|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The investigation is only creditable if it corrects a problem. Right now, it did a whole lot of nothing until the House or Senate recommend reforms to the rules on department communication.
|
On June 02 2016 02:30 LegalLord wrote:
For all the faults of the Republicans in their partisan investigations, I think we can at the very least agree that this email situation is a genuinely credible allegation of wrongdoing on Hillary's part. Pretty much everyone who works with cyber security can at the very least agree that there is some shitty dealings in the State Dept, and that some of those happened under Hillary's tenure as SoS.
1) Cyber-security experts' livelihoods depend on telling people their systems are not secure, they would tell anyone that their server could be more secure if there were consulting fees in it.
2) Do you have any proof of lack of security? What makes you think an @state.gov email address would have been more secure than an @clintonemail.com address? Is there anything about government email servers that makes you think they are actually more secure than private sector ones?
3) What is the credible allegation of wrongdoing? Can you spell it out? It looks like it is using an @clintonemail.com server instead of an @state.gov server. See my point above, she sent at least 50k emails with @clintonemail.com and nobody complained at the time.
|
On June 02 2016 01:47 KwarK wrote:
My understanding regarding the breaches is that you basically cannot prove a negative. If someone shows up with data from your server then that proves a positive, you were hacked, but if nobody shows up that doesn't prove a negative, you may still have been hacked. Isn't that why they forced the spokesman to backtrack when he said there were no breaches?
Yeah but the burden of proof doesnt lie with proving the negative either.
|
On June 02 2016 02:36 Plansix wrote:
The investigation is only creditable if it corrects a problem. Right now, it did a whole lot of nothing until the House or Senate recommend reforms to the rules on department communication.
Our justice system isn't based entirely upon the proposition of correcting problems. There's a very strong tradition of retribution when dealing with wrongs.
|
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier.
|
Yes, the US government does a poor job at managing its cybersecurity (other kinds of security it does well).
Like the horrible breach awhile ago where millions of government people's classified personnel files were hacked. iirc (hopefuly not misremembering something that important)
|
On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier.
It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons.
|
On June 02 2016 03:44 zlefin wrote:
Yes, the US government does a poor job at managing its cybersecurity (other kinds of security it does well).
Like the horrible breach awhile ago where millions of government people's classified personnel files were hacked. iirc (hopefuly not misremembering something that important)
People who had been vetted for a security clearance had their personal information stolen including social security number. We got two years of free credit monitoring though...
|
On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons.
I see where you're coming from and I wouldn't say I disagree. What I *would* say is, given what (little) I know, is that you could *perhaps* make an argument that Clinton was making somewhat of an executive decision by saying "I don't care if it is against the rules. I need to do my job and doing my job means China not reading these messages. If China reads this, we lose."
If I was managing information which was "either this stays secret or people die", the long list of US government cyber security failures would make me worry. And given the fact that my email was on the hit list of every single major country in the world (hell, we know at least Israel), I would do everything in my power to keep it safe. Maybe I'm just naive though. I do think it can be clearly shown that trusting the US government to handle the highest level of security is downright stupid though.
|
United States43971 Posts
On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons.
Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality.
|
On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality.
Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary.
|
On June 02 2016 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:44 zlefin wrote:
Yes, the US government does a poor job at managing its cybersecurity (other kinds of security it does well).
Like the horrible breach awhile ago where millions of government people's classified personnel files were hacked. iirc (hopefuly not misremembering something that important) People who had been vetted for a security clearance had their personal information stolen including social security number. We got two years of free credit monitoring though...
ah yes; now that's something I'd like a lot more work and hearings on than hillary's email.
|
On June 02 2016 04:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 02 2016 03:44 zlefin wrote:
Yes, the US government does a poor job at managing its cybersecurity (other kinds of security it does well).
Like the horrible breach awhile ago where millions of government people's classified personnel files were hacked. iirc (hopefuly not misremembering something that important) People who had been vetted for a security clearance had their personal information stolen including social security number. We got two years of free credit monitoring though... ah yes; now that's something I'd like a lot more work and hearings on than hillary's email.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/34-dmv-nation/
This podcast digs into why all government websites are terrible and more importantly, why it is impossible to improve them and make them more secure. You don’t feel great after listening to it and knowing the government has all your personal info.
|
On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary.
What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested.
|
On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested.
The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy.
|
On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy.
That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information?
You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there.
Still curious.
|
On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Drumpf saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Drumpf made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious.
duuhhh she made speeches and wont release the transcripts.
|
And then we have Trump, who created a fake university and pressured single parents with hungry children to take classes and pay using credit cards. Callers were specifically told to target single parents with hungry children.
|
On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious.
I'm curious why you think she lied about Bosnia?
|
On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious.
At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. I would not call that "corrupt", but in an ideal world it should disqualify her from any future form of public office, much less president.
Having said that, Trump has done more "disqualifying" things so it really puts the american voters in a tough spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
