loopholeclosed

4 ms·

1.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
>Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.
2.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Then again, the risk of a court is never really a risk. This is perfectly legal. :P
3.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
> They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest. For a household making above the median, this might be
4.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
I agree with them. Whoever they happen to be!
5.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it. Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distin
6.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
> In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It
7.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole". > I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everythin
8.
by loopholeclosed 12y ago
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+... They've already "clarified" and "closed" that loophole. Next time, the programmer actually would go to jail.