Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#102 Jul 12 2016 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent.
Beyond that, if we're being honest, nobody really cares if someone lies to them anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#103 Jul 12 2016 at 10:55 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.

My understanding is that classified documents are supposed to be marked across the header as classified and then, within the body of text, symbols are used to denote the sensitive material. The emails Comey found were marked with a (c) within the document but lacked the headers designed to let you know at a glance that the document was classified.
This. Each document must be marked at the top and bottom of each page. The cover page should be annotated with the highest classification marking within. So, if one sentence of 10,000 sentences is marked Secret, then the entire document is to be marked Secret. When you email that document, not only is the email marked with the classification, so is the subject line. When you open the email, it should have the same header/footer of the classification. It's not the role of the recipient to read everything to determine the classification of the document. That's what the markings are for.

TLW wrote:
So, uh, just thousands and thousands of pages of super sloppy state dept. paperwork?

This really isn't making it better...
It does if you're arguing that this is an ongoing procedural issue as opposed to a singular person intentionally doing something wrong, the way it has been portrayed.
#104 Jul 12 2016 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
This really isn't making it better...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#105 Jul 12 2016 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#106 Jul 12 2016 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run?
Welcome to government bureaucracy.

Pretty much why I scoff at the idea of Big Brother. It requires the government doing something, whereas the current trend for the past hundred or so years is complaining about how things should happen, blaming each other, and not actually doing anything. Also: "Dere gon take our gunz!" and anything involving "oppressive government."

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 1:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Jul 12 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Governments around the world have proved that it's way easier to be oppressive than competent, and that competence is not a requirement for oppression.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#108 Jul 12 2016 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Dunno, I'm assuming she should have done something if she received a message that was improperly marked? And then that wasn't done? That's bad right? Obviously the buck stops at the top, of course, but it's not like one person can fix a broken culture all on their own. Maybe that should have been a higher priority though?

Bleh.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#109 Jul 12 2016 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run?
Welcome to government bureaucracy.

Pretty much why I scoff at the idea of Big Brother. It requires the government doing something, whereas the current trend for the past hundred or so years is complaining about how things should happen, blaming each other, and not actually doing anything. Also: "Dere gon take our gunz!" and anything involving "oppressive government."
If nothing else I just assume you didn't get 48,000 posts by being part of something operating at peak efficiency.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 11:52am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#110 Jul 12 2016 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Governments around the world have proved that it's way easier to be oppressive than competent, and that competence is not a requirement for oppression.
How many of them involved a tangled two party democracy that does everything in their individual power to hinder the other prior to becoming oppressive?
someproteinguy wrote:
If nothing else I just assume you didn't get 48,000 posts by being part of something operating at peak efficiency.
Or I'm so efficient that it gives me time to get 48,000 posts.

Probably not. Can't sell a couch if no one is buying a couch, yannow?

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 3:18pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Jul 12 2016 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Dunno, I'm assuming she should have done something if she received a message that was improperly marked? And then that wasn't done? That's bad right? Obviously the buck stops at the top, of course, but it's not like one person can fix a broken culture all on their own. Maybe that should have been a higher priority though?

Bleh.


I was under the impression that things improperly marked, and unsecured were being sent out, which is the primary problem. Obviously recieving stuff is also compromised, but also someone else's fault. Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...

Root cause is still lack of any sort of oversight, controls, or consequences for negligence (not gross, I guess) in handling this material. If your local small town retail bank can figure this out, shouldn't the international security and diplomacy arm of a global hegemony be able to as well?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#112 Jul 12 2016 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
was under the impression that things improperly marked, and unsecured were being sent out, which is the primary problem. Obviously recieving stuff is also compromised, but also someone else's fault.
Yeah, I don't know. I just assumed there was probably a procedure you're supposed to follow if you received something that was improperly marked. But I know literally nothing about it, hence all the question marks in my sentences above. If nothing else as the boss you'd think she'd have some responsibility for making sure the people doing it were disciplined properly.

Timelordwho wrote:
If your local small town retail bank can figure this out, shouldn't the international security and diplomacy arm of a global hegemony be able to as well?
They didn't get our credit card payment for 2 months because they switched the address the payments were supposed to go to and didn't bother to tell anyone. Smiley: glare

On the plus side, at least they knew about it eventually and took steps to fix the problem once people started getting grumpy with them. Don't know if I can say the same about the State Dept. yet. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#113 Jul 12 2016 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
The idea that your local bank, or local health care system has this figured out is laughable.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#114 Jul 12 2016 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
At least the retardation isn't confined to the US.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#115 Jul 12 2016 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
Holy ****.

This is either the first step in a masterfully complex strategic double bluff from Russia or those are some of the stupidest people alive.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#116 Jul 12 2016 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,221 posts


I really think it is just the new generation. The other day my sister disparaging crap about her new workplace pn FB day after she got the job. Bear in mind, she was looking for a position for a year and she is exactly super employable -- and the job is decent ( indoors with no heavy lifting :P ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#117 Jul 13 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The idea that your local bank, or local health care system has this figured out is laughable.
Ha ha, local.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Jul 13 2016 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,032 posts
You know Lolgaxe, I don't think I've ever seen you write more than one sentence in a single post? Are you too stupid to string together more than a few words or are you just too lazy to raise your lard filled limb?

We all come to the Asylum to waste time, but spam is not funny. It's crap and no one cares. Even with all your circle jerks you're still at untouchable sage because you post nothing but crap. You are a waste of space.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#119 Jul 13 2016 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
My God, you really are just a beacon of light in these darkened times. So intuitive.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Jul 13 2016 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#121 Jul 13 2016 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Smiley: drool2
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#122 Jul 13 2016 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Not crazy, just now aware of the environment. The problem IS/WAS with the state dept, but "neverHillary" people act as if she just came along and changed everything, causing the problems. This problem go back administrations. People conveniently "forget" that the FBI found the same issues with her predecessors.

TLW wrote:
Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...
The problem wasn't the system being "insecure", the primary problem was that it was unclassified. That is unless you mean "unclassified" by "insecure"?
#123 Jul 13 2016 at 10:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence.

You're... joking, right? You really think that's how people respond in polls? For real? Please, answer me and tell me that you're being serious here because I'd feel silly having a belly laugh if you're just casting around for debating points right now.


Logical thinking is not your forte, I guess? If the 30% number for people who are "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this was mostly due to people who were not going to vote for Clinton anyway, then why isn't the number of people who are "more likely" to vote for Clinton much much higher than it is in the same poll. The exact same logic applies in both directions. If we assume that people who were already planning on not voting for Clinton would poll as being "less likely" to vote for her, then we must also assume that people who were already planning on voting *for* Clinton would poll as being "more likely" to vote for her.

But we don't see anywhere near the same number for the "more likely" side. So we can speculate that there's some other magical factor going on here, or we can conclude that this poll does actually indicate that a significant number of people who's voting choice is not yet set are now less likely to vote for Clinton as a result of the report. You're more or less desperately grasping at straws here Joph.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right?

Well, no. Because, again, if you're dealing with a number like 30% during a partisan election it's pretty easy to guess where that 30% is coming from.


Again, then why only 8% on the "more likely" side? Are you seriously trying to argue that the pro-Clinton camp isn't partisan? I'm not sure how you're justifying this, or even frankly why. Can't you just accept that the investigation and report were harmful to Clinton and move on? We all know it's true. The question going forward is how much harmful, and whether that harm is sufficient to cost her the election. Denying that any harm occurred just seems bizarre.

Quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it but, if I thought these were terrible numbers and was trying desperately to put a brave face on them while knowing it was all a farce... I'd just not post them? I mean, I wouldn't bother volunteering the info if I thought I was going to have to spin a web of lies around it. More in reality, I'd post it (just cause I find it interesting) and say "Bad news for Camp Clinton..."


And yet, you did actually post numbers that are bad news for Camp Clinton and attempted to claim it was good news. I suspect you're in a better position to judge why you did that, but you did. Maybe you just didn't think though the implications of the numbers? I mean, to me, when 30% of respondents to a poll say they are less likely to vote for a candidate as a result of something versus 8% who say they are more likely to, those are bad numbers for the candidate. I have no clue why you might have thought otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Jul 13 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
Well,GB II was a drunken coke-head who wrecked his vehicle while intoxicated on multiple occasions and had to be bailed out of every business he ever ran (into the ground) by his rich relatives and friends and he still got elected (by a pro-family, anti-drug, fiscally conservative party, no less!). So, yeah, do you think most Democrats give two fudge sticks about this crap about Hillary? Really?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#125 Jul 13 2016 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again, then why only 8% on the "more likely" side?

Because saying "Yeah, the FBI said she did this stuff and that makes me happy!" isn't as valid as response as "Yeah, the FBI said she did this stuff but oh well, gonna vote Clinton anyway". It's easier to justify "Yeah, maybe that was bad but Trump is worse" than "This was a big plus".
Poll results wrote:
Forty-five percent of Republicans say the issue makes no difference in their vote – likely meaning they wouldn’t have voted for Clinton anyway – while another 47 percent say it makes them less apt to support her. Among Democrats, the email issue makes no difference to three-quarters, and 16 percent say it’s strengthened their support (likely given that she wasn’t charged) – but one in 10 say they’re less likely to vote for her because of it.

Why, golly! The bulk of "less likely" comes from Republicans? But... but... that's impossible!
Quote:
Can't you just accept that the investigation and report were harmful to Clinton and move on? We all know it's true. The question going forward is how much harmful, and whether that harm is sufficient to cost her the election.

You'd almost want to look at some polling results for a hint there. For instance, to see if 70% of voters said it made no difference in their choice or made them more likely to vote for Clinton Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 11:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Jul 14 2016 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Not crazy, just now aware of the environment. The problem IS/WAS with the state dept, but "neverHillary" people act as if she just came along and changed everything, causing the problems. This problem go back administrations. People conveniently "forget" that the FBI found the same issues with her predecessors.

TLW wrote:
Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...
The problem wasn't the system being "insecure", the primary problem was that it was unclassified. That is unless you mean "unclassified" by "insecure"?


No, I mean that the system was lacking in basic security, ergo, insecure. The inappropriate classification is a another, seperate issue. One thing I do wonder is, why is the state department so bad at security? mostly I see a bunch of excuses and blame shifting, while at the same time other agencies are looking to collect more and more personal information, and overstep their voter derived authority.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#127 Jul 14 2016 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
TLW wrote:

No, I mean that the system was lacking in basic security, ergo, insecure. The inappropriate classification is a another, seperate issue. One thing I do wonder is, why is the state department so bad at security? mostly I see a bunch of excuses and blame shifting, while at the same time other agencies are looking to collect more and more personal information, and overstep their voter derived authority.
Well, then you have it backwards. the "security" of the system is a distant-distant second to the appropriate classification of the system. Given there is no evidence of hacking, the "security" is really a moot point.

I don't know why they suck, but it appears to be something that has been ongoing.
#128 Jul 14 2016 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
gbaji wrote:
Logical thinking is not your forte, I guess?
Tell us again how Trump was going to be eliminated after Nevada.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#129 Jul 14 2016 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:

No, I mean that the system was lacking in basic security, ergo, insecure. The inappropriate classification is a another, seperate issue. One thing I do wonder is, why is the state department so bad at security? mostly I see a bunch of excuses and blame shifting, while at the same time other agencies are looking to collect more and more personal information, and overstep their voter derived authority.
Well, then you have it backwards. the "security" of the system is a distant-distant second to the appropriate classification of the system. Given there is no evidence of hacking, the "security" is really a moot point.

I don't know why they suck, but it appears to be something that has been ongoing.


No evidence of hacking on a system that has no way to detect it. Which, I guess is a smart design choice as it provides the "Well maybe it didn't get hacked" excuse that no foreign government or private entity would contest, because that would ruin the leaky basket. So, I'd say the point isn't moot. But hey, maybe Chinese and Russian hackers are just as bad at hacking as the state dept. is at security, but is that something we should bet on?

I guess silver lining is that State dept security is lax enough that we can learn of unamerican secret programs like those described on wiki leaks.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#130 Jul 14 2016 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
But hey, maybe Chinese and Russian hackers are just as bad at hacking as the state dept. is at security, but is that something we should bet on?

No need, they had their best friend Snowy to happily give them anything they want Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Jul 14 2016 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
But hey, maybe Chinese and Russian hackers are just as bad at hacking as the state dept. is at security, but is that something we should bet on?

No need, they had their best friend Snowy to happily give them anything they want Smiley: smile


Since we don't actually care about data security, no problem, right?

It seems that the real problem is the public awareness and discussion of it.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#132 Jul 14 2016 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Since we don't actually care about data security, no problem, right?

Good to see you coming around. Vote Clinton!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Jul 14 2016 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of, Jill Stein says she's going to pardon Snowden and appoint him to her cabinet.

I assume she meant that she'd appoint Snowden to fix her kitchen cabinets because the chance of THAT Senate confirmation moving forward is about half the chance of Stein being elected president.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Jul 14 2016 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
I'd pardon Snowden and execute Clinton. And Bush.

My main campaign promise would be to limit my bloody purge to 100,000. Which sounds easy, I know, but it'd be a lot harder than you think.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#135 Jul 14 2016 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
On second thought, a million is a nice, round number.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#136 Jul 14 2016 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Talk talk talk, promises promises. Howsabout you kill that million and then run on a platform about how you said you'd kill a million people and actually did it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 Jul 14 2016 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
I'm intrigued by your campaign. How do you choose who gets purged? Is in an RNG kind of thing or can we nominate people?

Altogether you sound like the most sane person in the race so far, so best of luck if nothing else. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#138 Jul 14 2016 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,333 posts
You guys are going to have to make the UK a state after it leaves the EU before he can qualify.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#139 Jul 14 2016 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,032 posts
I could kill an American and wear their skin as a suit, if it's necessary. Or even if it isn't, really.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#140 Jul 14 2016 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
I could kill an American and wear their skin as a suit, if it's necessary. Or even if it isn't, really.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#141 Jul 14 2016 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
Naw, we all know Obama got in just fine and he's not American or whatever.

Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#142 Jul 14 2016 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You guys are going to have to make the UK a state after it leaves the EU before he can qualify.
They can have Texas' spot.

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 3:09pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#143 Jul 14 2016 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
I said it twice because I believe in it so strongly.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#144 Jul 14 2016 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Hey, if Ted Cruz pulled it off, so can you.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#145 Jul 14 2016 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,333 posts
Ted pulled off what? He's from the 51st state.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Jul 14 2016 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,258 posts
Ted and the second skin.

Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#147 Jul 14 2016 at 3:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
TLW wrote:
No evidence of hacking on a system that has no way to detect it.
Having an unsecure system isn't the same as not having a way to detect it. You're purposefully trying to worsen the situation to support your talking points. Regardless, you're still avoiding the real issue is the classification of the system, not the security.

TLW wrote:
Since we don't actually care about data security, no problem, right?

It seems that the real problem is the public awareness and discussion of it.
You're confusing the security of the system vs the security of the information. Securing the system is a tool to secure the information. It's not the end all be all. As a result, it is a false equivalency to say that poorly securing a system out of decades of procedural practice is the same as not caring about securing the information.

For example, people use weak passwords. That is poor security, but the people still care for the security of their information.
#148 Jul 14 2016 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:
No evidence of hacking on a system that has no way to detect it.
Having an unsecure system isn't the same as not having a way to detect it. You're purposefully trying to worsen the situation to support your talking points. Regardless, you're still avoiding the real issue is the classification of the system, not the security.


No, I'm literally citing a the publicly available press report.

FBI Director Comey wrote:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact (...all of these [Clinton's] e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail...) from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.


I am not avoiding the "real issue". This is an issue. The mis-classification of documents, is another, separate, and in my opinion moderately less damning one.

Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:
Since we don't actually care about data security, no problem, right?

It seems that the real problem is the public awareness and discussion of it.
You're confusing the security of the system vs the security of the information. Securing the system is a tool to secure the information. It's not the end all be all. As a result, it is a false equivalency to say that poorly securing a system out of decades of procedural practice is the same as not caring about securing the information.

For example, people use weak passwords. That is poor security, but the people still care for the security of their information.


I was being facetious here, because it was funny to me that Jophiel doesn't appear to care about the security of diplomatic cables, but then cares a lot about hackers and whistle-blowers revealing the poorly secured information publicly. I implied that if there was just quietly hacked he'd be broadly OK with it, because it lets the Democratic establishment save face.

Also, I'm not "confusing the security of the system with the security of the information"; that's an nonsensical conclusion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#149 Jul 14 2016 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wasn't being serious when I mentioned Snowden earlier today anyway. It was purely tongue-in-cheek to get a response.

I suppose I could say that you care more about someone potentially looking at 110 emails of likely fairly uninteresting content (overclassification being what it is) than a known document dump of our domestic and international surveillance programs being gift-wrapped and handed directly to China and Russia. So, you know, yeah. Take that and stuff.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#150 Jul 14 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
TLW wrote:

No, I'm literally citing a the publicly available press report.
Your quote supports my comment. Having an unsecure system doesn't translate into not being able to detect it. That's why he said "likely".

TLW wrote:
I am not avoiding the "real issue". This is an issue. The mis-classification of documents, is another, separate, and in my opinion moderately less damning one.
Which only solidifies that you don't understand how this works. The classification IS the issue. Securing the system is and will always be second. You having classified information on a fully secured unclassified network is much worse than having classified information in an unsecure classified network. That is a fact.

TLW wrote:
I was being facetious here, because it was funny to me that Jophiel doesn't appear to care about the security of diplomatic cables, but then cares a lot about hackers and whistle-blowers revealing the poorly secured information publicly. I implied that if there was just quietly hacked he'd be broadly OK with it, because it lets the Democratic establishment save face.

Also, I'm not "confusing the security of the system with the security of the information"; that's an nonsensical conclusion.
You say that you're not confusing the security of the system with the security of the information, but says that Jophiel doesn't appear to care about the security of information because of his opinion on the email scandal, while being concerned about revealing secured information. That is literally what you are doing. The two that you are comparing are not contrary to each other.
#151 Jul 14 2016 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,176 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I wasn't being serious when I mentioned Snowden earlier today anyway. It was purely tongue-in-cheek to get a response.

I suppose I could say that you care more about someone potentially looking at 110 emails of likely fairly uninteresting content (overclassification being what it is) than a known document dump of our domestic and international surveillance programs being gift-wrapped and handed directly to China and Russia. So, you know, yeah. Take that and stuff.


Sure, I don't think that was in any way a good outcome, but I think that the existence of a massive domestic surveillance program with no publicly accountable oversight is a greater public harm.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Sas148, Anonymous Guests (51)