RE: Romanian hacker Guccifer just handed the nomination to Senator Sanders?
May 6, 2016 at 7:04 pm
What I have been seeing in the news is an "anonymous source" saying that the FBI won't recommend an indictment.
[url=What I have been seeing in the news is an "anonymous source" saying that the FBI won't recommend an indictment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...nt-matter/[/url]
Personally, I find this a huge deal. Not necessarily the legality of it all, but the fact that she owns her own server. There's only a few reasons I see for why she could do this:
1. She did not want to be under the oversight regulations within the government, opting instead to take control of her own records.
2. She does not understand even the basics of internet security.
3. (Her reason) Convenience
I'm highly skeptical of her reason for keeping the server (3); convenience seems like a reason to just use the government email address since setting up a secure server in your basement sounds like a huge hassle, particularly for a high profile target. The first reason, (1), is a pretty alarming thing, I'm going to assume I don't need to explain why.
Where I think the biggest problem is, is with (2). The poor security of her home server appears to be universally accepted. She was using an old, low level system with less security than your run-of-the-mill free webmail service. This is not a small mistake in my mind; she took the matter of security into her own hands and not only failed to create (pay for) a secure system, she set up a system so useless from a security standpoint that it's security is lower than my spam account. On this point: it is impossible for a home server (like the one she used) to have the same level of security as a government or large corporation server.
Hillary needs to understand this. I am not convinced that she understands anything about computers or cybersecurity because she chose to set up a system that made her far more vulnerable than she would have been had she followed the government recommendations/regulations.
The final point I would like to make is on her response to all of this: it has been terrible. She has refused to take any responsibility and has been banking on the low intelligence of the voters. She tried to say she never sent anything classified and we found that this wasn't anywhere near the truth. Then she tried to say they weren't marked classified, then she backtracked further and said they weren't marked classified at the time. The problem? It doesn't matter whether things were marked. Certain types of information are "born classified", and you have to know that something important is going to pass through your email if you are holding a high position in the government.
[url=What I have been seeing in the news is an "anonymous source" saying that the FBI won't recommend an indictment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...nt-matter/[/url]
Personally, I find this a huge deal. Not necessarily the legality of it all, but the fact that she owns her own server. There's only a few reasons I see for why she could do this:
1. She did not want to be under the oversight regulations within the government, opting instead to take control of her own records.
2. She does not understand even the basics of internet security.
3. (Her reason) Convenience
I'm highly skeptical of her reason for keeping the server (3); convenience seems like a reason to just use the government email address since setting up a secure server in your basement sounds like a huge hassle, particularly for a high profile target. The first reason, (1), is a pretty alarming thing, I'm going to assume I don't need to explain why.
Where I think the biggest problem is, is with (2). The poor security of her home server appears to be universally accepted. She was using an old, low level system with less security than your run-of-the-mill free webmail service. This is not a small mistake in my mind; she took the matter of security into her own hands and not only failed to create (pay for) a secure system, she set up a system so useless from a security standpoint that it's security is lower than my spam account. On this point: it is impossible for a home server (like the one she used) to have the same level of security as a government or large corporation server.
Hillary needs to understand this. I am not convinced that she understands anything about computers or cybersecurity because she chose to set up a system that made her far more vulnerable than she would have been had she followed the government recommendations/regulations.
The final point I would like to make is on her response to all of this: it has been terrible. She has refused to take any responsibility and has been banking on the low intelligence of the voters. She tried to say she never sent anything classified and we found that this wasn't anywhere near the truth. Then she tried to say they weren't marked classified, then she backtracked further and said they weren't marked classified at the time. The problem? It doesn't matter whether things were marked. Certain types of information are "born classified", and you have to know that something important is going to pass through your email if you are holding a high position in the government.
Meandering Atheist: Several friends on a journey of romance and adventure, to talk about moderately interesting topics.
