• mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    To be fair. (Ewww that sounds so gross in this context) But that email was from 2006. Like… The first iPhone came out in 2006.

    You just sent emails back then… The tech to monitor said emails wasn’t there yet. At least not in the way we have it now.

    All I’m saying is that back in 2006 I can see this happening.

    • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      The tech to monitor said emails wasn’t there yet.

      LOL wut. email has always been the least secure medium going. If anything email is probably more secure now than it was in 2006. The only reason anyone in 2006 would think it was guaranteed privacy is if they just didn’t know anything about email.

      • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Back around the 2000s when these executive type people, and rich, or government official did get caught for something, and rare though it was it still happened more often back then, it always seemed to include dumbass emails those people sent. I think the Enron guys were sending emails openly criming and scamming for instance.

        It’s that they were too arrogant to think anyone would dare to look and do anything about it. They were mostly right then but more right now. Worst case scenario now they have to make an ill founded investment in a company a fixer/lawyer tells them about, that money is lost, and travels through layers of shell companies and llc’s, and ends up in accounts controlled by the president, and the relevent prosecutors and cops.

        I’m not even joking I guarentee the corruption is that widespread now, it is basically a political machine from the robber baron days.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        In 2006, email monitoring was nowhere near what it is today. Filters existed, but they were largely keyword and pattern based, think regex and spam signatures. There was no large scale semantic analysis, no contextual language understanding, and no practical NLP capable of inferring intent. Compute and storage constraints alone made deep inspection of email bodies impractical at scale. Most enforcement relied on metadata headers, IPs, sender reputation, not true content comprehension. Comparing 2006 capabilities to modern transformer based language analysis is simply ahistorical.

        But yes Gmail is so much more secure now. You know, Gmail as in Google Mail, the largest marketing firm in existence, capable of serving personalized advertisements simply by scanning the contents of your email.

        Your confidence is directly proportional to how incredibly wrong you are.

        • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Oh wow you were almost interesting but then you decided to close by being a raging dickhead for absolutely no good reason. Touch grass.

  • arc99@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    The fact that all these communications were pulled from GMail and presumably known to law enforcement for years shows its not signal.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      Why does everyone keep saying Gmail? Did no one read his email address? It clearly says Yahoo…

      • arc99@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Epstein had other email addresses like [email protected]. It largely doesn’t matter other than it being kind of stupid to be using a US based cloud email server when the warrants come in.

    • xorollo@leminal.spaceEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      Email is never private. The protocol is not secure. You have to add an encryption layer on top to get that, and it’s annoying to manage.

      • arc99@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        The point I’m making is Gmail is in the cloud and the feds got all the logs. Encryption is one way to protect email. Another is use a server in another jurisdiction. But neither is comparable to Signal.

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    Mitch Webber’s original email to him was essentially “yeah you’re golden, fuck as many minors as you like, just bring them to another state first”. And he still seems to have kept his job at (checks notes) an antisemitism group.

    …what would happen if one were to transport a minor for sex — or transport oneself with the intent to have sex with a minor — into a state in which the age of consent is below eighteen (assuming the minor is above the age of consent in the given state)? And your intuition was right. The answer is that there is no violation of law.”

    Let’s be clear: everyone has a right to be represented by a lawyer in court, and we shouldn’t judge lawyers for defending rapists because they’re literally their job. But that’s not what’s happening here; this is him actively helping Epstein figure out the best way to rape children.

    https://jewishpostandnews.ca/uncategorized/antisemitism-group-keeps-board-member-who-emailed-epstein-on-the-legality-of-transporting-minors-for-sex/

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      he still seems to have kept his job at (checks notes) an antisemitism group.

      to be clear, this is a group for prevention of antisemitism and not a group who aims to be antisemitic, right?

      • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Ostensibly, yes. As far as I can tell from their entry in influencewatch they also do something called “pro-Israel legal advocacy”, but I don’t know what that is. Either way it’s not a great look having Epstein’s consigliere on board.

        • JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Israel is pretty antisemitic. They kill lots of semitic arabs. And pro-israel groups tend to condone or excuse all that semite-killing, which is pretty antisemitic.

        • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Legal advocacy for Israel is likely very dark stuff, to name a few possibilities here, the new anti protest laws states passed around 2018 deserve mention along with their campaigns to turn the opposition to big money and Israel into domestic terrorists. They have laws on the tamer end that cancel the bill of rights and make it against the law to support the boycott movement. Some just for state contracts, but some go farther, either way it’s punishing 1st amendment protected activity.

          The advocacy can be connected to their pursuit of critics under accusations of supporting terrorism and financing, and advocacy can be pressuring prosecutors, politicians, judges, the media, etc. to take the position that there is a terror angle. At which point they could take all of their assets, arrest everyone tangentially involved, seize those tangential peoples’ assets, get them all fired, could file rico to boot, private or public and expand it out further with a friendly judge.[

          There are also new laws from around 2018 that illegalize protest. These were orchestrated by fossil fuel companies in response to oil project protests and the like mostly. A lot of the more shitholier states passed them. Some, I think AZ might be one, it was reported in the Intercept I could find it, make organizers responsible for anything and everything that happens at a protest. There was a lot more to them than that. Impeding critical infrastructure is like a serious felony if not domestic terrorism with it. Chaining yourself to an oil pipeline under construction could see you in prison for life with all of your assets stolen and those of everyone you have any connection to basically. Being told to leave an area and not doing it immediately, or being accused of not doing it, is a serious felony if not terror. They are a further repudiation of the 1st amendment.

          So an Israel protest they could have their own guy punch someone, the organizers could be charged, and face ruinous 100k fines and the like if I recall. It is just built for agents of the groups being accused to create and incident and destroy the organizers, and others involved in the protest. Or blocking a road, crossing the street could get you accused of blocking it and you are a terrorist or at the least a person facing 30 years in prison or whatever and hundreds of thousands in fines.

          I am not sure if the greenpeace rico kangaroo court ruling used these new laws in north dakota, but that is sort of how it will play out. Basically going forward you can’t have any established group sponsor or even endorse a protest.

          Even if the charges don’t stick it’s ruinous to be charged and they know that, and the Israeli superfans are as vicious and capricious as they come, pleasuring in their impunity as the chosen people (of the US Government,) that are above law and given absolute power over American politics. A notion only we dispute.

          https://theintercept.com/2019/08/19/oil-lobby-pipeline-protests/ Same issue different article than I read, search engines don’t try to find what you ask anymore they give you one close, maybe, from the publication you are asking. Problem started for me in 2021 before that it worked I could find any article with knowledge from memory.

          • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            innocent jews still exist.

            Absolutely, and I’d say even the majority. Sadly, the non-innocent ones have just devalued the definition of antisemitism so harshly that it cannot be used anymore without the assumption of bad connotation. I would recommend coming up with a new, more specific term that can’t be used as a genocide shield.

            • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
              0·
              6 months ago

              Indeed, and the word doesn’t fit anyway. Arabs are a semetic peoples. Bigotry takes many forms, but idk if hating a country’s actions would fit into any of them in an honest definition. It’s not xenophobia to oppose the actions of a government, I don’t know what type of bigotry would even be close.

              Because opposing official actions of a country, is not bigotry. Opposing the actions of a people, is not bigotry under any reasonable definition unless you are opposing it because of whom they are.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            It’s just fucked that in a time where Nick Fuentes is getting mainstream airtime, organizations which claim to fight antisemitism are often more concerned with justifying Gaza.

            • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              6 months ago

              there are people like Ben Shapiro that are on the same side as those bastards while emphasizing the “JUDEO” part of “JUDEO-Christian values” which , btw, is a term that has been engineered specifically to exclude islam out of the group of “Abrahamic religions”, and/or to shove jews into the same bucket as the majority when “christian values” would be used instead.

              it’s fucking dog whistles all the way down.

  • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    It’s like that saying about owing the bank money, if it’s small amounts, you have a problem, if tens of billions, it’s the bank’s problem.

    So it goes for being an Israeli honeypot entrapping politicians and swells into raping children and other perversions (and tax evasion,) on camera. You catch one of them doing it is your problem if caught. If you catch a critical mass of them doing it, on camera, it’s their problem.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    This looks more like he’s discussing defenses to his case with his lawyer.

    Look at the e-mail that Epstein replied to, it seems to be specifically related to discussing his case. This appears to be from his lawyer

    <a bunch of discussion about hypothetical situations and the associated laws>

    Remember, though, that sex trafficking is inapplicable in your case. As I wrote in my August 11 memo, "In Epstein’s case, (1) he never transported any girl across state lines, and (2) he never traveled with the intent of soliciting prostitution from underage girls. (Because section 2423(b) is essentially an ‘attempt’ statute, it requires specific intent of wrongdoing. See, e.g., United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959-60 (10th Cir. 2005).)

    Then the e-mail in the OP is sent.

    It’s gross, but my initial reading was that he’s creating a plan to travel and is trying to dodge laws. However, in reading the full context, it seems more like they’re talking about his cases.

    • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      You can’t say Epstein didn’t do those things. Prosecutors saying those things covering for themselves is the least reliable source in the world. As if there was nothing they could do even if they knew, which how could they know?

      All bullshit. They knew, or should’ve known. Acosta knew, bailed him out of state charges by getting them to defer to the feds then giving him a sweetheart deal. The only information they looked at was the stuff they couldn’t ignore because the Miami Herald.

      The only reason any of this stopped was because the Miami Herald’s dogged reporting and the brave victims that brought this all to light. Prosecutors deserve less than zero credit, they covered for these politically connected rapists every step of the way.

        • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Sorry I didn’t make clear I was refuting the text you quoted from the material, the “you” being the author of that. The prosecutors and other establishment types are the last ones to trust on Epstein as their careers were made or broken on covering or crossing.