Justice Department Seizes Reporter's Phone, Email Records In Leak Probe (thehill.com) 165
According to The New York Times, the Department of Justice seized a New York Times reporter's phone and email records this year in an effort to probe the leaking of classified information, the first known instance of the DOJ going after a journalist's data under President Trump. The Hill reports: The Times reported Thursday that the DOJ seized years' worth of records from journalist Ali Watkins's time as a reporter at BuzzFeed News and Politico before she joined The Times in 2017 as a federal law enforcement reporter, according to the report Thursday. Watkins was alerted by a prosecutor in February that the DOJ had years of records and subscriber information from telecommunications companies such as Google and Verizon for two email accounts and a phone number belonging to her. Investigators did not receive the content of the records, according to The Times. The newspaper reported that it learned of the letter on Thursday.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume we're supposed to be outraged at this because Trump.
Except they're going after someone leaking classified information to a reporter during a "three year relationship" with her. So basically they caught someone sending her secrets, got a warrant, and are now going after the leaker using that evidence. With due process. Like they're supposed to.
Apparently we're supposed to be outraged because she's a reporter. Except this type of stuff happened all the time under Obama and no one in the media cared then. So the sudden outrage is a bit... weird.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if they did at 5:30AM, with guns drawn.
Re: We get it.. ur a moran. (Score:1, Interesting)
It's spelled moron you idjut.
I wonder who leaked the Spygate Revelations about Stefan Halper? How can we prevent another Operation Crossfire Hurricane so Democrats can't rig elections? These are the questions that need much debate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So many whooshes.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused as to what was in TFA. They subpoenaed a blanket list of contacts and didn't get anything that was actually sent inside any emails. They have a list of people that had access to that classified information and used the contact list to compare including her personal relationship with someone they must think is a likely source of the leaks. They haven't yet released yet what the scope of the investigation was nor any pending charges that they are gathering information on.
Governmental l
Re: Just so typical of Trump (Score:1)
Yeah, the extreme so called left wing positions from internet crackpots are so outrageous it is almost as if they are false plants put there to discredit what is actually a more moderate view.
It's the same on the right wing, except the crazy shit comes from the Whitehouse via twitter.
That is the difference between republicans and democrats. The democrats don't generally elect their nutcases to federal office.
Re: Just so typical of Trump (Score:1, Insightful)
Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the extreme so called left wing positions from internet crackpots are so outrageous it is almost as if they are false plants put there to discredit what is actually a more moderate view.
When the reports of the Russian astroturfing campaign came out, they were pretty clear: the trolls (sometimes even the same people) played both sides, spouting far-left flamebait and far-right flamebait. They had a strategy of "further their divisions as possible, and let them show the world the failure of Democracy." The investigations have made this pretty clear, yet so many people are only hearing "hello Ivan posing as a right-wing nationalist. I see you astroturfing here." I'm not sure why, but I don't
they got the metadata (Score:5, Insightful)
so finally will the press wake up and tell the public that metadata not necessarily the content is important ?
As a side note this would not have been such a problem if the journalist Ali Watkins had actually run their own email server like ms clinton had...
so lesson learnt dont depend on a third party like gmail/office365 if you want privacy and certainly do not depend on something like signal not to leak your metadata
Guilty by association. (Score:4, Insightful)
He has been in regular e-mail contact with Ahmed Y. who is not a terrorist. How long will it be before Ahmed Y. finds himself on a on a no-fly list??
Come on, the correct question would be :
- How long before Ahmed Y. finds himself waterboarded at some black site, just in case he could be having something interesting to say ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
so finally will the press wake up and tell the public that metadata not necessarily the content is important ?
As a side note this would not have been such a problem if the journalist Ali Watkins had actually run their own email server like ms clinton had...
so lesson learnt dont depend on a third party like gmail/office365 if you want privacy and certainly do not depend on something like signal not to leak your metadata
Metadata is of course important, and can be easier to correlate than the actual data. Trusted a third party with your data is always risky, one way or another, though it can be managed with encryption.
It is interesting that if you dig into the story the guy arrested was arrested for lying to the FBI. I didn't see any allegations about releasing classified information.
Trump's people have stated multiple times that lying is fine, as long as they can't prove the original crime, so of course Trump will pardon
Re: (Score:1)
Man, being a libtard is easy.. no logic, no reason, just spew whatever you feel out your uninformed mouth.
The parent post mentioned that a warrant could be justified, but only for suspected actual classified leaks or actual crimes and then the information seized should only apply to that. The parent post even mentioned that Obama was possibly going too far in going after reporters. In short, you shouldn't be able to get a warrant or use the information obtained from a warrant on a legitimate reporter doing his legitimate work unless properly classified information was at stake. You can't classify something,
Cryptography + Tor, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
As a side note this would not have been such a problem if the journalist Ali Watkins had actually run their own email server like ms clinton had...
Well, fundamentally : NO it won't have been *that* much different.
In theory :
- The justice could have just as well gotten a warrant to search her private sever.
- She could have argued that as a reporter, she should protect her source [wikipedia.org]
- She would have been sued in turn for obstruction of justice.
In practice :
- Securing a mail server is hard.
- The court could "accidentally find" the needed information in one of the inevitable hack that the server is going to sustain.
(Whe
Re:Cryptography + Tor, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly, the FBI is currently alleging that the use of communications platforms with encryption such as WhatsApp amounts to obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent when used to communicate with people who might eventually become witnesses - even if they are witnesses for the defense.
So all of you folks who poo-poo the slippery slope argument... well, there you go. They are also all over companies like Apple for building encryption into their phones and have used the fact that devices are encrypted as evidence of criminal intent.
England is currently living out the argumentum ad absurdum from the gun control debate - having outlawed guns and the sorts of knives used for hunting or defense and finding that people are still violent, they are now talking about banning kitchen knives with pointed ends. [telegraph.co.uk]
Give the government and inch, and they'll use that inch against you.
Re: (Score:2)
"they are now talking about banning kitchen knives with pointed ends."
I assume you are one of those American gun nuts who says things like "pillows can suffocate people, so if you ban guns, you should also ban pillows".
If you RTFA, you find it's just one judge who said that in his retirement speech. It has no chance in hell of anyone taking it seriously, yet you use it to snidely imply that any gun control inevitably leads to absurdities like that. All because of one remark by one judge-- not on the bench,
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are one of those American gun nuts who says things like "pillows can suffocate people, so if you ban guns, you should also ban pillows".
I assume you're one of those useful idiots that have lost the plot. Guns were supposed to be the problem with US cities. Then London overtook [bbc.com] New York City in homicides per capita.
It's almost as if the problem wasn't the guns, but the people -- like when East London became dominated [dailymail.co.uk] by migrant ghettos. But here you are rattling on about "gun nuts".
If you RTFA, you find it's just one judge who said that in his retirement speech.
Judges are supposed to be learned and wise men. That he's even saying this is a sign of the times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is Britain's purple-haired, migrant-loving feminist studies major. But you wouldn't have a problem if I linked to them, right? Of course the BBC would never write such an article, no matter how true it was. But you don't need to believe the Daily Mail. Just open your eyes and look at the statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you like sciencey stuff like statistics, Karl Popper, the father of the modern scientific method, had this logical argument he called the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] , which basically says that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
Congratulations, you're getting the idea! Islam is the most intolerant, supremacist, and violent mainstream religion on the planet. It's been utter foolishness, and downright evil, to open the flood gates and allow this ideology into Western societies.
But I suppose the terrorist attacks, the rise of anti-Semitism, the massive sexual assaults, the hate preachers, anti-homosexual sentiment, the crime, the first-cousin marriages, the female genital mutilation, the forced veils, the welfare spending -- no, thes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ignorant idiot.
There's this feeling I get when I get the notification to a reply in a contentious debate. Will they destroy my argument? Will I have to rethink my position? As I got that feeling, I quickly decided it was unlikely you'd have anything substantive to say. I was right.
You're just as intolerant as the people depicted in whichever white supremacist garbage that you read. Why shouldn't people treat you in the same way that you propose to treat them?
Pardon me, but you're the one that said, "we should be intolerant of intolerance". My stance is simple: limit immigration from intolerant societies. You haven't explained why I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
My stance is simple: limit immigration from intolerant societies. You haven't explained why I'm wrong.
So most OECD countries should limit immigration from the USA. That sounds reasonable enough. Why? Here's a long list of reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Note that the large majority of terrorists in the USA are Christian, which is logical since the majority of Americans are Christian. I guess that makes you a domestic extremist. There are lists for people like you too.
The Islamic extremism we see reported in the media has its roots in Saudi Arabia and is a sect of Islam called Wahhabism, which pra
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the large majority of terrorists in the USA are Christian
You state that without any evidence. Where in your Wikipedia link does it say that? You just assume it. For example, from your link:
"According to the FBI in June 2008, eco-terrorists and extreme animal rights activists represent "one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the U.S. today." "
Are they Christian? Do they cite Christian teachings when they commit their acts? What Christian doctrine are they following?
And since we're talking about numbers, why don't you compare the per capita body coun
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity: Jesus was a hippie that preached love, pacifism, and virtue.
Do you really believe this? It seems that most of your comments are guided more by biased beliefs than facts, and whatever facts you do use are cherry-picked to suit your own, twisted narrative.
The kind of ill-informed, misguided, extremist views you're espousing do real harm to a lot of people. Please stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe this? It seems that most of your comments are guided more by biased beliefs than facts, and whatever facts you do use are cherry-picked to suit your own, twisted narrative.
I'd ask you to look in the mirror. Have you read the Gospels? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Are you so willfully ignorant of the most astonishing point from the New Testament, that Christ allowed himself to be sacrificed?
The kind of ill-informed, misguided, extremist views you're espousing do real harm to a lot of people. Please stop it.
Take your own advice. You demonstrate a complete lack of fundamental knowledge regarding the main tenants of the Abrahamic religions, as well as a willful blindness as to how these religions are being played out in the real world.
Notice how you did not respond to any of my points p
Re: (Score:2)
OK, slightly longer version, since you don't seem to make a distinction between history and religious texts:
The Bible is not historical fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and neither is the Qu'ran. Additionally, how people interpret these books depends, to a great extent, on the contexts in which they're interpreted. That's the way reading works; people fill in the inevitable ambiguities and missing information from their own contexts. That's a fundamental feature of semiotics.
For example, you're inter
Re: (Score:2)
From now on, I'll match extremist gibberish, with automatically generated gibberish:
Deliverer has not, and likely never will be litigious in the extent to which we append and recount affirmations. Human society will always embolden Jesus of Nazareth; some of the realm of theory of knowledge and others with the search for literature. Veracity of jesus lies in the realm of theory of knowledge as well as the field of semiotics. Muslimism is the most certainly but risibly considerate utterance of humanity.
The a
Re: (Score:2)
OK, slightly longer version, since you don't seem to make a distinction between history and religious texts:
I've made quite clear distinctions between history versus scripture. For instance, I would use phrases like, "based on the scriptures".
The Bible is not historical fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and neither is the Qu'ran
No shit. By the way, quite hilarious that you chose to link to Reza "I am a scholar" [firstthings.com] Aslan, the Muslim apologist. I prefer Carrier's [youtube.com], "Did Jesus Even Exist?"
Additionally, how people interpret these books depends, to a great extent, on the contexts in which they're interpreted.
No shit. But there's also plain reading. And we can look at history and influential texts to see how these works were being interpreted. You're doing a lot of tap dancing and not addressing anything I've actually written
Re: (Score:2)
Religion has not, and doubtless never will be rancorous yet somehow perjured. Mankind will always allure religion; many by the agriculturalist but a few on forefather to agronomists. a penal Jesus Christ lies in the search for literature as well as the area of reality. Faith is the most drowsily remarkable allusion of human life.
As I have learned in my theory of knowledge class, Jesus Christ is the most fundamental allegation of humanity. The same pendulum may transmit two different neurons to spin. Althoug
Re: (Score:2)
useful idiot [clarionproject.org]:
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
useful idiot [clarionproject.org]:
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Useful idiot still gibbering to himself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All right useful idiot, you "win" the argument. I will no longer reply. You can have the last word to post your gibberish. You made clear you lost on the basis of merit, and like a child, resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and wailing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, when I give you the last word to post your gibberish, you switch to calling me racist. Were you always a useful idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI is also currently alleging that the use of communications platforms generally amounts to obstruction of justice when used to communicate with people who might eventually become witnesses - even if th
Re: (Score:2)
so finally will the press wake up
That's cute that you think the press functions the way it does because it's "asleep."
Re: (Score:1)
so finally will the press wake up and tell the public that metadata not necessarily the content is important ?
As a side note this would not have been such a problem if the journalist Ali Watkins had actually run their own email server like ms clinton had...
so lesson learnt dont depend on a third party like gmail/office365 if you want privacy and certainly do not depend on something like signal not to leak your metadata
Why does Hillary Clinton get off yet Ali Watkins will not? What was the difference?
Re:they got the metadata (Score:5, Insightful)
Mike Pence used a private server while governor of Indiana which is
legal in Indiana [washingtonpost.com] , it isn't legal at the federal level and he didn't do so exclusively as Hillary did. He doesn't do so as VP.
Regarding Kushner, from NPR [npr.org], that noted right wing organization:
"Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business. Fewer than a hundred emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal, rather than his White House, address. All non-personal emails were forwarded to his official address and all have been preserved in any event."
So some people have his personal account and he gets emails there but he forwards them to his official account so they are properly tracked and recorded. I just started a new job and folks here still have my personal email address as the first one to popup in their Outllook when they send me an email so I've received a couple of sensitive documents outside the company. Every time it happens I let the sender know so they correct it. Does that mean I'm doing company business on a personal email address?
You really need to try harder if you're going to try to find hypocrisy, your arguments are too easily knocked. Here, let me help you:
Donald Trump was attacked relentless for not denouncing David Duke, a man he never met, and someone he and Pence did denounce, yet the same media and Democrats haven't demanded that any of these 7 Democrats [dailycaller.com] denounce their actual ties with Louis Farrakhan. They even buried the photo of Obama standing with him so it wouldn't come out while Obama was in office. Now that is a proper example of hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty clear that the reason Hillary Clinton set up a private email server was to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and to prevent her emails from being officially recorded.
On the other hand anyone who works for the Federal Government or is a Federal official better have a private email account if they are conducting any business that relates to political efforts or fund raising. it is illegal for them to carry on these activities from their official email.
So does Kushner have a private email
If you're going to leak.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, if you're going to leak material which might be in the public interest you have to be extremely careful,
Precautions like:
1) Buy a cheap used laptop for cash and keep if for a few months so there's little chance the seller will be able to identify you. Never connect this laptop to your home network.
2) Leave your mobile phone at home (cell records could show you were at a particular location)
2) Wear a hat, walk to a coffee shop in a city (your license plate might appear on CCTV if you drive). Use their free wi-fi from outside the building. (you might appear on CCTV if you enter the building)
3) Install TOR browser on your disposable laptop
4) Create a disposable e-mail account
5) Walk to a different coffee shop, use the disposable e-mail account to communicate with journalist(s).
6) After you have shared 'confidential' material take a boat trip and discreetly drop the laptop into deep water
What other precautions would the Slashdot community recommend??
Re:If you're going to leak.... (Score:4, Interesting)
canary car wash (Score:4, Interesting)
Canary trap [wikipedia.org]
About leaked documents, the intel guys always ask "Could we just see an inch up your skirt, little girl, so that we know it's real?"
Only under this system, an inch is all it takes.
I suspect the canary car-wash maneuver is pretty darn hard to pull off, though you might onion-route it through Google translate, and then back to English again. But don't forget to sort every sentence in the resulting document into alphabetically order, or they'll nail you on a sequence canary.
The result at this point might seemingly be reduced to Lucky's monologue, but if you subscribe to the Russia House doctrine, questions are almost as revealing as answers, anyway.
Thus our canary-lite topic salad would be almost as revealing as the original document, modulo a ready supply of Brits in bow ties, hemming and humming and hawing and long-stroking a dusty chalkboard (this was my favourite scene in the movie, actually: the tea-sipping Rainmen of MI6 spook-kindergarten confabulation; later, when they cut to America, it's vast arrays of industrially air-conditioned beige MHz and short-stroked disk drives).
Moral of the story: baskets of bucks shorten your stroke length.
In canary world, sometimes even a fractional inch is all it takes. Proceed carefully, and leave no feather behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Randomize your wifi MAC address every so often too. Also, if you need a phone, buy an old dumb phone got cash and take the battery out when you don't need it.
Re: (Score:1)
Randomize your wifi MAC address every so often too. Also, if you need a phone, buy an old dumb phone got cash and take the battery out when you don't need it.
If your going to delete something, then delete it. Dropping a laptop in a lake might not even delete anything. Tons of secure delete utilities exist. If you want to throw away a perfectly good computer after that, then go far it, though likely you could have been fine just reimaging it and throwing away a usb wifi adapter..
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, man. You have to spoof the MAC address if you connect to public Wifi. The prosecutor sees you dumping the laptop in the water, retrieves it, opens it, notices the MAC address label on the Wifi adapter is still intact (damned Thinkpads!), and you're busted. Even state-sponsored hackers get caught--you just can't arrest them. It's fantasy to think you can outplay the US government like this. Even Snowden got caught, and he tried really hard not to.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you're going to leak material which might be in the public interest you have to be extremely careful,
Better still, don't use email for anything sensitive, ever.
Find a journalist who also knows how to be discreet and confidential online, e.g. Laura Poitras. You know who these journalists are because they get harassed at every border they try to cross.
Some newspapers have set up their own SecureDrop servers, i.e. a way to give them documents anonymously.
Also make sure the documents you're dropping haven't been invisibly watermarked or otherwise had unique identifying information embedded in them that leads t
Re: (Score:2)
use protonmail.ch as your disposable email. Pay them a little elsewhere for service as a donation.
Re: (Score:1)
So you believe that the government should do what the hell it likes and just classify anything that's illegal without any risk of disclosure.
Re: (Score:1)
That's an argument against the very concept of "classified information".
But, as long as we have that concept in our laws, those laws better be enforced...
so just like previous administrations then? (Score:5, Informative)
Good ol' Eric Holder obtained the records for more than 20 telephone lines of [the AP's] offices and journalists, including their home phones and cellphones. It said the records were seized without notice sometime this year [nytimes.com]. And this issue is hardly new [rcfp.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Wanting to feel the same outrage, then I saw the tweets last year where she blames the Trump team for the leaks and explains how it justifies changes in how the witnesses are treated (in ways that damage Trump).
This isn't just a 'neutral', or even severely biased, journalist. She actively engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the current administration.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly new, but it became much worse during Obama. The reason re are a lot of journalists not complaining about press freedom is that the only way to have a career is if you have nothing critical to say about the powers that be. Mainstream journalism is as good as dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as well as possible, given the collapse of journalism. Is that what you wer
Re: (Score:1)
Well when Politco, NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, and ABC and several other publications all went out of their way to cheer on the Obama administration repeatedly. Even going as far as to send them stories prior to publication to make sure they weren't damaging, I'm sure that Fox News going after Obama is simply fair. What you didn't hear about that? Let me fill you in, it was called journolist. [realclearpolitics.com]
What gets far more interesting in this story, is that this person was engaged(read fucking her sources) with m
Re: (Score:2)
Wolfe transferred no classified material and is not even accused of doing so.
That's exactly what he's accused of. You can read the indictment yourself at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not 'the powers that be'. Or not yet. For a journalist it is safe to be very critical about him. You could simply ask: "is it safe to be critical of this". I would understand the collapse of journalism as that they no longer perform their watchdog function but instead are very critical towards official enemies and very gullible towards official friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the Internet, information was a very valuable commodity. US administrations used valuable information to bribe media in exchange for favorable coverage; that's what companies like CNN and NBC became wealthy and powerful. Starting about 20 years ago, information became less valuable and other business models b
Re: so just like previous administrations then? (Score:1)
Derp state!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Coming from a military background I have no trouble realizing that there is a lot of information that should not be made public for perfectly reasonable and legal reasons. Not every piece of classified data is classified for bad reasons. As a matter of fact most of them are classified for very valid reasons.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is tasked with oversight of the TLA. If they can't keep information that is necessary and important to U.S. security secret then the TLA just won't keep them in the loop
On "whataboutery" (Score:3)
You can only milk the "whataboutism" defense for so much. USSR's approach to it was "but what about Negroes beaten in the US"? That was the pure "whataboutism" fallacy [wikipedia.org], because a) the racial strife in America had nothing — zilch — to do with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, their reckless experimentations in Chernobyl, or their prevention of immigration; b) the US actually was and remains concerned about the remnants of racism in itself.
But your attempts to portray GP's argument as "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you don't — passive acquiescence is not memorable. So, please, cite anything by NYTimes or Washington Post denouncing Obama for the far graver offense of killing suspects, that's more passionate than this [nytimes.com], or this [nytimes.com], or this [washingtonpost.com]...
Heck, not only was he not denounced, his side praised him for killing Osama bin Laden, instead of arresting him [theatlantic.com]... Online and IRL, Left were taunting "RethugliKKKans" with: "who is tougher on terrorism
Offtopic: Slashdot is too liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is way too liberal with shitposters. Why can't we just cancel obvious troll accounts - terminate them and permban the IP? Clutch Nixon 5434978 is an obvious troll and spamming whole threads with off-topic "poems", these shitposts are of no use to anyone. If you want political topics (I don't), then at least kick out the obvious trolls and shitposters.
Or even better, permanently IP ban or shadow ban all off-topic commentators. You can start with my own account because of this comment, I don't care, as long as you do it with every off-topic troll poster out there so Slashdot becomes readable again.
Re:Offtopic: Slashdot is too liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll get over it. This isn't the first time we've seen Slashdot rendered unreadable by nonsense like this. It'll stop when Nixon gets bored, or his karma drops to the point that he can only post at -1, and we can get back to the ordinary sort of shitposting that passes for discussion these days.
Further, expecting the editorial staff to do anything seems absurd to me. We can't even get them to pay enough attention to the headlines to avoid front page dups, what makes you think they're interested enough notice and ban a specific user?
Re: (Score:3)
Plus also if the editorial staff started removing posts, people would also flip their shit and tell us how slashdot is going to the dogs etc.
Re:Offtopic: Slashdot is too liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberalism is the price/cost of free speech. You have to put up with a few idiots or you risk silencing everyone.
I get your point, but why reduce the current (welcome) level of transparency when we don't really have to?
People like me have no problem burning a few mod points to whack those sick/stupid posts down to -1, and at least we know that (hopefully) some valid posts are not getting "shadow banned" due to someone's personal agenda.
I've personally modded back up some -1 posts that were certainly controversial, but yet interesting and not "wrong".
TLDR; /. mod system is far from perfect, but it works better than most others...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that Anonymous Coward is a bastard.
Or maybe you just can let the moderation system take care of it. I've not seen a poem, and you can too!
Re: (Score:2)
Read at +2 or higher unless you're moderating. It gets rid of virtually all of the useless shitposts. Some trolls still get modded up, but they're generally posting original stuff that's on topic rather than copypasta.
Re:Offtopic: Slashdot is too liberal (Score:4, Funny)
Why can't we just cancel obvious troll accounts - terminate them and permban the IP?
Because one of them might be the president?
Re: (Score:2)
The admins don't know how. Many years ago my account was actually banned for a few days. Has that ever happened to anyone else?
Advocating censorship... (Score:2)
Try as I might, I can't find any part of your argument to implement preventive censorship on /., that would not also apply to abolishing the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can mark these accounts as enemies so that their score goes negative and you never see them. Stop being such a snowflake and trying to impose your will on everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the internet.
Not "Trump's DoJ" DoJ is opposed to Trump (Score:1)
Calling it "Trump's DoJ" does not make much sense.
The DoJ is being ran by Trump hating Rosenstien.
Sessions has recursed himself from anything meaningful. In most recent news, useless Sessions has refused to prosecute the Awangate scandal.
How to "shape" the news (Score:3)
I think it quite revealing that "the story" here is about the media being investigated, and not about the fact that a highly-placed Senate staffer on the Intelligence Committee has been charged with lying to the FBI.
That's how you shape the news. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Look, a squirrel.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-ex-senate-staffer-charged-leak-investigation-20180607-story,amp.html [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, bad link. Use this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
This is Sessions/Trump payback (Score:3, Interesting)
He and Sessions are on the same page when it comes to freedom of the press, and the right to free speech in general. They hate it. Anyone who questions or opposes them in public becomes their personal enemy, and they'll try to crush them. That's what the raving over "fake news" is really about. Destruction of a free society.
Unlike the court supervised vetting of Cohen's documents to determine what is relevant and admissible, all this information will go into secret databases and be used without reviewing if it was legally obtained. Just like the Facebook data leaked to Cambridge Analytica is now in the hands of Russian intelligence. Putin and Trump follow the same playbook.
Re:This is Sessions/Trump payback (Score:5, Insightful)
So what does that mean when Obama did the same thing? That he's a petty tyrant that is lashing out? I guess so. Good thing he was the one to put this framework into place and abuse the fuck out of it isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos owns the Washington post. Also how do you get back at law enforcement by going after a reporter?
Notice it's not the first time ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Encrypt, Encrypt, Encrypt (Score:3)
Violation of 1st Amendment? (Score:2)
Mentioning Tiger Blood... (Score:1)