Area 1 Security apparently provided the "investigation" for the new story about Russia hacking Burisma (**yawn). Anyways, report linked as pdf and right here (https://cdn.area1security.com/reports/Area-1-Security-PhishingBarismaHoldings.pdf). Appears that Area 1 Security works frequently with the NYT in political hit jobs. links below. Also list of the founders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001606978&owner=exclude&count=40

"Hacked European Cables Reveal a World of Anxiety About Trump, Russia and Iran" Dec. 18, 2018 NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/european-diplomats-cables-hacked.html

The Chinese Hackers in the Back Office. June 11, 2016 NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/technology/the-chinese-hackers-in-the-back-office.html

How Israel Caught Russian Hackers Scouring the World for U.S. Secrets. Oct 10, 2017 NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/technology/kaspersky-lab-israel-russia-hacking.html

>>7808721

8 Page security brief that says absolutely nothing.

>>7808721

>>7808763

>>7808804

Interesting pen name for the author "who fears professional retribution."

>>7808826

>>7799885

This part about "Exceptions" reminds me of the movement to create "safety valves" through equity within jurisprudence (law). There are all sorts of ways they are trying to create this. The baseline for it is modalities (much like computers move off them I believe).

Two leading professors in this movement that has quite the backing to it:

Henry Smith harvard law school

https://hls.harvard.edu/?taxonomy=faculty&term=henry-smith

Paul Miller notre dame law school

https://law.nd.edu/directory/paul-miller/

"Equity as a Second-Order Law: The Problem of Opportunism"

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2617413

>>7808851

It would make sense for them to go this route. Courts of Equity used to exist and were based upon Christian principles. Much of Civil Law has equitable principles. Courts of Equity were ran by clergy.

The movement is to meld equity and law more fully together and create "safety valves" for when things get to tense. In essence, it provides more discretion for judges to decide what they think is correct. Courts of Equity were more readily accepted because these courts were a means of "peasants" to resolve disputes amongst themselves and didn't necessarily have the gun of the government backing it up in the same way that the Courts of Law had. Instead, a clergy resolved disputes for people based upon Christian Principles so discretion was 'blessed.' Here, the equity….well look at how progressive prosecutors are utilizing their discretion. Rather than relieving pressure, it can also be used to create more pressure and chaos too.