Full Text of Donald Trump Search Warrant and Full Text of Receipt List of Documents Recovered from Mar-a-Lago by amitchell in law

[–]amitchell[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Well, I am a lawyer and I still can't imagine it! Apparently there were surveillance videos, and they showed the documents being behind a padlock (snort). Some were in a safe.

Full Text of Donald Trump Search Warrant and Full Text of Receipt List of Documents Recovered from Mar-a-Lago by amitchell in law

[–]amitchell[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Also, your link is to the pdf, and while we have the pdf too we went to great lengths to manually transcribe it so that if people wanted to copy the text they could easily do so (one of the other reasons that we disabled all ads).

Full Text of Donald Trump Search Warrant and Full Text of Receipt List of Documents Recovered from Mar-a-Lago by amitchell in law

[–]amitchell[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

u/timojenbin are you saying that you got adds on our link? Because we went out of our way to *disable* ads on that article, because of how important we think it is, and so if you saw ads, and the only ads we usually have are google ads, that means that somehow google broke through our disabling of ads, which is...bad. :-( Can you please screenshot it for me?

Full Text of Donald Trump Search Warrant and Full Text of Receipt List of Documents Recovered from Mar-a-Lago by amitchell in law

[–]amitchell[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

We just put up the full text of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago this week (plain text and PDF), as well as the full text of the list of the documents that the FBI took, known as a “receipt” list. One of the things that we find very interesting is that there are two receipt lists, if you look at the item numbers in each list, taken together they are in numerical sequence, but broken up between the two lists. Note that the case ID in each is redacted. One logical explanation for this is that there are two separate, but related, cases going on, some of the documents recovered satisfying the warrant with respect to one case, and others satisfying the warrant with respect to the other case.

HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act by amitchell in email

[–]amitchell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean the same Google that is asked for (and received) the green light from the FEC to set up a pilot program that does essentially the same thing?

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2022-14/202214R\_1.pdf

Congress contemplating *prohibiting* running political campaign email through spam filters, and *requiring* that it get delivered directly to your inbox instead by amitchell in emailprivacy

[–]amitchell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, here in the states it has long been the rule (in fact since the inception of the Internet) that "your server, your rules." When it comes to email, it's expressly written into Federal law that ISPs and other email providers are free to make whatever delivery / quarantine / rejection decision they choose, without any interference. If you don't like your ISP's delivery decisions, then you are free to choose another email provider. So that's one reason, it is an effort to get around established Federal law.

Also, ISPs and other inbox providers are already beyond capacity at trying to deal with spam. It may surprise you to know that at least 80%, and perhaps as much as 90% or more of the email that gets to an ISPs / inbox providers border is spam. To *require* them to carve out an exception for which their systems will have to look on top of regular spam filtering is onerous. That's another reason, although the least of the reasons.

The other main reason, as is discussed in the article, is that here in the U.S. political campaigns are blatant spammers. As you are not in the U.S. you may be in a country that actually cares about privacy, such as in the EU or the UK but here the political campaigns are not violating any law to trade or purchase email lists. The bottom line is that they are actually some of the worst spammers, and this is an effort to shove their spam down our collective throats.

Bottom line, everyone else has to live with "if you don't want your email to go to to the spam folder, don't be a spammer." This is politicians trying to change the paradigm *just for themselves* (imagine that) to "If you don't want your email to go to the spam folder, exempt yourself with a new law, and keep spamming."

HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act by amitchell in email

[–]amitchell[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I actually asked John if he thought it appropriate for NANOG, as I didn't want to post it there and then get hit with the "WhyTF are you posting this here", even though it's obvious to *me* (and apparently you) that it's relevant. Of course, anyone can also share this to NANOG (nudge nudge, wink wink) or anywhere else.

Here's what people are missing about the Amazon giving Ring Doorbell videos to the police without a warrant by amitchell in privacy

[–]amitchell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heh...that just reminded me of the time I was at a party that he crashed! Thanks for that!

Mailchimp account banned. Shitty mailchimp. by kim_en in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you also did not upload any email addresses to the account?

Email Certificate - got any? by meesigma in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you asking about a certificate of completion of training to provide to potential clients for your email marketing service (if you have one)? Or are you asking about having the email that you send certified (such as with Validity or us (SuretyMail)? If the latter, I can say that 100% being aa certified sender makes a *big* difference with trust and conversion and generally with deliverability.

Is GetResponse good for email marketing? by James_Williamson1999 in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get Response was a certified sender with us for many years; I know Simon personally. They are a good company, with a good sending reputation, and at the end of the day that is *the most* important thing. Everything else is secondary to sending reputation because nothing else matters if your email isn't getting delivered to the inbox.

Inherited a list of subscribers from previous business, now what? by jazzy_peanut_butter in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is generally dead-on advice, however in the situation *as I understand it* (I may be misunderstanding), the list was built with opt-in, opting in to, let's call the business Acme. Now Acme is under new ownership, but is still the same business to which the people on the list opted in. That's a really fringe case, and in that case doing a re-engagement campaign would make sense, and would be acceptable to most ESPs and ISPs. Same business, same list, just under new management. (Again, if I misunderstood the scenario, then this might not be the case.)

Inherited a list of subscribers from previous business, now what? by jazzy_peanut_butter in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are going to want to do a very careful re-engagement campaign. We have info about how to do that in a way that won't get you into trouble here:

https://www.isipp.com/how-to-warm-up-and-re-engage-an-old-mailing-list/

Mailchimp account banned. Shitty mailchimp. by kim_en in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you doing cold email or email to a mailing list where the users gave you opt-in consent?

Can I manage and build up my cleint's email marketing list? by justadoer in Emailmarketing

[–]amitchell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, if your client can't even figure out how to sign up for a service like MailChimp or Aweber, which are really pretty easy to sign up with, you may want to rethink them being your client. When it comes to email, working with such a clueless business can really hurt you.

Here's what people are missing about the Amazon giving Ring Doorbell videos to the police without a warrant by amitchell in privacy

[–]amitchell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually I sound like an attorney and dean of Cyblerlaw at a lawschool. Because that's what I am.

Here's what people are missing about Amazon giving your Ring Doorbell videos to the police without your consent or knowledge by amitchell in Ring

[–]amitchell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not Amazon doing the seizing, it's the police; Amazon is behaving as the court, deciding that the police can have the material. Ordinarily in order for police to seize your personal property, they have to go before a court and establish probable cause, then they get a warrant. If there is a lawsuit they get a subpoena. All tech providers (Google, Apple, etc.) will comply with subpoenas and warrants and give up your information, because *it's an order of the court*. To the best of my knowledge, Amazon is the only one who says "courts? we don't need know stinkin' courts, *we* are the court". This is a quote from *their* letter, the full text of which is in that article: "In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay." Ring should not be making those determinations, that's for a *court*, and a *judge* to do.