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

I'm not a network admin. I had the credentials for it over 15 years ago, but back then .Net was only just starting to become a thing. A lot is similar and a lot has changed.

Given that, if someone is hacked, the easiest way to cease the hack is to disconnect the internet cable (if you have access) or shut the computer down (remote access). After the threat has been removed, you can power back on and diagnose the issue to determine where the potential security holes are. There is nothing in the article stating that the guy did or did not do that. I find it unlikely that he would have just "hoped that it would go away." That's British tabloid BS.

The ethics aspect is definitely where things get sketchy.

The reason I don't look at this as a big deal is because it really isn't. We all know why it was done (secrecy and convenience, the former outweighing the latter). Additionally, every one of us bends the rules to expedite results. If she was just using the private email for private matters like weddings, birthday parties and general evite requests, people would still be questioning it. At least with a private server, it has a level of respectability over gmail or yahoo...

I disagree. People do care. They care about it because it has been crammed down their throat that this is nefarious. The vast majority, like @YankeeFan, have no clue why they are upset. They simply are.

 

It seems to me that you do not know the difference between a hacking attack, which is an attempt, and an actual hack. The article specifically states that it was an attack. The fact that people warned her aides to not send sensitive information is not evidence that it actually happened.

 

When some random dude takes a couple of pot shots at the White House, unless anyone's actually hurt, they don't bother with any paperwork or inquiries. The Secret Service's motto is, "Yawnville. Call us when someone actually gets shot."

 

Of course not.

I'm one of Bernie's.

 

It's funny because in January, we were getting predictions that were breathlessly reported by the right-wing media that the FBI was going to indict her in 60 days (nevermind that the FBI doesn't indict, but whatever). There was also breathless predictions that the FBI was about to revolt if she wasn't indicted.

We're now at the end of May, and there still hasn't been an indictment, nor a revolt, which is why we mock this. It's kinda like mocking those who,predict the end of the world on such and such a date, only it doesn't happen.

And speaking of it, how come hasn't the right-wing media issued any corrections on how their sources were wrong about the 60 days?

 

It's been nearly four years already since she's been out of office. Isn't that enough time to assess damage? Or should we wait another year or two?

 

Iana net admin, but my understanding is that any web server can expect a pot shot from random places pretty regularly.

 

You really believe the National Enquirer when they claim alien spaceship landings, don't you?

 

They are jumping to conclusions. They're claiming she harmed national security. And committed crimes.

 

This is better than I could have hoped for. It's downright Baronesque.

Apparently turning off, and then back on, a server is the standard protocol for combatting a hacking attack.

A successful hack starts with a hacking attack. We don't know how many attacks her server faced, not how many of those attempts were successful.

Clinton's aides were worried enough about hacking attacks that they spread the word to not send any sensitive information to her via email because of them.

But, they should have never been sending sensitive information to her at an unsecured, remote server.

 

Fake bombs get by the TSA 95% of the time during audits. Not much had been changed as a result.

 

I suspect that if somewhere down the road it is discovered that HRC's handling of the e-mail server led to critical state secrets (the equivalent of stolen medical records and social security numbers for purposes of this comparison) getting into the hands of the enemy, that House Republicans will want to impeach her. Give us a shout when that happens.