Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#127 Jul 14 2016 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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
******
49,907 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
*****
13,230 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
*****
13,230 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
***
1,065 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
***
1,065 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
******
49,907 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
*****
13,443 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
******
35,383 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
***
1,065 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
***
1,065 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
*****
13,443 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
******
49,907 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
***
1,065 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
*****
13,230 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
******
35,383 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
***
3,464 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
*****
10,152 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
*****
13,230 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
*****
10,152 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
*****
13,230 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: 67 All times are in CST
Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (66)