6 ms·

It's interesting they don't think they can get him for leaking classified information. To me that seems like the biggest issue--I mean sure, it's bad he made mo

It's interesting they don't think they can get him for leaking classified information. To me that seems like the biggest issue--I mean sure, it's bad he made money on it, but it would have been really bad if he'd gotten someone killed by blabbing to the internet.

enoint 6mo ago
If that happened, could they retroactively classify it?
- jcgrillo 6mo ago
  Maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I assumed the information was already classified. He was betting on an outcome of a planned military operation based on his knowledge of those plans. My assumption is that information is super closely guarded, and likely classified at a high level. Telegraphing your invasion plans is generally not something you do unless you want disaster, right?
  - enoint 6mo ago
    Yeah the DoJ proclaims, “Our Office will continue to hold accountable those who misuse confidential or classified information in a way that undermines and exploits our national security.” But isn’t wire fraud harder to prove than leaking classified facts?
    - jcgrillo 6mo ago
      It seems strange, but that must be why I'm not a lawyer :p
    - bostik 6mo ago
      Unless the prosecution can prove that the trades meaningfully moved the market prices, it's probably going to be really hard to use the term "leaking". I can't shake the feeling that there may be political reasons to not even attempt that angle. What legal precedent would it set if a judge actually ruled on that and the prosecution won? Which entities within the government would be financially inconvenienced?
      - burningChrome 6mo ago
        So in prediction markets I've heard a lot of times people will collaborate in order to make certain predictions pay off higher sums by having more people put money on a certain bet. Is it true with these markets the more people bet on a specific day and time, the value will increase more, increasing the overall payout? If that is true, I wonder if they're looking at anybody else helping place the bets or a group of people trying to wager a higher amount of money to increase the return?
        floam 6mo ago
        Well yes. Someone has the other side of the bet, and it’s not 1:1 long:short. That’s how folks could hypothetically hire somebody to kill me, by putting $5M on “floam will survive the month” - if I’m not killed conspirators get their money back, with interest. But if I am verifiably dead, whoever knew in advance a hit man will kill me, that man gets paid.
        bostik 6mo ago
        It's a bit more nuanced than that, because we're not talking about outright market manipulation. Absent any other information, the market makers always assume that they might be trading against a better informed counterparty - so absent any other signal, the prices at which executions happen are themselves a signal. Think about it: you have N market makers offering both sides of the trade with a spread between them. When there is no other meaningful activity, the best prices are more or less stable. Now someone comes in and buys one side of the trade. Each marker maker will, individually, make the same two decisions: 1. "If you bought at that price, I should raise my price and charge you more" 2. "Since you bought at that price, I must assume you have more information and I should get out the way to avoid an expensive mistake" The magnitude of the decisions made depends on various factors, but as a short-hand the size of the made trades in respect to the overall liquidity available near the midpoint directs how strongly the market makers react. A tiny trickle of insignificant trades does not move the price in any meaningful way (unless the sizes are so small that the execution commission starts to make a difference). A sustained directional flood of trades will cause the midpoint (and volume) to move to the direction where the market makers can sell at higher prices and avoid accumulating any further losses.
    - Tangurena2 6mo ago
      > But isn’t wire fraud harder to prove than leaking classified facts? No. From the Justice Department's own criminal resource manual: > the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: > (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; > (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; > (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and > (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... Generally, to be successfully prosecuted for a crime, the prosecutor has to show that each and every "element" of the crime has to have happened. On the above page, there were 3 different court precedents who ruled what elements that the prosecutor needed to prove were in those cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)#
testing22321 6mo ago
You’re just seeing, clearly, the priorities of the US. Is it helping sick citizens? No. Is it feeding the hungry? No. Free education, housing the un housed or protecting the environment? No, no , no. To be perfectly clear, it’s not giving vets the benefits they deserve or keeping soldiers safe either. Money. The priority is money. Getting it. And making sure those that don’t have it don’t get it.
- jaredwiener 6mo ago
  The government is very big. They can have multiple priorities. The Dept of Justice does not provide medical care, education, or anything else you listed -- they prosecute crimes. And using classified military plans for personal gain while potentially putting fellow soldiers at risk seems like a crime that is worth prosecuting.
- jcgrillo 6mo ago
  God money's not looking for the cure God money's not concerned about the sick among the pure God money, let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised God money's not one to choose No, you can't take it No, you can't take it No, you can't take that away from me
notepad0x90 6mo ago
did he leak the information, or just speculate on it? is it leaking classified info when pentagon officials order lots of pizza and thus inform the world that a military operation is being planned?
- selcuka 6mo ago
  "A military operation is being planned" is very different from "Maduro will be kidnapped in the next x hours". "Pentagon planning a military operation" is not exactly classified information as it is safe to assume that Pentagon is always planning a military operation.
  - jcgrillo 6mo ago
    Yes, it seems in this case an adversary who was paying attention could have learned something very, very valuable.
    - selcuka 6mo ago
      Yes. Especially if the casino (or "prediction market") has access to the identities of players via id verification, fingerprinting, or other means.
      - rapidaneurism 6mo ago
        You mean any non crypto payment system? :)
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Going to guess that anyone in the U.S. military has their crypto wallet aggresively profiled by various spy agencies.
        jcgrillo 6mo ago
        And literally every other thing they do on the internet.. remember that Strava shit? You have relatively technically unsophisticated people with high level access and not a lot of adult supervision. That seems like a juicy target. I assume there are a lot of well funded and staffed outifts around the world who have noticed the same thing.
morsch 6mo ago
Well, a lot of people got killed this way, too.
- jcgrillo 6mo ago
  But from the perspective of the US DoJ the right people got killed (assuming of course they've determined the operation was legal according to their own rules, e.g. US law). The issue here is this guy telegraphed operational plans to the entire world which could have gotten (from the DoJ's perspective) the wrong people killed.

enoint 6mo ago

If that happened, could they retroactively classify it?

jcgrillo 6mo ago
Maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I assumed the information was already classified. He was betting on an outcome of a planned military operation based on his knowledge of those plans. My assumption is that information is super closely guarded, and likely classified at a high level. Telegraphing your invasion plans is generally not something you do unless you want disaster, right?
- enoint 6mo ago
  Yeah the DoJ proclaims, “Our Office will continue to hold accountable those who misuse confidential or classified information in a way that undermines and exploits our national security.” But isn’t wire fraud harder to prove than leaking classified facts?
  - jcgrillo 6mo ago
    It seems strange, but that must be why I'm not a lawyer :p
  - bostik 6mo ago
    Unless the prosecution can prove that the trades meaningfully moved the market prices, it's probably going to be really hard to use the term "leaking". I can't shake the feeling that there may be political reasons to not even attempt that angle. What legal precedent would it set if a judge actually ruled on that and the prosecution won? Which entities within the government would be financially inconvenienced?
    - burningChrome 6mo ago
      So in prediction markets I've heard a lot of times people will collaborate in order to make certain predictions pay off higher sums by having more people put money on a certain bet. Is it true with these markets the more people bet on a specific day and time, the value will increase more, increasing the overall payout? If that is true, I wonder if they're looking at anybody else helping place the bets or a group of people trying to wager a higher amount of money to increase the return?
      - floam 6mo ago
        Well yes. Someone has the other side of the bet, and it’s not 1:1 long:short. That’s how folks could hypothetically hire somebody to kill me, by putting $5M on “floam will survive the month” - if I’m not killed conspirators get their money back, with interest. But if I am verifiably dead, whoever knew in advance a hit man will kill me, that man gets paid.
      - bostik 6mo ago
        It's a bit more nuanced than that, because we're not talking about outright market manipulation. Absent any other information, the market makers always assume that they might be trading against a better informed counterparty - so absent any other signal, the prices at which executions happen are themselves a signal. Think about it: you have N market makers offering both sides of the trade with a spread between them. When there is no other meaningful activity, the best prices are more or less stable. Now someone comes in and buys one side of the trade. Each marker maker will, individually, make the same two decisions: 1. "If you bought at that price, I should raise my price and charge you more" 2. "Since you bought at that price, I must assume you have more information and I should get out the way to avoid an expensive mistake" The magnitude of the decisions made depends on various factors, but as a short-hand the size of the made trades in respect to the overall liquidity available near the midpoint directs how strongly the market makers react. A tiny trickle of insignificant trades does not move the price in any meaningful way (unless the sizes are so small that the execution commission starts to make a difference). A sustained directional flood of trades will cause the midpoint (and volume) to move to the direction where the market makers can sell at higher prices and avoid accumulating any further losses.
  - Tangurena2 6mo ago
    > But isn’t wire fraud harder to prove than leaking classified facts? No. From the Justice Department's own criminal resource manual: > the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: > (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; > (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; > (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and > (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... Generally, to be successfully prosecuted for a crime, the prosecutor has to show that each and every "element" of the crime has to have happened. On the above page, there were 3 different court precedents who ruled what elements that the prosecutor needed to prove were in those cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)#

testing22321 6mo ago

You’re just seeing, clearly, the priorities of the US. Is it helping sick citizens? No. Is it feeding the hungry? No. Free education, housing the un housed or protecting the environment? No, no , no. To be perfectly clear, it’s not giving vets the benefits they deserve or keeping soldiers safe either. Money. The priority is money. Getting it. And making sure those that don’t have it don’t get it.

jaredwiener 6mo ago
The government is very big. They can have multiple priorities. The Dept of Justice does not provide medical care, education, or anything else you listed -- they prosecute crimes. And using classified military plans for personal gain while potentially putting fellow soldiers at risk seems like a crime that is worth prosecuting.
jcgrillo 6mo ago
God money's not looking for the cure God money's not concerned about the sick among the pure God money, let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised God money's not one to choose No, you can't take it No, you can't take it No, you can't take that away from me

notepad0x90 6mo ago

did he leak the information, or just speculate on it? is it leaking classified info when pentagon officials order lots of pizza and thus inform the world that a military operation is being planned?

selcuka 6mo ago
"A military operation is being planned" is very different from "Maduro will be kidnapped in the next x hours". "Pentagon planning a military operation" is not exactly classified information as it is safe to assume that Pentagon is always planning a military operation.
- jcgrillo 6mo ago
  Yes, it seems in this case an adversary who was paying attention could have learned something very, very valuable.
  - selcuka 6mo ago
    Yes. Especially if the casino (or "prediction market") has access to the identities of players via id verification, fingerprinting, or other means.
    - rapidaneurism 6mo ago
      You mean any non crypto payment system? :)
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Going to guess that anyone in the U.S. military has their crypto wallet aggresively profiled by various spy agencies.
        jcgrillo 6mo ago
        And literally every other thing they do on the internet.. remember that Strava shit? You have relatively technically unsophisticated people with high level access and not a lot of adult supervision. That seems like a juicy target. I assume there are a lot of well funded and staffed outifts around the world who have noticed the same thing.

morsch 6mo ago

Well, a lot of people got killed this way, too.

jcgrillo 6mo ago
But from the perspective of the US DoJ the right people got killed (assuming of course they've determined the operation was legal according to their own rules, e.g. US law). The issue here is this guy telegraphed operational plans to the entire world which could have gotten (from the DoJ's perspective) the wrong people killed.