I'm confused. Which is she saying?
a) politicians should interfere with the independence of prosecutors
b) politicians should not interfere with the independence of prosecutors
In our system, prosecutors are independent. That's why it's so important when Trump coerced Ukraine politicians to prosecute Hunter Biden. It's also why it's so important Biden isn't involved in Jan 6 prosecutions. politico.com/news/2021/10/1…
Politicians deciding who should (or should not) be prosecuted based on politics is a very bad thing.
If the decision to prosecute Assange was a political one, driven by politicians rather than independent DoJ prosecutors, that would be a terrible thing and should be stopped immediately.
If the decision to prosecuted Assange was made by DoJ prosecutors, independently of what politicians wanted, despite what politicians wanted, that's a good thing that politicians shouldn't meddle with.
By "good thing" I mean good that they reached their conclusion independently, not that I think prosecuting Assange is inherently good (or bad).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ It's weird how much this Rachel Maddow episode repeats Mike Lindell almost verbatim. Both assure us that data showing a conspiracy has been validated by cyberexperts, and that no credible expert has refuted it.
I'm a credible expert, and I refute both.
2/ There is no "Trump server". The Trump org had no control over the domain, and barring some vast convoluted theory probably involving space aliens, no control over the "server" that the domain pointed to.
3/ The domain was created by Cendyn, a hotel marketing company. Among their marketing activities is sending bulk emails, which they outsource to a company called Listrak.
This is "Cybersecurity Awareness Month". It's a good time to remind people that it's stupid.
The idea of "security" is inherently irrational and political. The following is a good example. There's never the political will to not be scared. The only question is "how scared".
It's like "active shooter" drills in school. All the evidence points to them being ineffective.
This won't stop schools from doing them, because security is important. shrm.org/resourcesandto…
Same with armed security guards in school. There's no evidence they help. There's a lot of evidence they make other things worse, elevating normal disciplinary issues into law enforcement issues. contemporarypediatrics.com/view/can-armed…
2/ Take vaccines and masks, the things that people get really angry about. The scientific data supporting the "safety" and "efficacy" of vaccines is really, REALLY good.
But the data for masks is shitty, REALLY shitty. And yet, we can't acknowledge this.
3/ There's good reason to believe that masks help reduce the spread. It may be only a little, but it may be the factor that reduces R₀ from 1.1 down to 0.9, meaning a small effect can have huge consequences.
So there's good reasons to support mask mandate policies.
3/ Put it another way, the CEO has already decided their reasons weren't good enough, so that when you make the same arguments, they'll decide your arguments aren't good enough.
FYI: "audit" logs and "forensics" logs are different beasts.
Traditionally, an "audit" is when the auditor is trying to confirm something specific, like whether your numbers add up or you correctly followed procedures.
A "forensics" investigation is open-ended, indeterminate.
An audit starts with something is known, such as reporting quarterly results, and seeks to confirm that they are actually true.
A forensics results with an unsolved crime, and hopes to maybe find out what happened, and half the time, comes to no conclusion.
They do overlap. Forensic auditors seek to find money that people try to hide off books or embezzle, for example. Before computer logs, I'm not sure if there was an important distinction.
One drive failed completely. Another reported recoverable SMART read errors, so it, too. Now a third is reporting recoverable SMART errors.
I think maybe it's time to replace all the drives. With bigger ones of course.
For the non technical:
NAS = server on my local network
RAID = extra ("redudant") drives so that if one fails, it can be replaced without losing data
SMART = a feature of modern disk drives that record events, from temperatures, how many hours it's been on, and various errors
"Errors" can be recoverable -- the read head repeatedly reads the chunk of data until it gets back a valid chunk. But when they start happening, it means unrecoverable errors are likely to start happening.