Message from @MEE6
Discord ID: 479509678351450113
I work for a Defense contractor and I'm under investigation for Top Secret clearance
Since weed is still illegal at the federal level, I can't partake if I want to get that
"i was denied top secret clearance"
"why"
"i smoked weed."
".....k"
Grenade, that's an interesting snippet
I'm gonna have to do some looking into that
its from one of the comments
oh shit, Top Secret clearance? what do you know about the Denver Airport
Joey: nothing. I don't have the clearance yet.
that's surely a DUMB
ok ok when you do tho hmu 😉
Well, even when I get the clearance, I won't necessarily know. My first question in the SCIF is gonna be about contact with aliens. The Denver Airport is up there though.
SCIF?
I keep forgetting that people don't know all the acronyms I've picked up since I started here
SCIF = Secure Computing Information Facility
mm
i.e. air-gapped system in a Faraday cage
whoa
Nothing more advanced than the most basic battery-powered watch and a walkman CD player/headphones allowed in
🤔
No credit cards (because of the chip), no cell phones, no smart watches
:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>
fuck off mee6
fuck i wish they would just legalize already
I'm tempted to just block MEE6, but Miss Scribblehatch was showing me last night that even when you block someone on Discord you still see a placeholder for blocked messages
this city would be so much better
@Grenade123 Another interesting tidbit from the article on Marsh v. Alabama:
While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online [...]. Cyber promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.
In that case, though, the court disagreed
That's why we have spam filters at the ISP level now
but that was a company vs another company
This is true
Below that the article also mentions that the original case may be grounds against current Social Media companies, and that would be a case of the people vs. a company again
exactly
@Timcast i know its 1 am for you, but Marsh v. Alabama might be interesting for you to cover
I dunno about you, but typically if I get mentioned in the middle of the night, I don't bother looking for it in the morning (on this server, at any rate)
You might want to just DM him
i do, there is a way to just look at mention
Yeah, but without seeing the context of the conversation
i mean, i gave him all the context needed, the rest he can get from just a quick look up
also, you can click on the mention and it will jump to the location in chat, from there its like 2 sentences