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

581–590 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#581

Post by sevensor »

willvarfar wrote: post #402
jjeaff wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't publish them. But I'll guarantee you they will anonymously leak out on the internet. There is no way to prove they are the only people with these photos. (and they of course aren't the only ones)

Can Bezos get a US court to impound the photos? Something akin to the UK 'super injunction'? That would make being caught leaking the photos perjury. The stakes are so high that AMI might well not dare to do that. Its easy to imagine that Bezos, whatever he is saying publicly, is also getting excellent legal consul privately and that two can play at the games that AMI is so infamous for.

I'm sure Mr. Bezos is familiar with the Streisand Effect.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#582

Post by JustSomeNobody »

> My lawyers argued that AMI has no right to publish photos since any person holds the copyright to their own photos, and since the photos in themselves don’t add anything newsworthy.

Wait, is this really true? If it is, then why do wedding photogs claim they have copyright ownership?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#583

Post by forgingahead »

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…

Why is the HN echo chamber downvoting you? /s

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#584

Post by JustSomeNobody »

danhak wrote: post #365
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…

It really puts this tweet from POTUS last month in a crazy new context: "So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose reporting, I understand, is far more accurate than the reporting in his lobbyist newspaper, the Amazon Washington Post. Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands!" https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10846274519830732... Stran…

Can we all just agree Trump is corrupt already and get him out of office?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#585

Post by alasdair_ »

deytempo wrote: post #510
CloudNetworking wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said they've used sophisticated attacks to get their hands into that data, though. Why would a Government agency risk burning a zero day if they can just pay that lady or blackmail her with something else?

Or they just wait until she leaves her phone unattended and clone it

This is harder than it seems nowadays (especially if you actually want to read the data you cloned later).

As an example: consider the FBI pushing Apple to help them decrypt a terrorists phone from several years ago. They finally got in because the phone was a particularly old model without a secure enclave and (from memory) they ended up buying a 0day for a considerable sum to do it.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#586

Post by chosenbreed37 »

_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.

> 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.

Whether his statements during the campaign were taken literally or not it appears he was taken seriously by enough people to win him the nomination and the election. I think more than anything they bought into his intent. And his values however we may choose to the define them resonated with them.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#587

Post by ceejayoz »

jki275 wrote: post #569
c3534l wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he pay off a former pornstar tons of money to stay quiet about having sex with him? Doesn't seem implausible when he's already paid millions in hush money to keep embarassing personal info from leaking.

And that worked so well she wrote a book about it...

It would've continued to work just fine if Trump hadn't run for President. Breaking the NDA doesn't make financial sense when he's a C-list celebrity; it does when he's suddenly the President.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#588

Post by MaupitiBlue »

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.

How many articles have you read about rogue Stingrays around DC? If the FCC wanted to take these down it would take 45 minutes of triangulation, but they never do it. Instead we get vague statements about the devious Chinese.

It’s hard to conclude that five eyes isn’t a domestic spying proxy program.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#589

Post by naval-gazer »

cooperadymas wrote: post #501

For all the times Hacker News criticizes personal "anecdata", nitpicks the tiniest flaw in methodology, and demands statistical significance for every trivial matter, when it comes to politics they sure are willing to run the gossip mill without an ounce of critical thought.

This is not anecdotal information.

This is public person directly involved laying down criminal blackmail attempt accusation whose goal was to stop him from investigating the source of the information. If Besoz is lying, Pecker and AMI can sue him for false accusations and win handsome sum of money.

Things that make this interesting case:

Pecker was not worried about himself, because National Enquirer has right to publish pictures they get. He wanted to hide source of the information. That's weird.

Pecker surely is not worried about the wellbeing of some paparazzi or low level information source. Attempted a blackmail and exposing himself to criminal liability means that there is something there.

Post reply on HN