|
NippleFloss posted:OpenNet, where it is suggested that she should have conducted her email business, is also an unclassified network. Whiiiiiich has nothing to do with what I said. oh wait I got your next canned response "classification doesn't mean anything because it is a bad system"
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Grognan posted:True, if there was a person for whom their opinion was always the public opinion, they'd probably be too stupid to breathe. I wish this forum had a better grasp on its own perspective when diving into these topics and the nasty intellectual short-cuts that happen when its one of the people with the right team colors doing it. I mean, we should defend Clinton and her emails not because she's a Democrat, but because she literally did nothing abnormal or outside the ordinary scope of bureaucratic incompetence and the email "scandal" is literally a right wing conspiracy to try and discredit their opposition through any means possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Whiiiiiich has nothing to do with what I said. The argument is that she used a private server instead of the state department system. If she had sent these over the state department system everything you said would still have been true, and no one would have cared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:because she literally did nothing abnormal or outside the ordinary scope of bureaucratic incompetence This is many, many miles from what the FBI report said. There is a lot of space between "not prosecutable as there was no evidence the fuckups were maliciously intended," which is what the FBI report left it at, and "not abnormal." There's a continuum of fuckupery that goes from "no one cares" to "not great" to "you'd get fired for this" all the way to "you're going to jail." Not reaching that last level does not make something fine or normal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:The argument is that she used a private server instead of the state department system. If she had sent these over the state department system everything you said would still have been true, and no one would have cared. Or perhaps we would have even known what was sent and been subject to FOIA. Because that is part of federal systems. Which what she set up was not. Explicitly for the reason that it might have been recovered if she actually followed the law. For all the appeals to the FBI report, if you have doubt, READ THE FBI REPORT. Loads of people on the forum have been nonburgering the report because they are telling other people there is nothing there and this is a smear job. Read the report, and make the judgement if this matters to you or if the FBI is a partisan organization that is out to get your personal leader. Perhaps acknowledge there is an amount of corruption in DC and there is privilege that gets people a pass instead of the consequences that are applied to other people even though our team thinks the best of the person passed over. If Hillary's presidential campaign was scuppered by an honest investigation, it would be an unconscionable consequence to let Trump win. For all the obvious reasons I feel that I do not have to spell that out. Yes, Clinton does have a motivation to isolate her communications as much as possible and isolate them from record with her personal (justified) paranoia. This does not help actually recording what goes on so we don't have another nixon blackout on presidential tapes so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Or perhaps we would have even known what was sent and been subject to FOIA. Because that is part of federal systems. Which what she set up was not. Explicitly for the reason that it might have been recovered if she actually followed the law. So is it about classified information or FOIA records? Which is your bugaboo here? The harshest possible penalty for failure to comply with FOIA is a criminal misdemeanor, and even that is a high bar to clear based on precedent. AND there is still a civil case ongoing around that very thing which you claim she managed to avoid the consequences of via power and influence. On the one hand she probably should have used State Dept systems, on the other hand Judicial Watch has submitted FOIA requests for everything Clinton related for 20 years, and she did exactly what every previous SoS did, so I'm not sure why I should care enough to wring my hands about it, especially given the stunning revelations from the recovered emails that she, uh, watches homeland and eats yogurt or whatever. Trying to manage email as an electronic record the same way we do written or more formal electronic communication is always going to be problematic because it generates a ton of volume where very little is said, and it's convenience means that personal and professional often mix in a way that isn't easily extricable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Or perhaps we would have even known what was sent and been subject to FOIA. Because that is part of federal systems. Which what she set up was not. Explicitly for the reason that it might have been recovered if she actually followed the law. Up until recently it was OK to keep official records on non-official systems. You were still responsible for providing any official records on request, up until 2014 when it was required to provide them automatically within 20 days (in which case you are actually still OK to use a private email account even today). http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law Whether or not you think that's a good idea (it's not) is irrelevant, it was allowed under those regulations and everyone did it. Bush did it, Powell did it, etc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Oh and in case you're wondering just how widespread the practice is, here's the card of one of the people who chaired the Clinton email hearings: @gmail.com lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:This is many, many miles from what the FBI report said. There is a lot of space between "not prosecutable as there was no evidence the fuckups were maliciously intended," which is what the FBI report left it at, and "not abnormal." There's a continuum of fuckupery that goes from "no one cares" to "not great" to "you'd get fired for this" all the way to "you're going to jail." Not reaching that last level does not make something fine or normal. Actually it was more a condemnation of the inadequacy of State Department policy at the time (and it isn't much better now), since the actual "gently caress ups" are the same "gently caress ups" that happen in every government (and contracting) organization that deals with the possibility of classified email.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Reminder: A significant portion of the communication going through any federal office is not subject to FOIA. It's a common practice to use a separate email system for that correspondence, especially #2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
I once had a government records officer state that every email that went through the branch of DoD I worked for was an electronic record and needed to be tagged with a record number and archived. Every email a unique record. Every one. Government IT is a farce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh and in case you're wondering just how widespread the practice is, here's the card of one of the people who chaired the Clinton email hearings: Do you think that congressperson sends and recieves classified material on that Gmail account?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Do you think that congressperson sends and recieves classified material on that Gmail account? Would not be surprised at all. Edit: Even if he explicitly has a secure way to send emails like Hillary did the security regulations are so arcane and overreaching I'd be amazed if something doesn't slip through from time to time. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I doubt, very much, that congressman is sending or receiving any classified emails at any email address actually. I see no evidence he has any clearance, and his committee's request to the FBI on this matter specifically requested unclassified material:quote:Documents requested in the letter: https://oversight.house.gov/release/chaffetz-requests-details-mishandling-classified-information-clinton-lawyers/ It is legal and perfectly fine to have a Gmail. You just can't have it host sensitive, and especially classified, government material. Conflating that business card with Clinton's SoS email practices betrays total ignorance of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The official source with weight on the matter found she did exactly the things I said she did, hence the quotes from said sources indicating they found she did those things. That she wasn't punished after their findings is kinda the point. You said it would "likely" result in jail time. Not that there's a possibility, not that the FBI at their discretion and with a heavy hand could prosecute, not that in cases under more damning circumstances (such as actual selling of secrets) the FBI has prosecuted. Even you downgraded your initial statement to "I wouldn't entirely rule jail time out had this been some random middle manager or whatever" in your reply. You qualified your original statement into something more reasonable, and pretty toothless. If in fact this were a middle manager and the FBI decided not to prosecute and simply levied administrative penalties, I don't think anyone would blink an eye. It is not true that Clinton was destined for a jail cell, if not for intervention or favoritism. That is the innuendo inherent in your original statement, and there is little evidence to support that. What you said is, in my opinion, clearly untrue, and very difficult or impossible to support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I doubt, very much, that congressman is sending or receiving any classified emails at any email address actually. You mean the guy that Homeland Security had to ask to stop leaking sensitive information to the press? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...PvTGI_blog.html Or maybe talked about classified info in a public session? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.393abf5a9320 And for the record, the guy you're responding to was talking about FOIA requirements, not classified info. YOLOsubmarine fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Sounds like he should be investigated for that then. Much like with Hillary, it's a case of people at the top playing by a different ruleset than you or me. Which is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Sounds like he should be investigated for that then. I don't actually give a rat's rear end about the sanctity of classified material, so I don't understand why, even if this were true, I should be focusing on extending the strictest possible ruleset to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Sounds like he should be investigated for that then. It's actually it's the case that classification is a system that exists to serve the interests of the government, not the other way around, and sometimes one branch and another branch will disagree about the sensitivity of a piece of information, particularly given the sheer amount of poo poo that gets labeled classified because it's better to be safe than sorry. And sharing classified information is not automatically grounds for investigation, it depends on a lot of factors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Also a bucket load of "it isn't bad if our team does it". Lemme add, "obviously everyone else did it worse (they didn't)" "classification is just a joke and whatever this person does is justified." and "Let me just show something that should justify the belittling because I say it does" Best Friends posted:It's a case of people at the top playing by a different ruleset than you or me. Which is bad. This poo poo right here, because you fucks can't handle nuance or understanding about your chosen figurehead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
I don't actually care that Colin Powell also used a private email server and has not, and probably cannot comply with the current FOIA request for mail from that server. I also don't care that Jason Chaffetz has twice been complicit in leaking sensitive or classified information beyond the fact that he's a weasel faced hypocrite. These people are not my chosen figureheads, yet I do not care. Maybe it's not people picking teams, maybe people just genuinely don't care about these specific issues because they are pervasive and ultimately really small stakes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
By the bellyfeels (you sure as hell can't call it logic) of the people who really care about emails, we should eliminate civilian law and use the UCMJ for everything, as justice consists of taking the strictest standards and universalizing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:It's actually it's the case that classification is a system that exists to serve the interests of the government, not the other way around, and sometimes one branch and another branch will disagree about the sensitivity of a piece of information, particularly given the sheer amount of poo poo that gets labeled classified because it's better to be safe than sorry. As far as the congressman: you have a point. Which is one more reason comparing him having a Gmail account on his business card does not have any clear relation to the secretary of state storing classified information improperly. As for Clinton though, there is zero ambiguity of classification level between branches, Clinton served in the same branch that determines classification level, Clinton was in the government serving at a high level, and I'm unsure what level of public service occurred from her having classified documents on her poorly secured home server. More broadly, here is the FBI summary for reference if anyone is interested. https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-02/at_download/file
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:I don't actually care that Colin Powell also used a private email server and has not, and probably cannot comply with the current FOIA request for mail from that server. huh you didn't actually read the state dept report, much less the FBI report. I know you like sports, just stop using that for your reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Grognan posted:huh you didn't actually read the state dept report, much less the FBI report. Actually I think you will,find that as stated previously, I simply don't care. It's not an issue that I care about. My caring is not directed at this issue. There is no caring to be had, by me, in reference to this. Does that clear it up? Best Friends posted:As for Clinton though, there is zero ambiguity of classification level between branches, Clinton served in the same branch that determines classification level, Clinton was in the government serving at a high level, and I'm unsure what level of public service occurred from her having classified documents on her poorly secured home server. Different departments within the executive branch also disagree on what is and is not classified information. It's also interesting that her "poorly secured" home server was not hacked, while the state department system was. Also, because email is an unauthenticated protocol literally anyone anywhere can end up with classified information on their server. That in itself is not a crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Actually I think you will,find that as stated previously, I simply don't care. It's not an issue that I care about. My caring is not directed at this issue. There is no caring to be had, by me, in reference to this. Does that clear it up? Huh, nice for you to come out and state you do not give a poo poo about any of the actual legality of what happened. Also, illustrating why exactly no one should be sharing anything that could have some value if exploited on a non-secured server with you in the mix. It seems like you probs don't understand informational security. Or just don't give a poo poo when your QB hosed up handling a pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:
We don't have proof it was or was not hacked. Up until the emails show up on wikileaks, we won't be able to know for sure either way. But for environmental context: this is the sort of security mindset her admin employed: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/05/did-the-clinton-email-server-have-an-internet-based-printer/ quote:Also, because email is an unauthenticated protocol literally anyone anywhere can end up with classified information on their server. That in itself is not a crime. That's one of the many good reasons people try not to send classified information to and from home servers. If I did any part of what Clinton did with my company's confidential material, either storing it on a personal server, or emailing it on a personal email, I'd get pile driven into termination immediately, and I work for a large boring and middle of the road corporation. The same could be said for those at middle management in the state Dept. That's the entire issue. This is just one of a million examples of American life where those on top get to break rules their subordinates must live by, and that's not a great thing for society to normalize as acceptable. Obviously it's far from the only issue in this election but pretending the issue is purely a fake made up issue does not seem honest to me. I doubt all the goons in this thread triumphant that the FBI did not recommend prosecution base their own morality on a system of "didn't go to jail so it's fine." Best Friends fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Huh, nice for you to come out and state you do not give a poo poo about any of the actual legality of what happened. I've held a clearance and worked in a secure environment, on computers. I've been in a SCIF before. Much of it is theater and served no useful purpose other than making work harder. Shadow IT leads to information leakage constantly. We had someone literally walk data out of a SCIF on a CD and email it out from their desktop. They are not in prison now. It's a farce. Also, I might care about the legality of anything illegal had occurred, but I know it didn't because the FBI report you keep,referring to made that clear. Carelessness is not illegal. Also, your need to focus on sports for some reason is super weird. Were you bullied? Do you need to talk to someone about it? Was a sportsman mean to you? Best Friends posted:If I did any part of what Clinton did with my company's confidential material, either storing it on a personal server, or emailing it on a personal email, I'd get pile driven into termination immediately, and I work for a large boring and middle of the road corporation. The same could be said for those at middle management in the state Dept. That's the entire issue. This is just one of a million examples of American life where those on top get to break rules their subordinates must live by, and that's not a great thing for society to normalize as acceptable. Obviously it's far from the only issue in this election but pretending the issue is purely a fake made up issue does not seem honest to me. I doubt all the goons in this thread triumphant that the FBI did not recommend prosecution base their own morality on a system of "didn't go to jail so it's fine." You would be fired because you are much more replaceable that the Secretary of State. And because she is an appointed official serving at the pleasure of the president, and the state department is not a business and for lots of other reasons. Your job is not comparable and they are not comparable situations. Your analogy is bad. People keep saying that "if anyone else did this they'd be in jail" but I haven't actually seen any examples of that. Please show your work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
All jobs have the ideal way they're supposed to be done and the way they're actually done because the ideal way isn't practical. It doesn't seem sinister because she wasn't pulling strings to get away with shady poo poo; she was just trying to get her job done like most people do in their everyday lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:This is many, many miles from what the FBI report said. There is a lot of space between "not prosecutable as there was no evidence the fuckups were maliciously intended," which is what the FBI report left it at, and "not abnormal." There's a continuum of fuckupery that goes from "no one cares" to "not great" to "you'd get fired for this" all the way to "you're going to jail." Not reaching that last level does not make something fine or normal. The FBI report was influenced by and given by Comey, a Republican with a documented history in participating in right-wing smear jobs and conspiracy mongering against Clinton, and who was explicitly attempting to give his nothing report in the most damaging and spun way possible so his fellow Republicans running for office could get free ad soundbites. The only reason it didn't work out for him is because Congressional Republicans are abject morons. Best Friends posted:I doubt, very much, that congressman is sending or receiving any classified emails at any email address actually. I see no evidence he has any clearance, and his committee's request to the FBI on this matter specifically requested unclassified material: quote:In my piece last night about the FBI report on Hillary Clinton's email, I didn't spend much time on minutiae about the number and type of classified emails that were found on Hillary's server. We've been through all that, and the report didn't have anything new to add on the subject. But I did say this: Best Friends posted:We don't have proof it was or was not hacked. Up until the emails show up on wikileaks, we won't be able to know for sure either way. But for environmental context: this is the sort of security mindset her admin employed: I mean it literally wouldn't have mattered what email she used, in the context of hacking. If someone wants to hack American government email it's already been proven to be largely trivial and being on a government email account wouldn't have changed anything. The reason people push back against "god that was so irresponsible of her" is because it doesn't loving matter. The appropriate response to what she did is, "grandma, you need to be more responsible with your email. This is how you do that." Everyone wants to act like it's the loving end of the world because it's Hillary Clinton and she's not held to the same standard everyone else in politics is. Colin Powell explicitly broke the email rules worse than her and nobody gives a flying gently caress. Best Friends posted:As for Clinton though, there is zero ambiguity of classification level between branches, Clinton served in the same branch that determines classification level, Clinton was in the government serving at a high level, and I'm unsure what level of public service occurred from her having classified documents on her poorly secured home server.  what are you talking about, "there's zero ambiguity of classification level between branches." The only reason any of this is even remotely a problem is because the FBI and CIA are massive pricks who want everything classified and throw a hissy fit when it isn't, while the State Department does not. We should be in favor of more government transparency and less classification, full stop. gently caress the FBI and CIA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Government computers hacked, you say? Government official lax with IT procedure, you say? News at 11 and why would anyone except some government employed IT neckbeard care, I say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 11:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Grognan posted:Huh, nice for you to come out and state you do not give a poo poo about any of the actual legality of what happened. Please tell me how Hillary Clinton exposed American secrets or put lives at risk with the way she handled her email server. I don't do well with theoretical wrongdoings. I need to see actual proof that her actions directly led to lives being threatened or American information being viewed by the wrong people and used against us. You seem pretty on top of this whole thing, so hopefully you can help answer this question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
If the Clinton administration's cybersecurity allows more Manning/Snowden style leaks, I'll unironically vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
This may be hard for oorah opsec people to understand, but a fairly common criticism of classification procedures as they exist is that documents are routinely overclassified because of the default assumption being classify first and ask questions later. So why should we be up in arms about violation of these dipshit procedures, as private citizens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
as a non-american it's obviously a partisan attack on hillary, the posters defending that are disqualifiying themselves from any discussion nobody cared about deleted or secret emails by republicans, but this time send her to jail!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
NippleFloss posted:I don't actually care that Colin Powell also used a private email server and has not, and probably cannot comply with the current FOIA request for mail from that server. Are you more comfortable with a man who openly threatens nuclear war, and has actively invited Putin's regime to try and take a hand in this election? Because that's a thing that's been happening. You don't even have to lie about Trump to make him a bigger threat to national security, just quote him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:03
|
|
