Wikileaks releases emails from Clinton campaign chair (John Podesta) Prt 2 Assange Internet Shut Off

[Greoric]

Hardly. It's about as weak a comeback as possible. The only savagery in play was my deconstruction of his argument to such a point that he had nothing left.

And you and I have argued plenty, I've never seen you run out of actual points and counterpoints. When I'm destroying someone, this is what happens. It happens all of the time, he's not the first and he won't be the last.

Yeah I suppose you could use weak. The first part of his reply was pretty funny, but the second part made me cringe a little bit. Frankly, if that was concerning my wife that wouldn't have been pleasant to read. A little too below the belt I guess.

 

[method115]

Hacking is a crime. First Amendment might protect disclosure assuming the person disclosing isn't party to the hacking. But downloading, say onto your personal computer, is potentially criminal. Looking at it on Wikileaks isn't downloading it nor is viewing it on a website.

No downloading them is not a crime either

“It is illegal for the media or anyone else to possess actually stolen tangible property (e.g., stolen paper letters, stolen paper files, etc.)” Mr. Volokh emailed Law Blog.

Mr. Volokh adds: “But possessing illegally made copies (again, when you weren’t involved in the illegal copying) isn’t illegal, and likely can’t be made illegal consistently with the First Amendment.”

He points to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Bartnicki vs. Vopper in which justices ruled in favor of a radio broadcaster that aired a cellphone conversation — between a teachers’ union president and a top union negotiator — that someone else had recorded illegally.

The justices, Mr. Volokh notes, expressly said they were drawing no distinction between the talk-radio host who played the tape and the non-journalist who found the recording in his mailbox and gave it to him. In both situations, where neither one played a part in the illegal interception, First Amendment interests prevailed.

Mr. Abrams adds that the Bartnicki case focused on the dissemination of wiretapped information. “A downloader of WikiLeaks-provided materials isn’t even in that position,” he said.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

My thoughts exactly.

@Al Gorithm I can't believe I'm going to write this, but that was probably a little too savage.

You're right, it was mean.....a little childish . It happens

 

[Greoric]

Hacking is a crime. First Amendment might protect disclosure assuming the person disclosing isn't party to the hacking. But downloading, say onto your personal computer, is potentially criminal. Looking at it on Wikileaks isn't downloading it nor is viewing it on a website.

No downloading them is not a crime either

“It is illegal for the media or anyone else to possess actually stolen tangible property (e.g., stolen paper letters, stolen paper files, etc.)” Mr. Volokh emailed Law Blog.

Mr. Volokh adds: “But possessing illegally made copies (again, when you weren’t involved in the illegal copying) isn’t illegal, and likely can’t be made illegal consistently with the First Amendment.”

He points to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Bartnicki vs. Vopper in which justices ruled in favor of a radio broadcaster that aired a cellphone conversation — between a teachers’ union president and a top union negotiator — that someone else had recorded illegally.

The justices, Mr. Volokh notes, expressly said they were drawing no distinction between the talk-radio host who played the tape and the non-journalist who found the recording in his mailbox and gave it to him. In both situations, where neither one played a part in the illegal interception, First Amendment interests prevailed.

Mr. Abrams adds that the Bartnicki case focused on the dissemination of wiretapped information. “A downloader of WikiLeaks-provided materials isn’t even in that position,” he said.

 

[Greoric]

You're right, it was mean.....a little childish . It happens

I enjoyed the play ground and sandbox comment though.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah I suppose you could use weak. The first part of his reply was pretty funny, but the second part made me cringe a little bit. Frankly, if that was concerning my wife that wouldn't have been pleasant to read. A little too below the belt I guess.

Not the first time and it won't be the last. If I cringed every time someone took a swipe at me over an argument I'd never stop cringing. But I will keep cracking open his arguments until every debate ends with him having to insult me because he has nothing left.

 

[Greoric]

Not the first time and it won't be the last. If I cringed every time someone took a swipe at me over an argument I'd never stop cringing. But I will keep cracking open his arguments until every debate ends with him having to insult me because he has nothing left.

Yup, getting hit with e-poo is inevitable when you have a bunch of advanced primates talking to each other through fiber optic cables.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Hacking is a crime. First Amendment might protect disclosure assuming the person disclosing isn't party to the hacking. But downloading, say onto your personal computer, is potentially criminal. Looking at it on Wikileaks isn't downloading it nor is viewing it on a website.

Clearly hacking is a crime. Beyond that I don't know what you mean by "downloading". The article cites court cases showing that sharing ill-gotten information isn't a crime if you're not the one who took the materials. That's all that matters here and the scare-mongering by CNN guy on that was shameful.

Why? With all the social media already out there, what's the point of fabrication? If anything it's far more authentic than empty avatars.

And I'm surprised at you taking that position considering that you've actually mailed me things in the real world.

I'm just playing the odds. It's pretty unusual and of little benefit to yourself. Why risk her encountering some Sherdog psycho in real life? It's of no importance anyway other than to possibly rib you over it.

Yeah I suppose you could use weak. The first part of his reply was pretty funny, but the second part made me cringe a little bit. Frankly, if that was concerning my wife that wouldn't have been pleasant to read. A little too below the belt I guess.

In fairness, if someone doesn't want comments on their AV then they should maybe consider a change.

 

[panamaican]

No downloading them is not a crime either

“It is illegal for the media or anyone else to possess actually stolen tangible property (e.g., stolen paper letters, stolen paper files, etc.)” Mr. Volokh emailed Law Blog.

Mr. Volokh adds: “But possessing illegally made copies (again, when you weren’t involved in the illegal copying) isn’t illegal, and likely can’t be made illegal consistently with the First Amendment.”

He points to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Bartnicki vs. Vopper in which justices ruled in favor of a radio broadcaster that aired a cellphone conversation — between a teachers’ union president and a top union negotiator — that someone else had recorded illegally.

The justices, Mr. Volokh notes, expressly said they were drawing no distinction between the talk-radio host who played the tape and the non-journalist who found the recording in his mailbox and gave it to him. In both situations, where neither one played a part in the illegal interception, First Amendment interests prevailed.

Mr. Abrams adds that the Bartnicki case focused on the dissemination of wiretapped information. “A downloader of WikiLeaks-provided materials isn’t even in that position,” he said.

Bartnicki applied to the radio broadcaster replaying it.

[John] Turley did add that Cuomo was right when he said the media has an exception. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue. The Justices were assessing whether a radio personality could be held liable for playing illegally intercepted phone calls on the radio. The Court held the First Amendment protected the disclosure of the intercepted communications by parties who didn’t participate in the illegal act.

Turley concedes that there are technical arguments that downloading the material could be a crime.

It is true that possession of stolen items is a crime and documents can be treated as stolen items. However, this material has already been released and it is doubtful that downloading widely available material (particularly in a matter of great public interest) would be seen as prosecutable possession.

Which is why I said downloading could be criminal. Not that it always is, not that it always isn't.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

You could at least spell "counsel" right.

I've been shoving substance down your throat this entire thread. You just don't have anything to respond with. I'm going to keep hammering away at that point because it's true and, more importantly, you don't have a response.

I don't want the last word but I'll certainly take it...wait, was that too egotistical for you?

"I'm right and you're wrong" = hammering substance ? Literally everything you've said has been a variation of that.

By all means keep throwing your tantrum and slinging shit like the cerebral cat that you pretend to be. You must be a hell of attorney if a dude you don't even know pointing out that the wife you may or may not have is starting to crack around the edges is enough to goad you into an hour's long exchange here.

All right, That was the last one . You can tell me again how much ass you've kicked , and how upset you arent!

 

[panamaican]

Clearly hacking is a crime. Beyond that I don't know what you mean by "downloading". The article cites court cases showing that sharing ill-gotten information isn't a crime if you're not the one who took the materials. That's all that matters here and the scare-mongering by CNN guy on that was shameful.

Sharing the information is different. See my other post.

I'm just playing the odds. It's pretty unusual and of little benefit to yourself. Why risk her encountering some Sherdog psycho in real life? It's of no importance anyway other than to possibly rib you over it.

I've explained the benefit to myself many times in the past. At the time I started posting here, I wasn't married and didn't keep a picture of my gf on my desk. My gf and I reached this compromise since I spent so much time on here anyway.

My wife is the cover model for a novel that's been in circulation for years. Sherdog is a small playground in comparison.

In fairness, if someone doesn't want comments on their AV then they should maybe consider a change.

Which is why I don't particularly care about the comments except as evidence that the other poster has run out of substance.

 

[panamaican]

"I'm right and you're wrong" = hammering substance ? Literally everything you've said has been a variation of that.

By all means keep throwing your tantrum and slinging shit like the cerebral cat that you pretend to be. You must be a hell of attorney if a dude you don't even know pointing out that the wife you may or may not have is starting to crack around the edges is enough to goad you into an hour's long exchange here.

All right, That was the last one . You can tell me again how much ass you've kicked , and how upset you arent!

I don't have to tell you how much ass I've kicked. You know it, it's why you keep running further and further away. Your argument was weak? Personal insults. Your personal insults are proof that your argument was weak? Claim that I have an ego. My ego hurts your feelings? Back to personal insults.

Yet, I'm the one repeating myself? Stop it, that's hilarious. The truth is that you're sensitive about your intelligence and you don't like people poking fun at it (c'mon Al Gorithm? You really think that doesn't speak to how you perceive yourself?).

And don't worry about the length of the exchange, I've had longer. But you're right about the attorney thing, an argument doesn't bother me. I've argued with far brighter people and lost said arguments so watching you flail away for something, anything to hang your hat on is light work.

 

[sloppypie]

So you're not going to vote at all then?, i mean, afteral, if you actually have standards and that is why you hate Trump, there is no way that you would vote for Hillary, who, to anyone with a brain is clearly 100 times worse?

There's something 1000 worse than Hillary - Donald trump. Unfortunately, I pay attention and I think for myself. And when I do that, it means I don't listen to republican propaganda that has been invading our media space for over a decade.

People like you eat that shit up because frankly, and I only mean this to be slightly insulting, you are stupid. You don't know what you are doing, you don't know how to think critically, and you have a lot of white people fears and issues that make you search for a team to join.

I don't have a team. I don't do that because thinking that way is stupid. And it's beyond stupid to sit there and think someone like trump is anywhere near as qualified as someone like Clinton. All this hyperbole from the right is designed to make people angry and join a mob. And it's worked, trump people are so mob like that he has them ready to go intimidate voters and riot if he loses. You think that's the behavior of a good man? Someone who should be president?

You will Dodge that one I know. Don't bother

 

[theBLADE1]

Apparently they were willing to go after some guy's firm If he endorsed Sanders. LOL at Bernistas

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sharing the information is different. See my other post.




I've explained the benefit to myself many times in the past. At the time I started posting here, I wasn't married and didn't keep a picture of my gf on my desk. My gf and I reached this compromise since I spent so much time on here anyway.

My wife is the cover model for a novel that's been in circulation for years. Sherdog is a small playground in comparison.

I didn't see anything to suggest the news guy was correct in what he said. Let's simplify this. Somebody steals info they consider newsworthy. They give it to a news outlet. People view and discuss that material. Show me some precedent to suggest that either the news outlet or the viewers have committed a crime. Also show me where (as claimed by the reporter) it's ok for them to look at this stuff but not you and I.

If you want to make a bet that somebody gets charged and convicted for looking at these leaks I'll take that action.

Look man, if you wanna put your wife on display publicly that's your choice. Based on you being the only guy doing it, some people might find it odd. Personally I found it easy to make space for a picture on my desk.

 

[Fawlty]

It's hilarious how many times JVS asked for a simple, direct claim, and received super internet anger in response.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I remember the days I could click on a wikileaks thread and actually see some wikileaks. Now all I see is Pan doing his best JVS impression while those work a glutton for punishment continue to play into it.

@Hans Gruber @sodapopinski Please come quick because were barely holding on

 

[theBLADE1]

Some guy from the WYSS Foundation was applying for some sort of job and they didn't want anyone to know about it at all..

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15393#efmAKeANH

The foundation is something to do with environmental conservation.

http://wyssfoundation.org/

 

[Fawlty]

Lesson learned itt:

Donald Trump is the 47th chromosome.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't see anything to suggest the news guy was correct in what he said. Let's simplify this. Somebody steals info they consider newsworthy. They give it to a news outlet. People view and discuss that material. Show me some precedent to suggest that either the news outlet or the viewers have committed a crime. Also show me where (as claimed by the reporter) it's ok for them to look at this stuff but not you and I.

If you want to make a bet that somebody gets charged and convicted for looking at these leaks I'll take that action.

Look man, if you wanna put your wife on display publicly that's your choice. Based on you being the only guy doing it, some people might find it odd. Personally I found it easy to make space for a picture on my desk.

At the time, I didn't keep anything personal on my desk. Unlike Sherdog, there's a greater chance that people who visit my office might actually bump into me and mine in real life. People can think the public display is odd but, like I said, my wife's already on a book cover. A restaurant used our picture for some promotional stuff, pre-marriage. We crossed the pure public/private part of it a long time ago.

But you can't simplify the other situation the way you're implying. There are 4 different acts being discussed. Hacking - criminal. Disclosing - not criminal if not part of the hacking. Reading/listening/watching - not criminal. Possessing - possibly criminal.

Your example stops at reading/listening/watching. Downloading is different from just reading/watching/listening.