Yup, yup, yup. She never wanted anyone to see any of them, personal or professional. That was the whole point.
Her Dept signed sworn docs that they turned over all pertinent records, including all work related emails, even though NONE of her emails were archived. Woops! 21 months later they submitted 30,000 emails (as a result of Guccifer 1.0 and the Bengazi hearings) and swore (again!) that was it, the other 33,000 weren't work related. But FOIA emails in her staffers and other government officals' inboxes have repeatedly proved that to be false. The FBI (and the Russians and Chinese probably) are reviewing those last ones that were never willingly released.
Remember, Bill was President Clinton first. They set up a foundation that has received around 3 billion dollars in donations, which is affiliated with mail.presidentclinton.com. There's a lot of speculation that Hillary was using this 'stealth' server to hide the mixing of business and pleasure between the Dept of State and the Foundation. That's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' for me, I'm content to focus on the legitimate and provable FOIA and mishandling State Secrets claims.
According to publicly available computer records, the IP (Internet Protocol) address for the mail.presidentclinton.com server is 184.108.40.206 from at least 2009 to 2011. Records also show that mail.clintonemail.com server has the same exact IP address, 220.127.116.11, from at least May 21, 2010 to October 21, 2010. That means the two servers must have been in the same location for that overlapping time period.
The Clinton staffers using blank logs as proof that nothing happened is like claiming your store wasn't robbed, even though the doors were wide open for 4 years, because the security cameras were turned off. We didn't see anyone come in a take all the files... we didn't see them NOT get taken either...
Stupid enough to buy an encryption cert but misconfigure the server to use the default one instead? http://archive.is/mfOH8
In order to ensure her e-mails were private, Clinton’s system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet -- a good step, McGeorge said. However, when McGeorge examined the set-up this week he found it used a default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton’s service. Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate. “It’s bewildering to me,” he said. “We should have a much better standard of security for the secretary of state.”
It is a ton of information with links to the sources; details like how she wasn't allowed to bring her Blackberry into her office (a SCIF) so she had to leave the secured area to read her email instead of using a secured computer.
"Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day"
This is an important statement because the server "logs" (such as they are) show no record of intrusions. This is being held up as proof that no one hacked the server, even though the logs are so sparse they don't show any reference to confirmed attacks.
Pied Piper is essentially immune to bandwith caps and zero rating discrimination. I mean, for god sake, have you seen their Weissman score?!? And that's before we even get into their neural net or sharded peer to peer distribution.
"The FCC would require existing programming distributors to provide the copyrighted programming they have licensed from content providers to third party manufacturers and app developers"
This argument seems to hinge on their belief that everyone would steal cable if they didn't have to get their tuner from the cable company. From the consumers' point of view that's ridiculous, the cable company would just shut off the service from the source. However my experience has lead me to believe that they are completely inept at controlling content and keeping 'premium' channels out of my house. Maybe we would all have free access to the raw feed if we didn't have their proprietary choke-point in every living room. Not that this legitimizes their complaints, it shouldn't be our job to not receive what they shouldn't have sent, but that may help explain this otherwise bat-shit crazy sounding complaint.
I'm not sure this is so open and shut. On the one hand, yes they appear to be different markets. However the Broncos are essentially grabbing the exclusive rights to put the name on shirts, something that Dr Pepper currently does: Official Apparel
Additionally, the term was popularized (according to Wikipedia: Orange Crush Defense ) by Woody Paige in the late 70's and early 80's in reference to a specific format of defense the Broncos ran. The name was a reference to both the orange uniforms, AND the popular soda brand. Sure, maybe they should be allowed to use it, but why should the Bronco's organization get exclusive rights to slap it on apparel?
Isn't this exactly what the Trademark application and opposition process is for? Having a public discussion mediated by a third party to determine what is reasonable?
Yes, these ISPs are operating uncompetitive markets in that their customers don't have a choice of Internet providers; that's why they can get away with it. But I'd posit that the "toll" is actually on the competitive market of content.
These ISPs are also content companies who are (rightly) terrified that consumers are more able to get their entertainment from other sources. They are leveraging their infrastructure control to make those competitors' services less appealing and more expensive.
It's worse than just a rate hike on uncompetitive cable TV, they're preventing the transition to new distribution methods because those methods allow competition.
Might also want to be careful about when they file. I'm not super sure the current Supreme Court would actually fix the CAFC debacle; what with their existing refusal to examine this appeal that sooooo many people are sure is wrong, and recent Grokster and Aero rulings.
In their defense, it is a pretty fat fringe exploitation on their customers' bills, and almost no one complains. I remember being very surprised that you could bring your own cable modem ten years ago. But the motion on not renting TV hardware has been nonexistent as of yet.
Remember when you had to rent your telephone from the Bell Telephone Company to connect to the Bell Local System or long-distance? Now that was a good scheme. Why did they ever give that up? Oh right...
Okay, I went and read the document to find out what the complaint actually was. It is 4 parts, but essentially I think it's:
Google publicly states that it removes sites for certain shady things. It removed our site, so people will assume we have done those shady things even though there's no proof. That's uncompetitive, since we make money by breaking Google's algorithm without breaking their rules.
That's alleged to be Defamation (by inference), violate the Lanham Act (false statements in commerce), Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (deceptive statements), and to be Tortious Interference (I think because customers can't manually type a url?).
So in this instance Google's first amendment right to remove sites isn't being denied (though that defense was rejected), it's whether removing a site makes an implied statement about that site because of their help documentation. They need to revise those documents (I suggest something like "screw you all") and then they can continue to delist spammers that aren't quite using known methods to game the system.
I find those "exceeding authorization" laws problematic in many cases. But isn't this different from your example of breaking someone else's policy since it's breaking your own policy? Am I legally bound not to feed the trolls if I substantially claim that I don't?