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

631–640 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#631

Post by doktrin »

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…

I thought Bezos' investigator had alluded to the leaks originating from Sanchez's brother? That also seems more likely to me than a nation state - in this particular case, at least.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#632

Post by Balgair »

pureagave wrote: post #225
Balgair wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then all the more kudos to Jeff for doing this. Taken from the point of view of the divorce court, this is a LOT more ammo for his soon-to-be-ex-wife and her side. These photos are very soon to hit the greater web/papers and WILL be used against him in the proceedings. You are correct, this decision by him to speak out is likely to cost him Billions .

They are in Washington state. It is a no-fault state and property is split 50/50. Photos don't matter.

Oh, my bad! Thanks for the clarification!

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#633

Post by glenrivard »

Could this be related to the news that Google found iOS zero days that were exploited?

Be interesting if so and if Google made Bezos aware?

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/08/hackers-exploited-two-v... Google Researchers Say Hackers Exploited Two Zero-Day Vulnerabilities Patched in Apple's iOS 12.1.4 Update

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#634

Post by mikeash »

everdev wrote: post #613
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lots of smoke for sure, but I'd much rather follow due process and wait for a crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a legal setting. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to removing the President from office. The applicable standard is “whatever will convince half of the House and two thirds of the Senate.”

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#635

Post by matthewdgreen »

malvosenior wrote: post #619
everdev wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call it gaining influence or blackmail, it's usually the technique of authoritarians or the corrupt and not a path we want to advocate or even tolerate.

> Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.

Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hints that he wants it to happen and expresses happiness that it has. That's the era we're living in, and it's dangerous as hell.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#636

Post by mc32 »

mcguire wrote: post #627
forgingahead wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the HN echo chamber downvoting you? /s

Because what mc32 is doing is a rather cheap rhetorical tactic: asserting that, when Mr. Trump says something I (for the appropriate I ) like, he is to be believed, but when he says something unappealing or rediculous, he's joking. It's a relative of the "no true Scotsman". It's also a bit of a problem for a representative government, since it means you cannot take any of Trump's statements as a forecast of his polic…

Not quite. Trump is problematic. While he has attempted to execute his campaign promises, getting there the road is littered with inconsistency, opportunism, reversal, and some fluidity. But, but people take him too literally in the minutiae. The goal may be literal, but the tactics in getting there are not, the supporting verbiage is not. Counterintuitively the "vision" may be.

Like I said elsewhere, it's akin to the Dems "We'll abolish ICE". Some people will believe that literally, but it's not meant to be taken that way. They mean some reform and some policy changes. A redressing, but that's not what the base hears.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#637

Post by mikeash »

_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.

What’s really hilarious is that the wall was originally intended to be figurative. His staff came up with the idea as a way of keeping Trump’s scattered brain focused on talking about immigration. Except the moron ran with it.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#638

Post by lucasverra »

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…

news flash :

- https://www.nationalenquirer.com is hosted in AWS

- https://www.nationalenquirer.com is down

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#639

Post by disease »

mc32 wrote: post #548
_ei8q wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think you are confusing 'blue collar' with narcissism, arrogance, entitlement, laziness and stupidity.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#640

Post by everdev »

mc32 wrote: post #630
everdev wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His comms is very non literal If that argument held any water we'd have to erase all attempted communication-based crimes: blackmail, libel, bribery, etc. "Yes, my Email said I wanted to blackmail Jeff Bezos, but I wasn't being literal your honor" -> "OK, you're free to go" Sorry, words matter especially when they have consequences and impact people's lives.

Let's put it this way, if he wanted to command the GRU to do some work for him, would he not be better off going though his channels rather than making on off-hand remark in front of an audience? I'm sure he could use steganography to signal this or that, if need be. I mean, come on, are you going to say Waters was "threatening" here: "I did not threaten [Trump] constituents and supporters. I do that all the time, bu…

I think he likes pushing the envelope to see how far the crowd will let him go.

He's widely known to have paid for and used dirt on his enemies to influence things to his advantage.

I think like most con men he likes to boast about what he's doing even if it's illegal. Or after getting away with it for so long and seeing others do it too, it just feels normal.

I think he did use back channels with Rodger Stone to execute the crime, but he probably didn't even know it was a crime because he's been getting dirt on people his whole career. The only problem with this time was it was a Presidential election and a foreign power.

Post reply on HN