Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Overheal

Captain Obvious wrote: »

People are still entitled to privacy. You are only defending CNN because the person they coerced into deleting everything is someone you dislike. If it truly is in the public interest they would have simply published it. Instead they played the role of some kind of internet police.

Do you have any proof they coerced him to delete anything or issue an apology? My understanding is CNN took it upon themselves to not publish his information after he had already de-escalated the situation, himself. If he had not, it would still be in the public interest to know who this was.

It's not blackmail, it's coercion. Tell me, why is your Boards name Overheal and not your actual name?

Because it sounds cool. - Jon Charron.

Really Interested

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You should be able to keep any part of you a secret if that's what you want. Would you be ok with a person being outed by the news? Surely it's nothing to be ashamed of and their family and friends should know?



People are still entitled to privacy. You are only defending CNN because the person they coerced into deleting everything is someone you dislike. If it truly is in the public interest they would have simply published it. Instead they played the role of some kind of internet police.



It's not blackmail, it's coercion. Tell me, why is your Boards name Overheal and not your actual name?

If you want to keep your ID secret that's ok but if I know who you are and want to tell people do you think you can restrict my free speech.

People are entitled to privacy with restrictions in any society example a person guilty of a crime can have details printed.

People are entitled to free speech but there are restrictions in all societies example defamation. Also if I want to say something that a customer finds they don't like then I risk not getting business.

If anyone on boards thinks their real world identity is totally protected they are a fool. Court orders can be used to force boards to give up addresses etc.

B_Wayne

Some samples of the user's content include tweeting CNN staff with Stars of David on each of them. Sample of some of his other posts below.

http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

He was a hateful moron who I have zero sympathy for. If I worked in CNN, I'd have major issues with him posting fellow coworker in an antisemetic rant. There's a distinct irony in the likes of Julian Assange going after CNN for this btw, one of his leaks last year leaked addresses, names etc of people who were victims of the Saudi Arabian government.... That's a hell of a lot more serious and actually endangers lives.

This also isn't a freedom of speech issue, if a person engages in hate speech. They do run the risk of people finding out who they are and it backfiring on them.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You should be able to keep any part of you a secret if that's what you want. Would you be ok with a person being outed by the news? Surely it's nothing to be ashamed of and their family and friends should know?

He wanted to keep things secret by posting on the most open communication tool ever invented? If he is ashamed then should he have posted it in the first place. I have some secrets and I will not be posting them on here or anywhere else.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

People are still entitled to privacy. You are only defending CNN because the person they coerced into deleting everything is someone you dislike. If it truly is in the public interest they would have simply published it. Instead they played the role of some kind of internet police.

He decided to post on the internet, in such a way as it was fairly easy to trace him down. You can't post on the internet and then complain about privacy. Don't post if you want it to be private. People post because they want people to hear their opinions/see their pics etc. No point complaining about privacy when they themselves opted to cancel it.

So you think CNN should have published his name? I think they were very fair to the lad, but yes I would have no problem if they had named him.

Overheal

I think I should share some of the comments/speech people are defending as the guy's right to be able to say without fear of being identified:

- actually perhaps you should just follow the link

NSFW

https://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

Really Interested

Overheal wrote: »

I think I should share some of the comments/speech people are defending as the guy's right to be able to say without fear of being identified:

- actually perhaps you should just follow the link

NSFW

https://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

About the people who supported him, lie down with dogs get up with fleas.

LeinsterDub

Captain Obvious wrote: »

People are still entitled to privacy.

And of course you partially wave that right when you become a person of public interest

JRant

Doxxing people is a pretty scummy thing to do IMO. CNN shouldn't be engaging in it and those half wits on 4chan are no better, although from the little I know doxxing is a very much frowned upon even on there.

If CNN were so concerned they should have simply given over the information they had to the relevant authorities instead of trying to send out a message that anyone who makes a meme about them will be tracked down and possibly doxxed.

It is the most obvious backlash that the trolls have decided to start this stupidity.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

About the people who supported him, lie down with dogs get up with fleas.

Yes because defending things he wrote on the internet is the same as calling out CNN for going after a private citizen over a meme.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/882622305184223234

JRant

Overheal wrote: »

I think I should share some of the comments/speech people are defending as the guy's right to be able to say without fear of being identified:

- actually perhaps you should just follow the link

NSFW

https://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

Reads like a typical youtube comment section unfortunately.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes because defending things he wrote on the internet is the same as calling out CNN for going after a private citizen over a meme.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/882622305184223234

Can you make up your mind are you pro free speech or not. If CNN release a persons name involved in a story is that not free speech? Or do you have limits on that concept of free speech? Colour me surprised.

Do you support the other things he has been accused of posting? Do you accept that those posts and the retweet by Teump make him news worthy?

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

Can you make up your mind are you pro free speech or not. If CNN release a persons name involved in a story is that not free speech? Or do you have limits on that concept of free speech? Colour me surprised.

What has going after a private Citizen and threatening to release info on him got to do with free speech?

Obv I denounce what he wrote and agree with Glenn Greenwald. It's a separate issue.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What has going after a private Citizen and threatening to release info on him got to do with free speech?

Obv I denounce what he wrote and agree with Glenn Greenwald. It's a separate issue.

If CNN (a news organisation) believe it's a story that is the definition of free speech. Once you put any personal restrictions on it then you restrict it. Be careful what you wish for!

Hank Scorpio

36 states have agreed or are considering providing publicly available voter data to @POTUS Election Integrity Commission. Statement below

"News reports that 44 states have refused states have "refused" to provide voter information to the commision, these reports are patently false, more "fake news"

CNN ran that story

https://twitter.com/VPPressSec/status/882697030606487552

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

If CNN (a news organisation) believe it's a story that is the definition of free speech. Once you put any personal restrictions on it then you restrict it. Be careful what you wish for!

Don't agree with your logic, by that definition a mob boss extorting or blackmailing someone is free speech, because that mob boss thinks what he's doing is ethically sound. Loony tunes stuff tbh.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

36 states have agreed or are considering providing publicly available voter data to @POTUS Election Integrity Commission. Statement below

"News reports that 44 states have refused states have "refused" to provide voter information to the commision, these reports are patently false, more "fake news"

CNN ran that story

https://twitter.com/VPPressSec/status/882697030606487552

Both the press release and CNN reporting can both be correct.

Note the press release only states public data.

From CNN

"Forty-four states and the District of Columbia have refused to provide certain types of voter information to the Trump administration's election integrity commission, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states."

Important words "certain types of voter information"

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Don't agree with your logic, by that definition a mob boss extorting or blackmailing someone is free speech, because that mob boss thinks what he's doing is ethically sound. Loony tunes stuff tbh.

Lol Reductio ad absurdum. If you can't follow logic not my problem. You have been proved over and over to run away once the going gets tough.

JRant

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What has going after a private Citizen and threatening to release info on him got to do with free speech?

Obv I denounce what he wrote and agree with Glenn Greenwald. It's a separate issue.

Fully agree Hank. In fact doxxing people is illegal is some states IIRC. There are appropriate channels CNN can use if they are so concerned about this individual, who is clear pond life, but they are going down a rabbit hole with this nonsense.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

Both the press release and CNN reporting can both be correct.

Typical media distortion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/forty-four-states-refuse-give-voter-data-trump-panel-n779841

Headline: Forty-four States Refuse to Give Voter Data to Trump Panel

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia are mounting a bipartisan rebellion against President Donald Trump’s commission on vote fraud by either declining to release any of the requested data or by providing only limited information to the panel.

Ipse dixit

Why are these states refusing to provide data and specific data in some cases. It's widely known that these voting machines can be easily manipulated. What is there to hide?

Exploits to these machines have appeared continually online with errors. But Russia is much more important than the integrity of the US's voting systems. The resistance to even ID voters is scary. What is there to hide? It's also known that these machines can't fail the independent tests carried out such is the importance for a clean bill of health for these machines. It's pointless having a voting system with little credibility.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Typical media distortion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/forty-four-states-refuse-give-voter-data-trump-panel-n779841

Headline: Forty-four States Refuse to Give Voter Data to Trump Panel

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia are mounting a bipartisan rebellion against President Donald Trump’s commission on vote fraud by either declining to release any of the requested data or by providing only limited information to the panel.

WH says "public" CNN says "Limited" both can mean the same thing.

Really Interested

JRant wrote: »

Fully agree Hank. In fact doxxing people is illegal is some states IIRC. There are appropriate channels CNN can use if they are so concerned about this individual, who is clear pond life, but they are going down a rabbit hole with this nonsense.

Can you link to states that outlaw publishing of public ID information?

Billy86

They're not giving over any information that isn't publicly available, e.g. information that I could get my hands on if I wanted to. You by definition cannot release something that is already out there - "allow or enable to escape from confinement; set free."

Now if we want to talk about media distortion, this is a much better example - FOX: Dem States Refusing to Cooperate With Trump Voter Fraud Probe.

Democratic state officials already are refusing to cooperate with the voter fraud investigation ordered by President Trump, saying they will not hand over the extensive “voter roll data” the commission is seeking.

The response comes after Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state serving as vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, wrote to all 50 states this week asking for their input as well as voter registration data.

Billy86

Ipse dixit wrote: »

What is there to hide?

Private citizen's private information regarding their private vote, there's a reason even red states are mostly not touching this despite the absurdly/divided partisan nature of things in the US.

Hank Scorpio

So who's lying? The media reports claim 44 states have refused to hand over information, and the press statement says only 14 states have.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So who's lying? The media reports claim 44 states have refused to hand over information, and the press statement says only 14 states have.

Read the article again. You must be blind to the word limited!

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

Read the article again. You must be blind to the word limited!

I know what it says, the statement released contradicts it.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

36 states have agreed or are considering providing publicly available voter data to @POTUS Election Integrity Commission. Statement below

"News reports that 44 states have refused states have "refused" to provide voter information to the commision, these reports are patently false, more "fake news"

CNN ran that story

https://twitter.com/VPPressSec/status/882697030606487552

Hilariously this is the most anti Trump statement. By corollary it states that 14 states are rusing to give Trump I for action freely available to every Tom, Dick and Harry and that more are considering refusing it. Now while my partisan section loves that story I feel like there is more to it.

I feel like you need to realise that a state can give out publicallyavailable information while not giving out non publically available information.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I know what it says, the statement released contradicts it.

No it does not the statement released says "public" you really dont get English do you. Limited can mean limited to public. Both CNN and the WH are playing to an agenda.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

No it does not the statement released says "public" you really dont get English do you. Limited can mean limited to public. Both CNN and the WH are playing to an agenda.

Teach me master!

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Teach me master!

Im only a master debater!

Water John

Like Donald, Hank is a slow learner.

Hank Scorpio

CNN article.

Washington, DC (CNN)Forty-four states and the District of Columbia have refused to provide certain types of voter information to the Trump administration's election integrity commission, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states.

The information the commission is seeking includes registrants' full names, addresses, dates of birth, political parties, the last four digits of their social security numbers, a list of the elections they voted in since 2006, information on any felony convictions, information on whether they were registered to vote in other states, their military status, and whether they lived overseas.

The vice chairman's letter twice requests only "public" voter information, and Kobach clarified the specifics of his request Friday: "Every state receives the same letter, but we're not asking for it if it's not publicly available," he told The Kansas City Star.

Kobach's statement



It's a direct contradiction. Kobach himself referred to all the information requested as public. Keep the insults coming though!

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

CNN article.

Washington, DC (CNN)Forty-four states and the District of Columbia have refused to provide certain types of voter information to the Trump administration's election integrity commission, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states.

The information the commission is seeking includes registrants' full names, addresses, dates of birth, political parties, the last four digits of their social security numbers, a list of the elections they voted in since 2006, information on any felony convictions, information on whether they were registered to vote in other states, their military status, and whether they lived overseas.

The vice chairman's letter twice requests only "public" voter information, and Kobach clarified the specifics of his request Friday: "Every state receives the same letter, but we're not asking for it if it's not publicly available," he told The Kansas City Star.

Kobach's statement



It's a direct contradiction. Kobach himself referred to all the information requested as public. Keep the insults coming though!

The CNN article

"The information the commission is seeking includes registrants' full names, addresses, dates of birth, political parties, the last four digits of their social security numbers, a list of the elections they voted in since 2006, information on any felony convictions, information on whether they were registered to vote in other states, their military status, and whether they lived overseas."

Political parties may be considered public by some and not by another, a list of elections really "only public information" So a state could be limiting the data to what they consider publicly available but not other information. You are super snowfalke god love ya.

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

Political parties may be considered public by some and not by another, a list of elections really "only public information"

Kobach specifically stated the information requested as a public request, and that 20 states have complied with that request. That's a direct contradiction of the media reports so I'm not wrong. Also for what what they can and can't release, that's also covered in the press release.



I hope the slow learners can wrap their head around it.

Water John

I presume CNN didn't invent the list. But you may doubt that.

Hank Scorpio

Water John wrote: »

I presume CNN didn't invent the list. But you may doubt that.

So? That's not the point. You called me a slow learner when I'm right about his statement contradicting what they reported.

Keep shifting though.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Kobach specifically stated the information requested as a public request, and that 20 states have complied. That's a direct contradiction of the media reports so I'm not wrong. Also for what what they can and can't release, that's also covered in the press release.



I hope the slow learners can wrap their head around it.

"The publically available information" unless we see what is released we do not know is it all that is on the list for example the last 4 social security digits i doubt are publicly available same with list of elections voted in by each person nor I doubt is military rank.

JRant

Really Interested wrote: »

Can you link to states that outlaw publishing of public ID information?

California passed a law relating to certain personal information that shouldn't be shared with express consent but that would be a push to cover doxxing.

I may jumped the gun a bit as it seems there was a recent bill put forward to Congress that would make doxxing, amongst other things, illegal.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/29/online-safety-modernization-act-outlaws-doxxing-swatting/

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

"The publically available information" unless we see what is released we do not know is it all that is on the list for example the last 4 social security digits i doubt are publicly available same with list of elections voted in by each person nor I doubt is military rank.

20 states have agreed with his request. You got caught up on the wordplay. The request was twice specifically stated as requested public information. He confirmed this in an interview. What elements individual states can release under their own laws doesn't come into it. CNN reported 44 states, Kobach has said 20 states have complied.

44 + 20 > 50.

44 + 20 + possibly 16 > 50.

Direct contradiction.

Not so sharp for a "master debater" after all.

Billy86

If Kobach (and by extension the WH and Trump) are now coming out claiming it is public information they are after, I'm going to go ahead and presume it probably wasn't.

That said, if it is only public information they wanted then they have it (and never needed to apply for it... because it was public information in the first place) and we won't see Trump throwing any Mean Girls style Twitter hissy fits over it, or his team looking any further for any other info than what they have been given.

Really Interested

JRant wrote: »

California passed a law relating to certain personal information that shouldn't be shared with express consent but that would be a push to cover doxxing.

I may jumped the gun a bit as it seems there was a recent bill put forward to Congress that would make doxxing, amongst other things, illegal.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/29/online-safety-modernization-act-outlaws-doxxing-swatting/

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/05/what-is-doxing-and-is-it-illegal-heres-how-people-dox-and-what-you-can-do-to-avoid-it-6757123/

"Is doxing illegal

In short, no. So long as the information gathered is from publicly accessed accounts (like a Facebook page or any other social media account not in ‘private’ mode) and what is published is used within ethical standards.
However, those doxing with a more insidious agenda (such as using personal information to blackmail someone) could be committing a crime if their motives are proven."


https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882417992717537280


"HanAssholeSolo" posted his apology before we *ever* spoke him. He called us afterwards to apologize further."


Please post the CA law so I can check it out"


My quick read of the House bill

TITLE III—INTERSTATE DOXXING PREVENTION
Sec. 301. Disclosure of personal information with the intent to cause harm.

The bill as it relates to doxxing requires that there be an intention to cause harm.

http://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/b1841244-4daa-49ce-bb95-2cdcf16bc5b2/online-safety-modernization-act.pdf

The rest of the bill seems interesting i might read in full when i have time.

aloyisious

Celticfire wrote: »

And here was I thinking that the left loved taking the moral high ground.

Doesn't everyone love doing that?

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

36 states have agreed or are considering providing publicly available voter data to @POTUS Election Integrity Commission. Statement below

"News reports that 44 states have refused states have "refused" to provide voter information to the commision, these reports are patently false, more "fake news"

CNN ran that story

https://twitter.com/VPPressSec/status/882697030606487552

If it's publicly available, then the Commission surely doesn't need the states to provide it. The bit about the 44 states might refer to information not freely available and reference actual voter identity.

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Typical media distortion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/forty-four-states-refuse-give-voter-data-trump-panel-n779841

Headline: Forty-four States Refuse to Give Voter Data to Trump Panel

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia are mounting a bipartisan rebellion against President Donald Trump’s commission on vote fraud by either declining to release any of the requested data or by providing only limited information to the panel.

That's a thing that's been bothering me, this mention of bipartisan. It's twice now I've seen it. EDIT.... The first time I saw it wasn't in something you wrote..... Am I right in thinking that Dem and GOP party members are engaging in joint rebellion against the US President's commission?

Hank Scorpio

aloyisious wrote: »

If it's publicly available, then the Commission surely doesn't need the states to provide it.

The letter specifically asks what information they want, if certain requests are permitted under state laws for that state I'm assuming one way or another that information is available to the public.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The letter specifically asks what information they want, if certain requests are permitted under state laws for that state I'm assuming one way or another that information is available to the public.

The letter asks for military status, it asks for each election the person voted in and last four numbers of SSN. I have no doubt that states are giving public info the question is what they class as public info, which may be some of the information requested.

Hank Scorpio

aloyisious wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that Dem and GOP party members are engaging in joint rebellion against the US President's commission?

The statement released today makes that seem like an exaggeration. I think voter fraud exists that is often coordinated and that Politics is a filthy business.. Trump was incredibly foolish to suggest millions voted illegally, and even more foolish if he thinks this investigation will come close to substantiating his claim, but I do think the number if discovered would be more substantial than most pundits tend to say in public.

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The statement released today makes that seem like an exaggeration. I think voter fraud exists that is often coordinated and that Politics is a filthy business.. Trump was incredibly foolish to suggest millions voted illegally, and even more foolish if he thinks this investigation will come close to substantiating his claim, but I do think the number if discovered would be more substantial than most pundits tend to say in public.

The main thing is what classification will be given to what the commission produces, whom it produces it to [presumably the Senate and maybe the Office of Budget and Management - hence more leaking] and whether what it produces is available on a bipartisanship basis. Id it's not, it'll be more wrangling, and if it is then both parties can use it for political purposes. Don may have put a sword of Damocles above his and the GOP's heads. Edit: it'd probably be best for the GOP that they abort the commission, give it a quick burial.

Hank Scorpio

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/

Hacked computer server that handled DNC email remains out of reach of Russia investigators

During the election cycle last year, the DNC paid CrowdStrike more than $410,000. This year, it has collected more than $121,000 from the party.

......Still, the company faces increasing scrutiny, including over the impartiality of co-founder Mr. Alperovitch.
Mr. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank focused on international issues that is partially funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who reportedly has donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Late last year, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank, disputed CrowdStrike’s analysis of a Russian hack during Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. CrowdStrike later revised and retracted portions of its analysis.
CrowdStrike’s most famous finding — that Russian-supported hackers penetrated the DNC server — has triggered the most questions.....