> They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest.
For a household making above the median, this might be viable.
You do have to admit people who have large families, single earner households due to disabled SO, etc. are going to have trouble justifying the expense of spending $200 a year "networking" in political circles.
Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it.
Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distinguish between these users (or at least, prove that the "multiple" aspect is a fiction), but the existence of doubt minimalizes the professional risk. This feels like about the right level of security for unpopular political meta-comments of this sort.
> In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this
Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It is just what I do now. Hell, the password for this account should be easy to guess if you start with the letter a and work your way to the right.
> You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't.
It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) get away with passing whatever crap they want through Congress.
The only tool I have at my disposal is point out when this happens and hope people get outraged enough to do something. I'm confused why you view that with a belief that I'm helpless?
P.s. Given that I basically gave away the password, this is the last time I'll use the account.
That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole".
> I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.
From the article:
> On December 28, 2012, President Obama enacted the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39). The newly enacted amendments are intended to reverse the recent Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012).
The only way that statement makes sense is if the author believed that the FBI failed due to a lack of the acts alleged by Goldman Sachs being a crime. Imo, anyway.
Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.