.

Comment Re:The standard in question (Score 1) 1010

"gross negligence" == "extremely careless"

"intentional" is pretty easy - nobody "accidentally" sets up a private server...the only way out of that is "I didn't know anything I ever looked at was really classified", which, based on the requirements of the job to protect classified information and being able to recognize it, certainly hits "gross negligence". Heck, even if you drive to work every day for ten years and only have one accident out of the thousands of trips, if it's due to you negligently taking your eyes off the road and fiddling with your zipper, that's still gross negligence.

It's a lose-lose, really - she's either incompetent, or malicious, and *both* of those are grounds for criminal prosecution under the statute.

Comment Re:The standard in question (Score 1) 1010

The FBI apparently did not think that information was mishandled neither intentionally nor in a grossly negligent way.

By using the term "extremely careless", Comey pretty much copped to "gross negligence" - there is no legal distinction between those two phrases. The case was rock solid, specifically because the bar was lower than "intent".

That being said, being unwilling to prosecute someone because they're so politically powerful they may be able to escape conviction by a jury of their peers is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Slashdot Top Deals

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Working...