In addition to the server, Hilary "abandoned secure line to use home phone"

[abaris]

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.

[Tiberius]

But how can you vote for Trump when he hasn't released his taxes?  For that matter, how can anyone vote for someone who will not disclose any policy stance?

I know releasing tax returns is something candidates do as a sort of tradition, but there's no requirement. In addition, I thought the reason Trump wasn't releasing his tax returns was due to him being audited and his lawyers advising him not to release them whilst that was happening.

It's a good thing her opponent is still Donald Fucking Drumpf.  If the Republicans were really so worried about the EMAIL scandal, then they'd have nominated someone electable and more moderate instead of the fuckheads they put up.  Drumpf is a piece of shit xenophobe who wants to ban muslims from the country (unconstitutional), wants to punish women for abortions (he went back on it, but the fact that he said it makes him fucking crazy), wants to nominate a supreme court justice who thinks it's perfectly okay to punish people for having gay sex in their own home, doesn't have a goddamn clue about how to run the country, and the only thing he's running on is building a goddamn wall that he claims Mexico will pay for (even though that's not going to happen, and even if it did it wouldn't do any fucking good because apparently despite working in real estate development he doesn't understand that there are these things called ladders and ways to dig under said wall)

Right, but when you have a choice between Trump and Clinton, a lot of independents aren't going to vote, or they will vote third party. So the question is, which candidate will lose more independent support, Trump or Clinton, because that's who will lose the election.

Do we know -anything- about it?  No.  You consistently frame the questions to imply guilt, and even go so far as to say you would consider her guilty -of something-  if she was found not to have done anything illegal.

Well, we do know some things, that's the point. Her emails have been released, details of her server setup were revealed, etc. I'm not trying to frame my questions to imply guilt, I'm trying to have a discussion about whether the content of the phone calls matters. As I said, to some degree yes, and to some degree no. I'm not saying she definitely talked about sensitive information, but I'm pointing out what I interpret as evidence that she may have.

Also, I don't think I've ever said I would consider her guilty if she was found not to have done anything illegal. I've maintained that the laws are complex, and she may be found not-guilty on a technicality (that is, what she did was technically not illegal, even if it looks to the general public to be illegal).

What I have said, and what I stand by, is my statement that even if found not-guilty, she is most certainly guilty (in a non-legal sense) of the most irresponsible handling of government data in history.

-and since we don;t know whether or not the subsequent call ever occurred....or what was spoken about if it did, or whether procedure was followed in response to the tech failure in that call that may have never taken place........

True, but her emails suggest it did take place, considering that she asked her aide to call her. Without access to phone records we can't say for sure, but I'm commenting on the evidence at hand. I'm not stating that the call took place, or that she said anything sensitive on an unsecured line. I'm going by what evidence we have, that she tried for an hour to set up a call on a secure line, and then gave up and asked her aide to call her on an insecure line.

If the rules say that you can call on an insecure line to discuss non-sensitive information, then I wouldn't expect Clinton to try for an hour to set up a secure call if the discussion she wanted to have was about non-sensitive information. Thus, in my view, the call was supposed to be about sensitive information. If the call happened and sensitive information was discussed, that's a huge deal.

The attitude that you've manufactured, whole cloth..out of very literally nothing? Even the story we -do- have reports that she suggested steps be taken to protect sensitive data. Here's a "for all we know" for ya. An aide leans in and says, "I'm sorry, Mrs Clinton, we can't do that".

I'm not much of a fan of Hillary either, but this is an election cycle, and this was dug up by a group trying to make sure she wouldn't win. It is -very- common to try and bury a candidate in controversy. The truth of the accusations are almost entirely immaterial. She hasn't been indicted, and even if indicted, she will need to be convicted...otherwise all of this is hot air.

No, the attitude that we have evidence for. I'm talking about her general attitude to security and technology, not just in regards to this call. The attitude that caused her to set up a private server rather than use her government email address. The attitude that caused her to tell aides to strip headings from a fax and send it insecurely (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...x-by-email). The attitude she had when questioned about whether she had ordered to server the be wiped (to which she responded: "with a cloth or something?").

This isn't a manufactured attitude, this is an attitude that is actually well documented in the emails that have been released, and her public comments on the issue. The fact for instance, that for months she has tried to play down the FBI investigation as a "security review", which ultimately got the FBI director to confirm that yes, it's an actual investigation.

So again, I'm not stating she's guilty of any actual crime. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what kind of evidence they need for an indictment or a conviction. However, what I comment on with some degree of experience, is security issues and handling of sensitive data. 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.

[Tiberius]

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.

Practically, there is no such thing as absolutely security. Theoretically, there most certainly is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

In most cases, even with sensitive documents, we don't need absolutely security though, we need good security. Clinton's server was scanned in 2012 as part of an "Internet census" that a security researcher performed. The server had a vulnerable instance of RDP, and for 3 months did not have an SSL certificate installed, meaning email communication was entirely unencrypted.

Thanks to Snowden, we know that the NSA have abilities that we didn't know about before, but we also know they are not all-powerful. As far as we know, with a decent TLS configuration, the NSA would not be able to decrypt the communications.

So yes, there's no such thing as absolute security, but nobody is asking for that. The government have teams which know how to secure systems so that they are practically unbreakable. Clinton's server, lacking such oversight, was not at all secure.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we do know some things, that's the point. Her emails have been released, details of her server setup were revealed, etc. I'm not trying to frame my questions to imply guilt, I'm trying to have a discussion about whether the content of the phone calls matters. As I said, to some degree yes, and to some degree no. I'm not saying she definitely talked about sensitive information, but I'm pointing out what I interpret as evidence that she may have.

I can appreciate that you may not intend to do so, nevertheless..many of your comments depend upon the assumption of guilt.  

Also, I don't think I've ever said I would consider her guilty if she was found not to have done anything illegal. I've maintained that the laws are complex, and she may be found not-guilty on a technicality (that is, what she did was technically not illegal, even if it looks to the general public to be illegal).

:looks below:

What I have said, and what I stand by, is my statement that even if found not-guilty, she is most certainly guilty (in a non-legal sense) of the most irresponsible handling of government data in history.

Right...so even if we can't prove that she mishandled anything at all.......and that if can only happen after she's been charged in the first place......

True, but her emails suggest it did take place, considering that she asked her aide to call her. Without access to phone records we can't say for sure, but I'm commenting on the evidence at hand. I'm not stating that the call took place, or that she said anything sensitive on an unsecured line. I'm going by what evidence we have, that she tried for an hour to set up a call on a secure line, and then gave up and asked her aide to call her on an insecure line.

Because an email in which I proposition someone, is evidence that they accepted that proposition? IDK, I;d be surprised to find that no one in her camp would have cautioned against it.

If the rules say that you can call on an insecure line to discuss non-sensitive information, then I wouldn't expect Clinton to try for an hour to set up a secure call if the discussion she wanted to have was about non-sensitive information. Thus, in my view, the call was supposed to be about sensitive information. If the call happened and sensitive information was discussed, that's a huge deal.

If, if, if. 

No, the attitude that we have evidence for. I'm talking about her general attitude to security and technology, not just in regards to this call. The attitude that caused her to set up a private server rather than use her government email address. The attitude that caused her to tell aides to strip headings from a fax and send it insecurely (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...x-by-email). The attitude she had when questioned about whether she had ordered to server the be wiped (to which she responded: "with a cloth or something?").

You and I might be working with different definitions for an attitude.  Her response would imply incomprehension to me.  I know...I know, how clueless can an elderly woman be...about computers and the terms we use to describe an action?  

This isn't a manufactured attitude, this is an attitude that is actually well documented in the emails that have been released, and her public comments on the issue. The fact for instance, that for months she has tried to play down the FBI investigation as a "security review", which ultimately got the FBI director to confirm that yes, it's an actual investigation.

A security review -is- an investigation.  Perhaps she's just an optimist, or perhaps she's a politician whose survived countless scandals tossed at her due in no small part to her reactions to those scandals.  

So again, I'm not stating she's guilty of any actual crime. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what kind of evidence they need for an indictment or a conviction. However, what I comment on with some degree of experience, is security issues and handling of sensitive data. 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.

Did........what?  Had an attitude?  Didn't describe what was going on between her and the FBI with a properly ominous term?  What government data did she handle irresponsibly...and what evidence do you have -of that- not available to the rest of us?

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.

Surely you had many better reasons not to vote for her before this came out? Meh. In the end, as we both agree..either she did something illegal or she didn't...but there's been too much crying wolf around her of late - and this little gem comes from the same folks who tried to bury her before. Every election cycle we get treated to this sort of thing, and maybe I'm just too cynical...but I watch people get worked up about these scandals, and I see that they influence the polls and our votes, and 9/10 times they're just hack jobs- the remaining 1 they have a kernel of truth enough to ruin a career but not enough to secure a conviction. I can understand that from your point of view, she seems to have mishandled data by virtue of her server, for example, but you don't get to determine what mishandling means, in context. What does, are those technicalities you've commented on so fondly. Personally, I think she's dirty as shit and slimier than a frog...I just think you're being too hasty in swallowing this one whole. It would be an almost inexplicable mistake for a career politician with her history...not the call, mind you, it ever seeing the light of day.

[Tiberius]

I can appreciate that you may not intend to do so, nevertheless..many of your comments depend upon the assumption of guilt.  

Which ones? I think there's some confusion over the word "guilt" here. Guilt has a legitimate non-legal definition, and a legal definition. When I'm using it, I'm using the non-legal definition of the word. She can't be guilty of a crime that she hasn't been charged with yet.

Right...so even if she didn't mishandle anything at all.......

That's not what I'm saying. She has already mishandled data, and the evidence is clear. Thousands of emails on her server were classified. Now, they may not have been classified when they were sent / received, however there are requirements for storing classified data, and we do know that her server sent backups of emails to a private data storage company. So, at some point, classified documents were being transmitted and stored on a server which was out of Clinton's control. That's mishandling. It might not be illegal for technical reasons (i.e. Clinton may not have known about the backup process, etc.) but the facts remain, that she was the one who ordered the server to be built, rather than using the systems that the government provided, so the buck stops with her.

Because an email in which I proposition someone, is evidence that they accepted that proposition?

Again, accepting the proposition isn't the thing here, it's the attitude that Clinton thought that a solution for not being able to set up a secure call was to use an insecure one. That's *fine* if the call is allowed to be insecure, but not if the call is supposed to be secure. As I said before, from the evidence we have, it looks like the call was supposed to be secure. The suggestion that it be made insecurely demonstrates her relaxed attitude to security.

If, if, if. 

Yes, if. I think I've made it clear I'm not saying that she is guilty of any crime. I was answering the question posed, which was whether or not the contents of the call mattered.

You and I might be working with different definitions for an attitude.  Her response would imply incomprehension to me.  I know...I know, how clueless can an elderly woman be...about computers and the terms we use to describe an action?  

Considering she seems to be able to use smart phones, arrange for a private email server to be set up, and was probably briefed at length on the server issues and possible questions she would be facing, I don't think I'm far from the truth when I say that her comment was less about incomprehension and more about trying to make a joke out of a serious issue. I could be wrong though.

A security review -is- an investigation.  Perhaps she's just an optimist, or perhaps she's a politician.  

That's not how the FBI director saw it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-direc...d=39048269

Did........what?  Had an attitude?  Didn't describe what was going on between her and the FBI with a properly ominous term?  

No. Read my quote again. I said "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."

The irresponsible handling of government data is what she did.

Surely you had many better reasons not to vote for her before this came out?

Before it came out? No, not really. It's that and everything that came after.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

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? 

[Tiberius]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

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.

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.   

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.