6 ms·

Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI i

Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI issued a press release about how they were urgently reopening an investigation not into the hack but into possible wrongdoing by the hacked candidate? And then later acknowledged there was no wrongdoing? You're right; I really hate to think about what the fallout would be if the FBI inappropriately swayed an election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#October_2016_–_Additional_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...

starkd 4y ago
But the FBI was not actively hacking the emails. You are really just proving my point about the FBI unnecessarily involving itself in these issues. They are supposed to be impartial. That's this story should be taken seriously from a bipartisan perspective.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The point is you alleged that the apathy in this was due to partisan selfishness. It’s clearly not if even the “winning side” is ambivalent about the feds cracking down on their partisans.
      - starkd 4y ago
        That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?
        starkd 4y ago
        No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Clinton’s loss can be blamed on a multitude of reasons, not least a failure to campaign in the relevant Rust Belt and Midwest states where she lost. Be that as it may, there is a running narrative in her party that the FBI’s actions under Comey, when it comes to the timing of the investigation and how the announcements regarding it were delivered, contributed to her loss. At any rate, I am just pointing out the humorous irony involved in appealing to that party to watch the FBI lest “they might lose a future election”… they already believe themselves the losers of one because of FBI involvement!
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      Some of them were posting the wrong election date. I personally think that crosses into immoral territory.
      - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
        I personally think having the US government, or any government for that matter, crosses into immoral territory.
      - starkd 4y ago
        So, you're saying someone is going to try to vote on the day some random low-follower account told them was the correct date? Despite consistent messaging from a variety of other sources telling them the correct date? You really don't have a high estimation of the average voter. It was clearly a joke. Anyone getting fooled here is clearly the most uninformed voterimaginable. Not even low-informed, but completely uninformed.
        nickthegreek 4y ago
        We differ on the fact “clearly a joke”. I don’t think that is as self evident as you. I have no issue with my government asking a private company to take down posts with incorrect voting dates. I also believe that Twitter should have a government transparency report where they shed light on these requests.
    - divided 4y ago
      > The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. Have you considered the real consequences of this? If the FBI for example finds accounts linked to child exploitation, drug trafficking, or terrorism; should they not ask Twitter to take down those accounts? If they find accounts linked to Russian, Chinese, or Iranian farms who are using it to amplify certain messages in order to try to destabilize the US, should they just say hey that’s fine? Further, from what I read of the tweets, it appears what those accounts wrote may have been illegal after all. Here’s a quote from an FBI website: > Report potential election crimes—such as disinformation about the manner, time, or place of voting—to the FBI. I’m not sure exactly what laws those are referring to, but it appears deceiving people about voting may be illegal. So although you and I and other smart people might read their tweets and think “haha!”, not everyone may read it as a joke. It is the government’s job to protect the rights of its citizens. Freedom of speech is not absolute (slander, libel, threats, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.), and in this case I think it’s reasonable that one’s right to freedom of speech shouldn’t supersede another’s right to vote. A Twitter ban is certainly less damaging than criminal charges over whatever statute it violates.
      - starkd 4y ago
        Oh, please. These issues were not about child exploitation. It was the heavy hand of governent coming down on citizens over jokes. Parody and satire have always been given wide interpretations in the courts. The fact that you point to the FBI website as proof they were acting in good faith shows a remarkable faith in the government you have. It is not the governments job to protect people's rights. The gov't violates rights all the time. It's the job of the third party institutions like the media to expose and for the courts to render judgment.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        The OP is about FBI policing of federal election misinformation, which is both part of the federal government’s purview: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=public_integrity https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... And as shady or problematic as their relationship with Twitter is, is borne out of legal precedence: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Not to mention, in the last decade, by the process of jawboning: https://www.lawfareblog.com/informal-government-coercion-and-problem-jawboning https://www.lawfareblog.com/informal-government-coercion-and... So really, your complaints go up further than you think. This is something that has been happening for decades based on judicial decisions, you just weren’t aware of it.
kodyo 4y ago
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > They were leaked not hacked. "According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[101]" The above quote is really just a runabout way of saying that the Russians hacked the emails.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  they were leaked BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')
  - kodyo 4y ago
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Those who say they were leaked with absolutely no evidence: Trump Campaign, Wikileaks Those who say they were hacked and who have provided evidence of such: FBI, CIA, NSA Crowdstrike, Mandiant, Secureworks, Mueller Report, Republican Senate Report, Democratic Senate Report, Dutch Security Services, UK Security Services, the Russians themselves, Donald Trump himself. Your inability to be persuaded isn’t an asset here. Seriously, read the Muller report and Crowdstrikes attribution. It’s persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re moderately technical.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > That's what the intelligence agencies who were simultaneously infiltrating the opposing political campaign claim, yes. It’s actually what SecureWorks and other private companies said, SecureWorks is a private company that is a subsidiary of Dell but I’m sure you’ll find some other reason not to believe it.

starkd 4y ago

But the FBI was not actively hacking the emails. You are really just proving my point about the FBI unnecessarily involving itself in these issues. They are supposed to be impartial. That's this story should be taken seriously from a bipartisan perspective.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929
- starkd 4y ago
  Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The point is you alleged that the apathy in this was due to partisan selfishness. It’s clearly not if even the “winning side” is ambivalent about the feds cracking down on their partisans.
    - starkd 4y ago
      That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?
        starkd 4y ago
        No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Clinton’s loss can be blamed on a multitude of reasons, not least a failure to campaign in the relevant Rust Belt and Midwest states where she lost. Be that as it may, there is a running narrative in her party that the FBI’s actions under Comey, when it comes to the timing of the investigation and how the announcements regarding it were delivered, contributed to her loss. At any rate, I am just pointing out the humorous irony involved in appealing to that party to watch the FBI lest “they might lose a future election”… they already believe themselves the losers of one because of FBI involvement!
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Some of them were posting the wrong election date. I personally think that crosses into immoral territory.
    - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
      I personally think having the US government, or any government for that matter, crosses into immoral territory.
    - starkd 4y ago
      So, you're saying someone is going to try to vote on the day some random low-follower account told them was the correct date? Despite consistent messaging from a variety of other sources telling them the correct date? You really don't have a high estimation of the average voter. It was clearly a joke. Anyone getting fooled here is clearly the most uninformed voterimaginable. Not even low-informed, but completely uninformed.
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        We differ on the fact “clearly a joke”. I don’t think that is as self evident as you. I have no issue with my government asking a private company to take down posts with incorrect voting dates. I also believe that Twitter should have a government transparency report where they shed light on these requests.
  - divided 4y ago
    > The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. Have you considered the real consequences of this? If the FBI for example finds accounts linked to child exploitation, drug trafficking, or terrorism; should they not ask Twitter to take down those accounts? If they find accounts linked to Russian, Chinese, or Iranian farms who are using it to amplify certain messages in order to try to destabilize the US, should they just say hey that’s fine? Further, from what I read of the tweets, it appears what those accounts wrote may have been illegal after all. Here’s a quote from an FBI website: > Report potential election crimes—such as disinformation about the manner, time, or place of voting—to the FBI. I’m not sure exactly what laws those are referring to, but it appears deceiving people about voting may be illegal. So although you and I and other smart people might read their tweets and think “haha!”, not everyone may read it as a joke. It is the government’s job to protect the rights of its citizens. Freedom of speech is not absolute (slander, libel, threats, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.), and in this case I think it’s reasonable that one’s right to freedom of speech shouldn’t supersede another’s right to vote. A Twitter ban is certainly less damaging than criminal charges over whatever statute it violates.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Oh, please. These issues were not about child exploitation. It was the heavy hand of governent coming down on citizens over jokes. Parody and satire have always been given wide interpretations in the courts. The fact that you point to the FBI website as proof they were acting in good faith shows a remarkable faith in the government you have. It is not the governments job to protect people's rights. The gov't violates rights all the time. It's the job of the third party institutions like the media to expose and for the courts to render judgment.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        The OP is about FBI policing of federal election misinformation, which is both part of the federal government’s purview: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=public_integrity https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... And as shady or problematic as their relationship with Twitter is, is borne out of legal precedence: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Not to mention, in the last decade, by the process of jawboning: https://www.lawfareblog.com/informal-government-coercion-and-problem-jawboning https://www.lawfareblog.com/informal-government-coercion-and... So really, your complaints go up further than you think. This is something that has been happening for decades based on judicial decisions, you just weren’t aware of it.

kodyo 4y ago

_kbh_ 4y ago
> They were leaked not hacked. "According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[101]" The above quote is really just a runabout way of saying that the Russians hacked the emails.
sleepybrett 4y ago
they were leaked BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')
- kodyo 4y ago
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Those who say they were leaked with absolutely no evidence: Trump Campaign, Wikileaks Those who say they were hacked and who have provided evidence of such: FBI, CIA, NSA Crowdstrike, Mandiant, Secureworks, Mueller Report, Republican Senate Report, Democratic Senate Report, Dutch Security Services, UK Security Services, the Russians themselves, Donald Trump himself. Your inability to be persuaded isn’t an asset here. Seriously, read the Muller report and Crowdstrikes attribution. It’s persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re moderately technical.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > That's what the intelligence agencies who were simultaneously infiltrating the opposing political campaign claim, yes. It’s actually what SecureWorks and other private companies said, SecureWorks is a private company that is a subsidiary of Dell but I’m sure you’ll find some other reason not to believe it.