Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:08 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
You mean proactive damage control like deleting important things, and then deleting emails that were going to show she deleted important things?
You think she is gonna sneak into the FBI offices and delete emails?
  #352  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:39 AM
aag3981 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Columbia SC
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
So fine. It's okay for government officials to only submit the emails they want to submit and delete the rest.
OMG!! Yes, she did not need prior approval or any sort of oversight to delete her personal emails. Like a gajillion publications have reported that:

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil division wrote.
  #353  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:49 AM
aag3981 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Columbia SC
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
While likely true, that isn't really a legitimate defense for a private server at your house.
Does she offer a legitimate excuse? Seems to me she has admitted it was a mistake and she should not have done it...
  #354  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:17 AM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And the only reason anyone knows or cares about it is ... what, pray tell?
Because the Republicans couldn't get the Benghazi investigation to stick. On to the next instance of mudslinging...
  #355  
Old 06-17-2016, 06:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well there is this FBI investigation I've heard tell of.
Begging the question.
Quote:
But regardless, surely you agree that "I was hiding my official emails on a private server in my basement because I didn't want my Republican enemies to get at them" isn't a particularly good political sell.
No, now that the Benghazigate context is now gone from public discussion. But it's had all the effect it's going to have, and they still have to find something else to move on to now.
  #356  
Old 06-17-2016, 08:58 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by aag3981 View Post
Except the IG found emails that were work related that she never turned over.

She destroyed government records.
  #357  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:28 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Let's just step back for a second and take the broad view: Bill Clinton had sex with an intern, which is a hugely unethical action for a host of reasons, and he's still regarded as one of the more effective and successful presidents of the 20th century.

Hillary Clinton made poor decisions about her email... and so she can't be trusted to be president? Is that where this is going?
  #358  
Old 06-18-2016, 09:27 AM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Let's just step back for a second and take the broad view: Bill Clinton had sex with an intern, which is a hugely unethical action for a host of reasons, and he's still regarded as one of the more effective and successful presidents of the 20th century.
By who? You? Corporate America?

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was good for 2 specific sets of people.... The uber-rich and his own family fortune.

the dismantling of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA were done for the rich. Bill Clinton was paid handsomely for his efforts.

His "legacy" is spoonfed to you by a corporate media who benefitted (and continues to benefit) by the de-regulation of media monopolies. When 6 mega corporations control 90% of the media you consume, you have to really look hard for reality.

If you are lazy and your family has not personally been impacted by his falied presidency, good for you.

NAFTA was a dismantling of the middle class in America. That may be ok with you, but as a "Democratic" president, he stabbed the core base of what the democratic party us supposed to stand for, all for the benefit of the rich.

The rich are telling you how successful his presidency was. Can't you see that? History is written by the winners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hillary Clinton made poor decisions about her email... and so she can't be trusted to be president? Is that where this is going?
This is such an oversimplification of the issue, but I am not surprised. People get their information from CNN or MSNBC talking points.

I understand. You are busy. You have a life. You need to check the sports scores, your FB page, and the latest "tweet".

Do some research. Seek out opinions different than the mainstream. Open your mind. Try taking yourself out of the left/right, Democratic/Republican paradigm. Stop being a fan of your "team".

She did not make "poor decisions about her e-mail." She did exactly what she wanted/needed to do to try and keep her activity off the record. There was a reason for that. What do you suppose it was for? Don't think about it as a partisan democrat (they are attacking her for no reason!). Don't think about it as a partisan republican (let's get this witch!)

Think about it logically. Take emotion out of it. Why would she do it? Why when caught would she try to wipe the server? Why when pressed, does she not give a straight answer? What exactly is she hiding? She was SoS, not some summer intern who didn't understand and made a mistake. She set the server up exactly the way she did because she didn't want the State Dept. to see what she was doing and have a copy of each and every communication she made as SoS. Why? Do you honestly believe she sent 10's of thousands of e-mails about yoga?

If you can't take your personal bias out of it, then flip the scenario. What if your candidate's opponent did what Clinton did. What if that person, as SoS, had a server that had National Security secrets on a non-secure, hackable server? If "Guciffer" could break in, do you honestly think the Russians/Chinese/whoever don't have all that information? Do you not think the US would not exploit this server if it was sitting in Putin's basement?

I won't do the research for you. You need to want to do it for yourself. People have been forced to "choose sides", like they are rooting for Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant. What people cannot grasp is politics have become the WWE. It is staged.

Republican.... Democrat... There is no significant difference any longer.

Take a look at the Clinton Foundation. Follow the money.

Think critically. You will know you have crossed the rubicon when you hear the giant "POP".
  #359  
Old 06-18-2016, 09:51 AM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by aag3981 View Post
Hillary Clinton put herself in a position that she could not be permitted to decide what emails were private and which ones were not. She lost that right when she mixed her public responsibilities with her private life. She is a criminal suspect.

The suspect doesn't get to decide what evidence they are going to turn over to the investigators. The investigators get to decide what is personal and what is not.

Here is the difference, and here is what you are missing. If Hillary had all of her emails on the State Dept. server, there would be copies of all of those emails. So yes, if she deletes an email about a yoga class, she doesn't need anyone looking over her shoulder. However, if there is any question about that particular email, they would be able to look at it in the State Dept. archives.

People use their work emails for personal things all the time. And the company you work for has legal grounds to read those emails, whether you like it or not, because you are using their equipment. If you don't want your current employer to see that you are looking for a new job, then you probably wait until you go home, get on your own computer, use your own email account outside of your current employer's infrastructure and communicate with your recruiter/whatever privately.

Do you HONESTLY believe a suspected criminal would willingly turn over any incriminating evidence? You trust a suspected criminal implicitly?

So your logic would be similar to the following scenario: the police have a murder suspect who shot and killed a woman and stole her credit cards, and want to search his house. They have the proper probable cause and they have a legal search warrant signed by a judge. In your mind, the suspect should be 1) contacted prior to any search and not be subjected to any surprise search where he might hide/destroy something incriminating and 2) trusted to turn over all evidence (on his own) which could show he actually did it.

That is illogical. If you gave a murderer a chance to decide what he is and isn't going to turn over, I seriously doubt you'd get the murder weapon with his fingerprints along with all the items he stole from his victim (unless, of course, he just wants to go to prison... I guess that possibility would exist, regardless of how minuscule.)
  #360  
Old 06-18-2016, 10:30 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Except the IG found emails that were work related that she never turned over.

She destroyed government records.
Exactly when did you cut the rope tying it to Benghazi?
  #361  
Old 06-18-2016, 11:19 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Exactly when did you cut the rope tying it to Benghazi?
I'm not sure why you think this matters. So, ok. Benghazi was an excuse for a fishing expedition. That doesn't mean you can handwave the fish they caught.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-18-2016 at 11:20 AM.
  #362  
Old 06-18-2016, 11:25 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It does keep the size of the fish in perspective, doesn't it? It does show the extent they had to go to find something to Get Her with, to find the evidence of defective character that they needed to spread. Just like it took a blowjob for them to get Bubba for something they just knew about him.
  #363  
Old 06-18-2016, 08:23 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
By who? You? Corporate America?

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was good for 2 specific sets of people.... The uber-rich and his own family fortune.

the dismantling of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA were done for the rich. Bill Clinton was paid handsomely for his efforts.

His "legacy" is spoonfed to you by a corporate media who benefitted (and continues to benefit) by the de-regulation of media monopolies. When 6 mega corporations control 90% of the media you consume, you have to really look hard for reality.

If you are lazy and your family has not personally been impacted by his falied presidency, good for you.

NAFTA was a dismantling of the middle class in America. That may be ok with you, but as a "Democratic" president, he stabbed the core base of what the democratic party us supposed to stand for, all for the benefit of the rich.

The rich are telling you how successful his presidency was. Can't you see that? History is written by the winners.



This is such an oversimplification of the issue, but I am not surprised. People get their information from CNN or MSNBC talking points.

I understand. You are busy. You have a life. You need to check the sports scores, your FB page, and the latest "tweet".

Do some research. Seek out opinions different than the mainstream. Open your mind. Try taking yourself out of the left/right, Democratic/Republican paradigm. Stop being a fan of your "team".

She did not make "poor decisions about her e-mail." She did exactly what she wanted/needed to do to try and keep her activity off the record. There was a reason for that. What do you suppose it was for? Don't think about it as a partisan democrat (they are attacking her for no reason!). Don't think about it as a partisan republican (let's get this witch!)

Think about it logically. Take emotion out of it. Why would she do it? Why when caught would she try to wipe the server? Why when pressed, does she not give a straight answer? What exactly is she hiding? She was SoS, not some summer intern who didn't understand and made a mistake. She set the server up exactly the way she did because she didn't want the State Dept. to see what she was doing and have a copy of each and every communication she made as SoS. Why? Do you honestly believe she sent 10's of thousands of e-mails about yoga?

If you can't take your personal bias out of it, then flip the scenario. What if your candidate's opponent did what Clinton did. What if that person, as SoS, had a server that had National Security secrets on a non-secure, hackable server? If "Guciffer" could break in, do you honestly think the Russians/Chinese/whoever don't have all that information? Do you not think the US would not exploit this server if it was sitting in Putin's basement?

I won't do the research for you. You need to want to do it for yourself. People have been forced to "choose sides", like they are rooting for Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant. What people cannot grasp is politics have become the WWE. It is staged.

Republican.... Democrat... There is no significant difference any longer.

Take a look at the Clinton Foundation. Follow the money.

Think critically. You will know you have crossed the rubicon when you hear the giant "POP".
So after having the "everyone with a security clearance agrees with me" gambit failed, you choose the "anyone who has an open mind agrees with me" gambit?

Weak.
  #364  
Old 06-19-2016, 01:53 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
There's a huge difference between the Clintons and the Republicans.

The Clintons actually accomplished conservative ends. Republicans just talk about them.
  #365  
Old 06-20-2016, 06:31 PM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So after having the "everyone with a security clearance agrees with me" gambit failed, you choose the "anyone who has an open mind agrees with me" gambit?

Weak.
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Standard.
  #366  
Old 06-20-2016, 06:49 PM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
She claimed she didn't delete anything relevant. Then the FBI was able to retrieve most, if not all of those emails.
Here is what folks don't seem to realize...

If what we've heard about the US information collection dragnet is true, deleting those emails wouldn't matter. The gov't has them all, and can see what she had on that server.

Now if the FBI can show she deleted relevant emails, now THAT would matter... assuming, of course, it is a legitimate investigation.

But there should be no mystery to anyone in the govt. what HRC was up to.

And Johnny Ace, you say you went to the USNA. Did you graduate? Did you serve?

If so, would you really be OK with the US SoS handling national security and state information like this? What if an enemy was able to learn something that cost you, your fellow servicemen, or any ally their lives?

Do you really think this doesn't matter? Is it all about Democrat vs. Republican?

I simply don't understand people who make this into an "R" vs. "D" debate. If this happened under Bush, I'd be just as adamant.

If national security issues are really just political footballs, then they really don't mean anything. To anyone. So just trash the security classification system altogether. It's an expensive charade.
  #367  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:02 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
...What if an enemy was able to learn something that cost you, your fellow servicemen, or any ally their lives?...
Careful, Ravenman. This could be a trap!
  #368  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:29 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
If national security issues are really just political footballs, then they really don't mean anything. To anyone. So just trash the security classification system altogether. It's an expensive charade.
This is a strawman. Nobody says that.

Howver, if you're really worried about security, guess what:
Quote:
Notwithstanding the usual hype, a close reading of the 42-page report (plus timely recommendations and appendices) reveals that the State Department system was susceptible to cyberattacks both before and after Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Some experts have suggested that Clinton’s server was as secure, and maybe even more secure, than the department’s system.
You should thank her for clearly making the efforts to make our national security more secure.
  #369  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
There's a huge difference between the Clintons and the Republicans.

The Clintons actually accomplished conservative ends. Republicans just talk about them.
So when are you just going to bite the damn bullet, switch parties and help keep "New Democrats" winning Dem primaries and win elections? You always seem to want to poke Dems about how Hillary ain't all that but basically your only complaint is she was bad to try and hide her email. You're being irrational. Get on the trolley, dude.
  #370  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:40 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
This is a strawman. Nobody says that.

Howver, if you're really worried about security, guess what:You should thank her for clearly making the efforts to make our national security more secure.
On my phone. Can you list the names of the IT security experts who say her server was more secure than a government server?
  #371  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:41 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
On my phone. Can you list the names of the IT security experts who say her server was more secure than a government server?
You can't click links on your phone?
  #372  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:47 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
You can't click links on your phone?
Just hard to skim efficiently on my phone. Feel free to ignore my polite request, and I'll find out later if the USA Today editorial substantiates its claim or not.
  #373  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:54 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
First link goes to Steven Aftergood, who is a political activist and physicist, according to Wikipedia. I see no credentials that make him an expert in IT much less cybersecurity much less government IT security.

Is it worth the effort to scroll through the second one?
  #374  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:55 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
The "more secure" claim is from Richard O. Lempert, a lawyer, not an IT person, in American Prospect:
Quote:
There is the interesting question of whether the inadvertently transferred classified emails were more or less secure because they were on Clinton’s server rather than on a State Department server. The FBI investigation may provide an answer. From a distance, it seems possible that Clinton’s messages were more secure on her server than they would have been on the State Department’s servers, even if the latter were protected by a technically superior firewall. The State Department’s systems are reportedly regular targets of hackers. Few knew that Clinton used a personal server for business emails, so hacker attacks may have been far less common if they happened at all. Also hackers often gain access to systems by fooling users into downloading malicious programs or clicking on malicious web sites. Since few people had accounts that accessed Clinton’s servers, the chance that someone might inadvertently open a door to hackers is most likely much less. Finally, after a few months, transactions with Clinton’s servers were reportedly encrypted. Because of the difficulties posed by the need to accommodate different server and computer generations, the government has lagged behind the private sector in encryption.
There is evidence that the State Department's email gets hacked all the time, even after Hillary Clinton left office. There is no evidence that Clinton's email servers were hacked despite what the Right Wing Media says.
  #375  
Old 06-20-2016, 07:57 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
So, IOW, no IT security expert supports that claim.

Among other reasons, because they know better than the sociologist and political activist what "no signs of hacking" means on an unmonitored basement server.
  #376  
Old 06-20-2016, 08:02 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Right, I am sure that server that was never hacked was just an insecure mess. Much safer on that stellar State Department server that gets hacked all the time. Two years after she stopped being Secretary Of State they're being hacked, in fact, but I'm sure that when Clinton was Secretary Of State it was simply a fortress.

Anyway, I'll just go back to not caring about her emails.
  #377  
Old 06-20-2016, 08:10 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Believe whatever you want. I was just intrigued by the prospect of experts saying her server was more secure. I am not surprised to learn that claim is misleading, since they are not experts in the relevant area of knowledge. It's the same way climate change deniers cite "experts" who are metallurgists and lawyers.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 06-20-2016 at 08:11 PM.
  #378  
Old 06-20-2016, 08:42 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Believe whatever you want. I was just intrigued by the prospect of experts saying her server was more secure. I am not surprised to learn that claim is misleading, since they are not experts in the relevant area of knowledge. It's the same way climate change deniers cite "experts" who are metallurgists and lawyers.
The claim is not misleading. You act like Hillary set it up herself.

The Clinton's hired people (notably Bryan Pagliano) to build and run the server. They are (and presumably still are unless they and Vince Foster are hanging out in hell somewhere) IT professionals. Here's his LinkedIn page.

I am fairly confident that he, as an IT professional, would tell you the server was secure. As evidence of this, I am sure he would point out that it was never hacked while the servers the State Department used were hacked all the time.

So if you insist on an IT expert, I give you the guy who set it up.

He plead the fifth, of course, so he won't tell you shit. But contrary to all of the right wing news sources that latched onto this as supposedly damning or something, it's actually the smart thing to do:
Quote:
Pagliano is a geek. He's not a token geek, or a weekend geek, or a geek that dabbles in technology as a hobby. He's a professional who primarily works close to the metal—meaning he works with server-side technologies, security, complex systems, and Internet of Things (IoT).

I've also been in technology, for over 25 years. I've known the Paglianos in the tech world. You might find a rare one who would love to be in the center of this manufactured fooflah, and who would enjoy participating in the mockery which is discovery in the Judicial Watch's lawsuit. For the most part, though, these are not the type of people who are willing to have anything to do with any of this. They would be suspicious of the efforts, of the questions, and of the people.
So there, your expert in IT. He's not talking, but unless you happen to be a right wing shill (or a supposed progressive with a Bernie boner), his work speaks for itself.

Stop trying to make Hillary's email server a thing.

It's not a thing.
  #379  
Old 06-20-2016, 08:53 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
I should add, if anyone does have some description by an IT expert of why her server might have been more secure than the servers at State, I'd genuinely appreciate reading it.

My decidedly non-expert understanding of things is along these lines:

Any server used by a lot more people is more vulnerable in a few ways. First, with more users comes the prospect of more phishing attacks. There's simply more chance of a negligent employee clicking a bad link or being socially engineered. Second, the need to support more employees and functions might mean more attack surfaces. Third, it's hard to hide the basic details about something like the State Department's unclassified email servers. There's tons of outgoing mail from them that's easy to get a piece of and analyze; there's a lot more traffic to snoop; many more people need the info to connect to it, etc.

But arrayed against those potentialities are a couple of really important countervailing factors. One is that there is a team of full-time IT security professionals constantly monitoring the server logs, often in real time. It is much harder for someone to hack them without leaving some trace, in contrast to a server that is not being monitored by a human at all, much less a team of them working around the clock. That team also ensures that any potential vulnerabilities are both found and updated before they are exploited. Moreover, the whole system is behind sophisticated firewalls.

That said, generally speaking, email is one of the hardest things to secure. And that's because the server has to be connected to the internet, and also if the content is not encrypted, then it is easy to intercept in transit. That's why Hillary was warned not to use her Blackberry for emails--not only could the device be fairly easily hacked, but the emails were not being encrypted using a non-deprecated method.

The opinion that her home server might be more secure seems to rest on three naive and almost certainly false assumptions: (1) that the server was somehow anonymous; (2) that there would be evidence of hacking if it occurred; and that (3) the secure servers at the State Department are less competently managed than an amateur setup in the Clinton's basement. The server was certainly not anonymous. As has been demonstrated since this story broke, anyone intent on hacking the Secretary could have discovered the IP address of the server easily. And there would not necessarily be any evidence of hacking. Even assuming all the server logs were kept from this period and someone has reviewed all of them, moderately sophisticated hackers are capable of not leaving any trace when the system isn't monitored in real time (and that's assuming they didn't just intercept the emails in transit). Finally, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the server had known major flaws that the servers at State would never have--including not being encrypted for months, a flaw so basic that it should cast doubt in the minds of any reasonable person about the technical skills of the person running it and their implementation of other basic security procedures after they figured out to turn on encryption.

Again--I am a rank ignoramus on these issues. This is not my field of expertise. So I would love to be corrected on any of that, or to be pointed to a single IT expert who has reviewed the publicly known facts about her server security who thinks it was more secure than the classified channels she should have been using (or, frankly, even the unclassified ones).
  #380  
Old 06-20-2016, 08:57 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Pagliano is not an IT security professional. He is an IT specialist. There is a difference, which was amply demonstrated by his negligent setup of her server, a fact no one really disputes.

Here is what the resume of an IT security professional looks like. Would you like to know Mr. Soghoian's view of the security of Secretary Clinton's server?
  #381  
Old 06-20-2016, 09:10 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
. He's not talking, but unless you happen to be a right wing shill (or a supposed progressive with a Bernie boner), his work speaks for itself.

Stop trying to make Hillary's email server a thing.

It's not a thing.
One last note: this comment of yours is very revealing of where you're coming from on this. The only IT security professionals I've seen weigh in are neither right-wing shills nor Bernie Bros. Guys like Matt Blaze and Matthew Green and Chris Soghoian are not trying to take down Hillary Clinton. They just understand how cybersecurity works. If there's anyone even close to their level of expertise who opines that her server was likely more secure than State's unclassified server, much less their classified systems, I'll be very surprised.

Sincerely,
Richard Parker, Hillary Voter
  #382  
Old 06-20-2016, 09:26 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Your complaints are only mirrored by the Right Wing bubble of "news" outlets. I don't care who you vote for, you are spouting the same concerns from them and them alone and their record sucks when it comes to actually getting shit right, especially with regard to Hillary Clinton.

I have read enough articles that point out nothing will come from this - a lawyer probably knows a shit load more about that eventuality than any IT expert.

I do notice that you cannot take on the logic of his words; you denigrate him as not being an expert but don't even attempt to comment on what he said which I feel is compelling. At the end of the day, the gloves don't fit, so to speak.

Hillary will get a mild slap on the wrist, the Right Wing Bubble will vacillate between pointing fingers at her for that much and screaming it didn't go far enough, Donald Trump will be so embroiled in legitimate stupidity that he cannot credibly attack her over it and the rest of the country will collectively yawn.

It's not a thing. It won't be a thing.

Last edited by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear; 06-20-2016 at 09:26 PM.
  #383  
Old 06-20-2016, 09:33 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Your complaints are only mirrored by the Right Wing bubble of "news" outlets. I don't care who you vote for, you are spouting the same concerns from them and them alone and their record sucks when it comes to actually getting shit right, especially with regard to Hillary Clinton.
Nonsense. Is Wired a right-wing news outlet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I have read enough articles that point out nothing will come from this - a lawyer probably knows a shit load more about that eventuality than any IT expert.
You're conflating different issues: whether her server was secure and whether it was illegal. I share the opinion that she likely committed no crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I do notice that you cannot take on the logic of his words; you denigrate him as not being an expert but don't even attempt to comment on what he said which I feel is compelling. At the end of the day, the gloves don't fit, so to speak.
Actually, I addressed his arguments, such as they are, in my lengthy post above.
  #384  
Old 06-20-2016, 10:00 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Nonsense. Is Wired a right-wing news outlet?
Well, that was from last year and I did check and in the most recent articles they are talking about Trump being the one being indicted and Hillary making history as the first female president, with no mention of any indictment coming.

http://www.wired.com/tag/hillary-clinton/
  #385  
Old 06-20-2016, 10:02 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Once again, you're conflating two different questions: security and legality.

Are you seriously contending that no neutral or left-wing outlet has reported on the vulnerability in the server other than Wired? Or in 2016?
  #386  
Old 06-20-2016, 10:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Once again, you're conflating two different questions: security and legality.

Are you seriously contending that no neutral or left-wing outlet has reported on the vulnerability in the server other than Wired? Or in 2016?
Uh, I'm just saying that while that could be, the investigation is not over, so most of what was reported before was speculation. And remains so. The bottom line is that I have seen more recent reports that it is very unlikely that a recommendation for an indictment is coming and even Wired seems to not depend much in their early reporting.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-20-2016 at 10:26 PM.
  #387  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:12 AM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
If so, would you really be OK with the US SoS handling national security and state information like this? What if an enemy was able to learn something that cost you, your fellow servicemen, or any ally their lives?

Do you really think this doesn't matter? Is it all about Democrat vs. Republican?

I simply don't understand people who make this into an "R" vs. "D" debate. If this happened under Bush, I'd be just as adamant.

If national security issues are really just political footballs, then they really don't mean anything. To anyone. So just trash the security classification system altogether. It's an expensive charade.
Being alright with it and knowing that the government is in general barely competent and it does and will happen all the time are two completely different things. Why do you think there are still spies? If you believe it didn't happen under Bush you're seriously misinformed.

You can go round and round about it all you want. It has nothing to do with politics except when some gotcha-mongers think they have something else they can tar her name with.

Yep, the system isn't perfect, especially in the technological arms race between hackers and security. It serves a purpose, though. Between your option of having no info security at all and the system that exists, I'll take this one, thank you very much. The very fact that you suggest eliminating it indicates how little knowledge of the subject you have.
  #388  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:28 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,117
How would we vet someone who claims to be an expert in cyber security, specifically, hacker prevention? Seems to me, the only reliable expert would be a hacker himself, and how would he prove it? For all we know, the only hackers we do catch are the clumsy amateurs!

I suggest we regard with suspicion any claim to expertise. The guy who says Hillary's security is super-cool secure, and the guy who swears its moldy cheese might both be telling the truth, so far as they know. Its not that anybody's lying, its that everybody is guessing.
  #389  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:56 AM
sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,858
o
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So after having the "everyone with a security clearance agrees with me" gambit failed, you choose the "anyone who has an open mind agrees with me" gambit?

Weak.
I wear a security hat at work, I have deployed three firewalls in the past month or so, have been through the FISMA process because my company has federal contracts and deal with security breaches. I am not a security specialist, I don't know the app side well enough, but the network/infrastructure falls under my area of expertise.

What Clinton did id so mind bogglingly stupid that it is almost indescribable. When a smart person does something so absolutely stupid, over the advice of the professionals, one starts to question the reason for the choice. Considering that every single thing Clinton has said about the issue has been a lie, well, it starts looking rather bad.

Regarding Pagliano, the idiot had Dameware live on a public ip, had a known to be broken version of ssl and didn't update it, and didn't keep the server patched until, Ta Da!, the news server went public. He may be called an I.T. professional, however, if I ran my servers* that way I would be fired.

Slee

*Presently at roughly 600 prod servers on 22 ESX hosts and and another 100 servers or so for internal
stuff like file servers, email, etc. I also do all the networking (routing, switching internet, MPLS), storage, and ip phones.Oh, and core OS installs and DB configs for the dev type people, CentOS, Linux, MSSql, etc. Plus desktops, printers, scanners.....crap. I do a lot.
  #390  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:00 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
How would we vet someone who claims to be an expert in cyber security, specifically, hacker prevention? Seems to me, the only reliable expert would be a hacker himself, and how would he prove it? For all we know, the only hackers we do catch are the clumsy amateurs!

I suggest we regard with suspicion any claim to expertise. The guy who says Hillary's security is super-cool secure, and the guy who swears its moldy cheese might both be telling the truth, so far as they know. Its not that anybody's lying, its that everybody is guessing.
There is only one form of security that's nearly safe, and that's physical security, info being held on systems unconnected to any (or connected to a limited, highly local) network, with physical safeguards. Any system with access to a geographically large network (including and especially the internet) is vulnerable to hacking. Anyone trying to portray it any other way is selling you something. There's no such thing as 'super-cool secure.'

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-21-2016 at 01:01 PM.
  #391  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:13 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
o

I wear a security hat at work, I have deployed three firewalls in the past month or so, have been through the FISMA process because my company has federal contracts and deal with security breaches. I am not a security specialist, I don't know the app side well enough, but the network/infrastructure falls under my area of expertise.

What Clinton did id so mind bogglingly stupid that it is almost indescribable. When a smart person does something so absolutely stupid, over the advice of the professionals, one starts to question the reason for the choice.
Except you will not find me arguing that it was a smart decision, and even when we all agree it was not the right thing to do, it seems at this point that this bad use of email was not criminal, and it would seem odd to say that it's an important reason why Clinton should not be President. Normally the election hinges on things like foreign policy, economic policy, civil rights, budget reform.... not "can the President design her own IT policies correctly?"

Quote:
Considering that every single thing Clinton has said about the issue has been a lie, well, it starts looking rather bad.
So I cannot find any statements Clinton has made about the email that are truthful? Wanna bet?
  #392  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
We would hope that a President would follow expert advice in an area where she is abundantly ignorant. But that's what she didn't do in this case, for one or two reasons. Least damaging out of pure personal convenience and more damaging for secrecy. Those are legitimate concerns against a Presidential candidate even if it doesn't make her worse than Trump.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-21-2016 at 01:41 PM.
  #393  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:43 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
And there you've said the magic phrase. Trump is any number of trainwrecks waiting to happen. There's only one other electable candidate.

Given the choice between someone who screwed up (and don't even start on the indictment line until there is one) and an ignoramus, give me the former every time.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-21-2016 at 01:46 PM.
  #394  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:57 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
It is remarkable how many posters can only view this issue through a narrow lense of partisan point-scoring, responding to this thread as if Sean Hannity wrote it. I knew that would describe some responses, but I am mildly shocked at how widespread that sentiment is. It is bad news for our political health.
  #395  
Old 06-21-2016, 01:57 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
We would hope that a President would follow expert advice in an area where she is abundantly ignorant. But that's what she didn't do in this case, for one or two reasons. Least damaging out of pure personal convenience and more damaging for secrecy. Those are legitimate concerns against a Presidential candidate even if it doesn't make her worse than Trump.
I would hope for the sake of our country that you occupy more time wondering whether she did the right thing on resetting relations with Russia, fighting AIDS in Africa, or dealing with the Israel/Palestine situation than you spend worrying about her email server.

At least for those issues you can say that there are actual consequences to her decisions on those issues, as opposed to "If she can't be trusted with IT, I can't trust her to run the country."
  #396  
Old 06-21-2016, 02:13 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
It is remarkable how many posters can only view this issue through a narrow lense of partisan point-scoring, responding to this thread as if Sean Hannity wrote it. I knew that would describe some responses, but I am mildly shocked at how widespread that sentiment is. It is bad news for our political health.
Is my 'partisan point-scoring response' wrong? Are you going to vote for Trump because of Clinton's 'egregious' mistake?
  #397  
Old 06-21-2016, 02:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
At least for those issues you can say that there are actual consequences to her decisions on those issues, as opposed to "If she can't be trusted with IT, I can't trust her to run the country."
There's just not enough roll eyes to answer this. My point was crystal clear: she ignored expert advice on a subject she was ignorant of for purely personal reasons. In no damn way did I say her knowledge of IT was a prerequisite for the Presidency. I have been pretty clear that doesn't make her worse than Trump. You are so clearly distorting the discussion that I can see no reason whatsoever to continue.
  #398  
Old 06-21-2016, 02:33 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
It is remarkable how many posters can only view this issue through a narrow lense of partisan point-scoring, responding to this thread as if Sean Hannity wrote it. I knew that would describe some responses, but I am mildly shocked at how widespread that sentiment is. It is bad news for our political health.
As a Hillary supporter, even more importantly as an Obama and ACA supporter, I have absolutely no idea why this email issue should be worth more to me than the continued survival and expansion of the ACA, than the importance of keeping Trump (or any R) out of the White House, than the importance of having a solidly-progressive Supreme Court.

This thread, despite the tens of thousands of words expended, has not made that case. "Old Lady with power is bad at computer security" is far, far, far less important to me than keeping "you can still get quality health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition" a rock-solid cornerstone of health insurance provisions.

So it is not "bad news", it is merely a weighing of priorities and long-term objectives for many of us, with those conclusions not matching your own.

Last edited by JohnT; 06-21-2016 at 02:34 PM.
  #399  
Old 06-21-2016, 02:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
As a Hillary supporter, even more importantly as an Obama and ACA supporter, I have absolutely no idea why this email issue should be worth more to me than the continued survival and expansion of the ACA, than the importance of keeping Trump (or any R) out of the White House, than the importance of having a solidly-progressive Supreme Court.

This thread, despite the tens of thousands of words expended, has not made that case. "Old Lady with power is bad at computer security" is far, far, far less important to me than keeping "you can still get quality health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition" a rock-solid cornerstone of health insurance provisions.

So it is not "bad news", it is merely a weighing of priorities and long-term objectives for many of us, with those conclusions not matching your own.
Perfect response. Lol. Forget it, Richard Parker. It's Dopertown.
  #400  
Old 06-21-2016, 02:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are so clearly distorting the discussion that I can see no reason whatsoever to continue.
I've asked the "so what?" question several times. And the most anyone can muster is, "B-b-b-but she didn't listen to her IT people!"

And so I have to ask again: is that all this is about? The Benghazi Committee has been ongoing for two years and $7 million, and the upshot is that she should have abided by the advice of the State Department Geek Squad? Well, no shit. I think anyone could have said that on day one.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017