• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

madasheck said:
No proof? You did read Bezos’ blog correct?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The N.I acquired their source from someone close to Bezos and Sanchez.

The N.I did not commit extortion or blackmail, not the legal of definition. Again, I am just going by the first amendment, remember that?
 
HumblePi said:
Only a Trump defender would refer to a low-down piece of gutter slime like David Pecker as 'Mr. Pecker'. I might be letting out a little FBI secret here, but just so you know, the FBI already has David Pecker nailed for the 'catch and kill' story on Karen McDougal that National Enquirer buried for Trump weeks before the election. Oh yeah, the FBI most certainly has that and much more. These are the charges to which he almost got away with by agreeing to assist the investigation, it's called 'immunity' from prosecution in exchange for information that leads to the conviction of someone else.

But, David Pecker just shot himself in the p-p-p- foot by messing with Jeff Bezos because now that immunity deal is going to be dropped into that big sewer with the National Enquirer where it belongs and David Pecker is going to be indicted, found guilty and spend the rest of his days in prison. It's only a shame that all these bastards are so damned old and won't get to enjoy the punishment of 10-20-years or more in a prison cell as they should. One other thing, all these revelations we've received publicly thanks to Jeff Bezos coming forward.....well, the FBI knew about all of this long before the public did, you can bet on that too. I for one, am feeling a lot more confident that this country can survive Trump's corrupt presidency after-all because we still have some people that put country above anything else.
Click to expand...

1. NI has the right under the first amendment, to publish what they consider news. If CNN, the New York Times, or Washington Post can post salacious pictures, so can the NI.

2. The news of Bezos cheating on his wife was already out there.'

3. You say extortion, I say negotiation.

The question you have to ask yourself is, do you believe the richest man in the world, is a victim. The answer is NO. The NI did not ask for any money. They did not threaten Bezos or his family with violence or harm. The NI did not threaten to reveal any new information.
 
HumblePi said:
Only a Trump defender would refer to a low-down piece of gutter slime like David Pecker as 'Mr. Pecker'. I might be letting out a little FBI secret here, but just so you know, the FBI already has David Pecker nailed for the 'catch and kill' story on Karen McDougal that National Enquirer buried for Trump weeks before the election. Oh yeah, the FBI most certainly has that and much more. These are the charges to which he almost got away with by agreeing to assist the investigation, it's called 'immunity' from prosecution in exchange for information that leads to the conviction of someone else.

But, David Pecker just shot himself in the p-p-p- foot by messing with Jeff Bezos because now that immunity deal is going to be dropped into that big sewer with the National Enquirer where it belongs and David Pecker is going to be indicted, found guilty and spend the rest of his days in prison. It's only a shame that all these bastards are so damned old and won't get to enjoy the punishment of 10-20-years or more in a prison cell as they should. One other thing, all these revelations we've received publicly thanks to Jeff Bezos coming forward.....well, the FBI knew about all of this long before the public did, you can bet on that too. I for one, am feeling a lot more confident that this country can survive Trump's corrupt presidency after-all because we still have some people that put country above anything else.
Click to expand...

Uggh Jeff Bezos blog post referred to him as Mr. Pecker.
 
Bucky said:
1. NI has the right under the first amendment, to publish what they consider news. If CNN, the New York Times, or Washington Post can post salacious pictures, so can the NI.

2. The news of Bezos cheating on his wife was already out there.'

3. You say extortion, I say negotiation.

The question you have to ask yourself is, do you believe the richest man in the world, is a victim. The answer is NO. The NI did not ask for any money. They did not threaten Bezos or his family with violence or harm. The NI did not threaten to reveal any new information.
Click to expand...

You understand, I hope, that you're actually defending blackmail and extortion, don't you? Your real fear is that Bezos will be proven right and that it was Saudi money that's behind this hacking and extortion. After the Saudis are implicated, Trump won't be far behind them. That's what you're so afraid of, you're afraid of those disclosures enough that you're willing to stand in defense of criminal behavior.
 
Bucky said:
Uggh Jeff Bezos blog post referred to him as Mr. Pecker.
Click to expand...

Isn't that his name? Using "Mr." in reference to any man is respectful, much more than Trump referring to Jeff Bezos as 'Bozo', isn't it.
 
HumblePi said:
You understand, I hope, that you're actually defending blackmail and extortion, don't you? Your real fear is that Bezos will be proven right and that it was Saudi money that's behind this hacking and extortion. After the Saudis are implicated, Trump won't be far behind them. That's what you're so afraid of, you're afraid of those disclosures enough that you're willing to stand in defense of criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

You are simply parroting anti-Trump/liberal talking points. The irony is you are making Jeff Bezos out to be a victim, which is hilarious because people like you want to tax Amazon to death and break up his company, which would cause more damage to Bezos than anything the N.I could publish.

Typically extortion or blackmail involve a financial transaction. The N.I. did not demand for $1.

Did the N.I. threaten Bezos with harm? NO!

Enterprise journalism is not illegal:

Enterprise journalism - Wikipedia
 
I am curious to see how you define blackmail. If a donor tells a politician to vote a certain way or he will not get reelected... do you qualify that as a crime???
 
NeverTrump said:
Basically Jeff Bezos just joined the resistance, and the buckys of the world are terrified.
Click to expand...

Jeff Bezos has a new Amazon possibility....PrimeRetribution
 
madasheck said:
Not really. They could’ve received them from a foreign government — One that Trump has connections with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bucky thinks that it is not illegal to share data or information gleaned from a third party's phone without the owner's permission?
It's a damn good thing you're anonymous here on DP, Bucky, because if what you think were really true, I could park outside your home and literally vacuum up everything on your phone, and CLONE the unit entirely, without your knowledge and permission.
And when I say that "I could do it", I'm saying that there's probably over a million people in this country or maybe more, who know how to do it, and who COULD do it, if not for the fact that what you believe is utter bullcrap.

Try and get this, Bucky:
(maybe pass it along to him?)

If you obtain purloined data of any kind from the phone or computer belonging to another person or company without permission, whether by wireless means or by simply schlepping it into your pocket and "borrowing" it for a little while and doing it by wire, or even by photographing that device's screen, you are committing a federal crime.
The FCC has prohibitions against this sort of activity and the FBI is the enforcement arm of the law that stands behind it.

In fact, despite there being no law against listening to commercial and amateur two way radio communications over the airwaves on your own equipment, there IS in fact, laws against doing so where cell phone communications and residential/commercial data are concerned, because cellular telephony is protected in ways that two way radio is not, even though the two systems are quite similar in electronic terms.

It is also illegal to divulge information GLEANED FROM listening to commercial and amateur two way radio communications to a third party for purpose of profit without express permission. You may listen in but unless the parties communicating expressly grant permission, they own rights to their information and you do not.

It is also illegal to do any of the above over WIRED networks as well.
Most of this activity may be a FELONY.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Bucky thinks that it is not illegal to share data or information gleaned from a third party's phone without the owner's permission?
It's a damn good thing you're anonymous here on DP, Bucky, because if what you think were really true, I could park outside your home and literally vacuum up everything on your phone, and CLONE the unit entirely, without your knowledge and permission.
And when I say that "I could do it", I'm saying that there's probably over a million people in this country or maybe more, who know how to do it, and who COULD do it, if not for the fact that what you believe is utter bullcrap.

Try and get this, Bucky:
(maybe pass it along to him?)

If you obtain purloined data of any kind from the phone or computer belonging to another person or company without permission, whether by wireless means or by simply schlepping it into your pocket and "borrowing" it for a little while and doing it by wire, or even by photographing that device's screen, you are committing a federal crime.
The FCC has prohibitions against this sort of activity and the FBI is the enforcement arm of the law that stands behind it.

In fact, despite there being no law against listening to commercial and amateur two way radio communications over the airwaves on your own equipment, there IS in fact, laws against doing so where cell phone communications and residential/commercial data are concerned, because cellular telephony is protected in ways that two way radio is not, even though the two systems are quite similar in electronic terms.

It is also illegal to divulge information GLEANED FROM listening to commercial and amateur two way radio communications to a third party for purpose of profit without express permission. You may listen in but unless the parties communicating expressly grant permission, they own rights to their information and you do not.

It is also illegal to do any of the above over WIRED networks as well.
Most of this activity may be a FELONY.
Click to expand...

You can bold your fonts and peacock in this thread all you want. Trust me, no one is impressed by your hot dogging and shenanigans.
 
Bucky said:
You can bold your fonts and peacock in this thread all you want. Trust me, no one is impressed by your hot dogging and shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Hot dog this.
18 U.S. Code SS 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

See, you never had an FCC license, I did.
That means you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I do.
That means you're talking out of your ass, which is nothing new.

So, like I said before...if what you said were even remotely true, then you better pull the battery out of your cell phone, or disconnect your WiFi antenna or yank that RJ-45 out of the back of your computer, because I could sit outside your house and copy and clone everything.
And you couldn't do jack about it because, as you seem to think, it's LEGAL.

Except...it isn't, and it is idiotic to listen to people who think that it is or ever was.
Pecker is in deep doo doo.
And you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Hot dog this.
18 U.S. Code SS 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

See, you never had an FCC license, I did.
That means you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I do.
That means you're talking out of your ass, which is nothing new.

So, like I said before...if what you said were even remotely true, then you better pull the battery out of your cell phone, or disconnect your WiFi antenna or yank that RJ-45 out of the back of your computer, because I could sit outside your house and copy and clone everything.
And you couldn't do jack about it because, as you seem to think, it's LEGAL.

Except...it isn't, and it is idiotic to listen to people who think that it is or ever was.
Pecker is in deep doo doo.
And you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
Click to expand...
Dershowitz today says it's a 1a issue, therefore no crime.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Dershowitz today says it's a 1a issue, therefore no crime.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Shocking that he would say that. Shocking I tell you....
 
Uh, oh Jeff's dick pic got leaked.

bitqth9ewqzxmagijcpw.jpg
 
j-mac said:
Dershowitz today says it's a 1a issue, therefore no crime.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the first time Dersh was wrong.
Pecker is also trying to claim that it's "FAIR USE" under the copyright convention statutes, also dead wrong. Once again, if I send YOU something, and YOU do not give YOUR permission to Joe Blow to copy what I sent, it's a felony and Joe Blow can be charged, tried and convicted.

In this case, Joe Blow #1 is Lauren Sanchez' brother, who apparently might not have sought permission from Ms. Sanchez, and Joe Blow #2 is David Pecker, who received said purloined data FROM Joe Blow #1.

Wired and wireless communications are governed by both FCC Rules and Regulations and by other federal statutes.
And it covers a wide range of communications, including phone, computer, wired phone, television and radio, also including 2-way radio communications as well.

Lauren Sanchez' cell phone was not a publisher, thus "Fair Use" is completely out of the ballpark. Pecker thinks a person's private wireless device is just a platform for his newspaper to be displayed on, not surprising.

But it isn't, even if it is capable of doing so, it still is not "the newspaper" itself, it is the device that DISPLAYS the newspaper.
Big difference.

If Bezos had sent it to Lauren via FACEBOOK, then Pecker would be in the clear.
He didn't.
 
SCrider said:
Shocking that he would say that. Shocking I tell you....
Click to expand...

It's going to be hilarious to see Dershowitz try to argue that in court.
Tell ya what, if it goes there, say perhaps it goes all the way to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS says Mr. Sanchez and David Pecker were within the law, then I will be able to start a brand new career, because thanks to both my past IT training, my years as an amateur radio operator AND my FCC license, I already know how to slurp up data from ANYTHING wired or not wired.

I'll just put an antenna farm on our Chrysler Pacifica and load it up with a bunch of 2.4 and 5Ghz radio gear and start driving around and collecting WHATEVER ANYONE WANTS to PAY ME to collect.

Bluetooth, NFC, and everything else included too! I'll be a gigantic mobile data SHOP VAC roaming around Los Angeles vacuuming up anything anybody wants for money.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Hot dog this.
18 U.S. Code SS 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

See, you never had an FCC license, I did.
That means you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I do.
That means you're talking out of your ass, which is nothing new.

So, like I said before...if what you said were even remotely true, then you better pull the battery out of your cell phone, or disconnect your WiFi antenna or yank that RJ-45 out of the back of your computer, because I could sit outside your house and copy and clone everything.
And you couldn't do jack about it because, as you seem to think, it's LEGAL.

Except...it isn't, and it is idiotic to listen to people who think that it is or ever was.
Pecker is in deep doo doo.
And you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with this thread and Mr. Pecker did not wiretap anyone. Jeez.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Wouldn't be the first time Dersh was wrong.
Pecker is also trying to claim that it's "FAIR USE" under the copyright convention statutes, also dead wrong. Once again, if I send YOU something, and YOU do not give YOUR permission to Joe Blow to copy what I sent, it's a felony and Joe Blow can be charged, tried and convicted.

In this case, Joe Blow #1 is Lauren Sanchez' brother, who apparently might not have sought permission from Ms. Sanchez, and Joe Blow #2 is David Pecker, who received said purloined data FROM Joe Blow #1.

yoWired and wireless communications are governed by both FCC Rules and Regulations and by other federal statutes.
And it covers a wide range of communications, including phone, computer, wired phone, television and radio, also including 2-way radio communications as well.

Lauren Sanchez' cell phone was not a publisher, thus "Fair Use" is completely out of the ballpark. Pecker thinks a person's private wireless device is just a platform for his newspaper to be displayed on, not surprising.

But it isn't, even if it is capable of doing so, it still is not "the newspaper" itself, it is the device that DISPLAYS the newspaper.
Big difference.

If Bezos had sent it to Lauren via FACEBOOK, then Pecker would be in the clear.
He didn't.
Click to expand...

You are just speculating.
 
Bucky said:
This has nothing to do with this thread and Mr. Pecker did not wiretap anyone. Jeez.
Click to expand...

Pecker knowingly put himself in receivership of purloined data which was taken by Mr. Sanchez without permission from the phone belonging to his sister.
It is the equivalent of receiving stolen property.
Even if Pecker could claim he did not know the data was stolen, that does not relieve him of possession of stolen property.
After all, YOUR data, even if under the stewardship of another, IS your property.
And even if it is not, after having been PRIVATELY SENT to another, it is then THEIR property as well but it is not PUBLIC property in any case, unless and until it is released by the owner of that property into the public domain.
Ms. Sanchez's personal cell phone IS NOT public domain.
This is fundamental and forms the core of property rights which you cons claim to be so knowledgeable about.

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Or not, you of course, are free to continue as you wish.
But admitting you didn't understand is an important personal growth and development point for people like yourself.
 
Bucky said:
You can bold your fonts and peacock in this thread all you want. Trust me, no one is impressed by your hot dogging and shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Funny to see you trump lovers defending these asswipes at the Enquirer...How low is your "kind" willing to go?
 
Bucky said:
You are just speculating.
Click to expand...

Speculation is based on fact or it might be based on fantasy, but in this case, the facts have been clearly defined for you and all others by a person who has extensive experience in this field. That would be me.
 
Saladin4 said:
Funny to see you trump lovers defending these asswipes at the Enquirer...How low is your "kind" willing to go?
Click to expand...

In this case I believe it is causing Bucky an enormous amount of pain because he can't stand it when a liberal has to correct him on his public ignorance.
However, seeing as how Bucky invests an enormous amount of time and energy trying to cast himself as some sort of paragon of conservative morals and virtue, he is merely getting as good as he gives. Hypocrisy is expensive, or must by needs be.
Hypocrisy mated with abject hidebound ignorance must by needs be doubly so.
 
And like I said earlier, if this goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rules in favor of Pecker, and Mr. Sanchez, and against Lauren Sanchez and Jeff Bezos, the stock tip of the day is:

"INVEST IN manufacturers of 2.4 gHz and 5 gHz radio gear and associated data collection gear and accessories, and software."

Because the next booming business will be the legal equivalent of "war driving", only in light of such a ruling, one may not only ACCESS both public and private data networks and storage, one may now ALSO legally collect all of it and SELL IT at a profit to anyone who wants it.

Your devices will no longer be your own domain anymore, anything and everything you have stored electronically, anything and everything ANYONE has stored electronically will be up for grabs, even if it is on your own private storage.
If you plug a USB drive into your machine and I am able to see it, whatever is on it is up for grabs.

If you are on your landline phone talking to somebody and I can connect my two alligator clips to the terminals that have your wires on it, anything you say is now mine and I can record it and sell it to the highest bidder and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it anymore.

If I want to intercept a FAX meant for you, tough beans, I got it first.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Pecker knowingly put himself in receivership of purloined data which was taken by Mr. Sanchez without permission from the phone belonging to his sister.
It is the equivalent of receiving stolen property.
Even if Pecker could claim he did not know the data was stolen, that does not relieve him of possession of stolen property.
After all, YOUR data, even if under the stewardship of another, IS your property.
And even if it is not, after having been PRIVATELY SENT to another, it is then THEIR property as well but it is not PUBLIC property in any case, unless and until it is released by the owner of that property into the public domain.
Ms. Sanchez's personal cell phone IS NOT public domain.
This is fundamental and forms the core of property rights which you cons claim to be so knowledgeable about.

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Or not, you of course, are free to continue as you wish.
But admitting you didn't understand is an important personal growth and development point for people like yourself.
Click to expand...

Again, you are just speculating. How do you know a. Mr Sanchez (whoever that is) provided N.I. the photos and b. Assuming Mr. Sanchez did receive photos perhaps his sister texted him the photos which does not make it stolen property.

You are confusing blackmail with journalism. As a shareholder of Amazon myself, I find these pictures extremely relevant. The stock price of Amazon has fallen 10% since Bezos announced his divorce. The public deserves to know.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Speculation is based on fact or it might be based on fantasy, but in this case, the facts have been clearly defined for you and all others by a person who has extensive experience in this field. That would be me.
Click to expand...

You don't have any facts! We do not even know how the N.I got the pictures if they even do have the pictures!

Admit you are lying or reveal your sources!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom