New York Post's Hunter Biden Laptop Source Sues Twitter for Defamation (theverge.com) 468
A computer repair shop owner cited in a controversial New York Post story is suing Twitter for defamation, claiming its content moderation choices falsely tarred him as a hacker. From a report: John Paul Mac Isaac was the owner of The Mac Shop, a Delaware computer repair business. In October, the New York Post reported that The Mac Shop had been paid to recover data from a laptop belonging to Joe Biden's son Hunter, and it published emails and pictures allegedly from a copy of the hard drive. After the Post's sourcing and conclusions were disputed, Facebook and Twitter both restricted the article's reach, and Twitter pointed to its ban on posting "hacked materials" as an explanation. Mac Isaac claims Twitter specifically made this decision to "communicate to the world that [Mac Isaac] is a hacker." He says that his business began to receive threats and negative reviews after Twitter's moderation decision, and that he is "now widely considered a hacker" because of Twitter.
Blown away... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that someone would publish private information they were paid to recover and not consider that hacking? It's definitely doxxing, right? Unless I'm missing something, asshole is getting everything he deserves for publishing that. He should lose his job and company, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Well it might not be considered hacking, but he was not entitled to the information, and usually part of signing any kind of repair contract is that you hold the repair service immune from any liability.
The fact that they went out of their way to let someone who is not the owner of the data have it, puts it right into the same kind of hacking-espionage section of law, so while he might not be a hacker, in terms of how we typically consider it, his actions are not any different than what blackhat hackers do.
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is no wonder that the reputable news outlets gave the entire thing a wide berth and even Twitter tagged the story to indicate how dubious it was.
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
No because:
a) The shop may lay claim to the equipment as damages, but that doesn't entitle them to sell the data.
b) Any shop that wanted to resell abandoned property would wipe the machine and restore the factory OS if possible. It doesn't matter who abandoned it.
So this computer shop went beyond. And it's not the only time this kind of thing has happens. When NCIX went bankrupt, the person who obtained NCIX's servers wanted to sell the private data. Any time you lease a machine from an ISP, this potentially happens if the ISP didn't properly wipe the drives.
Ultimately the store violated customer privacy laws when they did anything beyond what was agreed to in the repair contract.
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Informative)
Criminal law, not privacy.
Email has personal identifying information and the value of those emails can easily be argued to be of value greater than $5,000.
Computer criminal activity in the third degree punishment is 3 to 5 years imprisonment and up to $15,000 in fines.
Make note of the phrase "in excess of authorization". Even though the customer may have granted authorization to recover the data on the drives, the computer technician taking it upon himself to read through the data for dirt on the person is beyond that authorization.
So, if the emails are real then he could have comited a criminal offense. In fact, if he argues they are real in court then he essentially could open himself up to criminal charges.
The guy is an idiot no matter how to see it.
Reference in the New Jersey law:
https://law.justia.com/codes/n... [justia.com] .A person is guilty of computer criminal activity if the person purposely or knowingly and without authorization, or in excess of authorization:
a.Accesses any data, data base, computer storage medium, computer program, computer software, computer equipment, computer, computer system or computer network;
g.A violation of subsection a. of this section is a crime of the third degree. A violation of subsection b. is a crime of the second degree. A violation of subsection c. is a crime of the third degree, except that it is a crime of the second degree if the value of the services, property, personal identifying information, or money obtained or sought to be obtained exceeds $5,000. A violation of subsection e. is a crime of the third degree, except that it is a crime of the second degree if the data, data base, computer program, computer software, or information:
(1)is or contains personal identifying information, medical diagnoses, treatments or other medical information concerning an identifiable person;
(3)has a value exceeding $5,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Blown away... (Score:3)
It's a shame because he did good work for a fair price, but I agree. I wouldn't leave anything there or recommend him to anyone if he ever does return.
Re:Blown away... (Score:4, Interesting)
Typically, a repair shop that finds vaguely illegal info on a laptop will turn it over to the FBI or local law enforcement, then a couple months later also give a copy of the data to Rudy Guilliani. Right? Is that standard operating procedure? As an IT professional myself, I must have been in the bathroom when that second part was covered in my ethics class.
This pro-Trump doofus, conveniently in Biden's home state, will eventually be exposed as a patsy for a Russia-based misinformation campaign. He's had several different stories on whether he contacted the FBI first or they contacted him, what he saw in the data, at one point claiming that he didn't peruse it at all. He's not a good liar.
This dope is getting what he deserves, maximum public embarrassment. Ironically, I kind of agree with him that he's no hacker, he obviously has no skill at what he does. Maybe news outlets should just 's/hacker/s***head/g'.
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Interesting)
Typically, a repair shop that finds vaguely illegal info on a laptop will turn it over to the FBI or local law enforcement, then a couple months later also give a copy of the data to Rudy Guilliani.
Something unusual does not mean illegal or nefarious.
It was illegal to provide the data to Guiliani [justia.com], if it is indeed legitimately Hunter Biden's. So while your statement ("Something unusual does not mean illegal or nefarious") is technically correct, it is also irrelevant in this case. We know that both looking through the emails and providing a copy of them to the president's lawyer are illegal acts.
Re: (Score:3)
Something unusual does not mean illegal or nefarious. To demonstrate the point: It would be unusual for me to buy a Ferrari, but I would buy one if I won the lottery. The act of buying Ferrari, however unusual, cannot be used as evidence of wrongdoing unless you eliminate all possible alternative explanations. As we all innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Actually, I believe the parent poster was using the word 'unusual' to be kind. Unethical is a more apt word for the situation. It is ethical to give the data to a law enforcement agency. It is unethical to turn it over to a third party.
This is baseless speculation, as you are saying this without presenting any evidence. Still it is fine to baselessly speculate. However, you go beyond mere speculation by also attempting to deny "This pro-Trump doofus" his right to sue for defamation.
If you followed the whole story (laptop dropped off by an individual to a vision impaired repairman who can't identify him, then retrieved/lost in the mail) it VERY MUCH looks like a classic intelligence disinformation operation. Now, there is no proof that it was, so it is c
Re:Blown away... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you're not trying to tell us that Rudy SuperSpreader [twitter.com] Guliani, in any way, shape or form, constitutes anything even slightly resembling "the proper authorities"
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy who thought four seasons landscaping was the hotel chain? The guy who was laughed out of every court he recently stepped foot in? The guy who sweat hair dye during a press conference? The guy who likely shit his pants during a hearing? I’m glad Giuliani is on this case!
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Blown away... (Score:4, Informative)
The guy who thought four seasons landscaping was the hotel chain? The guy who was laughed out of every court he recently stepped foot in? The guy who sweat hair dye during a press conference? The guy who likely shit his pants during a hearing? I’m glad Giuliani is on this case!
You forgot to mention that his "star" witness in Michigan, someone claiming of election "fraud", was in fact a janitor [yahoo.com] who was hired for one day to clean glass.
As a result of her lies, Dominion has sent her a cease-and-desist letter:
"We write to you now because you have positioned yourself as a prominent leader of the ongoing misinformation campaign by pretending to have some sort of 'insider's knowledge' regarding Dominion's business activities, when in reality you were hired through a staffing agency for one day to clean glass on machines and complete other menial tasks."
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot to mention that his "star" witness in Michigan, someone claiming of election "fraud", was in fact a janitor [yahoo.com] who was hired for one day to clean glass.
Aha! So you admit the voting systems were wiped! Cancel the election, fraud has been proven!
Re: (Score:3)
oh please explain this 5D chess move by Rudy.
Re: (Score:2)
"The FBI seemingly sat on it and did nothing for an entire year."
I'm not surprised. I just read the Post's story and it's a big nothing burger.
Re: (Score:3)
"Written emails by Hunter about getting 10 million dollars from..."
Links please. Nothing you wrote was in the Post's story.
Re: (Score:3)
"Written emails by Hunter about getting 10 million dollars from..."
Links please. Nothing you wrote was in the Post's story.
Not ten million dollars, but I used to have a few emails that proved I won I think a total of two million euros in various European lotteries. Where I never bought a lottery ticket.
Anyone knowing his email address can send an email to Hunter Biden about getting 10 million dollars for some nefarious purpose. Now if you show me evidence of 10 million dollars arriving in his bank account...
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rudy is the wrong guy for every possible action, except the action of bringing the daily plastic cup of meds.
Maybe the FBI sat on it because there was nothing illegal or actionable or noteworthy. I know Trump thought it was earth shattering news that proves he should remain president for the next 27 years, but luckily no one pays him much attention anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Blown away... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the FBI sat on it because there was nothing illegal or actionable or noteworthy. I know Trump thought it was earth shattering news that proves he should remain president for the next 27 years, but luckily no one pays him much attention anymore.
I particularly enjoy the cognitive dissonance that signatures alone cannot verify identity (see just about every argument the Republicans and Giuliani have made in regards to challenges to absentee voting), yet a signature is enough to definitively prove that the laptop belongs to Hunter Biden. Since, you know, the shop owner is legally blind and couldn't physically identfy Biden as the person who dropped off the laptop.
Re: (Score:3)
Rudy is the wrong guy for every possible action, except the action of bringing the daily plastic cup of meds.
Much like the President-elect you clearly don't remember much about how the American people obviously don't give a shit about competency in leadership.
No, it's pretty clear that about 70 million Americans do not care about having competent leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
If the tables were turned and this was information on Trump or his kid, then the opposite applies.
Biden's henchman traveling to Russia with possibly Don Jr's laptop in order to corroborate vague corruption claims? That's not a good look for Joe, his base doesn't want shenanigans like this.
Re: (Score:3)
The shop turned the laptop into the FBI. The FBI seemingly sat on it and did nothing for an entire year.
If the FBI is providing cover for the Bidens, effectively burying important information that the electorate ought to know the existence of before electing Biden into office, maybe telling Rudy Guiliani about the laptop's contents was the right thing to do?
If you're a Republican, then this was the right thing to do.
If you're a Democrat, then this is was totally improper.
If the tables were turned and this was information on Trump or his kid, then the opposite applies.
We are totally partisan and there is no going back.
Not all of us. I think President Trump is a horrible President, and he and his cronies are complicit in a third of a million American deaths (plus a decent number overseas) by elevating anti-science rhetoric through repeating that rhetoric under color of the the authority granted to the President of the United States. I've thought he was the most horrible candidate the Republican Party could have picked, and I think I might have even voted on the Republican primary ticket in the 2016 election in hopes tha
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the published emails, the data wasn't incriminating at all from the standpoint of a shop looking at it without a lot of context.
Some Ukrainian guy thanking someone for a meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
If something was abandoned that doesn’t mean it now belongs to you.
Re: Blown away... (Score:2)
Re: Blown away... (Score:5, Informative)
It is exhibit 4 in the lawsuit.
If you don't have a PACER account, I have pasted it onto Twitter
https://twitter.com/fulldecent... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thank you, if it is true that is the "contract" that purportedly would give him rights to the machine, then it proves that no, he did not pay anything for the machine, in fact, he was paid to do work on the machine. It doesn't matter what fine print he writes under the invoice; he didn't pay for a laptop, and it isn't his, even if it was abandoned.
Nor is the data his, nor does he have a copyright license to publish that data, nor does have a license to use Hunter Biden's public persona in his own busine
Re: Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be close to correct if Hunter dropped it off.
But absolutely NO ONE claimed that Hunter Biden gave the mechanic the computer. It was specifically dropped off by an 'anonymous' source.
Which makes it stolen and the mechanic can not obtain legal ownership because a thief dropped it off to be fixed.
That is the reason why nobody reputable was willing to run the story - without any real connection to Hunter Biden, everything on the tablet is worthless.
Yes, it may have had some data that once belonged to Hunter Biden. In fact it might even be totally true. But it is also possible that the computer never belonged to Hunter. Someone could have hacked a real computer that belonged to Hunter Biden, copied some emails and other files to another computer, added some other stuff, subtracted other things and then 'dropped' it off at the mechanic.
That kind of thing is a rather standard dirty trick, of the type perfected by John F. Kennedy. It pissed off Nixon so much he made his own dirty trick department, but his was rather amateur.
The main stream press refused to touch this pile of crap, it is no way credible. Everyone that touched it was unethical and untrustworthy - from the anonymous guy that dropped it off to the guy that illegally hacked it, to the people that published the information.
Re: (Score:3)
How did Hunter sign the contract, then?
When you pay premium rates for the folks that excel at fabricating evidence, signature forgery is a piece of cake!
Re:Blown away... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't change mine. I have actually dealt with abandoned customer hardware before and the standard procedure is pull the HD un-examined and install a new one with a fresh OS install.
The HD goes into a disused corner to gather dust just in case the customer pops up later demanding the data. Contract or no, it's not worth the potential legal stink just to reuse a HD, especially since a new one isn't very expensive and isn't so likely to fail in short order.
Any data from the drive stays right where it is.
About that "hard drive" (Score:3)
...
The HD goes into a disused corner to gather dust just in case the customer pops up later demanding the data. Contract or no, it's not worth the potential legal stink just to reuse a HD, especially since a new one isn't very expensive and isn't so likely to fail in short order.
...
Something I think is interesting and that everyone has missed: No MacBook Pro has been sold with a HD since 2012.
You might refer to the SSD as a "Hard drive" if you didn't know that, or hadn't seen the actual hardware. Nobody who saw what an actual SSD looks like would call it a "Hard drive". I also can't imagine a computer repair person calling it a "Hard drive" either.
So either something major got lost in translation of this story (which tells you that most of the story was not from an eyewitness pers
Re: About that "hard drive" (Score:2)
Re: About that "hard drive" (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple solders their SSDs to one of the logic boards. They're not M.2 drives, they're just chips that are soldered in. This hasn't always been the case, some of the early SSD-equipped MacBook Pros had proprietary daughter cards (so, not M.2) but starting with the MacBook Pros with TouchBars the SSD is soldered in [ifixit.com].
As the article doesn't say what type of MacBook Pro Hunter Biden is claimed to have left to be repaired, this doesn't really prove anything either way, but it's safe to assume that a MacBook Pro in 2019 was probably a TouchBar model and that means a soldered-in SSD.
As for why Hunter Biden would need to take it into to have the data recovered, MacBook Pros have a "backup" connector that authorized repair shops can use to recover data [ifixit.com] that a user would otherwise be incapable of using.
Re: (Score:3)
I could explain at least one reason but it sounds to me like you would not be interested in understanding the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Blown away... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Blown away... (Score:3, Informative)
Iâ(TM)d love to find out whatâ(TM)s really on this stupid hard drive so morons wouldnâ(TM)t fill comment sections with conjecture. If there was anything remotely interesting the dude would have released it by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Well Giuliani did claim to sleep with a copy of that hard drive full of kiddie porn. So I’d say he’s guilty as well.
Re: Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, agreed, evidence of a serious crime should be reported to authorities.
But when they do not promptly prosecute anyone, the proper course of action can not be to then send that evidence to a partisan tabloid media company and political operatives like Rudy Giuliani.
Ethically speaking, it's a disaster. He deserves a ruined reputation.
Re: (Score:3)
If the FBI had seen child porn on this laptop and had reason to believe it belonged to Hunter Biden he would have already been arrested. The fact that is hasn't happened should be a sign to you that there is a lot wrong with the reporting you have ingested about this.
Seriously, Newsmax is not factual, it is for entertainment only.
Do you really think the FBI which is notoriously both Republican and very conservative to the point where even today you can't have ever done any drugs to become an agent; would
Re: (Score:3)
-Yes, the garage pull cord was an overreaction. It shouldn't take that many agents to investigate that.
-Did you ever think that maybe they did investigate and it turns out there is nothing illegal to follow up on in the hard drive data?
-There WAS illegal activity involving the Russian government and some Americans which is why there WERE indictments.
-They have been investigating the allegations, and after a small bit of investigating, those 'thousands of allegat
Re: (Score:3)
Hint, if the court laughs you out and dismisses with prejudice then you came to the court without sufficient evidence to allege voter fraud.
Many of these judges were appointed by Republicans, what would they gain by throwing these lawsuits out?
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. You are attempting to reverse by repeating spurious allegations that fail even cursory examinations. All those affidavits? Read what they say and tell me they allege voter fraud because I've read several that all
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me like all due diligence is being done and all serious issues are being investigated.. Like most investigations, they don't keep the public in the loop on every detail, but it seems like they are catching the small number of people who actually committed election fraud. What's not happening is that they're not letting a con artist and thief con them into letting him steal an election that he lost by a landslide.
Re: (Score:3)
If the Supreme Court refuses to even hear a case, that's not laughing at you, that's laughing at the concept of a fair election.
It's called jurisprudence you absolute gronk. The Texas attorney general brought a suit that is laughable to a first year law student, nevermind the justices of the US Supreme Court. And quite literally anti-Republican. "State's rights" has been a cornerstone of Republican Party principles for generations. US states order their own affairs, and most especially how they each run their elections. Texas has no right to complain about how another state runs their elections and the decision of the Trump Sup
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. "Abondoned" by Russian agents dumping misinformation.
IT'S NOT HUNTER BIDEN'S FUCKING LAPTOP.
Why would anybody with half a fucking brain cell still believe this stupidity?
Re: (Score:3)
This is what the MSM has been saying:
The story was based around contents found on the hard drive of a laptop that had allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Maybe you do not know what Allegedly means: /lejdl/
allegedly
adverb
used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.
"he was allegedly a leading participant in the coup attempt"
As far as this guy being a hacker? Nope, I would not give them that much cr
Re: Blown away... (Score:4, Insightful)
extraordinary claims (that Hunter Biden went to a state that he does not live in to drop of a laptop with explosive information on it, just before his father's election, and forgot to pick it up) require extraordinary evidence and you provide none, except allegations
that and five bucks will get you a coffee
Really, you have been around for long enough to have some idea how evidence works, did the brain virus get you to?
Re: (Score:3)
And he didn't clone the drive? Give me a break.
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
Isn't it convenient Tucker Carlson lost the document copies as well?
Re: Blown away... (Score:4, Informative)
His lawyer called and emailed the shop demanding the return of his drive.
Are you talking about (*retch*) Bannon's unsubstantiated claims [newsweek.com]? Because believing anything Bannon says is a sure sign of mental illness.
Re: Blown away... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's jumping to a conclusion before the facts are verified, implying guilt for wanting to check out the supposed proof of the accusation to clear his client's name. Try that in court and you'd have your ass served with a countersuit for defamation.
Then taking into account that the father of the accused is the President elect, it starts to smells like a smearing campaign that's been typical of Trump since before he was even elected in 2016.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are more than enough reasonable questions that don't have reasonable answers to throw the entire story into doubt. The more reasonable explanation is one of Giuliani's Russian friends conc
Re: Blown away... (Score:3)
Do you all seriously not remember what the Ukraine scandal was about?
Re: Blown away... (Score:4, Insightful)
Paid? (Score:5, Interesting)
By whom? Who delivered the laptop to The Mac Shop?
the New York Post reported that The Mac Shop had been paid to recover data from a laptop belonging to Joe Biden's son Hunter
If it can be shown that Isaac did the work, I hope he requested some identification from the person or persons requesting it. Better still, some evidence that they were in legal possession of it.
What did he expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
One of two things is true.
Either;-
1) He stole data from a customer. Electronic theft or..
2) He fabricated data for ulterior purposes. Electronic fraud.
It would seem to me either of these would be considered either hacking or hacking-adjacent in any courtroom
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
False choice, other alternatives are also possible. For example, shop owner can be telling the truth that the laptop was abandoned by the customer.
Given that this was in the United States - even if the service agreement stated private data was owned by the shop - it wouldn't pass 'unconscionable' standards of contracts. The private data was never the shops - even if the hardware changed hands. Using it was in effect a computer crime.
Re:What did he expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the laptop contained source code or raw video files from a studio does that make the repair shop the new owner?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you abandon a broken car at a mechanic shop, can you argue they have no right to look at GPS locations you saved?
Re: What did he expect? (Score:3)
Exactly, they have no rights to profit from private customer data. The point of the law you mention is to protect the work and capital investment of the mechanic. Storing the car forever could be quite fiscally burdensome. Likewise if compensation is not given for services rendered, the only recourse is to sell the physical mechanism.
Profiting off the data is akin to an abandoned laptop with homemade nudes and you are arguing the shop owner can now sell those nudes for money. While the profit here may not
Re:What did he expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Your link does not contain case law [wikipedia.org] showing that repair shop owner "accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access".
Wikipedia is not a source.
We next consider Van Buren’s contention that the evidence did not sufficiently support his conviction for computer fraud. Although styled as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the animating force behind this argument is an appeal to overrule United States v. Rodriguez , 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010), where we held that even a person with authority to access a computer can be guilty of computer fraud if that person subsequently misuses the computer. United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192, 1207 (11th Cir. 2019)
case law - from a USSC case no less. and I am no longer doing your homework for you - if you think you can prove it different try comming up with something other than a mechanic's lean - which varies by state - and 99% likely can't be used on a computer. https://www.levelset.com/news/... [levelset.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That changes nothing.
Even if the laptop was abandoned, that doesn't entitle the shop owner to sell the recovered data to the press or publish it on the internet. There are already legal court precedents for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Dumb ass, you're not paying him to be your law school professor, or your legal assistant, if you don't know if it is true, shut up for now while you go look it up.
My goodness. This is a place for nerds. Nerds know how to look things up. And they did already. So go. Do.
It isn't a complicated issue, or an edge issue. Anybody who has done this sort of work is an idiot if they don't already know this shit.
Re:What did he expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Delaware law makes it his laptop after 90 days or whatever.
Delaware law [delaware.gov] makes it his laptop upon application to a court of competent jurisdiction [delaware.gov], NOT "after 90 days or whatever". Here you are caught lying both about the law, and through implication, about your familiarity with same. (Though you only implied passing familiarity, it is clear that you lack even that.)
He can give it to whomever he wants, including the Post. If Delaware requires data to be wiped and he failed to do so, cite the regulation.
Title 25, Chapter 40, Section 4001 defines "abandoned personal property" [delaware.gov] as "tangible personal property which the rightful owner has left in the care or custody of another person and has failed to maintain, pay for the storage of, exercise dominion or control over, and has failed to otherwise assert or declare the ownership rights to the tangible personal property for a period of 1 year." So the law does not give them the legal rights to the data, and the law does not permit the property to be considered abandoned for one year, not the ninety days you imagine.
So what we find by citing the regulation as you request is that the shop owner is in obvious violation of the law. Aren't you glad you asked?
P.S. The relevant law was the top google result for "delaware law property left with repair facility", so if you actually wanted to know the truth, you could have trivially found it. But you don't, you just want to make shit up and speculate.
I am unsure that's what happened. (Score:4, Interesting)
Based on my reading of this article...
The New York Post published Data from the laptop (not John Paul Mac). The New York Post claimed that John Paul Mac was the source. That article, that made both claims, was disputed. Because of that dispute, the article was blocked as having "hacked materials." Because John Paul's name was associated with that article, the act of blocking due to hacking was received by audiences as an accusation that John Paul was a hacker.
So....if I read this right (unsure, honestly), John Paul didn't publish anything at all. Someone from the Post walked into John's shop and said "could you please recover all the data from this broken laptop for me?" That is a legit request; people need such a service commonly and it is not remotely illegal or unethical to do that. Unless they explicitly said something like "this laptop was stolen" then John wouldn't have any reason to believe that anything weird was going on. So he scraped a hard drive image and gave them the data dump. Done. Everything else that happened was "on" the New York Post.
Apparently, the article no longer has that "hacked materials" associated with the ban. That was removed the next day. But the social impact lingers.
If my reading here is what actually happened, then I do find the situation a bit sticky. Twitter didn't make any accusations of John, and didn't ban John's posts, do anything bad to his account, etc. Twitter banned a new york post article, due to a dispute about its credibility. Isn't that an ok thing to do? This mental connection "John is a hacker" was made, incorrectly, by twitters followers. Is twitter actually responsible for that?
I DO see this as just another case of mass stupidity being the root cause here. I suspect John will lose the case, despite being innocent and yet widely hated now, because twitter didn't actually make any accusations of John nor take action against John.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That article, that made both claims, was disputed.
How it was disputed was absolutely fascinating. Emails were never denied by Bidens. The timeline has Twitter censoring links to the article and banning New York Post account. Everyone else, used that as an excuse to dismiss it as false. Basically, disputing was the act of banning it. So it is fully circular logic. At a later time came "All the Hallmarks of Russian Campaign" letter (note: this is not a disputation) that again was misreported as saying more than it did.
Say it with me: But Her Emails! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't care whether there's any truth (there isn't, go look up Beau Of The Fifth Column's videos on it, none of the timelines line up), or even if people believe you. The goal is to just keep hammering away until you develop a vague sense that *something* must be there.
I just wish we, as a country, could figure this out so these transparent tricks didn't work anymore...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let me correct your assertion: POLITICIANS of both parties do this, not just Republicans. For each you cite from party A, I can find some from party B to equal them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yep two years in and nothing has happened. That or its the most complex criminal case of the decade.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the investigation arranged by the GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Trick question, it's both. And ask the 1960s Civil Rights movement how non partisan the FBI is sometime.
But hey, you got your impression. Somebody's gonna read your comment and get some negative feelings associated with the name "Biden". That's all that matters. If it's you doing the manipulating and you know you're doing it fine, but what if it's not? What if you're the one being manipulated?
Re: (Score:3)
So, most crooks have parents.
Re: (Score:3)
What I don't understand is why does it matter? Even if Hunter is the sleaziest person in the world, well sleazy people have Fathers. Its not like Biden has hired him into the Whitehouse, a clear ethical problem called nepotism or did favours for China to get a trademark for him. I don't understand why this matters.
Re:Say it with me: But Her Emails! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's perspective that's missing here. Yes, the Clintons are corrupt. But Trump is a worse womanizer than Bill and he's more sleazy than Hillary. The whole idea that Trump is better than the Clintons is completely bananas. He's cut from the same cloth (entitled rich white fuck who inherited privilege, if not wealth; Trump of course inherited both) and he gives not one single fuck about his constituents.
The Clintons do not have unexplained wealth [npr.org], while Trump (and other Trumps) are getting money from a Kushner-created shell company [vanityfair.com] and Trump still won't show us his taxes like all the other recent presidents have done.
Anyone who still thinks the Clintons are more corrupt than Trump provably cannot be reasoned with.
Re: Say it with me: But Her Emails! (Score:4, Insightful)
I said they didn't come from wealth. Learn to read, kid.
Twitter is protected by 230 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of Section 230 is that Twitter is insulated from such lawsuits regardless of merit. Even if it can be shown that they maliciously censored based on falsehoods, they are still immune.
Hmm... Isn't Section 230 the one Trump wanted to overturn/abolish? Interesting ...
Re:Twitter is protected by 230 (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a lawyer
Clearly. Your understanding of Section 230 is mistaken. If Twitter actually defamed this guy then they are not shielded from liability. If they had merely removed posts by him or about him, they would be shielded from liability. But if they intentionally spread malicious lies about him that caused him harm then they would be liable for defamation.
However, it does not appear that they intentionally spread malicious lies about him that caused him harm, so this guy will lose the case. He probably does not intend to win the case.
Instead, he will play the victim card and beg for a legal defense fund and a bunch of idiots such as yourself will throw money at him. Just like you idiots threw a bunch of money at that asshole kid who murdered a couple people in Kenosha. You dumbasses are the most vulnerable prey for con artists, having recently overtaken idiots who give money to televangelists. It’s so pathetic how you fail to see that all the causes that mean so much to you—religion, guns, political demagogues, political conspiracies, etc. are all just scams designed to take your money.
It seems that every other post under this story is you parroting some bullshit you heard from Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart or some other whacko. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the AC comments were also by you. Way to fight the good fight. You’re a model right-wing troll.
Re: (Score:2)
If Twitter actually defamed this guy then they are not shielded from liability.
You are arguing from the conclusion. It is not clear that they defamed him, as there is no case law for this.
If Twitter bans you with stated reason that is untrue, is it the same as accusing you of the same? I don't think anything like that was tested in courts. For example, Twitter bans for misgendering, essentially accusing people of transphobia. Can they be sued for defamation for doing that?
What did the contract for the work say? (Score:3)
Both times I've brought in a laptop for repairs (display and keyboard), I've had to leave a deposit for a minimum amount of work (ie open it up to determine what needs to be done to provide an estimate for the full repair) as well as sign a disclaimer saying that the shop doesn't guarantee that the hard drive contents will not be altered/changed/deleted/added to/etc - so make sure there is nothing critical on it before leaving it. I can't believe that Mac Issac doesn't have a similar agreement.
It seems to me that Mac Issac told, in writing, Mr. Biden that when he gets his laptop back the hard drive's contents may have been altered (very likely if it's a data recovery task) but he's now telling the world that the contents are exactly what he was given. Or did he tell Mr. Biden that nothing would be changed on the hard drive and the files to be recovered would be provided on separate media?
Where is the paperwork explaining what was contracted and what was promised?
It's depressing (Score:2)
To know with certainty so many of the comments here would be exactly reversed if it was Jared Kushner's laptop.
Not the same (Score:3)
Jared Kushner is a white house official in charge of PR and whatever BS assigned to him that month; also he has a security clearance despite being rejected for one.
Hunter Biden is a politician's messed up kid who's dad has NEVER put him or his brother in charge of jack shit. Daddy may be proud his kid isn't on drugs or dead etc. but not the kind of proud that he'd let him work with him.... that is, unless he was a crook and wanted a mofia like environment...
I also don't give a shit if somebody travels with
the contract (Score:3)
Here is Hunter's signed contract that all the comments are talking about.
I paid the $0.60 to download it from PACER and put it on Twitter for you
https://twitter.com/fulldecent... [twitter.com]
Twitter admited to this (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh noes the defamation (Score:3)
And that's the Rudy narrative. Another more plausible narrative is that one of Giuliani's Eastern European associates planted this tainted laptop in for "repair" as a cover story for releasing stolen, hacked and doctored materials into the public domain. Just in time for the election race. And it sure was serendipitous that this repairman just then happened to give the files over to Giuliani like that. Either serendipity or he was a willing co-conspirator.
But Issac's fee fees are hurt because of a Twitter label?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Repair guys that rifle through customer’s files shouldn’t win defamation suits. Literally everyone involved here is super sketchy.
Repair shops always rifle through your data.
https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But sharing data with other parties is an entirely different thing. When Avast for example was found out to have shared user data, it was a huge scandal. And for a good reason.
If you share that data with 3rd parties infringes upon the rights of privacy of an individual that data belongs to.
Though I suppose if the contract states that the files of your computers will be searched and shared with whoever they want, it would
Re: (Score:2)
> so few people who haven't witnessed fascist police states violating everyone's privacy
Geek Squad spied on customers for the FBI. As SOP.
Re: (Score:2)
But these recent events, where protesters were disappeared, show that the potential is certainly there as things appear to get more radicalized with every passing year. At least to me (I'm biased since I'm originally from a former Soviet nation and then moved to Germany where I learned what kind of shit the Gestapo and Stasi were into and did to their citizens) that warrants caution.
The personal issue that I had with GP is that, as a respo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's only fair, but in this case, Twitter wasn't wrong.
Even if you assume that the repairman told the truth about the provenance of the laptop (which is super doubtful)
He didn't have the permission to snoop through that computer and publish what he found on the internet. No repair person has the right to do that. Even electronic recyclers aren't allowed to do that.
Now I don't care if you're the biggest Trump supporter in the world or the biggest Democrat, but no customer will ever knowingly bring their
Re: (Score:3)
Website owned by a private company chooses what content is published? Wow shocking. Tell me again why slashdot disabled the anonymous posting feature?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone's made them their arbiter, that sounds like a personal problem. They don't arbitrate anything for me. In fact, I can't even load their website. As of this month they've started requiring Javascript, and nothing on that site is worth the extra clicks to enable it. Every news article that I've read has described the enterprise very clearly as a computer repair shop, never have I heard the word "hacker" used in relation to it.
The question arises, why did he want to publicize his name in relation to
Re: I guess TDS is still real... (Score:2)
Moderators are acting on behalf of Twitter. Twitter is therefore responsible in full for what they do. Note that Twitter has not ever disclaimed or walked back on their position on this.
They are not regular people.