US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2982

The San Bernardino County government on Friday night said the FBI told its staff to tamper with the Apple account of Syed Farook, who with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out the December shooting in which 14 people were killed.

The development matters because the change made to the account – a reset of Farook’s iCloud password – made it impossible to see if there was another way to get access to data on the shooter’s iPhone without taking Apple to court.

“The county was working cooperatively with the FBI when it reset the iCloud password at the FBI’s request,” read a post on San Bernardino County’s official Twitter account.

Late on 20 February the FBI said that it “worked with” county officials to reset the iCloud password, as discovery of the locked phone was “a logical next step was to obtain access to iCloud backups for the phone in order to obtain evidence related to the investigation in the days following the attack,” according to the statement from an FBI spokesman.

On 16 February, a federal judge ordered Apple to write and digitally sign software that would make it easier for the US government to guess the 4-digit passcode on Farook’s device – not to be confused with the iCloud password.

Apple contends such a move would violate user trust, the security of its products and a core tenet of its business. The FBI counters that Apple has placed marketing over national security.

But Apple executives say there is a way this legal battle, which will shape digital privacy for years to come, could have been avoided – at least for now.

On February 21 2016 22:35 Simberto wrote:


Ok, i have to say this:

While i do agree that the process in general seems to be inexplicably unorganized, the guy commenting in that video comes off as a complete douchebag. I am usually not an angry person, but that guy is just such a smug douche that he made me want to punch him despite agreeing with the general idea of what he is saying, just by the way he says it and how he focusses on utterly irrelevant details like "He is writing on his hand omg!" I am pretty sure i couldn't stand being in a room with that guy for more any period of time, and he actively makes me want to not vote for sanders (Despite the fact that a) i can't even vote in the US and b) i do think that Sanders is by far the best candidate around.). One should really be careful when selecting the people one wants to represent an organisation, and that guy it not one i would want around any organisation i am in favor off.

Sorry for the derailing.

On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote:
Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.

A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.

On February 21 2016 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:




Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.


And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.

On February 21 2016 22:44 Gorsameth wrote:

Oh look, so the FBI did purposefully eliminate any other option to access the phone just so it could take Apple to court.
I wonder can Apple argue this is "tampering with evidence" and a criminal offense?

The candidates for president and their big-money allies have spent more than $682 million through the end of January, according to federal disclosures.

But money hasn't bought success.

There’s one area where Donald Trump is badly trailing the field — spending ― and that makes his resounding wins in South Carolina and New Hampshire all the more frustrating to his Republicans he’s trouncing and worrisome to the party leaders trying to block him from winning the nomination.

According to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed Saturday with the Federal Election Commission, through the end of January the campaign of the billionaire real estate showman had spent a total of $24 million. That’s less than half as much as the rivals who finished in a distant second-place tie behind him in South Carolina, Marco Rubio (whose campaign and super PAC and non-profit allies have spent $76 million) and Ted Cruz ($60 million), the analysis found.

Early in the presidential nominating process, Trump and his anti-establishment counterpart on the other side of the aisle Bernie Sanders are completely upending conventional thinking about campaign financing in the big money era sparked by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

Neither man has the support of a dedicated super PAC like those buoying their rivals, and both have essentially declared war on the deepest pocketed donors in their respective parties. Instead, they have pioneered alternative means to power their campaigns ― albeit utilizing vastly different models ― and have shocked the political establishment with their success.

Trump has reached into his own pocket to loan or donate $17.8 million to his once-quixotic campaign, accounting for most of the $26 million it has brought in, though it continues to accept a trickle of donations that totaled $941,000 in January.

On February 21 2016 21:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's a New York thing.

______________________________

I'm straight flabbergasted that people are ok with this crap (host guy is a jack ass but the video shows what a cluster NV was).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwXvRt6tyM

With most precincts reporting, Clinton was winning with 52 percent of the vote overall to Sanders’s 48 percent. But according to preliminary entrance polls reported by CNN, she won among black Democrats by a whopping 76 percent to 22 percent. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate, according to the entrance poll, while 19 percent were Hispanic and 59 percent were white.

On February 22 2016 00:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Predicted impacts of Romney endorsing Rubio? Perhaps even negative..?

On February 22 2016 00:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Predicted impacts of Romney endorsing Rubio? Perhaps even negative..?