2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

Coke's "secret recipe" is a trade secret, not a state secret. If a party receives a state secret inappropriately through no fault of their own, they haven't committed a crime, but they're not entitled to keep or distribute the state secret. Once google has been notified it is holding state secrets, it can be held criminally responsible for distributing them.

If something was copyrighted and google received it, they'd still be allowed to keep their copy and use the data in aggregation, but they'd be in violation of copyright law if they attempted to distribute as is.

If they specifically collected and distributed state secrets they wouldn't be acting as a common carrier anymore, as this process is specifically content specific.

Also ToSes tend to be overly broad and are contain a lot of stuff that's not enforceable.

There's also Google's issue of public appearance. They do not want a public, concrete example of "Alice send Bob a message she didn't want Eve to see, we intentionally sold it to Eve"
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:21 pm UTC

ucim wrote:TOS states that the account owner gives Google the right to read its email (incoming and outgoing) and to do what it wishes with the information.

It absolutely can't do what it wishes with the information.

There are certain rights private citizens can't sign away, and there are criminal sanctions the state reserves the right to pursue, no matter what Google puts in its TOS.

TOS is civil law. Criminal law trumps civil.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

The Washington Post wrote:But the Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall. Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become.

Apparently even as late as this afternoon she still wanted to bang the opening gavel. The booing would have made the Cruz thing look like nothing.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:19 pm UTC

Yeah. Remember what I was saying about the DNC being less messy than the RNC? Well, looks like I was wrong.

The smack talk on donors has the potential to have lasting impact, I think. Sure, everyone's focused on the religion topic right now, but there's enough juicy bits to offend others for various reasons. I definitely don't believe Bernie's supporters will transition very smoothly to Hillary now. I mean, there were always speed bumps there, but this just makes unification very difficult. I wonder if she'll see a convention bump at all.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

The right is united in hating Clinton. The left is divided, in hating Clinton. Every passing month makes the specter of President Trump more real...

Plus at this point, regardless of who wins, they're going to have serious legitimacy issues. The next 4+ years will be marked by partisan warfare that will make the last years seem like kindergarten, mark my words.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:The right is united in hating Clinton. The left is divided, in hating Clinton. Every passing month makes the specter of President Trump more real...

Plus at this point, regardless of who wins, they're going to have serious legitimacy issues. The next 4+ years will be marked by partisan warfare that will make the last years seem like kindergarten, mark my words.

The electoral college papers over close wins because barely winning every state results in a landslide in the final tally. If you were ok with a Obama 2012 'solid' victory, then you won't have a problem with a Trump/Hillary victory on the same margins.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... -holdouts/
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah. Remember what I was saying about the DNC being less messy than the RNC? Well, looks like I was wrong.

The smack talk on donors has the potential to have lasting impact, I think. Sure, everyone's focused on the religion topic right now, but there's enough juicy bits to offend others for various reasons. I definitely don't believe Bernie's supporters will transition very smoothly to Hillary now. I mean, there were always speed bumps there, but this just makes unification very difficult. I wonder if she'll see a convention bump at all.

Clinton was never going to get all of Sander's supporters because some of Sander's voters don't vote regularly. The real question is what percentage Clinton will get out of them. Technically she doesn't need them, but at this point, she needs every vote she can get just to be safe. I was more suprised that Trump got a normal convention bounce. You might be right that this highly atypical election will end up with very typical results.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

I don't think Vahir is talking about the electoral vote, but rather the sentiment surrounding the two candidates: the idea that Hillary is a profoundly corrupt sociopath who should be put in jail, and that Trump is a fascist thug who will bring about the end of the world. This kind of thinking is not unknown in presidential elections, but I think the sheer magnitude of it this year is unusual – as shown by the historically low favorability ratings for both of them.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:54 pm UTC

Yeah. Bernie folks were always dubious, it's just a numbers game. I think we're on track for a lot of them to simply feel burned out, disenfranchised, and simply not participate in large numbers. Like you say, that in itself isn't predictive, but it does indicate a fairly close race, and neatly explains current polling, which is reasonably close.

The sentiment, sure. Both are hated, but it's kind of balanced by both being hated. The losing side will grumble, sure, but...it won't amount to much more than when Gore lost. That's a remarkably close election(we probably won't get a split popular/electoral result here anyways), and likewise, I think people were more annoyed that Bush won than enthralled by Gore. So, worst case, you have several years of partisan bickering. Eh. Doesn't seem that different from normal.

And as Sardia says, the electoral college tends to make results look more landslide like. It's entirely normal for lots of people to not vote at all, and the winning candidate to have a fairly thin margin of victory in the popular vote among the voting public.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:31 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Plus at this point, regardless of who wins, they're going to have serious legitimacy issues. The next 4+ years will be marked by partisan warfare that will make the last years seem like kindergarten, mark my words.
Well at least she won't have sex with an intern in the White House or its vicinity. And Republicans aren't asking for her Birth Certificate.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah. Bernie folks were always dubious, it's just a numbers game.
They weren't just dubious, they were delusional. She ran for the Senate so she could run for President. And insiders don't have anyone else to put in. Both parties are run by old men with no clue.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:35 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Well at least she won't have sex with an intern in the White House or its vicinity.
Hey now, lets not rule anything out just yet.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:39 am UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:If a party receives a state secret inappropriately through no fault of their own, they haven't committed a crime, but they're not entitled to keep or distribute the state secret. Once google has been notified it is holding state secrets, it can be held criminally responsible for distributing them.
[...]
If they specifically collected and distributed state secrets they wouldn't be acting as a common carrier anymore, as this process is specifically content specific.
...none of which is what I'm referring to.

Google receives a state secret in the normal course of its business (of not specifically collecting state secrets) because it is permitted (by the sender or the recipient) to read the contents of email. Until it is notified of the specific state secret that it is holding, I don't see how Google can be held accountable for using the information contained in the email. It is the Google account holder who leaked the info, not Google.

Now who's going to tell Google that "this thing about the quantity of tank ammunition located at {somplace} is a state secret"? Because "this other thing about the quantity of tank ammunition located at {other place}" is not a state secret. Sometimes saying that something is a state secret is worse than not saying so.

Meanwhile, people searching google for tank ammunition will be more likely to get relevant hits based on their profiles.

It's not so simple as...
elasto wrote:It absolutely can't do what it wishes with the information.
...because lawyers and money. Ordinary citizens are not protected, except in theory. In practice, I don't think any individual will ever succeed in a suit like this against Google.

I suppose the State Department could bring a claim, but I don't see Google being held liable; not in a million years, unless it could be shown that Google's algorithm already knew this was a state secret.

Holding Google liable would (in practice) require Google to know the state secrets before they receive them by mistake.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ThirdParty » Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:20 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Liberals are trying really, really hard to tie Russians to conservatives ... Russians have no reason to be fond of conservatives, as conservatives have been the more confrontational warmongering party toward Russian, China, and Iran for years.
I agree that the Kremlin has no reason to be fond of conservatives.

However, it is not obvious to me that Trump qualifies as a conservative with respect to foreign policy. He has already suggested that if Russia were to invade the Baltic States on his watch, the United States would not necessarily obey its NATO treaty obligations to come to their defense:
SANGER: If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?

TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do ... We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
"I don't want Putin to know what I'd do if he invaded NATO" means one of two things. It either means that Trump would not honor NATO, or it means that Trump is the idiot from Dr. Strangelove who would arm a doomsday device without telling the party whom it was meant to deter. Neither of those two possibilities is an approach that a genuine conservative--one who is aware that well-intended actions can have unintended consequences, and who thinks in terms of making sure everyone has an incentive to act responsibly--would take.

Considering that Clinton is a relatively-Hawkish Democrat, it would not be at all surprising to me if the Kremlin preferred Trump. In that same interview, after all, Trump repeated his statement that "I think Putin and I will get along very well."

lorb
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby lorb » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:21 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:"I don't want Putin to know what I'd do if he invaded NATO"

It's also an incredibly stupid argument. Putin will never invade any NATO member if the consequence is a guaranteed strike back by all of NATO, and this is how NATO works to deter a war with Russia. But if you hint at Russia that this is not what would happen with certainty you are basically provoking an invasion. Thus we absolutely want Putin to know what happens if he invades NATO, we want him to know that it would result in a massive disaster and the US (along with the rest of NATO, but let's be real the US has 100 times more weight/power) putting everything behind helping that member.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:33 am UTC

Lazar wrote:I don't think Vahir is talking about the electoral vote, but rather the sentiment surrounding the two candidates: the idea that Hillary is a profoundly corrupt sociopath who should be put in jail, and that Trump is a fascist thug who will bring about the end of the world. This kind of thinking is not unknown in presidential elections, but I think the sheer magnitude of it this year is unusual – as shown by the historically low favorability ratings for both of them.

Btw what is that about anyway the jail thing? I only know about the email thing and I doubt wide swaths of people actually care that much about improper handling of secret information, so is there something bigger I missed or is it just because people dislike her and see it as opportunity?

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:42 am UTC

ucim wrote:It's not so simple as 'It absolutely can't do what it wishes with the information' because lawyers and money. Ordinary citizens are not protected, except in theory. In practice, I don't think any individual will ever succeed in a suit like this against Google.

You're wrong.

On 13 May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a historic judgement in favour of Spanish man Mario Costeja González who had claimed that an auction notice about his repossessed house in Catalonia dating from 1998 should no longer appear when someone typed his name into Google.

The court agreed with González and said that "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant data" should not appear in results returned from search engines like Google or Bing.


Sure, call this particular ruling woolly and ineffective if you like, but Google absolutely is required to behave in a way that is consistent with laws all around the world. Europe in particular has extremely strong data protection laws for private individuals, and Google is required to adhere to them.

Private individuals absolutely can succeed in cases against Google.

No matter if Google's TOS says they can do what they like with your data, they simply can't. They are not above the law..

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:48 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Liberals are trying really, really hard to tie Russians to conservatives ... Russians have no reason to be fond of conservatives, as conservatives have been the more confrontational warmongering party toward Russian, China, and Iran for years.


Depends on what the Russian government wants. Conservative rhetoric from the U.S. can justify an authoritarian Cold-War civil surveillance and military spending, while Trump's isolationist stance may weaken NATO actions against Russian expansion (an effective U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be a very significant weakening of NATO military forces).
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:36 pm UTC

One of Putin's great dreams is breaking up NATO. That's not a secret, nor is it particularly new. It has been his goal for years.

Trump is Putin's ideal candidate. He doesn't care about NATO, but he also doesn't care too much about pesky stuff like human rights. It's no surprise that Russia is supporting Trump.

The one thing Putin probably won't like about Trump is his unpredictability. Putin wants a weak NATO, but he doesn't want an unpredictable NATO. Put in is many things, but he's not insane. He doesn't want a nuclear war just as much as the rest of us. However I suspect that Putin, like many others, thinks that Trump will behave more rationally once he's in the white house. I fear this is one point where Putin is wrong.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:11 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:Btw what is that about anyway the jail thing? I only know about the email thing and I doubt wide swaths of people actually care that much about improper handling of secret information, so is there something bigger I missed or is it just because people dislike her and see it as opportunity?
No, you didn't really miss anything. This whole thing started as a political attack (see Benghazi; not the attack on the consolate, the years-long political circus that followed which found nothing).

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:22 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Liberals are trying really, really hard to tie Russians to conservatives ... Russians have no reason to be fond of conservatives, as conservatives have been the more confrontational warmongering party toward Russian, China, and Iran for years.


Depends on what the Russian government wants. Conservative rhetoric from the U.S. can justify an authoritarian Cold-War civil surveillance and military spending, while Trump's isolationist stance may weaken NATO actions against Russian expansion (an effective U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be a very significant weakening of NATO military forces).



Even if Trump would be president, he doesn't have power to withdraw from NATO without the support of Congress, which he doesn't have. The Republican establishment is pro-NATO and extremely anti-Russian, far more so than Democrats who have been pretty friendly towards Russia by comparison (and who mocked Romney for naming Russia as a top geopolitical threat).

People are acting as if a president can act unilaterally.

Look at Obama, 8 years of having his balls cut off by a gridlocked Congress. His initiatives obstructed at every turn.

Trump is despised by Democrats and even divisive among Republicans (as much as Hillary is among Democrats).

Either way we're looking at, whoever ends up being president this election probably won't have much support in a fragmented Congress. They'll just be a glorified global PR puppet for the US as Obama has been.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby HES » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:People are acting as if a president can act unilaterally.

Yes, there are checks and balances. But those should be a safety net, not something you rely on out the gate. Guns have safety switches, but you still keep your finger off the trigger.

A rogue president can't launch a nuke, withdraw from NATO, or whatever else. But even saying they want to is enough to do damage.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:01 pm UTC

Lucrece has a misunderstanding of the limits of presidential power. Foreign policy is where a president is the strongest and least unchecked. It's really easy to attack things and spend money to replace all the bombs and missiles you fired. Congress has an incentive to pay for those and few checks. What Lucrece is thinking of is treaties and trade deals where to need congress to weigh in.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:33 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
SANGER: If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?

TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do ... We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
"I don't want Putin to know what I'd do if he invaded NATO" means one of two things. It either means that Trump would not honor NATO, or it means that Trump is the idiot from Dr. Strangelove who would arm a doomsday device without telling the party whom it was meant to deter. Neither of those two possibilities is an approach that a genuine conservative--one who is aware that well-intended actions can have unintended consequences, and who thinks in terms of making sure everyone has an incentive to act responsibly--would take.

Considering that Clinton is a relatively-Hawkish Democrat, it would not be at all surprising to me if the Kremlin preferred Trump. In that same interview, after all, Trump repeated his statement that "I think Putin and I will get along very well."


I think it means that Trump doesn't want to be nailed down to any one position. Likewise, Trump says he's awesome at getting along with EVERYONE. I think you're ascribing too much meaning and consistency to Trump, given his tendency for hyperbole and position shifting.

PeteP wrote:
Lazar wrote:I don't think Vahir is talking about the electoral vote, but rather the sentiment surrounding the two candidates: the idea that Hillary is a profoundly corrupt sociopath who should be put in jail, and that Trump is a fascist thug who will bring about the end of the world. This kind of thinking is not unknown in presidential elections, but I think the sheer magnitude of it this year is unusual – as shown by the historically low favorability ratings for both of them.

Btw what is that about anyway the jail thing? I only know about the email thing and I doubt wide swaths of people actually care that much about improper handling of secret information, so is there something bigger I missed or is it just because people dislike her and see it as opportunity?


It's both. Republicans are honestly going to cheer whenever a Democrat gets egg on their face and vice versa. That's normal. But there's also a substantial amount of people that are genuinely pissed that she doesn't get held accountable for things. Sure, that level of consequences is pretty typical for those in power, but she's overt enough about it to draw attention to it. Quite a lot of Democrats and Indepdendents also view Hillary as wildly untrustworthy and dislike her as a result. It's a big part of why Bernie had so much momentum for a guy who was only barely a Democrat to begin with.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Well at least she won't have sex with an intern in the White House or its vicinity.
Hey now, lets not rule anything out just yet.
It's vicinity? I'd be pretty blasé about her sleeping with an intern from the American Institute of Architects.
ucim wrote:Meanwhile, people searching google for tank ammunition will be more likely to get relevant hits based on their profiles.
That's an aggregate, not the actual state secret.

If they attempted to do an aggregation of troop placements they would be cease and desisted very quickly.
I suppose the State Department could bring a claim, but I don't see Google being held liable; not in a million years, unless it could be shown that Google's algorithm already knew this was a state secret.
I agree that a situation where google is held criminally liable is extremely unlikely. The law is structured in a way (ideally) that it's clear what one needs to do to comply and one is provided a reasonable opportunity to do so; Google has sufficient lawyers to protect them form arbitrary enforcement of ex post facto action.

My argument was merely that "Google digs it's heals in and asserts that it's ToS let's it do what it wants" leads to "Google losing court cases" (civil ones would come first over court orders, but failure to comply would definitely result in criminal cases), therefore google will give up long before they become criminally liable.
Now who's going to tell Google that "this thing about the quantity of tank ammunition located at {someplace} is a state secret"?
Congress, the department of defense, the department of state, and congress again.

There are long standing laws about state secrets, many of which are still sufficiently general to be somewhat applicable in the digital age. The executive branch has people to search for leaks and notify people/corporations of inappropriate behavior. Classified things don't need to be concrete facts, but can also be categories of information or aggregations. And lastly, I say "congress again" because they can always just pass new legislation if there's something they missed.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:20 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Google receives a state secret in the normal course of its business (of not specifically collecting state secrets) because it is permitted (by the sender or the recipient) to read the contents of email. Until it is notified of the specific state secret that it is holding, I don't see how Google can be held accountable for using the information contained in the email. It is the Google account holder who leaked the info, not Google.
Classified is classified. That Google might possess it doesn't make any difference, and ignorance of the fact wouldn't excuse it. But why would Google care? It isn't what they want. Assuming its filters caught it, they would notify someone. But they aren't omnipotent. They see what they are looking for. And they can't look for everything. Computers don't care if its' classified and humans aren't reading every message. If someone was using their Gmail account to handle classified data the danger would lie in an outsider taking over the account.
Quizatzhaderac wrote:It's vicinity? I'd be pretty blasé about her sleeping with an intern from the American Institute of Architects.
?????????????

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
ucim wrote:Google receives a state secret in the normal course of its business (of not specifically collecting state secrets) because it is permitted (by the sender or the recipient) to read the contents of email. Until it is notified of the specific state secret that it is holding, I don't see how Google can be held accountable for using the information contained in the email. It is the Google account holder who leaked the info, not Google.
Classified is classified. That Google might possess it doesn't make any difference, and ignorance of the fact wouldn't excuse it. But why would Google care? It isn't what they want. Assuming its filters caught it, they would notify someone. But they aren't omnipotent. They see what they are looking for. And they can't look for everything. Computers don't care if its' classified and humans aren't reading every message. If someone was using their Gmail account to handle classified data the danger would lie in an outsider taking over the account.


And literally none of that results from ToS. Google doesn't get additional rights because of their ToS. Sure, if it goes to court, you can argue against culpability on the basis of 'we can't catch everything' or what have you, but that isn't at all related to the ToS.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

I'm super confused by the direction of this thread.

Classified information is still classified even if it were leaked. The Obama administration was considering to prosecute journalists over the Manning / Snowden / Wikileaks thing, and it appears that US Law would favor prosecution. But his administration believed in the freedom of the press so they turned a blind eye to the whole event.

A different president, a different administration... and we could have seen reporters going to jail over the reporting of the various Wikileaks things. Or at very least... stronger intimidation tactics like the British goons who came into the Guardian's offices and smashed up all the computers.

So yes, the Government does seem to have the legal authority to punish those caught with classified information in an unclassified setting. That the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore this law and keep journalists free from prosecution, doesn't change the fact that the law exists on the books.

---------------

If Google somehow (knowingly) managed to get classified information on their servers and it were being emailed around, then under the Espionage Act, they might be held liable for prosecution (if any Administration felt like prosecuting them).

Gonzales is apparently referring to provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917. Under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), it is a crime to "willfully communicate" any "information relating to the national defense which . . . the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . to any person not entitled to receive it." Moreover, when two or more persons cooperate to violate section 793(e), that constitutes conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 793(g). Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. § 798(a)(3), "whoever knowingly and willfully . . . publishes . . . any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government" is subject to up to ten years of imprisonment.


Law is vague, law is ambiguous. That's why we have people who make decisions and that's why the seat of the President (one of the primary decision makers) is very important.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

Yup. A TOS is not a magic shield against data protection and secrecy laws. Full stop.

----

Back on topic, and on a lighter note:

US President Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, says he will vote for Donald Trump because he "comes across as a straightforward guy".

Malik Obama, a Muslim with Kenyan and US citizenship, also told the BBC that the Republican presidential nominee's proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US was "common sense".


Of course it is.

I assume immigration officials can source their Musdars from the same place that manufactures Gaydars.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:54 am UTC

I'm kind of smelling some bad family blood there.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

Thought this was amusing. Article from 1995

Spoiler:
Image
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

And Hillary had even been on their board of directors three years earlier.
Exit the vampires' castle.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

After Obama's half-brother, the high-level endorsements for Trump keep rolling in:

A North Korean propaganda outlet has officially endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential bid, calling Trump “a prescient presidential candidate” who can solve issues on the Korean peninsula through “negotiations and not war.”

“It turns out that Trump is not the rough-talking, screwy, ignorant candidate they say he is, but is actually a wise politician and a prescient presidential candidate,” Korean scholar identified as Han Yong Muk wrote, before deriding “thick-headed Hillary” as unsuitable for the office.


Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

Anybody remember Billy Carter?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Anybody remember Billy Carter?

Mostly the beer.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
elasto wrote:Meanwhile, Trump has called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails (lol)


Nah. He's implying they already have them from before Hillary deleted them, and is calling on them to release their copy.


The implications of a Republican candidate cheering on the Russians to release hacked documents of the former Secretary of State is very worrisome to me.

Its clear to me that Trump has no patriotism either. Just when I thought my opinion of Trump couldn't get any lower...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Oh yeah, that statement is pretty awful all round.

Not least because it implies the Russians have dirt on a potential future president, which I presume is the point of the exercise. What Russia does or does not do is immaterial. It still portrays her as vulnerable.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:02 pm UTC

I may have become numb to Trump's outrageous statements, because it barely registered as Trump hitting a new low.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tru ... d-clinton/
Trump may keep his evangelicals, but Catholics are being driven away, into Clinton's open arms.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

Granted, Trump's pretty offensive to Catholics, but right now, polls are looking like a pretty even split, so someone's taking the place of those Catholics and then some.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh yeah, that statement is pretty awful all round.

Not least because it implies the Russians have dirt on a potential future president, which I presume is the point of the exercise. What Russia does or does not do is immaterial. It still portrays her as vulnerable.


The correct issue should have been to chastise Clinton as incompetent (because she got hacked) and then make a strong message to Putin to stay the fuck out of our elections.

I mean, I see what he's trying to do. But seriously, the way he worded it is outstandingly awful.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

Don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to do the right thing.

He does what provides more advantage to Trump.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Plasma_Wolf and 20 guests