Both of those are really good examples of how a statement of fact that is literally true can still be a lie. Politicians do this kind of stuff all the time especially in their attack ads that make TV unwatchable around this time of year in every even numbered year. Amazingly what gets a politician called out by the other party's press as a "liar" is the opposite of this kind of statement: something that is fundamentally true but where the politician got one minor irrelevant detail wrong. That's also a major reason why it isn't a good idea to represent yourself in court or to explain yourself to the police when you get arrested because people are prone to accidentally getting minor details wrong or misspeaking even when they're telling the truth to the best of their ability.
"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
Cannot emphasise this enough.
Unless you live a criminal lifestyle (if so, you can learn nothing from me) you may encounter cops once. They do it every day.
Often police job advancement is helped by making your life hell. Say nothing you are not legally obliged to.
I know a prosecutor who had to investigate the statements made by the husband of a person who (presumably) had drowned themself in their pool (she used workout weights to keep herself at the bottom). The statement to be investigated: "Those were her weights. I never touched those weights!"
Now all of a sudden maybe his fingerprints are on the weights and that statement is untrue...
I also got to learn that they scoop the weights into a bucket because I guess they need to keep them submerged in water, otherwise the prints will wash off.
I was punished in school for having NetHack source code in my home dir. And it was not because it was a game but because it allegedly was a hacking tool.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031114161830/http://www.adequa...
You're talking about Hillary Clinton, right? That's literally one of the arguments they used against her.
I would hope so, since presumably the storage devices on that server would either be resold or sent to a dump.
The info on those storage devices (assuming backups/existence of that data elsewhere for government data retention purposes) should not be let out into the wild.
In fact, I (and I don't work/exist in areas with confidential data) have a dozen or so hard drives that sit in a closet as I don't have the interface cards (any more) to hook them up and securely delete the data.
Eventually I'll probably purchase a bulk eraser[0], but until then, those disks will sit in my closet as my business is my business and no one else's.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Degausser-Electricity-Required-Mainte...
On sale, now only $3,990.00 (previously $6,999.99).
An interesting idea and one I hadn't considered. Thanks!
I made a cool spiral chandelier out of fishing wire and hard drive parts. The platters don't chime as harmoniously as I had hoped, but it still worked out great - and I have enough super fridge magnets to last the rest of my life.
https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/03/fbi-report-platte-rive...
In other words, crimes were probably committed but the FBI dropped the investigation because they figured that no prosecutor would file charges in the case.
And would the defense be allowed to show the legal and harmless conversations we have here? Or ask the prosecutors which HN posts they believe influenced the accused to commit a crime?
Same in software-land. Nobody wants to have years of who-knows-what subpoenaed.
I have seen stuff like "defendant had TOR installed - a popular program for criminals" in court filings. ...and judges and juries accept that as fact because they just don't understand the technology. For example, having a bookmark for "Hacker News" would absolutely show up in court. Crazy stuff meant to bias judges and juries that don't know tech.
The point is that the situation is 100x worse in tech where prosecutors, judges, and juries simply do not understand the evidence. ANYTHING can be painted as incriminating evidence.
I have seen saved credentials on automation jobs being used to incorrectly establish people's network activity. I have seen routine maintenance being used to establish obstruction charges just to intimidate possible witnesses... Like stuff you would not believe happens, happens.
It's even worse in civil suits, where opposing counsel will subpoena as much as possible (mountains of data) just to give you more work and fish for trade secrets or anything they can twist in court.
When I was junior, I proudly told my legal team "good news, I added space to keep our transaction records for 20 years!" and was aghast when they said they wanted files deleted THE DAY the legal requirement to hold it expired because it increased legal liability.
Now I totally get it. Today we only store the bare minimum - everything else is deleted immediately. ... and I have to re-explain this to junior employees each year to their disgust.