Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

See you when the indictment comes down. Any day now.

 

Probably half a dozen of her senior aides will get nailed too.

 

You have the same inside info like TigerVols?

 

I think that HRC using a private server was dumb as hell.

I also think that this is dead on. "It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two"

 

Totally good news:

 

Yes and no. Maybe not quite the same.

 

When I saw the first post, I immediately realized the exact direction this would go and how, due to any real knowledge of the topic, it would be discussed.

As such, I find comments like these, very funny:

There is a variety of reasons that caused me to damn near laugh out loud over this, but then it gets to the meat of the politics behind it…

Why would having security docs on a personal computer or other electronic device disqualify someone from being president?

The amount of possibilities for how that data got there is quite plentiful. You also don’t know the what the data is.

No, they are not definitive. But I also don’t think you understand, even in the slightest sense, what the logs look like nor what someone would look for in order to determine a breach.

The fact that you wrote “Hackers don’t come any more sophisticated than them” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the tech community and who does what.

I think the last sentence might be the only line that really makes much sense.

The questions should be:
1. Did the emails contain classified information at the time they were sent?
A. No.

2. Was the server approved to handle classified information in the event that someone sends it there?
A. No.

The server itself and the discussion of whether data was classified is superfluous. ALL emails are unsecure. The only real way of securing an email would be to encrypt it. This requires a decryption key on the recipient’s end. There are programs like Mailvelope that do this, but you need a web based email client.

There are means to do this with other mail programs, but I know of none that work on mobile devices. Essentially, this means that all emails would need to be sent from a computer.

I have no reason to believe that Hillary’s server was just as, if not more, secure than the State Department’s servers. I recall reading the details of how they were asked to operate in order to send an email and found it beyond cumbersome and more than a little tedious with the end result being an unsecure email getting sent.

This is more than a little over the top. Our commercial level satellites have the capacity to read license plates from space if those license plates faced up. No, someone isn’t going to gleam some massive amount of information from seeing the image.

In this same post I pointed out that emails are unsecure regardless of where they are sent from.

If the photo was sent to her via email then the image would be stored on any device that opens it, even in the temporary folders.

I honestly believe that having her own server isn’t that big of a deal. Heck, I’d rather do that than pay a hosting company but there is no way that I’m paying the cost necessary for the bandwidth that would be needed.

I can also see where someone would setup their own server with the necessary security so that they can operate in a faster, more efficient way.

Ultimately, this issue is a non-starter since the talk is about emails and security. The two don’t coexist. It doesn’t matter what server is sending the emails, they aren’t going to be secure. This really is an issue surrounded by the fact that people don’t know what they are talking about and are looking for something to hang on Hillary.

 

Anyone who thinks you can have classified documents on a device connected to the Internet does not understand security.

 

First, noob, fetch me a beer.

Second, read up on the NISPOM and understand the requirements and laws behind it.

 

I've handled classified government information in the past. I am stating the practical facts involved with this. You are arguing about laws that don't play in practice.

 

Sounds like a solid legal defense.

 

This would be due to a desire to play politics instead of actually getting angry or upset about something in which people are impacted.