I think the message is pretty clear, do you want Donald to keep ******* you, or not?

Considering how long these types of investigations last, we won't know exactly for several years just how deep Hunter's daddy's dealings with China and Ukraine went. I'll expect another "so what" when we find out.

Instead of asking so what, I would ask myself, if I were you, why are so many ex-intelligence officials running cover for Pedo Joe and his deviant son and why I was so willing to shovel in everything coming out of their rectums.

I said to come back when they'd met that criteria. So why are you back?

When you have to resort to "Pedo Joe and his deviant son" you lose automatically.

Well, you're not me. I'm not up Trump's colon. Give me your address and Ill send you one of these. You might be able to find your way out.

https://www.outdoors.org/resources/a...paper-on-fire/

The posts you quoted didn't doubt that one of the laptops could be Hunter Biden's.

The posts you quoted were mocking the rumours of many laptops.

Why fool yourself it was otherwise?

May have already purchased a genuine copy. Can’t bear to think it may be fake.

Honestly, when I searched the forum for this old thread, the quotes I used started on the first page that popped up in the search and I just started quoting on that page and then went on to the next page. It was completely random, it could've been dozens of other pages that I quoted from.

Those are just random examples of the excuses that were made as to why the information released could not be from Hunter Biden's laptop.

If you look through this thread, you'll find dozens of super skeptical reasons why the information found on the laptop was Russian disinformation.

No way would Hunter Biden have three laptops said the skeptics. Even if he did, there's no way he would drop them off at the same time for repair. Even if he did, he would've dropped them off at some independent repair shop, he would've taken them to an Apple Store. John Paul MacIsaac wasn't qualified to work on Macs. John Paul MacIsaac was legally blind, therefore he wouldn't be able to work on the laptops. Hunter Biden lived in California, he wouldn't drag them all the way across the country to have them worked on. The signature was forged. John Paul MacIsaac couldn't keep his story straight. The RUSSIANS!!!

A bunch of bull **** excuse making to deny what was obvious from the very beginning: they were Hunter's laptops.

Note that the Times hasn't confirmed, well anything that Bogative says is 'true'.

And the email claimed to be Hunter's apparently explicitly says he won't try to influence his father and wants the relationship with Burisma to be 100% legal.

So we are stuck with 'Hunter Biden owned a laptop, so conspiracy'. Well reasoned.

You were so eager to gloat that you didn't take the time to figure out who the purported "clowns" are. As your leadoff clown, I'll point out that I never once opined about the ownership of the notebook.

Highly unimpressive. Sharpen your pencil.

Getting my agreement in before this gets carded and shipped to AAH.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Something like his escapade with a couple of hookers on a bed Obama slept in in Russia.

The only practically useful takeaway from the laptop issue is that there needs to be laws about computer repair people snooping through the files on computers they are supposed to be fixing.

Ok, a few things:

First of all, even hunter Biden did not claim "the laptop wasn't his"... he said it might or might not. And nobody is claiming he never owned a laptop ever.

Secondly... People SHOULD be skeptical of the story as originally claimed by the MAGAchud, because so much of it made little sense back then (and STILL makes no sense now).... person who may or may not be Biden, drops off laptop to a questionable repair shop (instead of an Apple store), and the repairman decides to hack into his hard drive (which would be a major privacy violation).

Thirdly, the quote from the NY Post article states: "A comprehensive report about the ongoing federal probe into Hunter Biden’s tax filings published by the New York Times on Wednesday night confirmed the existence of the first son’s infamous laptop." But then the article goes into the authenticity of the emails and other documents, but does little to confirm that the actual laptop (as supposedly recovered from the shop) was ever Hunter Biden's, nor does it prove the laptop was actually dropped off by him. (And unfortunately the original Times article is behind a paywall.)

Even the article in the NY Post is cautious, and uses the phrase: Files "Appear" to come from the dropped off laptop. Not exactly hard confirmation of the story now, is it.

Fourthly, as another poster asked, "So what?"

Hunter Biden was never a part of the Obama administration, nor is he a member of the Biden administration. There is no evidence provided that Joe Biden in any way changed government policy to benefit Hunter Biden. We knew that Hunter had drug issues in the past, we knew that he worked for foreign companies, so no big revelation there. And the relatives of ANY major political figure are going to benefit from having a high profile. (Unless you are demanding that family members of politicians all work for nothing more important than burger-flipper at McDonalds, you will get cases where they will benefit from the publicity that the politician garners.)

If you abandon a laptop at a repair shop, it eventually becomes property of the repair shop. That's not uncommon.

The proper course of action in that situation should have been "Erase the hard drive and consider the laptop as refurbished", not "lets go through his files to see what we can find".

Maybe, but I think it was his laptop not Hunter Biden's at that point. I agree with you, that something a bit unethical may have gone on there. One would want an answer to the question of why he started looking into the content of the laptop. My suspicion would be it's something like "wow, I now own Hunter Biden's laptop, I wonder what's on there". Who knows though, he was asked to do a data recovery, so maybe there is some legitimate story where he saw something dodgy as part of that? There is no shortage of people who took laptops with child porn on to be fixed and the repair shop reported them. Gary Glitter is an obvious example.

Given that what is on the laptop that we've heard about is just a sync from his email accounts, photos synced from his phone etc.... proving that things had been changed, or fabricated entirely seems like it would be kind of easy.

Which of course is not a moral justification for snooping through somebody's personal files. Doesn't matter if they are famous person or a nobody.

If there were files on there that were... questionable... like then there would likely have been an investigation by now. (The police tend to react quite strongly to those sorts of things.)

The fact that instead of hearing "Hunter Biden is a perv", all we are hearing is about his business dealings suggests that there were no such images on his laptop.
It also means ways that Hunter Biden's information could have been hacked, and a 'fake' laptop with some legitimate information created and dropped off at the shop.

It proves that Biden eats babies of course.

For me, with regards to the laptop, it would depend on if Hunter paid or not.

If he signed a service contract, which I'd be shocked if he didn't, saying that he forfeit the property if he didn't pay after service then that's on him. I don't blame the shop owner for going through it. At that point it's his property and I'd be curious what was on a laptop that was abandoned too. I've even gone through a few that were abandoned at the old shop I worked at looking for software I could use. It wouldn't matter who it belonged to at all.

That changes if Hunter paid for the service, or depending on when the shop owner found the information. He passed the data long to Rudy. If he was recovering data, found that information and then sent it on to Rudy then I would consider that theft.

People aren't denying the laptop itself (the hardware) didn't become the property of the repair shop. (I mean, it may or may not, but it wouldn't be surprising if such "we will take your property for non-payment" were a thing.)

But as the other poster suggested, there should probably be a law against such snooping if there isn't already. Its a basic privacy thing... the owner gets the hardware, but still has an expectation of privacy. (This is where ethics may not keep pace with legality.)

Remind me never to use the 'plague311 computer repair shop'.

That would be a heck of an ad slogan for a company:

"Drop your computer off, and we'll violate your privacy the first chance we get".

The ownership of a drive does not give you ownership of the data.

Using software you found on someone else’s drive is likely copyright infringement and a violation of the software license. As a hypothetical example.

There are two reasons to go through the data:

1. To get more contact info on the owner to get paid;
2. To get more data to sell to fraudsters or use for fraudulent purposes.

Neither are strictly legal, but one is more understandable.

If you are a True Libertarian^TM, you should be okay with babies willingly selling themselves as food.

That the FBI has the laptop and no charges have been filed suggests there's nothing illegal on it.

Also Giuliani tried to pass on some of the emails but wouldn't provide the context or all of the related emails suggests they had to be taken out of context to be incriminating.

From the Wiki link:

Or parents selling/offering them to be eaten. Parental rights and all.

Since you saw fit to quote me and now admit you just chose them at random, please go back and find a quote from me denying it was HB's laptop because that was your claim.

By the way, it was ONE laptop in the Times article, not three, so stop using the plural.

They’ve started reproducing again. ******* tribbles, these laptops are.

:dl:

They could find the Lindbergh baby on that laptop and it would mean nothing, because the provenance is trash. This is really all that needs to be said about it.

There was a short story I read in an alternate history anthology in which Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was taken seriously and implemented as government policy. It was pretty horrifying, obviously. Children raised in what were essentially factory farms and branded with expiration dates. If they were able to avoid being harvested by that date, they were released and could join society.

It's a Young adult book but Unwind is worth a read. It's A Modest Proposal meets Spares

I buy storage units, a lot of them. It's the same exact principle. People request a service (storage units or repair), expect privacy (which they get), but when they don't\can't pay then the people who own the shop can do what they want with what's inside. Call it unethical all you want, and if the government wants to make a law banning it, go right ahead. I don't agree.

Also, it's not "the first chance we get". Hell, most of the computers that I would go through had been there for 6 months or more. Pay your bills or forfeit your ****. You don't have privacy rights to something that isn't yours anymore.

Outside of copyright claims, why not?

I'd love for Hunter to assert his copyrights to the contents of the laptop. That would be excellent. But I do not think he as done so, and I do not expect him to.

If you aren't copying the software, then how can it be a copyright infringement? As for software licenses, well, you're only bound to the license if you agree to the license. Which you don't necessarily have to have done to use already installed software.

Actually the principles are quite different.

In the case of the computer:
- The computer itself is the item of most value. The repair shop can (likely) recoup its loses strictly on the resale value of the computer alone.
- The data that was on the hard drive is not integral to the value of the computer itself

In the case of the storage locker:
- There is no way to separate the value of the storage locker from its physical contents. It may be "anti-privacy" for strangers to search through your belongings in the storage locker, but the items in the locker are valuable mostly for their physical attributes.

I won't argue with you. Feel free to call me unethical.

The issue is the information. You wouldn't be entitled to own the copywrite if you found a copy of someone's manuscript in a locker even if it is the only copy. Same thing on the hard drive, you don't own any of the software on it something you specifically said you looked for to steal.

You don't get rights to data and software that is not yours just because the medium it is on became your property.

If you say so.

I get it you don't respect intelectual property, and if say it had the login information for someones bank accounts or crypto you would take them as well.

You are quite clear on your morals.

Do not ******* insult me. I've found bank login information, social security numbers, adoption papers, and I've never, ever stolen a ******* thing.

Retract this or admit you're ******* making this stupid **** up. Using software on the system it was licensed for isn't even relatively close to this claim.

Actually, **** it, I don't give a **** what someone like you thinks about me anyway.

Nonsense you were proudly proclaiming stealing software. Please try to be honest with yourself.

You certainly seem to given the strength of the ***** in your response.


I think a crypto wallet is the ideal example of something that you could steal in such a situation. After all you have no way of knowing if there is a back up of it or it was truely lost and abandoned so why not help yourself to it?

Then go back and ******* quote me. I'll wait, take your time.

Being questioned by some know-nothing on here shouldn't bother me, but anytime I'm accused of stealing something it's irritating. Then again, you can't even read my statement. You must also not know that, in the past, a lot of software was licensed to the machine, not the user. Bluebeam for instance. The office suite was licensed to the PC, not the user, back in the day. Ever let someone use your Microsoft Word? Ever let someone use your adobe? I bet you have. Do you not respect intellectual property?

Don't project your own desires to steal someone else's **** on me. This says more about you than me. I'm sure you would steal someone's crypto wallet thinking you could get away with it. I'm financially secure enough where if I want something I'll go buy it. Jesus Christ, what a ******* joke.

Again, there is no intellectual property conflict here unless Hunter wants to try to assert copyright, and even then, fair use protects some dissemination and his claim to damages is basically nonexistent.

Please, please, please have Hunter assert copyright claims. I so want that fight to happen.

You are quite clear about taking software that does not belong to you right there.

Except of course that there was often a paper license that was the right to put it on one machine, just because you have the machine does not mean you have the license for the software.


You brought up taking other peoples software entirely un prompted.

I'm going to let you in on a huge secret. The word "use" and the word "take" aren't at all the same words. I'm happy I was able to teach you something today.

No, sometimes there was a paper license. Sometimes you get it in an email. It happened several different ways. When you license the machine, rather than the user, if you have the machine it literally means you have the license for the software.

No, I didn't. I brought up that when someone abandon's a laptop and doesn't pay their bill then it's no longer their property. It belongs to the company they abandoned the property too.

So you're 0 for all of your claims. Care to keep going?

Alright I'm lost. Like totally lost.

I give my computer to a repair shop to fix it. Let's say the screen is cracked.

Are we actually having a discussion about the legal/morality of people looking at my personal files beyond anything that A) absolutely necessary to fix the issue and B) already agreed upon between me and the person(s) doing the repair.

And if we aren't having that discussion I'm not sure what the hell anyone is talking about.

No, but I can use your scenario to make it clearer.

This would be like if you took your computer to a repair shop, signed their agreement, which every company has, and then they fixed your computer. After your computer is fixed you never paid, you never contacted them, you never picked your equipment up and after awhile it's considered abandoned which then becomes property of the repair shop.

The question being posed is, after you've abandoned that computer what moral rights does the individual who now has it have to the information on it? Some are saying absolutely none. The only thing they should morally do is wipe it completely and sell it as a refurb. Which gets a little complicated when it comes to OS licensing alone, but, whatever, it's not important.

Why the hell are people talking about software? That's the least interesting aspect to all of this. Nobody, not even any software companies, actually cares about what software was on Hunter's laptop, or who is legally allowed to use that software.

Hunter's copyright on material he produced on the laptop is interesting, but he has not asserted any copyright to that material, so unless and until he does, that's an entirely hypothetical question.

I am confident he will not try to assert copyright in order to stop the spread of any material on the laptop. I am willing to engage in an avatar bet with anyone who believes he will.

Nobody cares about Hunter Biden's laptop accept for people living so far in a pro-Trump delusion they can't be saved.

Pick a level, it's all crazy.

Was he an "artist" back then? I don't think he will either, but if he were to the only thing he'd try to do it on is his art, would be my guess.

That's not quite how it works. A copyright agreement is a contract. If you haven't agreed to it you don't get to use the software. If you have than you need to obey the terms.

When software is tied to a pc it means it can't be used on any other machine ever. Even if it's the right machine and you own it you need proof you own a license to sell it or even use it.

He won’t. But that does not mean that the shop had a right to his data. Many violations of rights go unpunished for practical reasons.

Copyright covers more than just artists.