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

[Jack V Savage]

You mean posting a huge picture like you did? Sorry I forgot were all to be held to different standards then you.

I'm not asking you for anything crazy. In fact, if you've actually read the stuff and you have actually seen something that you find concerning and are wondering about, what I'm asking is *easier* than what you've been doing (that's a huge "if" though). Just point out one thing that is clearly expressed and that you have evidence for.

All I've seen in response to that very basic, simple request is personal attacks. If you were me, what would you conclude other than that no one has actually read through this stuff and found anything?

 

[panamaican]

In that respect, should Glen Greenwald be charged along with Snowden for the exchange of documents he acquired?

Like I was saying to Cubo - 3 different people doing 3 different things with 3 different consequences. The hacker, the journalist and the end recipient are doing different things with different legal consequences. Hacking the documents is a crime. Disclosing them isn't a crime when it's done by a journalist although it would be a crime if it was done by the hacker. Obtaining a copy of them, but not for disclosure, would be a crime, but it's not a crime when it's a journalist doing so for disclosure.

Reading them by the end user isn't a crime by anyone. But downloading them by the end user creates the possibility of a crime.

So Greenwald obtained them for the purpose of disclosure and that wouldn't be a crime.

 

[theBLADE1]

I'm not asking you for anything crazy. In fact, if you've actually read the stuff and you have actually seen something that you find concerning and are wondering about, what I'm asking is *easier* than what you've been doing (that's a huge "if" though). Just point out one thing that is clearly expressed and that you have evidence for.

You act like there were so many things I posted LOL. Read the list see if anyone of them sticks out to you as problematic. I did my job. I'm done going around in a circle with you either read what I sent you or fuck right off.

 

[monster zero]

And the retards continue.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You act like there were so many things I posted LOL. Read the list see if anyone of them sticks out to you as problematic. I did my job. I'm done going around in a circle with you either read what I sent you or fuck right off.

The only reason it's going around in circles is that you're ducking my very simple request. If you just read the stuff and found something, the circling would end.

For all the work you're putting in to attack anyone who questions the Russian/right-wing narrative, you could have actually informed yourself and everyone else. But I guess you'd rather get e-high-fives from right-wing nutters than learn something.

This whole thing is classic.

"Hey, what do you think of this hundred of pages of mostly shit?"
"What should I look at specifically?"
"Fuck you, that's what!!"
"Yeah, that guy was trolling by asking."

 

[Ruprecht]

Possessing was discussed in the link I initially provided this morning, and is implied by the reading/listening/watching. Hard to do those things if someone (eg. the news outlet) doesn't possess the info in question. The only point of contention there would be possessing copies vs. something original.

I don't know what "downloading" the news is. You'll need to flesh that out in order to differentiate those actions from the normal course of reporting and consuming the news.

How about that bet? I think you're confusion your philosophical musings with the actual law.

Mostly hacking offences come under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, although apparently your states also have their individual Computer Crime Statutes.
Whether it's illegal to download or distribute (which includes simply linking) depends on the nature of the documents. If they are classified, subject to IP law or contain any authentication information, that would likely be illegal.
I don't think that would apply to these emails.

 

[Quipling]

Like I was saying to Cubo - 3 different people doing 3 different things with 3 different consequences. The hacker, the journalist and the end recipient are doing different things with different legal consequences. Hacking the documents is a crime. Disclosing them isn't a crime when it's done by a journalist although it would be a crime if it was done by the hacker. Obtaining a copy of them, but not for disclosure, would be a crime, but it's not a crime when it's a journalist doing so for disclosure.

Reading them by the end user isn't a crime by anyone. But downloading them by the end user creates the possibility of a crime.

So Greenwald obtained them for the purpose of disclosure and that wouldn't be a crime.

I'll get into this a bit more when I get home and can check my old research notes, but there are some instances where accepting or distributing illicitly obtained information by journalists can be criminal. Laws on this vary by state, though.

 

[Greoric]

Like I was saying to Cubo - 3 different people doing 3 different things with 3 different consequences. The hacker, the journalist and the end recipient are doing different things with different legal consequences. Hacking the documents is a crime. Disclosing them isn't a crime when it's done by a journalist although it would be a crime if it was done by the hacker. Obtaining a copy of them, but not for disclosure, would be a crime, but it's not a crime when it's a journalist doing so for disclosure.

Reading them by the end user isn't a crime by anyone. But downloading them by the end user creates the possibility of a crime.

So Greenwald obtained them for the purpose of disclosure and that wouldn't be a crime.

Is that legitimately the law in regards to possession of classified info, disclosure? How could you possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that disclosure wasn't someone's intent, and to what extent is it considered disclosed? One person?

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Trump supporters: Hillary once said she grabbed pussy because she was a star. This crooked crook is out of control omg!!!' And she caused 9/11 AND the Iraq war, she's a liar!!!!

Jesus I feel gross even pretending to be a trump supporter. I'm definitely not drunk enough for this or on sufficient levels of meth to make this work.

I think you're just bleeding from the vag, that might be the problem. It's ok, i doubt Trump wins and all will be good for you.

 

[panamaican]

Is that legitimately the law in regards to possession of classified info, disclosure? How could you possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that disclosure wasn't someone's intent, and to what extent is it considered disclosed? One person?

I don't know the classified specifications. I think proving that disclosure wasn't the intent boils down to showing that they made no efforts to do so within a reasonable amount of time. Or that they used the documents for some other purpose other than informing the public. I don't know how many people are necessary.

But this is more technicality than something that would get prosecuted. Which was always my first point. Technically, you could have a crime. In practice, it's unlikely. The reporter overstated in that he made it sound like if it's a definite criminal act when it's more nuanced than that. But he wasn't completely wrong either. CNN has some protections that you or I wouldn't.

That's the Bartnicki case people keep referencing:

Cuomo is right about status of reporters being clear and protected. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the media is allowed to publish material that may have been obtained illegally and declared a law unconstitutional to the extent that it would make such media use unlawful.

Note that the protection is applicable to the media, not everyone.

 

[theBLADE1]

The only reason it's going around in circles is that you're ducking my very simple request. If you just read the stuff and found something, the circling would end.

For all the work you're putting in to attack anyone who questions the Russian/right-wing narrative, you could have actually informed yourself and everyone else. But I guess you'd rather get e-high-fives from right-wing nutters than learn something.

This whole thing is classic.

"Hey, what do you think of this hundred of pages of mostly shit?"
"What should I look at specifically?"
"Fuck you, that's what!!"
"Yeah, that guy was trolling by asking."

Again you misrepresent. I posted a few very specific things that I find problematic. There were not very numerous. There are far more issues than just one specific one and I chose what I felt like were the best ones so far. If I had chosen one you might just dismiss it and say "If this is the best you have then there is no point to look at any further crap." I know you and your contrived bullshit too well

And I don't give a goddamn about Internet high-fives from anybody. This has all proven the lengths that the Clinton campaign and the DNC will go through to unfairly cast people in a negative light and spin the media to their benefit. That's the only thing I care about I don't give a damn who people are supporting in this thread. Whereas you have made up your mind before you have even looked at anything. Your head stays firmly planted in the sand.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It doesn't matter how corrupt Crooked Hillary is discovered to be because Donald Trump used bad words and the special snowflakes who grew up watching Barney the Purple Dinosaur had their feelings hurt.

It's Okay to Cry

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again you misrepresent. I posted a few very specific things that I find problematic.

No, you dropped a link dump on me. Pick something that you think is real and well-supported and explain it. Or tell me why that's asking too much.

And I don't give a goddamn about Internet high-fives from anybody. This has all proven the lengths that the Clinton campaign and the DNC will go through to unfairly cast people in a negative light and spin the media to their benefit. That's the only thing I care about I don't give a damn who people are supporting in this thread. Whereas you have made up your mind before you have even looked at anything. Your head stays firmly planted in the sand.

Except that I'm the guy who's asking for a point and for evidence. You're the guy who is getting mad at the guy asking for a point and evidence. So the evidence is pretty clear that you're the one whose mind is made up before you have looked at anything (and, be honest, you haven't read the stuff in your link dumps).

 

[in the]

I meant cliffs for the trash Sodapopinski is posting. I want deets on the latest james okeefe right wing conspiracy.

"Trash" because it hurts your feelings.

How about you read the stuff for yourself instead of delegating your critical thinking to someone else? I've already posted plenty of links to relevant summations/emails anyway. You're just too butthurt to care.

 

[in the]

must be payed organization, people can´t be this crazy



After 30 pages is funny how Hillary voters will acknowledge that what she does IS politics and people should not complain, to them if they break the law and are imoral "is normal", nothing wrong with her antics. She clearly violated protocol in top secret docs, her org receives international money which probably spilled to her campaign and that is not acceptable.

"She was right to keep her emails on a private server..."

The level of self-delusion people will engage in to protect their confirmation biases is astonishing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Okay, we're talking about 3 different groups. The hacker, the journalist disclosing the information and then the end recipient. The hacker is committing a crime by hacking. The journalist is not committing a crime by disclosing the hacked information that he/she receives. The end recipient is not hacking the information nor are they disclosing it. Reading/watching/listening to the information disclosed by the journalist is not a crime. Downloading the information creates the possibility of a crime.

Everyone knows hacking is a crime. What is "downloading" if it's not hacking? If it's hacking then there's really no point in continuing to repeat that as if it were separate from hacking.

The reporter also claimed the press had special rights to view the material that the public didn't. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that?

The reporter claimed that if the public gets online to view the materials they are committing a crime. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that?

Mostly hacking offences come under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, although apparently your states also have their individual Computer Crime Statutes.
Whether it's illegal to download or distribute (which includes simply linking) depends on the nature of the documents. If they are classified, subject to IP law or contain any authentication information, that would likely be illegal.
I don't think that would apply to these emails.

Yes, pretty sure I've already acknowledged the actual thieving part to be a crime. That's not who the reporter was referring to though. He said the news consumer would be breaking the law and I see know way that's possible in the instance of these leaks.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes, pretty sure I've already acknowledged the actual thieving part to be a crime. That's not who the reporter was referring to though. He said the news consumer would be breaking the law and I see know way that's possible in the instance of these leaks.

I haven't read all the emails and attachments. However if they contain any authentication details or copyrighted material, even linking to the dumps could be illegal. As with the Sony hack or Ashley Madison hack.

“It certainly could be a crime to receive or possess stolen property,” said Joseph Fitzpatrick, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago. “Once you download or distribute hacked information without specific permission or a fair use license, you’ve exposed yourself to potential criminal liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An individual who retweets or forwards a link to a website containing hacked information could potentially be viewed as an accessory to the hack after the fact.”

 

[panamaican]

Everyone knows hacking is a crime. What is "downloading" if it's not hacking? If it's hacking then there's really no point in continuing to repeat that as if it were separate from hacking.

The reporter also claimed the press had special rights to view the material that the public didn't. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that?

The reporter claimed that if the public gets online to view the materials they are committing a crime. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that?

Downloading is when you right click on the file or image and select "save to my computer". If I right click on your avatar, one of the choices is "Save image as...", if I click on that and save a copy of your image to my computer then I've downloaded it. I now possess that image, which is different from just looking at it while I'm on Sherdog.

I'm agreeing that the press has special rights to receive/disclose the information that the public doesn't.

 

[Magx951]

EDIT:

Have you guys seen what wikileaks posted about a plot to frame assange?

if not, its here https://wikileaks.org/Background-an...-a-:eek::eek::eek::eek:phile-and.html?update3

I've read through the entire final report which concludes that T&C is most likely not authentic.

 

[Greoric]

Downloading is when you right click on the file or image and select "save to my computer". If I right click on your avatar, one of the choices is "Save image as...", if I click on that and save a copy of your image to my computer then I've downloaded it. I now possess that image, which is different from just looking at it while I'm on Sherdog.

I'm agreeing that the press has special rights to receive/disclose the information that the public doesn't.

The right of the press is commensurate with every citizen though.