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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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?”
So I cannot find any statements Clinton has made about the email that are truthful? Wanna bet?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.