Per the article:
So…yeah.
So…yeah.
[/QUOTE]
I took a look at the Platte River Networks page a day or two ago. On their projects page (Ohhh, look at all the shiny stuff we did! Hire US!) they list a project where they got an office from 100 servers to 50 servers! Boy howdy, that is a big project!
Or not*.
The company appears to be a small company that handled small installations. Now, they might be super duper. However, I suspect that they aren’t all that great compared to say Google when it comes to actually securing servers or removing data.
On the ‘wiped server’ aspect. There are a couple different ways to delete stuff off of a server. You can delete from the OS, or you can run a utility which overwrites the disk multiple times.
The problem with deleting from the OS is that the OS actually doesn’t delete anything other than a pointer. If you delete a file in Windows, the actual data stays on the disk. The OS removes the pointer for the file and marks the sectors of the disk as writable. It does not actually change anything on the disk where the files are written.
This is why, if you accidentally delete something, it can be recovered. If you delete something and do nothing to the machine it is trivial to recover the file. I have done this quite often**.
If you delete something and there is disk write activity it can cause problems getting a full recovery. Say you delete file A. Later you save file B. Since the sections of the hard drive that hold file A are now listed as writable, it is possible that when file B is written to the drive, the file will land on one of the sections that used to hold file A. If it does, that section of file A will be jacked up though there are tools that are supposed to be able to recover at least some of the data.
However, if file B is written to the disk in a different section, then file A still exists. You just can’t see it. Note, deleting files really doesn’t protect you in any measurable way.
If, as I suspect, the chain of events was something along the lines of a) story breaks b) Clinton calls and says delete stuff c) people delete stuff and shut off the server, well, then pretty much all the data will be retrievable. Note, I don’t remember enough about the chain of events leading up to this little debacle to place when the server was removed.
However, I suspect that the FBI is going to get a ton of data. Unless, that is, that Clinton had file deletion tools run on the server. Basically, the tools rewrite the hard drive with 1’s and 0’s multiple times to make recovering data hard. If a disk deletion tool was run it will get out and it will look very, very bad.
Slee
- I have worked on small systems, less than 200 servers, up to 50,000 server systems. Presently I am an admin and we have roughly 800 servers in total, though that is a guess. Our prod/QA environment is 600 or so.
** My ‘OH Shit’ USB drive has a couple utilities for recovering files. I just tell whomever deleted the files to leave the PC as it is, to not do anything until I show up.
This. Her supporters (and I’m speaking in general here, not against Elvis personally, but based on the hystrionics I’m seeing all over the place) are freaking out that she is going to lose … again. They really and truly thought that it was “her turn” and everyone would happily climb on her bandwagon this time. They did not see Bernie Sanders coming. They did not anticipate the overwhelming dislike for her from within their own ranks. They failed History 101. And now they want to blame us if she becomes the nominee by whatever machinations necessary, if one of your guys wins in the General Election because we refuse to compromise our principles. No personal responsibility for Hillary for failing to drum up enough support on her own to win. It’s always somebody else’s fault.
#FeelTheBern
Freaking out?
I’d rather have Sanders than Hillary because when the Repubs (who, Trump aside, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for) lose*, I’d rather have an honest, fairly sane, leftie in charge than some sleazebag grifter like Hillary who thinks that appropriate proper oversight is
[QUOTE=Hillary]
‘My personal e-mails are my personal business, right?. <snip> We went through a painstaking process and turned over 50,000 pages of anything we thought could be work related. Under the law that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions.’
[/quote]
Heh–I wonder if upper management of the IRS gets to audit their own tax returns. Or if a judge can rule in a trial where she’s a litigant? Hey–could Nixon have used that defense? “It was my own personal audio tapes. Under the law, the decision on what to cut was made by “the” official. I was that official. I made those decisions.”
Again, she’s either stupid or crooked (or both) if she believes that appropriate oversight for deciding which documents to delete from a server that was used for government business should rest in the hands of the person who’s emails are being examined.
*And while I kinda like a few of the candidates (NOT TRUMP), I’ve got no illusions. There are no stars in my party running. A few interesting candidates (and one frothing at the mouth loon (Trump)) but that’s about it.
And there’s the standard Clinton line. “There’s nothing wrong with anything I do as long as it’s legal”.
It’s not about the legality, it’s about her judgment. And this incident is just another case where her judgment has been lacking.
Moriarty, a few times in this thread you’ve walked a fine line in insulting other posters. This is one of them. You can not attack the poster for any reason.
ALL OF YOU: No more. Next one, even a mild one, earns a warning.
And the article is from the Daily Mail. Who interviewed somebody who worked at the company from 2007 and 2010. When the company’s lawyer says that the company provided its service in mid-2013 (after her term as SOS ended).
It’s a matter of credibility. I gave a cite that references an AP investigation
You gave a throwaway line by a tabloid.
If it helps, I can give you another cite: The National Review
Or another, from the Washington Post.
Or Reuters.
You really have to sympathize with Hillary’s spokeswoman:
Blitzer: “On that point,why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”
Palmieri: “She decided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when she was secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer.”
Are you happy to finally have some company, adaher?
<snip>
*And while I kinda like a few of the candidates (NOT TRUMP), I’ve got no illusions. There are no stars in my party running. A few interesting candidates (and one frothing at the mouth loon (Trump)) but that’s about it.
[/QUOTE]
You really ought to take a closer look at Sanders. He’s way more mainstream than he’s being made out to be. And his proposals are actually more fiscally conservative and responsible than any of his competitors. Check out what some of your fellows have to say.
Pardon me while I laugh myself into a loss of bladder control at your cite.
No, not right.
First off, the Progressive Change Institute? :dubious:
Second, all of the questions seem to have skipped over the minor detail of “how are we going to pay for this?” If Bernie responds “we will just raise taxes on the rich”, we will know at once that he is either lying, or clinically insane, or bad at arithmetic.
It isn’t possible to do these things without massively increasing taxes on the middle class. Massively. So if Bernie wants to sit in the Oval Office, he is going to have to pretend that this isn’t so, in which case he will lose badly, or say “Yup! And you will be happy when we do it, because we broke up the banks and besides, you didn’t need to buy shoes anyway!”
I have said it before - if this schtick was unanswerable, Democrats would be elected all the time. But they aren’t.
Your CommonDreams article is like the SDMB - a huge dollop of wishful thinking, frosted with rationalization and served with a side order of “those dummies will fall for it this time too”.
Regards,
Shodan
CommonDreams is still around? Who knew?
With such a low opinion on the board, why do you stick around? Not that I’m asking you to leave – I’m glad you’re here, I think you contribute to the board, and I have no wish for you to leave. But for such a long time member, I’m surprised by this sort of contempt.
Sanders and Biden closing in the polls, and Hillary’s favorability is dropping like a rock.
Purely as a politician, she and her campaign have handled this whole situation POORLY. Instead of getting it all out there, taking the hit and letting pass on several months ago, they’ve dismissed, minimized, defended, etc. and it keeps hanging around…even in the mainstream press. Worst possible outcome and treatment of the situation.
Oh?
WARNING: autoplaying video with ad above news article
Subsequent polling has shown CNN to be wrong. CNN’s polls have been friendlier to Clinton than any other pollster, by far.
I think you are missing that many polls are keeping the race closer than it is by adding Biden in the polling, other polls do show that once Biden is removed (Why is this not done with republicans? Oh well, it could be because all of them are running 
) then Hillary does get a lot of the support that would go to Biden.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
Frankly I’m not so surprised that the mainstream media is adding Biden into the polls even if he is not likely to run, anything to keep up the narrative of a horse race.
Hillary’s “trouble” is a media creation. This is that Hillary knows how to handle the media. In the current GOP field, only The Donald can.
And Kevin Drum takes that pile of crap down here.
The rest of your post is “Hillary isn’t handling this imaginary scandal as well as she should.” I don’t think there IS a way for her to handle it that would appease the Clinton-haters in the press. If she had the ability to release a recording of every moment of her life from birth to now, and did so, they’d say that the recording “raises more questions than it answers” or some such.