US Politics: The Ides of Mueller

[Zorral]

In the meantime, starting Friday, the media here is also all over Jared's skanky shenanigans, that involve lying to the various agencies that govern housing real estate about the rent regulated apartments in buildings of his -- not reporting those tenants, etc.  This is probably something that isn't of much interest outside of NY, as not many cities have various levels of rent regulation.  But it's fully part of the business as usual patterns that govern the orange aid soda, his family -- as well as, of course, most landlords.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/19/us/ap-us-kushner-cos-false-documents.html

[Fragile Bird]

As I watched the news unfold about Cambridge Analytica the last couple of days, I wondered if I should sell my Facebook shares when the markets opened today. But since they're down $14 it's too late now. However, if they have a bounce up I may sell them because there may be talk about regulating Facebook, particularly with how they sell information, something that would do serious damage to the share price. 

For those of you who are interested, Facebook has fallen to the 200-day moving average. If it falls below $170 it could take a substantial drop.

The markets are all down about 1.5% .

[Ran]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was talking more about how cyberwar counts as an act of war.

"Act of war" is more a political term than a legal term. International law doesn't really use the phrase "act of war". It's "use of force" or "armed attack". 

I recall some years back when there was anxiety that Stuxnet was a "declaration of war" against Iran, preparing the way for a military invasion.

As of a few years ago, here's what a State Department representative said on the subject:

Quote

If the physical consequences of a cyberattack work the kind of physical damage that dropping a bomb or firing a missile would, that cyberattack should equally be considered a use of force.

Clearly, Russia's intervention in the election does not rise to the level of being a use of force.

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

"Act of war" is more a political term than a legal term. International law doesn't really use the phrase "act of war". It's "use of force" or "armed attack". 

I recall some years back when there was anxiety that Stuxnet was a "declaration of war" against Iran, preparing the way for a military invasion.

As of a few years ago, here's what a State Department representative said on the subject:

Clearly, Russia's intervention in the election does not rise to the level of being a use of force.

On the other hand, they infiltrated power station and hospital computer systems. Shutting down those facilities could cause serious infrastructure damage. And transportation systems. A few train crashes could kill a lot of people. Or dam sluice gates opened at the wrong time.

There have been hospitals across North America who had their computer systems hijacked, putting patients at serious risk, for ransom. Those bastards should have been hunted down by the NSA and taken out like the scum they are.

[GAROVORKIN]

51 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I was actually about to post about that cause I happened to see news about the most recent one and realized no one had mentioned it. Multiple bombs have gone off in Texas and nothing. What the fuck world are we living in?

A world in which things are getting steadily worse and ever further beyond our power to influence . 

[Zorral]

More about FB and C Analytica's very close collaboration, which is still in place, in a sense due to fB hiring on a CA employee:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/one-of-the-data-scientists-involved-in-the-cambridge-analytica-mess-now-works-at-facebook.html

 

[Fragile Bird]

News on a different front, one we've discussed before in terms of job losses. Uber has suspended tests of driverless cars because a car struck and killed a pedestrian. The story is a developing one, so I'll just post the entire story.

Quote

Uber is putting all of its self-driving vehicle tests on hold after one of its cars struck and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona early Monday morning. According to ABC affiliate KNXV, the car had a human operator behind the wheel but was in autonomous mode. A woman walking on a crosswalk was struck by the car and she later died in the hospital due to the injuries she sustained. Uber says that it is working with the the local authorities.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/19/uber-stops-all-self-driving-car-tests-after-fatal-accident/

[Ran]

47 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

On the other hand, they infiltrated power station and hospital computer systems. Shutting down those facilities could cause serious infrastructure damage. And transportation systems. A few train crashes could kill a lot of people. Or dam sluice gates opened at the wrong time.

"Could" being operative. When it happens, we'll cross that bridge. Until then, Russia has not crossed the "use of force" line, is not an enemy as defined by law, and no treason can happen.

I'm not opposed to changing the laws on these things, but isn't the whole point of protesting Trump that we are a nation of laws, a fact that he and his enablers and cronies flout?

47 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There have been hospitals across North America who had their computer systems hijacked, putting patients at serious risk, for ransom. Those bastards should have been hunted down by the NSA and taken out like the scum they are.

That is the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from Infowars.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

"Act of war" is more a political term than a legal term. International law doesn't really use the phrase "act of war". It's "use of force" or "armed attack". 

I recall some years back when there was anxiety that Stuxnet was a "declaration of war" against Iran, preparing the way for a military invasion.

As of a few years ago, here's what a State Department representative said on the subject:

Clearly, Russia's intervention in the election does not rise to the level of being a use of force.

I think you could argue that Russia’s actions did considerably more damage than merely dropping a bomb on a building. While there haven’t been any deaths directly as a result of their meddling in our elections, they’ve done irreparable damage to our democracy.

[Zorral]

The UK seemingly is taking this very seriously (or it could all be posturing, as political things mostly are):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/no-10-very-concerned-over-facebook-data-breach-by-cambridge-analytica

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you could argue that Russia’s actions did considerably more damage than merely dropping a bomb on a building. While there haven’t been any deaths directly as a result of their meddling in our elections, they’ve done irreparable damage to our democracy.

There's no physical consequence, so it's not a use of force.

It is a very bad thing, of course. I'm just saying that the United States has some very tight definitions of what constitutes war, an enemy, and treason, and there's a reason behind that. Maybe the definitions need to change, but what we have right now is what we have.

[Fragile Bird]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

That is the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from Infowars.

Why? Because hospitals are run for profit in the US, so they're just another commercial venture?

I think hospitals are a special case - it's where the sick and the helpless are. Anyone who attacks a hospital should be hunted down. It's like the Red Cross or the Red Crescent and whatever other names that organization has. Armies that blow up the Red Cross should be charged with war crimes. I know every now and then some scumbags do damage to the brand by disguising themselves as legitimate healers, but overall you don't bomb people who help the wounded. And if it exists, I hope there's a special place in hell for terrorists who set off bombs in five minute intervals to kill those who arrive to help victims.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's no physical consequence, so it's not a use of force.

It is a very bad thing, of course. I'm just saying that the United States has some very tight definitions of what constitutes war, an enemy, and treason, and there's a reason behind that. Maybe the definitions need to change, but what we have right now is what we have.

I understand your point,  and you’re not wrong from a technical standpoint, but I’d also point out that both the Constitution and our current laws are very outdated when it comes to things involving technology. From a philosophical point of view, Russia has absolutely attacked us, and in a world absent of mutual assured destruction, we very well may have declared war on Russia for said attack.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

While there haven’t been any deaths directly as a result of their meddling in our elections, they’ve done irreparable damage to our democracy.

Depends on how you define "directly". Without Trumperdoo's election, Heather Heyer would probably still be alive, for example.

[IamMe90]

6 minutes ago, felice said:

Depends on how you define "directly". Without Trumperdoo's election, Heather Heyer would probably still be alive, for example.

Under no reasonable definition of the word "directly" can Russian election meddling be said to have directly caused Heather Heyer's death. 

[Fragile Bird]

Facebook has just announced they have hired a forensic firm to search the records of Cambridge Analytica to see if CA did actually destroy the records of the 50 million profiles they harvested two years ago as they told Facebook.

If they did destroy the records, then what business were they in? Did they do an analysis of the information they harvested and then delete the names? So they could still prognosticate on election outcomes based on the information they collected and still have? This should be interesting. 

[Mexal]

So that Channel 4 undercover video on Cambridge Analytica? Not good for the company. Can't wait to watch the whole thing tonight.

Quote

Senior executives at Cambridge Analytica – the data company that credits itself with Donald Trump’s presidential victory – have been secretly filmed saying they could entrap politicians in compromising situations with bribes and Ukrainian sex workers.

In an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News, the company’s chief executive Alexander Nix said the British firm secretly campaigns in elections across the world. This includes operating through a web of shadowy front companies, or by using sub-contractors.

In one exchange, when asked about digging up material on political opponents, Mr Nix said they could “send some girls around to the candidate’s house”, adding that Ukrainian girls “are very beautiful, I find that works very well”.

In another he said: “We’ll offer a large amount of money to the candidate, to finance his campaign in exchange for land for instance, we’ll have the whole thing recorded, we’ll blank out the face of our guy and we post it on the Internet.”

Offering bribes to public officials is an offence under both the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Cambridge Analytica operates in the UK and is registered in the United States.

 

[felice]

20 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Under no reasonable definition of the word "directly" can Russian election meddling be said to have directly caused Heather Heyer's death. 

If you throw rocks at a precarious hillside until it starts an avalanche that kills someone underneath, I'd say you're directly responsible for the death. If you work to increase the profile and power of fascists until they kill someone...

[Maithanet]

Supreme Court will not overrule the PA State Supreme Court. The 2018 midterms will use the not-so-egregiously gerrymandered maps. 

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Supreme Court will not overrule the PA State Supreme Court. The 2018 midterms will use the not-so-egregiously gerrymandered maps. 

That's like a fucking huge sign, right? Like a good one?