It would probably be an even better option to verify that anyone someone is considering leaving negative trust that they are in fact a scammer (or someone who will likely scam in the future). They shouldn’t leave a negative rating just because lauda says the are a scammer without evidence.

Out of curiosity, do you think it might be more beneficial to post the handle of the accounts versus the UIDs? I don’t think many people search by UID when researching accounts.

I have a feeling that many of these people are fairly harmless and probably aren’t scammers by any reasonable standard

You spelled ‘scammer’ wrong.

SaltySpitoon previously had Lauda in his trust list due to the dubious claim that since many new users included Lauda in their trust list, and that many experienced users excluded Lauda, that new users collectively want lauda on DT. This logic did not make sense.

In Arizona v. Hicks a police officer was legally searching an apartment, observed a Stereo he believed was suspicious, copied the serial number on the stereo, and later determined it was in fact stolen. The Supreme court held the copying of the serial number did not constitute a seizure. This precedent was later expanded to also include photographs taken of items in plain view.

There are two cases involving wiretapping, Berger v. New York, and Katz v. US, and in both cases the court referred to the act of wiretapping as a "Search and seizure" with the later case involving a case in which the government was recording a conversation.

Based on the above, retaining the data would likely constitute a seizure. However my understanding is that CBP will often search electronic devices before the person is allowed to enter into the country, and the search will be complete prior to entry. If they observe evidence of a crime, they can apply for a search warrant to seize the data.


I would disagree with this, provided however that you independently encrypt the data you have on a cloud service, and keep the decryption keys exclusively stored locally. This is especially true in the context of border crossings. In general, you are going to be subject to having electronic devices searched at every border crossing throughout the world, and as the OP points out, in some cases you may be compelled to give up passwords and decryption keys to files stored locally. However, in general (as is the case in the US), your cloud data is not subject to search when you cross boarders.

A loophole is by definition not illegal, it is a way for someone to go counter to the intention of the law is. The legleslature often has “carveouts” to various laws in order to make it politically possible to pass said law. For example, last years tax cut lowered tax rates for small businesses however there are many rules and exemptions.

In order for any of this to be illegal, it would need to explicitly against the law. The IRS and NY equipment presumably reviewed the tax returns and presumably found nothing illegal.

According to the article, officials need "reasonable cause" (which I presume to be similar to probable cause) that you have broken a law in order to demand your phone password. This is very different from being able to demand a password simply because you are crossing the boarder.

The law only applies to physical devices and not to cloud passwords. The law nevertheless is not something I support.

I suggest to have a "fresh" device if you plan on entering New Zealand, and have your information stored in the cloud in a way that you can access it once you are past the border.

Lol. It has been said that the Creepy Porn Lawyer might actually be a right wing operative as well. These types of claims are not that uncommon for those who are able to attract a lot of attention. I don't think it is very common for political parties to engage in that kind of operations, in part because of the risk that it backfires and the extreme ideas catch on (such as socialism).

Can you check the links in the OP? I don't see anything about New Zealand in the link you posted, and the link is an article about the US boarder protection agents searching phones/laptops when they enter the US. Nor do I see anything about any kind of fine for not complying.

Has anyone ever told you that the word "gullible" is written on the ceiling? Did you look?

Your password was leaked from one of many hacks, and was likely sent to the same email address associated with your linkedin(?) account -- or whatever account password they sent you.

I would be more concerned if they could tell you your new password immidiately after you changed it, however this would still not be concrete proof of anything.

I would suggest either ignoring the email or sending a token amount to the address so that Law enforcement will have an easier time tracking down this person/group.

He is using a throwaway account. Leaving negative trust will do nothing attract attention to him.

He won't be given one....for political reasons. That is not to say that he doesn't deserve one.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1048668088059584512

It look like Trump got two confirmations.

Holman Jenkins Jr., wrote in his editorial column on Saturday (today) in the WSJ discussing this very topic.

He pointed out that the ultrawealthy generally do not pay the death tax, and that many of the world's billionaires (including those in very good heath) have spent a lot of resources over many years shielding their assets from being subject to the death tax. The type of trust the Trump family used is apparently the same type of trust the family that owns the New York Times uses.

Importantly, as of multiple decades ago, the statute of limitations expired, and as such Trump faces no criminal liability for this alleged fraud. Also, Trump has faced multiple audits over the years (given his income, it would be expected for him to be audited every year or nearly every year), and as such, it is almost certain the IRS has already reviewed these tax returns and found no issue (or any issues found have been resolved).

Probably the most interesting quote from Jenkins in the piece is "Show me a wealthy entrepreneur whose family paid the death tax of 55% (now 40%) and I will show you an entrepreneur who died unexpectedly".

After reading articles like the one the OP referenced, it makes me wonder why anyone trusts the New York Times anymore.

This is based on a tweet from Senator Hatch's office, however it bears repeating myself....

The Washington Post editorial board also had not blamed a hurricane until about 4 weeks ago, so it is a big month for the Washington Post's editorial board.

As it stands now, it looks like Republicans will flip a few seats, likely 2-3 seats in the senate and might get one seat flipped blue that is of a retiring senator.

The Kanavaugh witch-hunt appears to have riled up republicans with GOP enthusiasm in the midterms now virtually matching that of Democrats. I believe Democrats probably overplayed their hand and the witch-hunt will backfire on them. This is especially true if it is made public that FBI investigations are opened into one or more of many actors who likely broke laws.

The generic ballot for congress went from +14 for democrats to +7 (same side), which indicates that the control of Congress is a tossup. (It has been said that Democrats need +4 on the generic ballot to have control of Congress due to gerrymandering).

Fundraising for the GOP is way up over the past few weeks.

Exactly.

The best way to fight “trolls” and/or propaganda is to apply critical thinking to anything you read and learn how to verify what is and isn’t true. Trying to stomp out trolls is ultimately fruitless and will result in citizens blindly reading ultimately what will be misinformation.  

Frankly I am not at all surprised to see it is the OP complaining about this given his political beliefs.

Why would anyone ever trust you if you are going to not honor your obligations after you claim to be wronged in some way? This includes if you were to divert money you owe him to others absent his explicit approval.

If he really hacked your wallet, it would not be unreasonable to offset what was stolen with what you own him, provided you have evidence it was him. You would be nothing other than a scammer if you don’t repay what you promised to when you took out the loan minus what he allegedly stole from you.

1 - FIFY

2 - Why do you think anyone would care what a bunch of law professors think?