Well tin foil hat aside. It's almost a foregone conclusion that they made a few different copies of this, and they will delete some of them.
You have to take a step back in time and look at what Facebook was then. It wasn't anything. That quote was before it was out of a few schools or even maybe just Harvard. What information did it have contact info for people? Yeah sure he could have spammed them and call the hot girls. Typical college guy bullshit talking.
Since then it evolved into an online social media ecosystem. It's been turned into a legitimate company. Zuckerberg doesn't need to be calling the hot girls. Somewhere along the lines Facebook turned into a huge social tool. Yes it runs on Ads most of those details are not directly connected to you. The analytics firms and marketing companies do the connections. They run everything in your life from your internet connections via Verizon to the credit card you use at starbucks. They even profile you using cash purchases on a rewards card.
Can't do that due to qualified immunity as they legitimately think their doing the legal action here.
Actually you are wrong. Making false statements on the internet isn't a crime. Making false statements and misrepresenting the truth to the government has other laws, not related to Section 230 of the CDA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
It's obvious that they somehow like accessed nearly all communications of Americans at one point or another. Even if technically they didn't look at much of the data.
If true then they certainly wouldn't want to say we spied on everyone. That would damage their position which is that they are being responsible Intelligence agencies.
Wow that's a dumb POV.
Yeah that's a nope, not how this stuff works.
As reported by main stream press he is banned from using an iPhone for his emails.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/05/barack-obama-cant-have-an-iphone-security-blackberry
As far as I can concerned any existing data in Verizon's direct or indirect control should be deleted.
The government has very clearly labeled the EFF and the ACLU terrorist organizations because they upset the powers that be.
The whole 7 minute court decision makes me feel that the judge knew exactly how he was going to rule. This leads me to ask how he knew the details of the case. I don't know if it's possible to get enough evidence but this sets off all sorts of alarm bells.
Rico? maybe a stretch, conspiracy, may still be out of reach.
Seems like you didn't read the article.
"The new DA (Mike Hestrin) has aligned his officer's wiretap policy with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling. He has said, however, that he will defend his predecessor's wiretap orders if they are challenged in court."
So no, none of the people have been cleared. The new DA is promising to fight anyone who tries to get free of this mess.
If the Police feel that they need hate crime prevention perhaps someone add on the reverse.
I propose that charges be raised when a person of authority commits a crime against the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE need to be protected from the hate of public officers.
I'm not entirely sure why this isn't being referred out for CFAA charges.
Well at least they are not sexually assaulting people. But Justin Berry has a false sense of freedom. Using Justin Berry's logic the fraternal order of police austin texas is also a terrorist organization since it's members intentionally commit domestic extremism and violate human rights, and constitutional rights everyday,
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/24/3322591/austin-police-chief-defends-police-overreach-sexual-assault/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140916/10480428535/austin-police-officer-tries-to-paint-police-accountability-groups-as-domestic-extremists-foiaed-emails.shtml
First let me confirm I'm certain that this is the status quo for Comcast and almost all large carriers.
These need to be reported to the BBB, FCC and maybe FTC. This you tube issue is only getting lip service from Comcast.
Re: The saddest thing
Yeah exactly I am sure overhyped. Not to mention FB has sent Sheryl to answer questions before on this exact issue. They just didn't supply Mark, as Sheryl is the international leader of the company.
Getting the documents is dicey at best I mean the CEO may have wanted to leak them as people are suggesting because really he had an out. I doubt he carried them in his hands, and as sealed documents I would believe they were only shared with his Lawyers. His lawyers are under court orders to prevent their release. A simple my lawyer wont give it to me should end the UK's push for it. I mean if he doesn't have them he can't give them...