Bill Barr and his October Surprise - Page 12

slyjoe · 18th October 2020, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I believe that the FB Terms&Conditions allow Zuckerberg to do whatever the hell he wants.

It's a business decision by Zuckerberg. If he is a content provider, he is responsible for what is posted. If he is just a platform, he is not.

JoeMorgue · 18th October 2020, 12:57 PM

If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides.

if he's a content provider, he has a duty to the truth to not share false information.

There is no place anywhere on the "Content Provider / Platform" hairsplit where it matters.

wareyin · 18th October 2020, 04:04 PM

Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence.

Sigh

Minoosh · 18th October 2020, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence.

Sigh

Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on. Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat.

Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was.

wareyin · 18th October 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on.

Oh, I agree, but we're told to apply the principle of charity here.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat.

Agreed again. But years later, the more sophisticated innuendo promoters are laughing at those who fell for the birther propaganda. That's why I predict that the Daily Mail or NY Post of tomorrow will be laughing at the rubes they conned this time. Currently, the shutIt's of the world may be necessary to spread the message, but the more transparently bonkers the message the more quickly the Giuliani/NY Posts of the world will throw their "useful idiots" under the bus.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was.

I can't fault Hillary Clinton for falling victim to a decades long smear campaign, no matter how much I appreciate a similar but shorter campaign failing this time. There will always be people willing to believe and amplify even the most glaringly BS claim about their political opponent. I would hope that the American public is becoming more aware of the abysmally retarded propaganda and how to ignore it this time around, but I fear this is a fleeting victory.

TellyKNeasuss · 18th October 2020, 09:16 PM

The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU

Giordano · 18th October 2020, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU

And many other NY Post news staff questioned the legitimacy and adequacy of the evidence behind the origins of the hard drive and the data in it.

The Great Zaganza · 18th October 2020, 10:02 PM

Calling someone who once wrote an article in the NYP a NYP reporter is stretching it

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th October 2020, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU

This will be dismissed out of hand because the sources are unnamed.

Bogative · 19th October 2020, 06:31 AM

DNI Ratcliffe addresses Adam Schiff's claims of Russian disinfo

Quote:

“Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress ... Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," continued Ratcliffe.

The Great Zaganza · 19th October 2020, 07:24 AM

how would Ratcliffe know?`
It's not like anyone in the IC tells him anything.
And he's certainly not going to ask.

Ziggurat · 19th October 2020, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides.

No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.

Darat · 19th October 2020, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.

Facebook has done that from day one. Since it has not been held responsible for the content it curates and it is still existing I think your interpretation may be tad broad and not in line with the actual legislation.

Blank · 19th October 2020, 09:52 AM

I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?

Giordano · 19th October 2020, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Blank

I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?

I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.

Babbylonian · 19th October 2020, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.

I think that until you provide evidence, and perhaps learn what words you should be using when making your flimsy argument, I'll consider this a lie.

TahiniBinShawarma · 19th October 2020, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Giordano

I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.

Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part.

shuttlt · 19th October 2020, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Blank

I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

Wouldn't that mean that almost any leak of information would be a copyright breach? Plus making a copy of the data on the laptop is the service that Biden supposedly requested.

Originally Posted by Blank

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

I don't think anybody is claiming that this nobody repair shop guy hand wrote tens of thousands of emails and elaborately faked the photos of Hunter Biden.

Originally Posted by Blank

Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?

If you think that the emails are genuine and Biden is going to go after him for copyright, you are dreaming. What possible benefit could there be in suing? If they are fake, then it's hard to believe the repair guy faked it.

shuttlt · 19th October 2020, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Giordano

I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.

You don't know what the terms were under which Biden handed over the laptop. Even if it is a breach of law to have handed the data over, it's a ridiculous side issue. Nothing of any importance about the story is changed by whether or not the repair guy was on legally solid or shaky ground by handing over the data to Giuliani.

Ziggurat · 19th October 2020, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Blank

I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

Copyright violations rarely end up with prison time. And they certainly won't in this case, for several reasons. First, there's the authorship issue. For example, Hunter may not have taken the picture of him apparently asleep with a crack pipe in his mouth. Whoever did would nominally own the copyright, not Hunter, and Hunter may not want to publicize their identity. Establishing authorship also establishes authenticity, which Hunter and Joe probably don't want either. And discovery is a bitch, so even with stuff he did take, going through each item and describing the conditions under which it was taken in order to establish his authorship is probably not something Hunter wants to pursue.

Second, since copyright exists to protect commercial interest in works, copyright violations are generally punished in proportion to the potential commercial loss they represent. There's no commercial loss here. Even were a case to be brought and won, the outcome would likely be a slap on the wrist with some nominal fine. That's really not going to be worth the Streisand effect it would bring.

Lastly, there may even be an out with fair use exceptions, if only a sampling of these works is publicly released.

Quote:

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

Yes, if these are fakes, they would create a huge defamation liability for the faker.

It doesn't look like they are fakes.

shuttlt · 19th October 2020, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part.

Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there.

TahiniBinShawarma · 19th October 2020, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there.

My point was Biden had no expectation of privacy by handing his computer over to the repair shop unless his emails were password protected and it was hacked. Although there is nothing to suggest that it was hacked. There is a lot of "recent" activity with these types of cases springing up on what constitutes "reasonable expectation of privacy."

https://www.cybertelecom.org/security/expectation.htm

Skeptic Ginger · 19th October 2020, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You don't know what the terms were under which Biden handed over the laptop. Even if it is a breach of law to have handed the data over, it's a ridiculous side issue. Nothing of any importance about the story is changed by whether or not the repair guy was on legally solid or shaky ground by handing over the data to Giuliani.

Facts not in evidence.

Suddenly · 19th October 2020, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part.

That is a totally different context. Fourth amendment expectation of privacy would only matter if a state actor was the one accessing the information.

As to whether a computer guy committed a legal or ethical breach it is of no account. It would depend on state law and/or the service contract.

A computer guy snooping through e-mails just because he can is at best an unprofessional creep.

TahiniBinShawarma · 19th October 2020, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

That is a totally different context. Fourth amendment expectation of privacy would only matter if a state actor was the one accessing the information.

As to whether a computer guy committed a legal or ethical breach it is of no account. It would depend on state law and/or the service contract.

A computer guy snooping through e-mails just because he can is at best an unprofessional creep.

Ummm no, it's not a different context. If I'm cheating on my wife and leave my email open, I have no expectation of privacy. If I send my computer to a repair guy and all my emails are visible through normal browsing means(not password protected) I have no expectation of privacy. Especially if I don't pick it up in the agreed to time frame.

I believe the repair guy claims he only looked at the files during impeachment when Burisma and the Bidens were linked in the news. That's when he called the FBI. The FBI supposedly retrieved the hardware with a Grand Jury subpoena.

This kinda makes me think Biden did drop it off. Unless the guy is on a suicide mission as far as lying to the FBI. According to reports Biden's attorney contacted the guy after it became public and wanted the hardware back. I've only seen an email from Bidens attorney thanking the repair guy for the discussion though. Nothing concrete.

phiwum · 19th October 2020, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there.

That seems more or less correct. The repair shop owner could be in legal jeopardy, but that has little to do with whether the emails are legitimate or not.

Now, the alleged smoking gun is hardly a big deal, seems to me. Honestly, if it is a totally fake email, then it seems like a trial balloon sent out before more seriously damning fake emails are released.

Trump regularly meets with people who have paid his company hundreds of thousands of dollars (for Mar-A-Lago fees, for instance) and his administration ends up benefiting those companies. Here we have an alleged meeting between Biden and a fellow working for Burisma (if I'm not mistaken) with no details about the context of the meeting and no record of the meeting according to Biden's spokesmen (who are not, of course, disinterested). There is already evidence that Biden's work in Ukraine had nothing to do with Burisma's interests and that didn't evidently change after the alleged meeting.

If this is all a ruse (which honestly seems pretty likely to me), it's not the real October surprise. It's merely setting the stage for more startling allegations.

There's little doubt that Hunter Biden profited from his father's position and that Burisma was interested in hiring him at least partly because of that position. This was a poor move on his part. It certainly doesn't make Biden look worse than the Trump family looks.

Suddenly · 19th October 2020, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Ummm no, it's not a different context. If I'm cheating on my wife and leave my email open, I have no expectation of privacy. If I send my computer to a repair guy and all my emails are visible through normal browsing means(not password protected) I have no expectation of privacy. Especially if I don't pick it up in the agreed to time frame.

You confuse the legal term with the real world term. Whether the fourth amendment forbids a state actor from doing something in furtherance of a criminal investigation has nothing to do with whether an individual who does it is an unethical creep violating another person's privacy.

Quote:

I believe the repair guy claims he only looked at the files during impeachment when Burisma and the Bidens were linked in the news. That's when he called the FBI. The FBI supposedly retrieved the hardware with a Grand Jury subpoena.

Still a creep sticking his nose in places it doesn't belong. That he would do it based on some conspiracy theory doesn't change that in no circumstances would a sane person use a computer service company that thinks snooping of this nature is remotely tolerable.

jerrywayne · 19th October 2020, 12:52 PM

Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720

Skeptic Ginger · 19th October 2020, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720

Where are Trey Gowdy and Darryl Issa when you need them? They know how to turn nothing burgers like Benghazi and 'her' emails into a dozen hearings, complete with dozens of press conferences where they display their outrage. Trump and Giuliani needed to start much earlier.

Stacyhs · 19th October 2020, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Where are Trey Gowdy and Darryl Issa when you need them? They know how to turn nothing burgers like Benghazi and 'her' emails into a dozen hearings. Trump and Giuliani needed to start much earlier.

Even Trey Gowdy finally had enough of the scumbaggery going on in the Trump Admin.

Elagabalus · 19th October 2020, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720

Wow, the washington times is all kinds of crazy sauce.

dirtywick · 19th October 2020, 01:33 PM

The tabloid magazine reporter that actually wrote the article didn't want his name attached to it. The Hannity producer that wrote it didn't want to hers on it either. Giuliani himself gave it a 50/50 that he was working with Russian intelligence. That's how stupid this is.

Stacyhs · 19th October 2020, 01:42 PM

Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Wow, the washington times is a kinds of crazy sauce.

That's all it is. They're desperate. They're passengers on the Titanic and this story is their floating debris in the water.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th October 2020, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bogative

DNI Ratcliffe addresses Adam Schiff's claims of Russian disinfo

This is the same Ratcliffe who declassified what was likely Russian disinformation and passed it on to Lindsay Graham so that Graham could make it public via the Senate, right?

TahiniBinShawarma · 19th October 2020, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

You confuse the legal term with the real world term. Whether the fourth amendment forbids a state actor from doing something in furtherance of a criminal investigation has nothing to do with whether an individual who does it is an unethical creep violating another person's privacy.

Still a creep sticking his nose in places it doesn't belong. That he would do it based on some conspiracy theory doesn't change that in no circumstances would a sane person use a computer service company that thinks snooping of this nature is remotely tolerable.

I said nothing about the fourth amendment. If you think there is no such thing as "reasonable expectation of privacy" outside of gov't intrusion cases, you're wrong.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th October 2020, 02:10 PM

I'll try to find some text sources of these tomorrow when I've got a little more time (and therefore take them with a large pinch of salt until I can find corroboration of some kind), but I heard three pieces of information about the email and the laptop today.

The first has already been discussed in the thread (and apologies if the other two have and I missed them), namely that the metadata of the "smocking gun" email dates it to October 2019, while the laptop itself was allegedly dropped off in April 2019.

The second is that there is allegedly a time-stamp on the email which is from a central European timezone, rather than an American one.

And the third is that the serial number of the harddrive has been traced and reveals that it remains in warranty until April 18th 2022. Since that model has a 3 year warranty, that means that it was purchased on April 18th 2019. The laptop was allegedly dropped off on April 12th 2019.

varwoche · 19th October 2020, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

What better way to cover your tracks than to travel clear across country to get three of your laptops fixed.

With time to spare for an excursion to the basement of a pizza parlor, populated by a satanic cult and Bigfoot.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th October 2020, 02:13 PM

This thread addresses the latter, and more besides.

[Edit]And it means that the drive was manufactured after Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off.

shuttlt · 19th October 2020, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

This thread addresses the latter, and more besides.

[Edit]And it means that the drive was manufactured after Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off.

Does this guy show anything other than the SSD in the laptop probably didn't have any damage to it? That hasn't been claimed.

Elagabalus · 19th October 2020, 03:01 PM

Here's an easier to read version.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...751762945.html

18th October 2020, 10:42 AM	#441
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,536	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I believe that the FB Terms&Conditions allow Zuckerberg to do whatever the hell he wants. It's a business decision by Zuckerberg. If he is a content provider, he is responsible for what is posted. If he is just a platform, he is not.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

18th October 2020, 12:57 PM	#442
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,765	If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides. if he's a content provider, he has a duty to the truth to not share false information. There is no place anywhere on the "Content Provider / Platform" hairsplit where it matters.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

18th October 2020, 09:16 PM	#446
TellyKNeasuss Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,623	The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

18th October 2020, 10:02 PM	#448
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,292	Calling someone who once wrote an article in the NYP a NYP reporter is stretching it
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

19th October 2020, 01:21 AM	#449
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 30,947	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU This will be dismissed out of hand because the sources are unnamed.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

18th October 2020, 04:04 PM	#443
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,152	Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence. Sigh

18th October 2020, 04:26 PM	#444
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,097	Originally Posted by wareyin Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence. Sigh Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on. Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat. Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was.

18th October 2020, 04:47 PM	#445
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,152	Originally Posted by Minoosh Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on. Oh, I agree, but we're told to apply the principle of charity here. Originally Posted by Minoosh Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat. Agreed again. But years later, the more sophisticated innuendo promoters are laughing at those who fell for the birther propaganda. That's why I predict that the Daily Mail or NY Post of tomorrow will be laughing at the rubes they conned this time. Currently, the shutIt's of the world may be necessary to spread the message, but the more transparently bonkers the message the more quickly the Giuliani/NY Posts of the world will throw their "useful idiots" under the bus. Originally Posted by Minoosh Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was. I can't fault Hillary Clinton for falling victim to a decades long smear campaign, no matter how much I appreciate a similar but shorter campaign failing this time. There will always be people willing to believe and amplify even the most glaringly BS claim about their political opponent. I would hope that the American public is becoming more aware of the abysmally retarded propaganda and how to ignore it this time around, but I fear this is a fleeting victory.

18th October 2020, 09:32 PM	#447
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss The NY Times claims that the NY Post reporter who was the primary author of the article refused to allow his byline to be used because he didn't think that the information had been adequately verified. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/b...jl3eESYTWqMRuU And many other NY Post news staff questioned the legitimacy and adequacy of the evidence behind the origins of the hard drive and the data in it.

19th October 2020, 06:31 AM	#450
Bogative Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 1,580	DNI Ratcliffe addresses Adam Schiff's claims of Russian disinfo Quote: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress ... Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," continued Ratcliffe.

19th October 2020, 07:24 AM	#451
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,292	how would Ratcliffe know?` It's not like anyone in the IC tells him anything. And he's certainly not going to ask.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

19th October 2020, 07:29 AM	#452
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 47,883	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides. No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one. And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th October 2020, 07:49 AM	#453
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,013	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one. And there are attendant liabilities in that decision. Facebook has done that from day one. Since it has not been held responsible for the content it curates and it is still existing I think your interpretation may be tad broad and not in line with the actual legislation.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

19th October 2020, 09:52 AM	#454
Blank Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 100	I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store. This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations? And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges? Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?
Blank Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 100

19th October 2020, 10:06 AM	#455
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by Blank I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store. This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations? And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges? Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here? I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person. The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.

19th October 2020, 10:18 AM	#456
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,417	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one. And there are attendant liabilities in that decision. I think that until you provide evidence, and perhaps learn what words you should be using when making your flimsy argument, I'll consider this a lie.

19th October 2020, 10:25 AM	#457
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Giordano I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person. The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner. Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

19th October 2020, 10:27 AM	#458
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Blank I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store. This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations? Wouldn't that mean that almost any leak of information would be a copyright breach? Plus making a copy of the data on the laptop is the service that Biden supposedly requested. Originally Posted by Blank And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges? I don't think anybody is claiming that this nobody repair shop guy hand wrote tens of thousands of emails and elaborately faked the photos of Hunter Biden. Originally Posted by Blank Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here? If you think that the emails are genuine and Biden is going to go after him for copyright, you are dreaming. What possible benefit could there be in suing? If they are fake, then it's hard to believe the repair guy faked it.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

19th October 2020, 10:36 AM	#459
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Giordano I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person. The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner. You don't know what the terms were under which Biden handed over the laptop. Even if it is a breach of law to have handed the data over, it's a ridiculous side issue. Nothing of any importance about the story is changed by whether or not the repair guy was on legally solid or shaky ground by handing over the data to Giuliani.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

19th October 2020, 10:36 AM	#460
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 47,883	Originally Posted by Blank I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store. This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations? Copyright violations rarely end up with prison time. And they certainly won't in this case, for several reasons. First, there's the authorship issue. For example, Hunter may not have taken the picture of him apparently asleep with a crack pipe in his mouth. Whoever did would nominally own the copyright, not Hunter, and Hunter may not want to publicize their identity. Establishing authorship also establishes authenticity, which Hunter and Joe probably don't want either. And discovery is a bitch, so even with stuff he did take, going through each item and describing the conditions under which it was taken in order to establish his authorship is probably not something Hunter wants to pursue. Second, since copyright exists to protect commercial interest in works, copyright violations are generally punished in proportion to the potential commercial loss they represent. There's no commercial loss here. Even were a case to be brought and won, the outcome would likely be a slap on the wrist with some nominal fine. That's really not going to be worth the Streisand effect it would bring. Lastly, there may even be an out with fair use exceptions, if only a sampling of these works is publicly released. Quote: And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges? Yes, if these are fakes, they would create a huge defamation liability for the faker. It doesn't look like they are fakes.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

19th October 2020, 10:38 AM	#461
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part. Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

19th October 2020, 10:45 AM	#462
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by shuttlt Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there. My point was Biden had no expectation of privacy by handing his computer over to the repair shop unless his emails were password protected and it was hacked. Although there is nothing to suggest that it was hacked. There is a lot of "recent" activity with these types of cases springing up on what constitutes "reasonable expectation of privacy." https://www.cybertelecom.org/security/expectation.htm
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

19th October 2020, 10:45 AM	#463
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,702	Originally Posted by shuttlt You don't know what the terms were under which Biden handed over the laptop. Even if it is a breach of law to have handed the data over, it's a ridiculous side issue. Nothing of any importance about the story is changed by whether or not the repair guy was on legally solid or shaky ground by handing over the data to Giuliani. Facts not in evidence.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

19th October 2020, 11:11 AM	#464
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,048	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part. That is a totally different context. Fourth amendment expectation of privacy would only matter if a state actor was the one accessing the information. As to whether a computer guy committed a legal or ethical breach it is of no account. It would depend on state law and/or the service contract. A computer guy snooping through e-mails just because he can is at best an unprofessional creep.

19th October 2020, 11:23 AM	#465
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Suddenly That is a totally different context. Fourth amendment expectation of privacy would only matter if a state actor was the one accessing the information. As to whether a computer guy committed a legal or ethical breach it is of no account. It would depend on state law and/or the service contract. A computer guy snooping through e-mails just because he can is at best an unprofessional creep. Ummm no, it's not a different context. If I'm cheating on my wife and leave my email open, I have no expectation of privacy. If I send my computer to a repair guy and all my emails are visible through normal browsing means(not password protected) I have no expectation of privacy. Especially if I don't pick it up in the agreed to time frame. I believe the repair guy claims he only looked at the files during impeachment when Burisma and the Bidens were linked in the news. That's when he called the FBI. The FBI supposedly retrieved the hardware with a Grand Jury subpoena. This kinda makes me think Biden did drop it off. Unless the guy is on a suicide mission as far as lying to the FBI. According to reports Biden's attorney contacted the guy after it became public and wanted the hardware back. I've only seen an email from Bidens attorney thanking the repair guy for the discussion though. Nothing concrete.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

19th October 2020, 11:26 AM	#466
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,714	Originally Posted by shuttlt Even if he did have an expectation of privacy, it's too late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now. Trump had an expectation of privacy about his tax returns and it was too bad, so sad for him there. That seems more or less correct. The repair shop owner could be in legal jeopardy, but that has little to do with whether the emails are legitimate or not. Now, the alleged smoking gun is hardly a big deal, seems to me. Honestly, if it is a totally fake email, then it seems like a trial balloon sent out before more seriously damning fake emails are released. Trump regularly meets with people who have paid his company hundreds of thousands of dollars (for Mar-A-Lago fees, for instance) and his administration ends up benefiting those companies. Here we have an alleged meeting between Biden and a fellow working for Burisma (if I'm not mistaken) with no details about the context of the meeting and no record of the meeting according to Biden's spokesmen (who are not, of course, disinterested). There is already evidence that Biden's work in Ukraine had nothing to do with Burisma's interests and that didn't evidently change after the alleged meeting. If this is all a ruse (which honestly seems pretty likely to me), it's not the real October surprise. It's merely setting the stage for more startling allegations. There's little doubt that Hunter Biden profited from his father's position and that Burisma was interested in hiring him at least partly because of that position. This was a poor move on his part. It certainly doesn't make Biden look worse than the Trump family looks.

19th October 2020, 12:42 PM	#467
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,048	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma Ummm no, it's not a different context. If I'm cheating on my wife and leave my email open, I have no expectation of privacy. If I send my computer to a repair guy and all my emails are visible through normal browsing means(not password protected) I have no expectation of privacy. Especially if I don't pick it up in the agreed to time frame. You confuse the legal term with the real world term. Whether the fourth amendment forbids a state actor from doing something in furtherance of a criminal investigation has nothing to do with whether an individual who does it is an unethical creep violating another person's privacy. Quote: I believe the repair guy claims he only looked at the files during impeachment when Burisma and the Bidens were linked in the news. That's when he called the FBI. The FBI supposedly retrieved the hardware with a Grand Jury subpoena. Still a creep sticking his nose in places it doesn't belong. That he would do it based on some conspiracy theory doesn't change that in no circumstances would a sane person use a computer service company that thinks snooping of this nature is remotely tolerable.

19th October 2020, 12:52 PM	#468
jerrywayne Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 1,083	Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720

19th October 2020, 01:14 PM	#469
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,702	Originally Posted by jerrywayne Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720 Where are Trey Gowdy and Darryl Issa when you need them? They know how to turn nothing burgers like Benghazi and 'her' emails into a dozen hearings, complete with dozens of press conferences where they display their outrage. Trump and Giuliani needed to start much earlier.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it. Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th October 2020 at 01:29 PM.

19th October 2020, 01:25 PM	#470
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,349	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Where are Trey Gowdy and Darryl Issa when you need them? They know how to turn nothing burgers like Benghazi and 'her' emails into a dozen hearings. Trump and Giuliani needed to start much earlier. Even Trey Gowdy finally had enough of the scumbaggery going on in the Trump Admin.

19th October 2020, 01:28 PM	#471
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by jerrywayne Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720 Wow, the washington times is all kinds of crazy sauce.
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,890	Last edited by Elagabalus; 19th October 2020 at 01:46 PM.

19th October 2020, 01:33 PM	#472
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,829	The tabloid magazine reporter that actually wrote the article didn't want his name attached to it. The Hannity producer that wrote it didn't want to hers on it either. Giuliani himself gave it a 50/50 that he was working with Russian intelligence. That's how stupid this is.
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,829

19th October 2020, 01:42 PM	#473
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,349	Republicans trying to keep the story in the news just in time for the election. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...=1603136281720 Originally Posted by Elagabalus Wow, the washington times is a kinds of crazy sauce. That's all it is. They're desperate. They're passengers on the Titanic and this story is their floating debris in the water.

19th October 2020, 01:59 PM	#474
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 30,947	Originally Posted by Bogative DNI Ratcliffe addresses Adam Schiff's claims of Russian disinfo This is the same Ratcliffe who declassified what was likely Russian disinformation and passed it on to Lindsay Graham so that Graham could make it public via the Senate, right?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th October 2020, 02:01 PM	#475
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Suddenly You confuse the legal term with the real world term. Whether the fourth amendment forbids a state actor from doing something in furtherance of a criminal investigation has nothing to do with whether an individual who does it is an unethical creep violating another person's privacy. Still a creep sticking his nose in places it doesn't belong. That he would do it based on some conspiracy theory doesn't change that in no circumstances would a sane person use a computer service company that thinks snooping of this nature is remotely tolerable. I said nothing about the fourth amendment. If you think there is no such thing as "reasonable expectation of privacy" outside of gov't intrusion cases, you're wrong.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756