Octopus Overlords

America: Yes, Roger Stone is a jackass.

Tucker Carlson keeps hurting America.

An interesting plagiarism scandal is breaking out around Jill Abramson (former NY TImes Editor) in her just released book 'Merchants of Truth'. The thread is worth a read as Michael Moynihan lays out errors and plagiarized text with their sources. Not a great look considering her high profile.

Full thread here

I always assume that when high profile people release a book, it's almost completely ghost written anyway, so I don't really care what happens to any of it, not the book, not the "writer, not the writer. I'm just not a fan. If it's not dishonest, it's at least misleading, and I don't like it.

If the book is plagiarized, even if just small portions, I'm perfectly happy with whatever consequences come of it.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:27 pm I always assume that when high profile people release a book, it's almost completely ghost written anyway, so I don't really care what happens to any of it, not the book, not the "writer, not the writer. I'm just not a fan. If it's not dishonest, it's at least misleading, and I don't like it.

If the book is plagiarized, even if just small portions, I'm perfectly happy with whatever consequences come of it.

But in this case the author was a journalist and editor. Isn't it weird that a professional writer would use a ghost?

(Some fallout from all this is that I learned that Eisenhower used a ghost writer for his memoir Crusade in Europe. Somehow this made me sad.)

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:01 pm But in this case the author was a journalist and editor. Isn't it weird that a professional writer would use a ghost?

Probably. I just don't care, because as I said, any high profile personality releasing a book automatically warrants the assumption that someone else wrote it or was a collaboration. I mean, your point is logical, but I just don't care because they are all paying someone else to write it for them in my mind. That doesn't make it true, it's just how I view these things.

Oh shit! (Bezos vs. AMI)

Dick pics you say?

Damn. Probably sorry they went up against Bezos.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:33 pm Dick pics you say?

Semi-erect manhood to be precise.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:18 pm Oh shit! (Bezos vs. AMI)

Just heard about this and read Bezos’ letter. Holy shit is right. I hope he burns AMI to the ground and pisses on the ashes. Pecker made a rather significant miscalculation about how much Bezos could afford not to care about people seeing his dick.

Whole thing reminds me of Freeman’s “Good Luck” scene in Dark Knight.

Holy crapola...

I suspect the Huffington Post has been praying for the day they could run the headline, “Bezos Exposes Pecker”.

Amazon Suggestion for David Pecker:
Because you considered "Blackmailing the Richest Man Who Ever Lived," we recommend you "Get an Orange Jumpsuit."

I'm not always crazy about Amazon, but I'm pretty high on Bezos right now. That was the best thing I've read in ages. Fuck AMI and David Pecker.

Bezos ain’t dicking around!

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:27 am I'm not always crazy about Amazon, but I'm pretty high on Bezos right now. That was the best thing I've read in ages. Fuck AMI and David Pecker.

Agreed. Going up against the National Enquirer is the rare event that would make me actively cheer for Jeff Bezos.

Help me out, I don't speak tech.

I assume that screenshot means National Enquirer is hosted by Amazon or something?

I erroneously assumed at first that Huber was trying to say AMI and Amazon are bed buddies because AMI uses AWS (Amazon Web Services) for hosting/services...which millions of companies/people also do. However, I realized I was wrong after reading some of his follow up comments, and that Huber seems to be saying is that since AMI uses AWS, they should just cut them off.

Is it really just occurring to Pecker that extortion and blackmail might just contravene his immunity deal? Seriously, do they have Rudy Guiliani giving them legal advice?

The most discouraging thing about all this is that most legal experts are claiming that AMI probably isn't guilty of any real crime. Other than being slimy, of course.

At least their reputation for journalistic integrity will take a PR hit. Their market is super sophisticated right leaners, and they won't stand for this shit.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:39 am At least their reputation for journalistic integrity will take a PR hit. Their market is super sophisticated right leaners, and they won't stand for this shit.

You almost had me there . . . .

(And you probably would have if not for the second sentence.)

I don't actually know who their market is, but it's the inquirer, so it's a tabloid (sophisticated), and it has been identified as helping drumpf by buying and killing anti-drumpf stories (right leaning), so I figured...

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:27 am The most discouraging thing about all this is that most legal experts are claiming that AMI probably isn't guilty of any real crime. Other than being slimy, of course.

Do you have any links to people saying that? I'd like to hear why it isn't extortion.

Edit: I've found a few articles saying AMI likely did nothing wrong around how they came into possession of the pictures (which I get), but they also note the evidence Bezos lays out, if true, is textbook extortion.

Well, FWIW here's one from CNN (although he's kind of neither here nor there):

Bezos exposes Pecker.

I think Toobin needs to ponder a bit more.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:55 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:27 am The most discouraging thing about all this is that most legal experts are claiming that AMI probably isn't guilty of any real crime. Other than being slimy, of course.

Do you have any links to people saying that? I'd like to hear why it isn't extortion.

Edit: I've found a few articles saying AMI likely did nothing wrong around how they came into possession of the pictures (which I get), but they also note the evidence Bezos lays out, if true, is textbook extortion.

NPR had a bit on it this morning and they also were hesitant to say whether or not AMI committed a crime. To me, it's unfathomable to think they didn't. But I guess the law treats cases like this, in which no demand for money or other material gain is made (one of the things NPR's legal analyst brought up), differently than I would have expected.

In several of the emails, AMI counsel was very sure to say they came about all the pics and texts legally. That doesn't necessarily mean that they did, but if they took that much care to claim it was legal, I doubt they'd immediately turn around and commit a crime.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:53 pm In several of the emails, AMI counsel was very sure to say they came about all the pics and texts legally. That doesn't necessarily mean that they did, but if they took that much care to claim it was legal, I doubt they'd immediately turn around and commit a crime.

Maybe they got the same representatives as Trump?

Edit: Here's an article from Wapo (amusingly) from 2017 talking about the subject. It appears the trickiness comes from the interaction of them having the legal right to publish the pictures and what they are requesting Bezos do to stop their publication. The article doesn't provide any conclusions, just that it is a tricky, poorly defined area...which is something we always want in our laws.

Here's an article that delves into the history of the crime of informational blakcmail and argues it shouldn't be illegal at all.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:53 pm In several of the emails, AMI counsel was very sure to say they came about all the pics and texts legally. That doesn't necessarily mean that they did, but if they took that much care to claim it was legal, I doubt they'd immediately turn around and commit a crime.

If they had reason to believe the person they obtained them from did not obtain them legally, what does that say? I know you can't legally sell a stolen car you bought legally and buying goods a reasonable person would believe were obtained illegally has legal complications, doesn't it or does freedom of the press Donald Trump that?

I wonder if Bezos (or his girlfriend) was using an iPhone... The UAE seem pretty tight with the Saudis these days.

But I suppose it could have just as easily have been the Russians doing a solid for Trump (who certainly seemed pleased when the story about Bezos' divorce broke last month).

Phone doesn't matter. It's the signal and they're all compromised.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:11 pm Phone doesn't matter. It's the signal and they're all compromised.

It depends on how the texts/images were acquired. Getting at the data in transit requires access to the infrastructure, while Karma simply requires (or required, if Apple has fixed the vulnerability) the target's phone number.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:11 pm Phone doesn't matter. It's the signal and they're all compromised.

Related to Max's comments, getting access to the data in mid-stream doesn't help if the data is encrypted. Accessing the phone itself can get around that if the phone itself is not encrypted. A quick google tells me far more apps are end to end encrypted now than I expected, although I didn't delve into data storage encryption on phones.

My co-workers have always assumed their data is compromised at all times, and use VPN's and end to end encryption as a matter of principle. I mostly do what they do because they mock me if I don't. My texts to my wife about picking up some milk on the way home are encrypted. Yay.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:20 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:11 pm Phone doesn't matter. It's the signal and they're all compromised.

It depends on how the texts/images were acquired. Getting at the data in transit requires access to the infrastructure, while Karma simply requires (or required, if Apple has fixed the vulnerability) the target's phone number.

They have the infrastructure, that's the point. The simpler way I'd more likely, of course, but let's not kid ourselves that it's the only way.

I've said it before, but someday this is going to make an absolutely amazing movie. Trump, hookers peeing on beds, Jeff Bezos having his electronic devices compromised by foreign agents. But right now? Holy shit. We'll all be lucky to survive.