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

651–660 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#651

Post by disease »

kumarvvr wrote: post #181
danso wrote: post #4

> Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? Can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a prominent person post the details of a personal extortion attempt out of defiance for all to see.

AMI picked the wrong person. Jeff, literally, has tons of money, extremely respected in the business world. Forget about the embarrassment, if he secretly capitulates to this, then the real blackmail material would be the capitulation, not the photos. Cause if the owner of Washington Post bowed down to blackmail, every article published in the article will be called into question. And who gives a shit if a billionair…

> if he secretly capitulates to this, then the real blackmail material would be the capitulation, not the photos.

I wonder if this was the plan all along.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#653

Post by checkyoursudo »

awb wrote: post #644
mikeash wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.”

Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.

Removal requires 2/3 votes of the Senate, so that seems pretty much like what you are asking for here.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#654

Post by primroot »

sametmax wrote: post #401
rjf72 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is part of the PRISM surveillance program [1] operated by the NSA. Internal slides from the NSA indicate that said program is capable of providing "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" including email, video, voice chat, photos, and more. When Apple was first approached about their role in PRISM they, unlike other companies, chose to outright lie stating that, "We have…

I find it amazing we have to repeat this again and again. People act like this never happened. I'm really wondering what's the cognitive mechanism that allows people to just discard enormous informations like this one.

This, a thousand times. Besides, I recall someone saying (I think it was Bruce Schneier) that the way technology is making privacy something that cannot be taken for granted is similar to a process of pollution, in that the small effects accumulate until they become more visible in the future.

I think the analogy is even more appropriate, because the general attitude to pollution (especially Climate Metldown) seems to display that same cognitive mechanism you mention. There are the small cumulative effects, the ways in which taking any meaningful measure would uncomfortably interfere with our habits. The social fabric has just molded itself to the absurd reality, and our comfort and complicity is what makes the absurdity inspire oblivion and indifference instead of alarm and indignation. And then one day, unbreathable air, food insecurity, and nominal democracy become facts of life, and the dogma of progress (rather than progress itself) is what remains a constant.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#655

Post by everdev »

mikeash wrote: post #649
awb wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.

That’s been the standard since the adoption of the Constitution. If it was a slippery slope, you’d think we would have slipped down it at some point in the past 230 years.

Seems like we're always finding new precedents to set like the "nuclear option" in the Senate.

And 230yrs is pretty young for a country.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#656

Post by blattimwind »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #151
matt4077 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really not a scandal to split up with your wife. Or to have sex. That Pecker and his ilk seem to think it is, is the reason they misjudged this situation so fatally.

I mean, AMI does publish basically all the gossip-filled tabloids and magazines, so to them, it is the hot new scandal of the year.

To what bigot is "after a long period of loving exploration and trial separation, we have decided to divorce and continue our shared lives as friends" a scandal?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#657

Post by malvosenior »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #635
malvosenior wrote: post #619

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. 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 hi…

Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever and many, many people cheer. That is dangerous as hell.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but to also be clear: there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with this.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#658

Post by AndrewKemendo »

MaupitiBlue wrote: post #588
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many reasons why these devices persist not only in DC but all across the country.

One is resource management and risk evaluation (aka, there are bigger problems), another is knowledge of FIS operations and many others...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#659

Post by zrail »

sobani wrote: post #612
zrail wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are weird or outrageous if all participants are enthusiastically consenting adults.

Which of the sample headlines I gave would not cause outrage you think? Maybe the last one will 'only' cause you to lose the respect and thereby business deals of your peers.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

--The President of the United States

Everything you mention pales in comparison to the quote above as long as it's between enthusiastically consenting adults.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#660

Post by jessaustin »

creaghpatr wrote: post #610
c3534l wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think politically motivated is in any way the same thing as state-sponsored attack. That's quite a leap.

It's a non-falsifiable claim, unless they actually catch and prove whomever did it. If he can get an intel agency (Amazon customers by the way) to say they are reasonably sure it was [insert hostile government], then it becomes gospel and an excuse to declare war or shake down US politicians retroactively for associating with that entity. We saw it happen with Russia in 2016.

Not just Amazon customers, but WaPo customers. Every story in that paper with the slightest relation to national security or military spending is vetted and approved by the TLAs. It is exceedingly unlikely that these same TLAs targeted their good friend Jeff Bezos for this sort of abuse. If it hadn't been "dick-pics" [always a good idea, by the way...] but something less salacious we could possibly see it as some sort of convoluted "false flag" op. But Bezos is the good friend of these people. There is no way they would do this to him. If an underling did it without the permission of the top brass, that underling will be destroyed.

As observed elsewhere, Ms. Sanchez's phone could have been accessed by any number of parties. It certainly wasn't "inside the firewall". So it could have been the Saudis, and those murderers have incentives to embarrass Bezos. It could have been the Russians. It could have been Amazon short-sellers. It could have been Wal-Mart. It could have been the proverbial fat guy in his mom's basement. At least Guccifer 2.0 hasn't come up.

Pecker is a moron though. How could Bezos possibly respond to this in any other way than what we see here? Trump seems to surround himself with morons.

Post reply on HN