Anonymity vs Privacy vs Security

[Zen Traveler]

9 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

 

"More" charges?  I haven't been following and was unaware there have been any.  

Of course not. I enjoy our conversations but feel you may have missed it because your News sources buried the story:  https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

 

Btw, the Mueller investigation I don't see as partisan given who is doing it and when you look at that guy's resume it's hard to find a more patriotic American.

[Jeff Matthews]

5 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Of course not. I enjoy our conversations but feel you may have missed it because your News sources buried the story:  https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

 

Btw, the Mueller investigation I don't see as partisan given who is doing it and when you look at that guy's resume it's hard to find a more patriotic American.

The partial word, "Cambri," could not be found in the document.  This must be something else.

 

As to whether special counsel should be partisan or neutral, I have always maintained it is better if he is partisan.  I want them to have every incentive to look under every stone and in every nook and cranny.  If they come up with nothing, it would have to be credible.

[Zen Traveler]

I also hesitate to put the FoxNews link I found when I had to go to the their site after googling "FoxNews and Cambridge Analytica and finding nothing. I suggest those interested go to their site and do like I did and put "Cambridge Analytica" in their search engine. There are 2 video links and 1 article on the subject. It gives vague details in the written piece but seems accurate--The thing is they seem to bury the story all of the way around about whose information was taken and who was targeted. 

[Zen Traveler]

11 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

The partial word, "Cambri," could not be found in the document.  This must be something else.

 

I am not sure what the above means but you need to dig deeper and why I suggest more charges are coming. When you read the indictment you will find it is all about Internet manipulation and we discussed back in the old forum that I though unusual activity in that regard was goin on--The 13 people in this indictment were internet players and only the tip of the iceberg. It has only been in the last couple of weeks that Cambridge Analytica was exposed and their CEO caught on video admitting/bragging about what he did in our election and now Mark Zuckerberg is scampering to clean up the reputation and practices of his company. He is going to be on Capitol Hill next week so it should be interesting. 

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I am not sure what the above means but you need to dig deeper and why I suggest more charges are coming. When you read the indictment you will find it is all about Internet manipulation and we discussed back in the old forum that I though unusual activity in that regard was goin on--The 13 people in this indictment were internet players and only the tip of the iceberg. It has only been in the last couple of weeks that Cambridge Analytica was exposed and their CEO caught on video admitting/bragging about what he did in our election and now Mark Zuckerberg is scampering to clean up the reputation and practices of his company. He is going to be on Capitol Hill next week so it should be interesting. 

Not being argumentative, but earnestly wanting to know what laws might have CA broken?  "Influencing" an election can't be a crime.

[Zen Traveler]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

As to whether special counsel should be partisan or neutral, I have always maintained it is better if he is partisan.  I want them to have every incentive to look under every stone and in every nook and cranny.  If they come up with nothing, it would have to be credible.

Interesting. I felt Ken Starr overstepped his bounds and he was unethically partisan but that is past history for others to debate--I could be wrong and don't wish to get the thread closed by soliciting debate. Otoh, you know how I stand politically and I have no problem that Robert Mueller is in charge of the Russian Investigation so hopefully we all can agree with any conclusions that are reached along with other patriotic Americans.  

[Jeff Matthews]

Just now, Zen Traveler said:

Interesting. I felt Ken Starr overstepped his bounds and he was unethically partisan but that is past history for others to debate--I could be wrong and don't wish to get the thread closed by soliciting debate. Otoh, you know how I stand politically and I have no problem that Robert Mueller is in charge of the Russian Investigation so hopefully we all can agree with any conclusions that are reached along with other patriotic Americans.  

Absolutely.  He's a prosecutor.  If he can put together a case to prove to a unanimous jury that a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, then so be it.  That's a very tough standard.  

[Zen Traveler]

1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Not being argumentative, but earnestly wanting to know what laws might have CA broken?  "Influencing" an election can't be a crime.

I don't know councilor. You are the lawyer. Seriously, I don't know the law in this regard but do think I've proven my case that this thread onslaught of propaganda is something we want Government looking into. The POTUSA continually attacking our Intelligence agencies along with the press, whose reporting really seems to be bringing up salient facts. What is now being published show we truly live in an Information Age and Americans need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff....Alternate Facts and Fake News should be exposed because Propaganda Works and we all need to do our part to stop the spread. 

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I don't know councilor. You are the lawyer. Seriously, I don't know the law in this regard but do think I've proven my case that this thread onslaught of propaganda is something we want Government looking into.

You do realize that the above attitude is simply a reflection of your biased view?

 

My point is simple.  Influencing an election cannot be a crime.  This is precisely what candidates do.  Nor can "fake" news be a crime.  Otherwise, The National Enquirer would have been gone a long time ago.  

 

This is a nation where the First Amendment is pretty much considered to be sacred.  There is much we have to endure in order to maintain a society which is so receptive to freedom of speech.

 

If you are truly interested (which you claim to be), stop listening to headlines without appropriate skepticism.  "Influence" is a meaningless word.  "Fake" is also meaningless.  Psychological profiling also is not a crime.  Look for the laws that were broken.  See if anyone adequately can explain to you how the laws were broken. 

 

I have made some attempts to find out by reading a NYT article and a Vox article - both to no avail.  There is absolutely zip in them, other than a bunch of connecting the dots that "this guy worked for that group, etc."  

[Zen Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Absolutely.  He's a prosecutor.  If he can put together a case to prove to a unanimous jury that a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, then so be it.  That's a very tough standard.  

Sure. My point is that although I didn't trust Ken Starr, I do Robert Mueller and hope when his report(s) ae written there is major consensus what they actually mean. I want to see the POTUSA cleared of any wrongdoing and will hold my speculation on that front. Otoh, the first couple of indictments that came out against his past associates, along with  conversations he reportedly (and described to Congress) had with career Government officials seem problematic. Again, I don't want the thread closed and I am talking about what has been admitted to/described already by the players involved...Btw, if you think historically the high standard you expressed above is the only thing important, remember that no past POTUSA has had to face that scrutiny, but several have asterisks after their tenure with what the various Special Councils found, regardless of initial intent, which is why I think the Whitewater Investigation went too far. Otoh, I am glad it's a republican looking into the extraneous matters in this investigation. 

[Jeff Matthews]

5 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

My point is that although I didn't trust Ken Starr, I do Robert Mueller and hope when his report(s) ae written there is major consensus what they actually mean.

I doubt it any more than there was consensus about Comey's conclusion of the email issue.

[Zen Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

21 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I don't know councilor. You are the lawyer. Seriously, I don't know the law in this regard but do think I've proven my case that this thread onslaught of propaganda is something we want Government looking into.

You do realize that the above attitude is simply a reflection of your biased view?

Sure. Somewhat.  I contend there appears to be enough legal basis to raise concern that will make it to court and the public domain and some already has backed up what I was worried about prior to the electon--Insofar as my bias is concerned, I have also been bringing facts to this conversation and let's not get bogged down on speculation unless you think it's important--Check out the 13 person indictment I linked to. Fwiw, joking about "Russians" in the past, may have played right into the conspirators hands and that is no joke.

 

Also remember I debated the Benghazi Conspiracies ad nauseum along with Hillary Clinton's perils. This is non-partisan for me and  I have the same standard here as I did then. If charges are brought at this level then you gotta admit that the Government will have a strong case. Insofar as my bias is concerned, yes I want to expose propaganda and the facts I am bringing up aren't being disputed except by unreliable sources. 

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

If charges are brought at this level then you gotta admit that the Government will have a strong case.

Yep.  Most likely.  

 

As far as wanting to expose fake news, that's all good, but it's not within the purview of special prosecutors.

[Zen Traveler]

19 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I doubt it any more than there was consensus about Comey's conclusion of the email issue.

Fwiw, I thought Comey made mistakes but didn't think it was conspiratorial and there was at least reasoning behind his various decisions. Again, he had served in Republican administrations and I didn't think he was being overtly biased on Hillary or President Trump. That said, I take you point there will always be some doubt but it's easier to claim 'politics' if the folks are from opposing parties. 

[Zen Traveler]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

As far as wanting to expose fake news, that's all good, but it's not within the purview of special prosecutors.

Of course not. But I am glad you and I are discussing it because if we weren't then it seems nobody would be.  Again, I miss the BS Forum because we did try to get to the bottom of various issues by debate--If more people did they could understand they could be part of the solution  to our country's problems, instead, they seem to be buying into the media narrative they so often detest....

[Zen Traveler]

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I don't know councilor. You are the lawyer. Seriously, I don't know the law in this regard but do think I've proven my case that this thread onslaught of propaganda is something we want Government looking into.

You do realize that the above attitude is simply a reflection of your biased view?

I contemplated this and remember your thoughts prior to the election. I hope I  can convince you that this isn't only about my bias but that you thought it important also to be exposed. Suffice it to say neither of us knew back then the scope and that in itself is why our government and not just "the Media" should be looking into it. Here is a discussion we had on November 1, 2016--Your words are in in bold:

  On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:25 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

These issue are being conflated.

 

First, you ask, "Why is it just the Dems e-mails are showing up in Wikileaks?"

 

Possibly, this is because this is all the hackers were able to get.  I assume there are at least as many would-be hackers out there who'd love to get Trump's e-mails, let alone Kim Kardashian's.  There is no shortage of hackers.  It's just a matter of being limited to what they are able to hack.  Who knows whose privates we'll get to see next week?

I agree there is no shortage of hackers and if someone wanted to see what's in Trumps emails my guess it can't be any more damaging than what is coming out of his twitter feed-- {REDACTED: about the POTUSAs finances was removed as not to get political--nothing substantive} 

  On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:25 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

 

As regards "Russian involvement," it's not that anyone loves to see foreigners hack into data belonging to our citizens. Not anymore than we like to see our own citizens hacking into data belonging to other Americans.  After you are forced to accept the fact that the hack is a foregone conclusion, then, yeah, it's good to see who's been screwing us over.

 

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

Insofar as the above is concerned: 1) It is WAY more than just about hacking as we first thought and 2) The weaponized propaganda aspect is what's always been important to me given that is why I started that thread in the first place. Privacy vs Security is now being exposed in a different paradigm given what Facebook is going through now. It exposes another danger of access to this kind of collective information and it seems we are giving it over quite readily without knowing/realizing (all of) the consequences. 

{Edit: Btw, I am not suggesting unplugging in the information age as suggested before and imo, there can be common sense solutions after the Government Investigation is done.}

[MerkinMuffley]

Very interesting thread.

 

Was 'political talk radio' the first weaponized propaganda machine..... Way before the Internet and Facebook? Talk about fake news!

 

 

[oldtimer]

16 minutes ago, MerkinMuffley said:

Was 'political talk radio' the first weaponized propaganda machine

I would say no.  Since the sources and agendas were always obvious I would put "weaponized" into a different category, where the source and agenda is hidden.  Even old style wartime propaganda (radio broadcasts, leaflet drops) were from an obviously known source.

[Zen Traveler]

delete