(May 19, 2016 at 11:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: It's the attitude that really annoys me. Security is important, nowadays more than ever.

You of all people should know that there is no absolute security. The foreign powers curious for any politician spilling the beans, have their methods. Snowden should have taught us that much. And it's not only the NSA. I'm sure it's GCHQ and the BND also. In the opposite direction as well as supporting the efforts of the NSA.

(May 19, 2016 at 8:09 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think...and I'm just spitballing here, he's actually trying to shed light on bigotry and bias as he sees it, lol.  Often, it's hidden behind a smiling face, or pleasant sounding intentions.  Genteel Asshattery, not unlike what many of us might have experienced if we grew up in the deep south.  It's only when someone says -exactly- what we're thinking (we, as in..the aggregate) without flinching or attempting to disguise it or showing deference to the conventions of what you do or don't say (often formed by and for the benefit of those very bigots themselves)..that we even realize it's there.

Call me an optimist.  

-and if I'm wrong about all of that..at least it's a pleasant fiction that you can console yourself with whenever you see his posts.......

The thought has occurred to me that his posting is partly or even entirely satire.

(May 19, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote: With that in mind, I again stand by my statement, that the evidence has already shown that Clinton is guilty of the most irresponsible handling of government data in history. Guilty in the sense that she did it, not in the legal sense.

She's irresponsible when it comes to technology and security in my eyes. Whether that irresponsibility had some criminal undertone is yet to be determined, but for me, the facts we have are enough to dissuade me from voting for her.

Forgive my impertinence, but if I'm reading you right, she's guilty of being stupid about handling sensitive business in an insensitive manner -- i.e., lacking common sense?

If the documents were not classified when they were sent or received, then it's difficult to see how she would be culpable.  If documents, retroactively classified by the government, are floating around somewhere without her knowledge and not under her direct control...she's not the governments paper chaser.  I wouldn't surprise me to find that I had retroactively classified maps in my dresser drawer -right now-...but it would surprise me to find that someone described my storage of those maps as irresponsible...since I'm neither responsible for their classification, have knowledge of their classification, or have been tasked with the security of retroactively classified documents to which I'm not aware.  

The evidence we have shows that they tried to set up a secure call and it failed.  It's not much of a stretch to assume that she had other things to do that day, and other..non-classified things to talk on the phone about.  I think you've made a leap, here, is all. It's certainly enough to investigate, but if it were solid evidence of the accusation made, we'd have already seen the charges.

You mean FBI Director Comey...a GW Bush admin official...and politically appointed public servant?  

As to reasons not to vote for her that preceded this newest scandal......how much time you got buddy? 

(May 19, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Forgive my impertinence, but if I'm reading you right, she's guilty of being stupid about handling sensitive business in an insensitive manner -- i.e., lacking common sense?

If you want to label it as lacking common sense, then sure. However I would go slightly further than that. When you are given security clearance and are going to handle sensitive information, you usually have to read and sign a document stating that you understand the procedures in place, and the importance of handling sensitive data properly. So at the very least, she knew what the procedures were (assuming she actually read the document) and skirted around some of them.

(May 19, 2016 at 3:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If the documents were not classified when they were sent or received, then it's difficult to see how she would be culpable.  If documents, retroactively classified by the government, are floating around somewhere without her knowledge and not under her direct control...she's not the governments paper chaser.  I wouldn't surprise me to find that I had retroactively classified maps in my dresser drawer -right now-...but it would surprise me to find that someone described my storage of those maps as irresponsible...since I'm neither responsible for their classification, have knowledge of their classification, or have been tasked with the security of retroactively classified documents to which I'm not aware.

Again, I agree she's likely not guilty of any crime concerning those documents. However, she is ultimately responsible (though not legally) if those documents end up in the hands of foreign governments, as they may have done. I believe I gave an example in another thread or earlier in this one, of how a document sent via her unsecured (i.e. no encryption) server whilst she was in China could have been picked up by the Chinese. That document wasn't classified at the time, but it now is. The end result is that the Chinese government now have a classified document. The reason why is because Clinton set up an insecure server rather than using the secure email she should have been using.

No crime committed, but it's not particularly responsible behavior for someone running for President.

Quote:The evidence we have shows that they tried to set up a secure call and it failed.  It's not much of a stretch to assume that she had other things to do that day, and other..non-classified things to talk on the phone about.  I think you've made a leap, here, is all. It's certainly enough to investigate, but if it were solid evidence of the accusation made, we'd have already seen the charges.

Either way we are both speculating. You think that she may have given up on the call entirely, or decided to talk about non-sensitive things. I think that the fact she asked the aide to call her insecurely shows that she intended to have the call, and may have actually gone through with it. I find it a bit of a stretch to assume that a person who spent an hour trying to make a secure call and ultimately decides on having it insecurely would change the topic of the call.

I never stated anything factually. I'm speculating and thought I made that clear. Neither of us have the facts surrounding the actual call itself, but there's no reason not to speculate given the evidence we do have.

Quote:You mean FBI Director Comey...a GW Bush admin official...and politically appointed public servant?  

Yes, and who appointed him really shouldn't matter. I trust Comey to know what he's talking about when it comes to the FBI than Clinton, that's what I'm saying. The FBI investigate crimes, they don't review the security of politician's private servers. The investigation is a criminal one, to see if the server was used to commit crimes. Clinton is the one doing the whitewashing.

Quote:As to reasons not to vote for her that preceded this newest scandal......how much time you got buddy? 

Oh I'm well aware of all the reasons not to vote for her. This one is the strongest for me, probably because of my background in cyber security.

(May 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Again, I agree she's likely not guilty of any crime concerning those documents. However, she is ultimately responsible (though not legally) if those documents end up in the hands of foreign governments, as they may have done. I believe I gave an example in another thread or earlier in this one, of how a document sent via her unsecured (i.e. no encryption) server whilst she was in China could have been picked up by the Chinese. That document wasn't classified at the time, but it now is. The end result is that the Chinese government now have a classified document. The reason why is because Clinton set up an insecure server rather than using the secure email she should have been using.

No crime committed, but it's not particularly responsible behavior for someone running for President.

It's not particularly irresponsible behavior either.  You -have- seen the people who have run, and won, the presidency...right?

Quote:Either way we are both speculating. You think that she may have given up on the call entirely, or decided to talk about non-sensitive things. I think that the fact she asked the aide to call her insecurely shows that she intended to have the call, and may have actually gone through with it. I find it a bit of a stretch to assume that a person who spent an hour trying to make a secure call and ultimately decides on having it insecurely would change the topic of the call.

I never stated anything factually. I'm speculating and thought I made that clear. Neither of us have the facts surrounding the actual call itself, but there's no reason not to speculate given the evidence we do have.

Speculate away.

Quote:Yes, and who appointed him really shouldn't matter. I trust Comey to know what he's talking about when it comes to the FBI than Clinton, that's what I'm saying. The FBI investigate crimes, they don't review the security of politician's private servers. The investigation is a criminal one, to see if the server was used to commit crimes. Clinton is the one doing the whitewashing.

It shouldn't, should it....and yet.  She trivialized his office, and the actions of his office, agreed.  Pretty much par for the course, that;s how she;s weathered -every- accusation thrown at her - or her husband.  Personally, I don't trust the director of the FBI in the least, the entire organization has worked hard to earn the distrust of the american people almost since it's inception....but that's just additional and unrelated info.   

Quote:Oh I'm well aware of all the reasons not to vote for her. This one is the strongest for me, probably because of my background in cyber security.

I understand.