Durham, under pressure to wrap up Investigation, could 'punt' to after Election Day: source

#251
#251
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say that it did... I only said that Neustar had authorized access to those servers. This didn't involve illegal infiltration.
Click to expand...
So yeah you implied that. Server access for DNS maintenance /= free reign to poke into whatever you want to look at. And most definitely doesn’t justify the copying and exporting of that information from the server. Absolutely nobody can look at this and believe the Clinton campaign acted in an ethical and lawful fashion. Anybody with a brain would know the information wasn’t obtained and exported from the server with consent of the owner.
 
#253
#253
ButchPlz said:
And again, in every contract I've had, even if you have "privilege" to access something, that "privilege" only applies if you are accessing the data for your work. The moment you access the data for something not explicitly relevant to your work, you are in violation of your contract and/or the law, whether you happen to have the access credentials or not. It's all conditional. This is basic stuff.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#255
#255
ButchPlz said:
You'd think that someone that claims to have banking experience would know this sh*t.
Click to expand...
Yes the tenants of protecting personal identity information are just as stringent as any contractor access for maintenance to hardware they are paid to maintain. They have no expectation of use rights and most definitely do not have ownership and redistribution rights.

Clarification: Banks of course have use rights for providing financial services which the information was provided to vet. My comment was more on the contractor usage here.
 
#256
#256
ButchPlz said:
And again, in every contract I've had, even if you have "privilege" to access something, that "privilege" only applies if you are accessing the data for your work. The moment you access the data for something not explicitly relevant to your work, you are in violation of your contract and/or the law, whether you happen to have the access credentials or not. It's all conditional. This is basic stuff.
Click to expand...
You are correct. When I was working at First Horizon (formerly known as First Tennessee Bank), we had an employee fired because she used her ex-husband's checking account balances to prove he was lying about his inability to cover his child support payments. That's illegal. The access she had to her ex-husband's checking account was legal, but the way she exploited this access for personal benefit was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#257
#257
ButchPlz said:
You'd think that someone that claims to have banking experience would know this sh*t.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

I never f***ing said that disseminating information for reasons foreign to the professional purpose of the authorized access was legal.

See my example in post #256 up above, moron.
 
#258
#258
BowlBrother85 said:
What the hell are you talking about?

I never f***ing said that disseminating information for reasons foreign to the professional purpose of the authorized access was legal.

See my example in post #256 up above, moron.
Click to expand...
Post #241. You directly claimed the information was "lawfully accessed". You are wrong.

You are a very easily confused little man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#259
#259
ButchPlz said:
Post #241. You directly claimed the information was "lawfully accessed". You are wrong.

You are a very easily confused little man.
Click to expand...
The information was lawfully accessed. It is the (alleged) dissemination of this information for reasons other than the professional purpose of the authorized access which is illegal.
 
#260
#260
BowlBrother85 said:
The information was lawfully accessed, dip $hit. It is the (alleged) dissemination of this information for reasons other than its professional purpose which is illegal.

You are mentally deficient.
Click to expand...
And again, the dissemination makes the access itself explicitly illegal. This is how government access rights work. Intent matters.

If you don't understand something, don't comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and tnmarktx
#261
#261
BowlBrother85 said:
It is the (alleged) dissemination of this information for reasons other than the professional purpose
Click to expand...

Again, maintaining a server does not include taking information off the server period. Professionalism is this case would be maintaining and keeping data privately on the server as was the intended purpose.
 
#262
#262
ButchPlz said:
And again, the dissemination makes the access itself explicitly illegal. This is how government access rights work. Intent matters.

If you don't understand something, don't comment.
Click to expand...
The dissemination is illegal. The access was authorized and not illegal. Without the dissemination, there is no illegality.
 
#264
#264
The taking of the information was illegal. Accepting illegal information also most likely illegal.
 
#265
#265
BowlBrother85 said:
The dissemination is illegal. The access was authorized and not illegal. Without the dissemination, there is no illegality.
Click to expand...
Access for unauthorized use is illegal, even if you have credentials. Period. This is basic stuff. For a bank teller, you're awful arrogant while you whiff on point after point.

Edit: you realize that, to my knowledge, at least two of the people you're trying to argue with have direct experience with this exact stuff, don't you? And that includes countless trainings on government data and systems access rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#266
#266
ButchPlz said:
Access for unauthorized use is illegal, even if you have credentials. Period. This is basic stuff. For a bank teller, you're awful arrogant while you whiff on point after point.
Click to expand...
Without the dissemination, there is no illegality. Yes, it is basic stuff... and you are basically an idiot.
 
#275
#275
BowlBrother85 said:
I haven't changed anything. You are non-sensical.
Click to expand...
You've flopped from "it was all legal access" to saying "dissemination made it illegal" (which is also false, as any access for unauthorized use is illegal, dissemination or not). You even gave a personal use example from your little world!

You literally don't know what you're talking about, and are coming in and pretending to be an expert. Again, bank teller experience is irrelevant to this situation.

EDIT: and the scenario: in your example, had the person making the access not actually put it in court (or wherever she may have sent it, in this case), and her intent had been known, what would have happened? The distribution did not make the crime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Caculator
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top