Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate? (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate?
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember how e-mails work. The message is passed from your computer, to another servers, which passes it to another server, which passes it to another server, which continues until it finally gets passed to the recipient's computer.

How secure are those plus or minus half-dozen other servers, compared to Hillary's? [Wink]

And that is why classified information was never supposed to be sent in unsecured e-mails. Because every step along the way is not secure and could be stolen.

And even that's excessive, because you just need to be scraping information from the wires between servers to see the messages. It's not like the internet transmission protocols are secret- anyone with a device on a given network segment can see the broadcasts and, if they're sent in plain text, as all public email traffic is, they can reassemble the pieces in the same way as the intended recipient can.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Face it, she deliberately moved outside the safeguards and that implies a higher duty on her. And even now, NOT ONE OF YOU has even expressed a rationale reason to do so, other than the very soft explanation that it was the only way to get things on a single device. The response to that is so what? Virtually everyone else in the business world carries two devices. Your argument boils down to convenience justifies the security risk
Ah- so you would take a practice that is actually a bigger security risk (more devices = more things to lose) over one that is not because it's convenient for you to argue in favor of in this case?

And you'd apparently rather have her trust Verizon or some other major telecom to run the Blackberry mail service for her and store copies of all her communications than set up her own private relay for them? Nevermind magically know that what was, at the time, considered an acceptable workaround given the limitations of current technology and not seen as an appreciable risk might someday be twisted into a scandal by people judging the matter by later standards and technological developments that eventually came to be in order to simplify secure solutions?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Not sure what you're talking about on the second point. Your first point dodges the question, I never said that all work related email is classified, only that she invited work-related email to be sent to her private server, which carries with it the inherent, known and predictable risk that classified information would be distributed to that email.
Why would it carry the inherent risk of something that's not legal to do happening?
Are you honestly disputing that it's known to happen? Why do you think they have protocols to respond to the situation where it does happen?
quote:
That's like saying that she shouldn't own a car because there's a risk that someone might try to steal it, and thus holding her culpable for any attempts to do so.
It's nothing like that. It's like saying that if you own and operate a car you accept the risk that you may hit someone walking on the street.
quote:
THe risk that classified email might have been sent to her if she had a government account also existed, and would have been just as illegal...
True
quote:
... and represented exactly the same security risk,...
false
quote:
... because the primary exposure is in the transmission from the sender not in the receipt and storage of the information.
No one's home system ever gets hacked or is compromised? The risk of interception in transmission can't be controlled with encryption and keys required to decode (lots of financial transactions use these controls today that many many people would love to hack).
quote:
The nature of email, especially at their level of prominence, means that the proper assumption is that anything sent, regardless of which server it was sent to, should be assumed to be exposed to the eyes of anyone with sufficient desire to see it.
Which is exactly why controls and security measures exist. Duh.

But I give up. It's clear that no matter how irrationally it is to support this, it's only going to fall out on party lines, with absolutely no logical explanation for why its in anyone's interest to allow.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because there's too much chatter about security: Clinton set up a separate email server which confounds FOIA requests for her own personal and political convenience. She prioritized her ability to control access to her communications over transparency and accountability.

ETA: It's falling out on party lines because people are trying to make a national security issue out of an accountability and transparency issue.

[ September 16, 2015, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one's home system ever gets hacked or is compromised? The risk of interception in transmission can't be controlled with encryption and keys required to decode (lots of financial transactions use these controls today that many many people would love to hack).
The first is irrelevant, because anyone looking to compromise the system would have already had the data before it hit the server, and you're making assumptions about a lack of disk level security which would, in and of itself, had made such a compromise pretty useless.

The latter is a solution that has been developed to work around the insecurity of email, but it also negates the security issue specifically because the message is now stored on the server in a secure format and thus could be on any arbitrary server and useless to anyone without the proper keys to unlock it.

The general government standard I've seen, actually is to send a link to a secure server that you have to log into to see the actual message, which would also negate the concern here, because it would not only mean that the information is not being transmitted via email, but that unauthorized access to the messages could be tracked, but that's just sensitive information at the State level, probably a little too loose for stuff classified at the national level, where, again, the expectation is that no one will send it in the plain, because the very act of sending it, regardless of the location of the recipients' server is the compromise.

NH:
quote:
Clinton set up a separate email server which confounds FOIA requests for her own personal and political convenience. She prioritized her ability to control access to her communications over transparency and accountability.
If that's true, then the failure is at the department IT level for not having retained a copy of each message as it was forwarded to her private server. Unless the claim is that she was running the server for the entire department. IF it was just her email being forwarded there, then it still would have had to be routed by a federal server, which is where the retention policy should have been enforced.

[ September 16, 2015, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anything from a proper .gov address was retained by the system. At issue is that there are relevant emails that she received from non-.gov addresses. At least some of her staffers were also using the server she set up. Other government officials using personal accounts or people without access to a US .gov account would also not have been captured by the government's sysetms.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Anything from a proper .gov address was retained by the system. At issue is that there are relevant emails that she received from non-.gov addresses. At least some of her staffers were also using the server she set up. Other government officials using personal accounts or people without access to a US .gov account would also not have been captured by the government's sysetms.

How would the email have gotten to her then? Unless you're saying that she wasn't using her .gov account?

In order to get to her, the message would have had to go to the .gov server handling her domain first. That server would have been the one to make the mailbox routing decision that forwarded the message to he private server and would also have been where any general retention policy should have been enforced regardless of whether her server was configured to comply or not.

Email chooses what server to transmit to based on the recipient domain, not the specific address. Identification of and routing to the individual address doesn't happen until the email has been received by the authorized server. So either Clinton was running the server for the entire portion of the state department that used the same domain as she did, or every message was being processed by a Federal mail server before being routed to her that should have been enforcing any current retention policy.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's exactly it: she didn't use a .gov account at all. All work email addressed directly to her left the government servers completely. Since her staffers also used the private server, it's highly likely there were entire internal conversations that weren't captured by government systems.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NobleHunter,

source that her staffers also used the private server? Hadn't heard of that - interesting.

quote:
Just because there's too much chatter about security: Clinton set up a separate email server which confounds FOIA requests for her own personal and political convenience. She prioritized her ability to control access to her communications over transparency and accountability.

ETA: It's falling out on party lines because people are trying to make a national security issue out of an accountability and transparency issue.

Completely agree with your summary.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Probably not where I read it originally but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/membership-in-clintons-email-domain-is-remembered-as-a-mark-of-status.html?_r=0

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FWIW I was never concerned with whether it was a national security issue, even though in theory mishandling of classified materials is illegal because of national security. My general curiosity is not whether Hillary jeopardized national security, but rather whether she's done something they can nail her on, regardless of how benign the results may or may not have been. Don't forget the thread title is "too risky a candidate", not "too dangerous to national security." By "risky" I mean risking putting Bush in office.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think just the accountability issue would knock her out of the running if there was a healthy field of candidates to oppose her. Unfortunately, the Democratic side is rather lacking in potential alternatives and the Republican side is turning into a farce.

I expect any major time bombs in the emails would have been deleted before being turned over. That's exactly why she didn't use a .gov address. If there is anything incriminating in the stuff that got turned over than she's too incompetent to be President anyways. I realize it's a "only if you don't get caught" scenario but if you're going to cheat I still maintain that it should be done well.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Just because there's too much chatter about security: Clinton set up a separate email server which confounds FOIA requests for her own personal and political convenience. She prioritized her ability to control access to her communications over transparency and accountability.

ETA: It's falling out on party lines because people are trying to make a national security issue out of an accountability and transparency issue.

It's an interesting/frustrating partisan-izing trap; I think it happens on various other issues as well. A moderate disapproval of your "team" gets lost in defending against the hay making of the other team.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The media goes to great lengths to paint every Republican as an arch-conservative extremist...
It is amazing how few Congressional witchhunts can be started by the media.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also Greg, in considering your statement that this issue falls on typical party lines, it occurs to me that you are indirectly implying that I, at least, have some kind of stake in the Republicans doing well. Aside from the basic fact that such a suggestion (in my case) would be ridiculous, there is also the fact that my OP specifically states that I'm concerned about the issue precisely because the Republicans might gain from it.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

thanks for the link. That 'slam dunks' the case for avoiding FOIA etc. (although the case was extremely strong to begin with on that account).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Probably not where I read it originally but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/membership-in-clintons-email-domain-is-remembered-as-a-mark-of-status.html?_r=0

Oh man:

quote:
And Mrs. Clinton used this private address for everything — from State Department matters to planning her daughter’s wedding and issues related to the family’s sprawling philanthropic foundation.
I can only imagine the kinds of skeletons in those deleted emails.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, you posit parity in false political attacks against democrats and republicans. Can you identify which false attacks against republicans that you feel are equivalent to the efforts to the swift boat attacks against Kerry? Or the attacks on Obama over his religion or citizenship?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I did not mean to imply that. I am not even sure that Hillary will be the best democratic candidate. I just think that any democrat will face an attack like over this email issue, something that suddenly turns from unimportant to critical. And when the facts turn out to be wrong, and the concern misplaced, no one will be accountable for the bogus hysteria
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seriati, you posit parity in false political attacks against democrats and republicans.

Two issues, first I didn't posit that because I reject the premise that you've identified correctly which attacks are false rather than just in overblown (or more likely something you don't care about but others do care about).

Second, I never implied that the methods are identical. Abuse of Republican politicians often comes from false characterization. The media trolls far and wide to find a crazy ass republican somewhere, and then plasters what every they said, included retracted statements and obvious gaffes far and wide, while burying stories about democrats that are far more damaging.

This warps both your perception of whether an attack is false and whether one is justified.
quote:
Can you identify which false attacks against republicans that you feel are equivalent to the efforts to the swift boat attacks against Kerry? Or the attacks on Obama over his religion or citizenship?
No. Any such effort would be silly, there's no such thing as pinpointing attacks that are "equivalent".
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You reject my premise of Republicans having a greater reliance on false attacks? So, on a 1-100 scale, how substantiated would you say are the Swift Boat accusations? The birther accusations? The Obama-as-a-Muslim accusations? How about all of the faux Obamacare assertions - we have already established in a very lengthy thread that the vast majority of accusations that the Republicans made about Obamacare were proven to be totally false.

These examples are my evidence that there is a disticnt difference in the degree to which Republicans attack Democrats with false assertions that they never take responsibility for. If you don't disagree with my assertion, prove it by showing similar counter-examples.


PS: I didn't even include the Ground Zero Mosque...

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
You reject my premise of Republicans having a greater reliance on false attacks?

Yes. I think its clearly false, and you can only even posit it because you ignore the cozy relationship between the media and the Democrats, which allows the Dems to engage in proxy battles far more easily.
quote:
So, on a 1-100 scale, how substantiated would you say are the Swift Boat accusations?
Which accusations exactly, and I'm not using a scale.
quote:
The birther accusations?
I've written repeatedly on this topic you should search for it if you're interested. Simply put, there is no reason to believe the birther allegations are true, and only minor reasons to believe the President's story is untrue. But it's actually two questions of fact, neither of which are legitimately within the scope of debate. 1. Where was the President born. None of us have direct knowledge of that, and therefore none of us know. 2. What does the law say on this topic. The law says the President's birth certificate settles the issue. What's left to debate? Just opinions on the first, and potential theories of fraud on the second, but you'd need real proof to move the needle.
quote:
The Obama-as-a-Muslim accusations?
Literally no one knows but the President. You either trust him or you don't on this issue.

He's a known liar (his original gay marriage position comes to easily recognizable mind), but that doesn't mean he's lieing about this.
quote:
How about all of the faux Obamacare assertions - we have already established in a very lengthy thread that the vast majority of accusations that the Republicans made about Obamacare were proven to be totally false.
No you didn't. You demonstrated that some guesses may be posters here were false, I don't think you clearly settled anything substantive about the law, except maybe the enrollment numbers (which is hardly the biggest part of the substance) and even then there's still a huge uncovered wedge of the populace.
quote:
These examples are my evidence that there is a disticnt difference in the degree to which Republicans attack Democrats with false assertions that they never take responsibility for. If you don't disagree with my assertion, prove it by showing similar counter-examples.
I don't think you actually demonstrated a false assertion. What you've shown is that people who can't know the facts of a situation still have opinions on it, generally based on their own past experiences.

We could go the other way, how many times have I read, "Bush lied, people died." Which is both literally unproven (no demonstration of a lie, versus an error) and misleading in its claims as to result and linkage. Moderate Republicans are routinely labeled as arch conservatives, crazy extreme conservatives are presented as if they represent the mainstream. The whole idea of the "War on Women" is a great big marketing lie used to falsely brand every Republican, even those actively involved in women's issues.

Pretty sure you made some posts on the Obamacare thread charging me (and or others) with wanting to kill sick people by inaction. It's everywhere.
quote:
PS: I didn't even include the Ground Zero Mosque...
Which as I pointed out before involved a not insignificant amount of Democrats.

[ September 23, 2015, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We could go the other way, how many times have I read, "Bush lied, people died." Which is both literally unproven (no demonstration of a lie, versus an error) and misleading in its claims as to result and linkage.
Of course, if Congress had investigated it for a few years and a few million dollars, we might have more evidence that it was true (like some other current investigations...) [Wink]

quote:
Moderate Republicans are routinely labeled as arch conservatives...
Could you name three or so? Because I suspect that those "moderate" Republicans may have views more arch conservative than you believe.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We could go the other way, how many times have I read, "Bush lied, people died." Which is both literally unproven (no demonstration of a lie, versus an error) and misleading in its claims as to result and linkage.
At this point it pretty much takes an act of faith to believe that what you wrote is true.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn, Damn, Damn!
quote:
The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said.

However, the source said State Department officials had already received instructions from intelligence officials that they need not use the strictest standards for handling the two emails in dispute – meaning that they aren’t classified.

Hale declined to comment on whether any changes had been made in recent days to the handling requirements for the disputed emails.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top-secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.

"The initial determination was based on a flawed process," the source said. "There was an intelligence product people thought [one of the emails] was based on, but that actually postdated the email in question."

It is SO FRUSTRATING that none of the scandals are scandals. Can we please reopen the Vince Foster investigation?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al I think if you paid attention to what people have been saying, the national security issue was kind of incidental.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting. It was *the* reason initially, but now that it has been shown to be an empty concern, it is no longer important. So, what do you think is?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1