Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#541

Post by mc32 »

paxys wrote: post #340
slg wrote: post #285

It seems like a lot of people are not reading between the lines of this post. Bezos apparently believes that he was hacked by either the US or Saudi government and that now one or both of those governments are using the National Enquirer as an attack dog against him. That accusation is much bigger than any other piece of this story. EDIT: Here [1] is a reporter from the Washington Post backing that up. The Bezos' cam…

Politically motivated - 100% Government entity accessed them? I'd say it is much more likely that someone got the texts off his mistresses phone (whether willingly or not).

This has been the rumor, but as yet unsubstantiated.

People like sharing salacious things with their besties, man or woman.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#542

Post by itissid »

The right to publish here would be protected under the first amendment. But:

1. An argument for the news worthiness of these pictures could be made like in the Hulk Hogan v Gawker[1]. This is a delicate balance if a judge decides to let this go to trial. Things could get interesting. Especially given the written email.

2. Could a criminal case not be made for blackmail under Title 18 [2]? Or is it that now Jeff has published the letter it is no longer considered blackmail as long as they don't publish the picture?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail#United_States)

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#543

Post by _ei8q »

mc32 wrote: post #530
brisance wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He solicited a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 elections. In many countries this would be equivalent to treason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald...

I think he’s just implying they have more competence than the FBI in finding alleged missing emails. His comms is very non literal -and people take him literally. His whole campaign was off hand blue collar jokey remarks. Pundits understood him literally, so they failed to understand him at all. His nomination competitors also saw him in this light and ultimately failed. Mostly, J think they failed to understand his…

The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something.

This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#544

Post by AndrewKemendo »

cstross wrote: post #498
gyaniv wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt that it was done by a US government entity. Trump is the president and all, but to hack and release (by a third party) the personal information if a citizen (not suspected or related to any crime) seems to me to be something that even Trump or his supporters can't do, the intelligence agencies just wouldn't do it in my opinion. The Saudis seem like a much more likely party to do it in my opinion, mostl…

Nuh-huh. What happens is something approximately like this: Saudi military intelligence puts through a request via appropriate channels to the Five Eyes for a tap on some low-profile woman's phone, claiming it's necessary in pursuit of a counter-terrorism objective. This ends up with GCHQ rather than NSA (NSA spies on Brits, Brits spy on Americans, they work at adjacent desks and share info: this is the traditional w…

No this is just a total fabrication of how things work. Please don't do this.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#545

Post by abledon »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #213

He seems to be driving his point home in how, when including the email from Dylan Howard, the mobile (cell) number in the text is redacted, but the signature image (containing said number) is left unmodified.

probably personal cell # vs business cell #

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#546

Post by HillRat »

Juliate wrote: post #526
brisance wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He solicited a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 elections. In many countries this would be equivalent to treason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald...

I thought it was in the US?

The factual and evidentiary bar for treason is quite deliberately high in the US; in this case, if Trump colluded with the Russian government it would represent a violation of campaign laws (and a scandal of historic proportions!) but (Russia not being actively at war with the US) not treason qua treason.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#547

Post by naval-gazer »

It looks like criminal blackmail attempt. In a normal case Bezos would just forward all evidence to authorities for more investigation and prosecution. He would issue short press release later when the case goes to court.

Because Bezos thinks there is a political angle, and he wants to really find out who is behind this and expose them, this seems to be the best course of action.

The sole reason for this blackmail attempt was to make Bezos to back down and stop trying to find the source of this information. This means someone was worried and it's not just normal paparazzi stuff. Peckers attempt has backfired spectacularly.

With all the publicity, any individual in the government or in some telecom company who might have illegally gained access to those records must be panicking.

If there is foreign involvement, this will become a counterintelligence investigation. If Trump is involved, Mueller will take a look. Pecker has already cooperation agreement with Mueller, so Pecker is in real trouble.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#548

Post by mc32 »

_ei8q wrote: post #543
mc32 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he’s just implying they have more competence than the FBI in finding alleged missing emails. His comms is very non literal -and people take him literally. His whole campaign was off hand blue collar jokey remarks. Pundits understood him literally, so they failed to understand him at all. His nomination competitors also saw him in this light and ultimately failed. Mostly, J think they failed to understand his…

The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.

I disagree with Thiel there, His base, and most independents want a literal wall (and, as he claims, Dems used to be for a wall) But his speeches are littered with these blue collar type speech patterns (boasting, exaggeration, put-downs, etc., when trying to “win” an argument).

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#549

Post by creaghpatr »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #544
cstross wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuh-huh. What happens is something approximately like this: Saudi military intelligence puts through a request via appropriate channels to the Five Eyes for a tap on some low-profile woman's phone, claiming it's necessary in pursuit of a counter-terrorism objective. This ends up with GCHQ rather than NSA (NSA spies on Brits, Brits spy on Americans, they work at adjacent desks and share info: this is the traditional w…

No this is just a total fabrication of how things work. Please don't do this.

That seems to be a plausible explanation. Can you refute the argument besides just calling it BS? Otherwise, it's an interesting theory.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#550

Post by rsynnott »

rsynnott wrote: post #473
rnvhhynr wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone without that net worth won't be blackmailed by the US and Saudi governments.

I don't think that's necessarily true. This sort of thing could very well be happening to individual journalists, and we'd never know about it.

And, yep: https://www.ibtimes.com/ronan-farrow-supports-jeff-bezos-ami...
Post reply on HN