1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Biden Presidency

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by chrismscotland, 8 Nov 2020.

  1. BowdonUK

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Jan 2016

    Posts: 5,624

    If there is no reaction by the Biden admin then they are letting the precedent stand. But who is to say what will trigger a military man to communicate with the enemy in future?

    I'll add that I can understand why people working with Trump can be nervous about some of his behaviour. That is understandable. But its another level for this Milley to be grassing to a foreign power. What happens if the Joint Chief thinks Biden is going to make a move that might cause problems, is the Joint Chief now allowed to tell any country it might effect?

    Now we know this guy holds water as good as a sieve it makes me wonder about the the US withdrawal in Afghanistan, that made both the US and Biden looked bad. Maybe he give China the heads up on Bagram.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/world-r...ation-of-former-us-air-base-at-bagram-sources

     
  2. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    'Grassing'? Christ, are you 12 years old?

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called a senior general in the PLA to reassure him that the US hadn't become about as stable as a TPLAC, even if they did at that point have a President who was spiralling.

    ***edit***

    Here you go Bowdon, the position that you're trying to defend:

     
  3. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,121

    Location: England

    That's not UK law. By your interpretation of the computer misuse act using an adblocker would be illegal.

    And for gods sake the video is free, you don't need to circumvent a payall it's free, so stop making excuses for not watching it. :cry:

    The NYT are sending the data in the article to me of their own accord, if I choose to stop certain functions in that content running it doesn't create an infringement of the NAP.
     
  4. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    @BowdonUK - where d'you stand on the Republicans who aided, abetted and signed Sen. Tom Cotton's letter to Iran? Was that not a group setting out to undermine the President of the time (Obama)?

    ***edit***

    Meanwhile - 'Today in the Biden Administration':



    So of course the media is running with breathless takes from Republican commentators about how the failed California recall is definitely bad news for Biden and the Dems and not at all a blowout victory :p
     
    Last edited: 15 Sep 2021
  5. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 29,887

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    Wasn't it something like a 2:1 in favour of the Democrat incumbent?
    With a turnout of close to 50% of the registered voters which is apparently very high for such non presidential/regular votes.
     
  6. Murphy

    Soldato

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,326

    I've already provided you with the UK law...
    It's not an interpretation, it's literally written there in black & white.

    The CPS even has guidance setting out how to consider prosecuting cases under the CMA...
    An add blocker does not secure access to copyrighted work that you're not authorised to access, and even if it did unless you can prove the person used it with the intention of securing access to copyrighted work that you're not authorised to access it wouldn't matter because it's the intent that's the important part, it's not illegal to disable java script, it's illegal to disable it with the intention of securing access to copyrighted work that you're not authorised to access.

    You specifically stated...
    You demonstrated intent to causes a computer to perform a function with intent to secure access to data held on another computer, or to enable any such access to be secured, not only breaking the law but also breaking OCUK forum rules...
     
  7. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: 4 Aug 2007

    Posts: 12,959

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    I hope you realise that the US military swears to uphold the constitution, and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Personally I would argue that the US taking excessive action against another power the size of China and its likely escalation globally would probably warrant a lot of reasonable people to conclude that that action was actually protecting the nation.
    Sure I get it some will take a different view. There were however quite a few senior american military who spoke out about concerns into what Trump may do in that regard.
     
  8. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    Yep.

    It is. And when you figure that with a recall vote the people who mostly care are the ones who want the incumbent recalled, you can pretty much say that support for ending Newsom's term was not at all high :)
     
  9. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,121

    Location: England

    So to summarise there is no case law to show that disabling javascript is a breach of the computer misuse act.
     
  10. Murphy

    Soldato

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,326

    Is this intentional? I've told you numerous times now that disabling Java script is not illegal, that it's causing a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured that is illegal (it's litrally there in black & white and I've even told you it's written in black & white). So when you said this...
    You not only demonstrated that your intention was to disable Java script to secure access to data that you were not authorised to access, but you also enabled others to secure access to it. Not only that but The Ney York Times TOC's specifically say that you're in contravention of their TOC's...
    How about i put it another way for you as you seem to be being intentionally obtuse, if disabling Java script enabled you to watch Netflix, Disney+, or any other streaming service without having to pay a subscription would you say that's breaking the law? Would you say, as the self proclaimed libertarian that you are, that you are not causing harm to those services?
     
  11. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

  12. BowdonUK

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Jan 2016

    Posts: 5,624

    I'm not replying to drivel from the far reaches of the Internet. You've missed the point I'm making by asking me about some Republican. Anyone who undermines the hierarchy of a country should be in court for treason. It's not party political. A nations security is above party politics.

    There is a hole in the security that as come to light. I hope that Biden closes it.
     
  13. BowdonUK

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Jan 2016

    Posts: 5,624

    I'm not against speaking out, and publically protesting the situation. I'm against this guy going outside of the US and giving unauthorized calls to a rival country.

    I get that people don't like Trump. But this goes beyond Trump. This is the military figures acting as double agents for another country by giving them internal intelligence.

    Trump can't start a war on his own. The congress would have to vote on a declaration of war, or China would have had to have attacked US interests. If Trump ordered a strike without those conditions he would be stopped from doing it. The order wouldn't be carried out.

    We only have what this guy says was his motive to go on. I'm not sure I believe it.
     
  14. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    Treason is defined as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"*.

    Now, can we describe the chairman of the JCOS assuring China's military that the US isn't about to go completely tonto as doing that? Sure. We can describe the actions of most Foreign Secretaries of western governments as having done that as well though.

    * - With certain exceptions regarding treatment of POWs, other enemy combatants, astronauts from 'enemy' nations, and so on.
     
  15. Apex

    Capodecina

    Joined: 12 Feb 2006

    Posts: 13,279

    Location: Surrey

    it really doesn't.

    but you've said your piece. why aren't you talking about the other points this brings up? why are you ignoring those?
     
  16. BowdonUK

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Jan 2016

    Posts: 5,624

    You're so short sighted on political issues.

    If its someone you don't like then who cares if the whole system collapses, right?

    My signature is perfect for you.
     
  17. Apex

    Capodecina

    Joined: 12 Feb 2006

    Posts: 13,279

    Location: Surrey

    And my toilet is perfect for your posts.

    Lol "whole system collapse"

    I remember when on 9/11, rice called putin to warn they will be going to high alert, and putin said don't worry they are pulling back activity to not cause a war. This wasn't told to her to do by Bush, and I realise now if I think like a hysterical baby, that rice was giving away country secrets and should be shot for treason. What a realisation that is.

    Funny that this non story is what's got you so worked up.
     
  18. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,121

    Location: England

    The law is pretty black and white that viewing data voluntarily sent to your computer is not illegal, hence why you can find no case law to back up your statement. But I know you will just keep going round in circles so I'm probably wasting my breath.

    Why won't you watch the free video from the NYT I linked to? It's because it makes the Biden administration look bad isn't it? That's why you keep trying to go around and around with all this ridiculous computer misuse and libertarian nonsense.

    I honestly can't believe I wasted so much time on this conversation, I won't be wasting any more on it that's for sure.

    The reason it doesn't breach the computer misuse act is because the exchange of data is authorised, blocking scripts merely alters the function of that data once it's already on the end users computer. If Murphy had completed a computer science degree and had to study this law as I did, he wouldn't be so massively off the mark.
     
    Last edited: 15 Sep 2021
  19. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 17,645

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    @BowdonUK

    Please, help a simple country fella out and tell me where you disagree.
    1. It's not certain that the Milley story is 100% true.
    2. If it is true then we need to know why Milley would feel he needed to take such action.
    3. If he felt the need then as Chairman of the JCOS it must have been pretty sodding important.
    4. If it was so important then their oath to the Constitution would demand action.
    5. If action was required then might we actually worry about Presidents, past and future, going off the deep end far enough to require the JCOS to step in? Because to me that seems important.
    ***edit***

    Promise?
     
  20. Murphy

    Soldato

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,326

    So this is intentional then, because I've now told you several times now that...
    You are breaking the law. There's no saying it's illegal to use noscript, there's no saying it's illegal to disable Java script, and there's no viewing data 'voluntarily' (it's not voluntary because you made the request) sent to your computer. There is what the law says and it's very clear that if you use a computer to secure access to data that you do not have the authorisation to access you are breaking the law. There also doesn't need to be "case law" whatever you mean by that, because it's not a law set out by precedence, it's written into the statute books.

    It's no different than hacking into Netflix or YouTube premium to get free films or accessing someone's online bank account to steal money from them, just because it's easy to disable Java script and get access it doesn't change the fact that you're getting access to something that you have no legal right to access.

    I'll tell you what, I'll watch that video once we've dealt with the first issue, the issue of you, a libertarian who claims people shouldn't act if they know their actions would cause harm, illegally accessing a subscription services in the full knowledge that you're causing harm because you don't think you should be paying for copyrighted materiel even when their TOC's specifically say you should not be doing what you're doing.

    If you can admit that it's wrong to bypass access restrictions on subscription services when you've not paid for those services then I'll let you know what i think of that video. Because until you do that I'll just consider you to be a fine weather libertarian who, like i said before, uses libertarianism as a shield to hide behind, and as such are dishonest.