3 ms·

>I'm not aware of any claim from them. I thought the claim of the hack comes from the NY Post article itself where they said the shop owner made a copy of the h

>I'm not aware of any claim from them. I thought the claim of the hack comes from the NY Post article itself where they said the shop owner made a copy of the hard drive. The NY Post article claims the laptop was abandoned at the repair shop (never picked up) and that according to the law in that state became the legal property of the shop owner. >all of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it Notice that The Times does not say the source was legally authorized to release it. I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released. For example, if an IRS employee or an employee at Trump's accountant released it without permission, those would be crimes. >So at least from the perspective of being a small time employee of Twitter that has to work on moderation I can accept that for the low level employee at the time of moderation. But once it got so high up that @Jack commented on it, and now over a week later the NY Post's account is still banned, it doesn't float.

didibus 6y ago
> I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released In that case it wouldn't make it a hack, but just a leak. > and that according to the law in that state became the legal property of the shop owner That's something I'm still fuzzy on. I'm not sure if it's the law in the state, or just the store's contractual policy. Also, I don't know if the laptop becoming property of the shop extends to the information contained within it. And it also didn't specify if the data on the hard drive was password protected or encrypted in any way which meant retrieval would still require hacking into it. > But once it got so high up that @Jack commented on it, and now over a week later the NY Post's account is still banned, it doesn't float. I can't speak to that. Now Twitter has a PR issue, and I'm guessing whatever choices they've made or not are based on them trying to mitigate and limit the PR damages. My guess is, the NY Post is now smearing twitter's own reputation, and possibly twitter doesn't like that, and are worried they'd use their account to further promote anti-twitter rethoric which might be why Twitter is against unblocking their account. I'm a bit confused how they unblocked the tweet about the email story but kept the account blocked, that's a bit strange. Another thing I wondered is how likely could Twitter be accountable for if Hunter were to sue them for defamation and libel? Normally it seem fair game to defame and cause libel to politicians, but would that extend to Hunter which isn't directly involved in politics? Or could that be a winning lawsuit from him if he wanted too?

didibus 6y ago

> I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released In that case it wouldn't make it a hack, but just a leak. > and that according to the law in that state became the legal property of the shop owner That's something I'm still fuzzy on. I'm not sure if it's the law in the state, or just the store's contractual policy. Also, I don't know if the laptop becoming property of the shop extends to the information contained within it. And it also didn't specify if the data on the hard drive was password protected or encrypted in any way which meant retrieval would still require hacking into it. > But once it got so high up that @Jack commented on it, and now over a week later the NY Post's account is still banned, it doesn't float. I can't speak to that. Now Twitter has a PR issue, and I'm guessing whatever choices they've made or not are based on them trying to mitigate and limit the PR damages. My guess is, the NY Post is now smearing twitter's own reputation, and possibly twitter doesn't like that, and are worried they'd use their account to further promote anti-twitter rethoric which might be why Twitter is against unblocking their account. I'm a bit confused how they unblocked the tweet about the email story but kept the account blocked, that's a bit strange. Another thing I wondered is how likely could Twitter be accountable for if Hunter were to sue them for defamation and libel? Normally it seem fair game to defame and cause libel to politicians, but would that extend to Hunter which isn't directly involved in politics? Or could that be a winning lawsuit from him if he wanted too?