Sorry, I’m not interested in feeding your recreational outrage.
Hogging it all to yourself, huh?
New info: 2 weeks before the attack, Farook received a payment of $28,500 into his bank account. Where this money came from is being invesigated. Farook withdrew $10,000 in cash, and transferred $15,000 to his mother.
This could all just be a cultural misunderstanding. After his office cohorts threw him and his wifea baby shower they didn’t understand the proper response was to send thank you cards.
ABC News says he got it from an online loan company.
The friend/neighbor/gun provider is Hispanic, but he is also a convert to Islam. Since they were long time friends, I wonder if Farook converted him, or if he was Islamic before they met.
Please accept my apologies. Warning fairly earned. My post did not belong in this forum.
Yep, they’re good friends alright. The neighbor is also a terrorist supporter.
Looks like we can cross off the possibility that he wan an unwitting dupe. I’m guessing his checking into a mental hospital is in preparation for an insanity defense.
ETA: Perhaps there really was a third shooter who ran away from the scene, and it was Marquez?
Aside from being friends, Farook and Marquez are related by marriage. Farook’s brother’s wife is the sister of Marquez’s wife.
Here’s something I didn’t know before. Immigration officials are not allowed to look at a person’s social media posts when deciding whether to give them a visa. Apparently, this has been a “secret” policy for a while now, but the Obama Administration decided to keep it in place as recently as last year.
In this particular case, the wife has been found to have made jihadist comments on Facebook as far back as 2012 – two years before she came to the US – and she and her husband talked about this stuff on social media as well.
Am I missing something, or is this ban really stupid? There are no privacy concerns that I see. Social media, by its nature, is public. A Facebook post or a tweet is no more private than a yard sign advertizing your favorite politican. When some moron brags about his crimes online, we don’t forbid the police from using that as evidence against him. (And if you haven’t noticed, a lot of news reports these days end with something like “The suspect was arrested after he bragged about the crime on his Facebook page.”)
Why shouldn’t immigration officials be able to look at social media posts to decide if somebody is a potential threat?
My guess is that it’s a policy meant to keep people from dicking around on facebook all day under the guise of work, but who knows.
It’d be funny if we were all gung-ho about spying on our citizens except for the public stuff on facebook.
If true, that is incredibly stupid. That is the one time when such a strategy actually makes sense, because granting a foreigner permission to enter your country is the one time when the government should have the most discretion.
How are they going to look at Facebook posts if the privacy is set to friends only? Or do terrorists usually make all their jihadist posts public?
The idea of the government reviewing my online postings is terrifying.
I conduct things online assuming the government can easily read my posts and emails.
The idea of giving a visa to someone that posts they intend to slaughter people seems kinda seriously bat shit crazy. They are literally sending out electronic notices of intent.
Do you need a hard copy mailed to you?
This makes it a little harder.
From Diceman’s link.
Yes and no. A different name still traces back to the same network connection. Defeatable, yes.
The nice thing about computers is the ability to sift data and that gives an agency like the NSA the ability to run sophisticated search engines.
The head of the FBI says there is no evidence that the San Bernardino shooters ever posted pro-terrorist comments online. What was all of that about the wife having used fake Facebook accounts to declare her support for ISIS?
It’s possible that what was believed to be the wife posting under a false name was actually someone else posting under a false name. It’s also possible that the head of the FBI is lying - he’s still trying to push an agenda against encryption, after all.