Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

FBI just cleared Clinton. Not recommending charges.

[Hermit]

Despite my dislike of the woman, I think the FBI made the right call on that one.

[Starlord]

Yeah, in this case she's not corrupt, just incompetent

[Marcus Impudite]

FBI just cleared Clinton. Not recommending charges.

Even if she actually went to trial and was convicted (and I certainly wasn't holding my breath on that), the worst they'd do to her is send her to Camp Cupcake.

[megaplayboy]

I expect that there will be some further concessions on the party platform, "allowing" Sanders to finally endorse. The VP pick will hopefully be solid, and maybe even inspired. That just leaves the conventions and the debates.

[Pariah]

In the March caucuses here in Utah, Hillary Clinton got less than 20% of the Democratic vote. Donald Trump got less than 15% of the Republican vote.

 

So what does that mean, now that Trump and Clinton are the nominees? Among other things, it means that Libertarian Gary Johnson is currently polling at 16%--an unheard-of number for any candidate without an [R] next to his/her name in this state.

 

It's also worth noting that Trump and Clinton are both polling at around 35-40% at present. Utah could vote Democratic in the Presidential race for the first time since LBJ.

[Old Man]

Hillary is radically exceeding expectations in red states per FiveThirtyEight. But she's also underperforming in blue states. At any rate we still have conventions and VP picks to endure before we even get to the debates.

 

Oh, gods, the debates.  Bring on that giant meteor.  Please.

[megaplayboy]

If Clinton continues to speak out in defense of the rights of religious minorities, that may have some resonance there.

[megaplayboy]

Hillary is radically exceeding expectations in red states per FiveThirtyEight. But she's also underperforming in blue states. At any rate we still have conventions and VP picks to endure before we even get to the debates.

 

Oh, gods, the debates. Bring on that giant meteor. Please.

The debates will be simultaneously entertaining and horrifying.

[L. Marcus]

Horritaining.

[Old Man]

Enterrifying!

[Badger]

Is it too late to trade them to England?

[Sociotard]

A while back Sarah Palin said she'd prefer a 'tough' president to one who could perform at trivial pursuit, and I thought, that's something I'd like to see. Better than umpteen debates, anyway. Substitute a debate or two for a political/government/international trivia board game? Or maybe just watch them play axis and allies or something?

 

Hmm, maybe I'll go set up a poll somewhere.

[Lord Liaden]

I expect the debates to actually be the most interesting part of the campaign to me. Trump has been relying mostly on bluster and bombast in his public statements, rarely offering substantive details on issues or policies, which Clinton has repeatedly emphasized. If he goes substantive during the debates, we'll finally get to see whether or not he actually has a firm grasp of the issues. If he sticks to broad generalizations and characterizations, we'll see if Clinton and the debate moderators allow him to get away with that or successfully pin him down. If that doesn't happen, I'll be curious as to whether the public continues to buy that approach from Trump.

 

Of course, it's possible Trump will try to blow off debating Clinton, as he's refused other debates during the Republican nomination race. I don't see how that would be possible at this stage, but he's surprised everyone with his unorthodox choices many times during this campaign.

[薔薇語]

FBI just cleared Clinton. Not recommending charges.

 

 

Being cleared and being innocent are not always the same thing. Director Comey's own press conference read like "here is all the reasons that we should arrest the Secretary but somehow we won't."

 

It is of note that this standard of "intent" is not the standard used with issues of national security (and for good reason). Rather, mistakes are treated harshly, too. Especially intentional mistakes (as opposed to malevolent or treasonous mistakes). There is a litany of folks who have gone to prison for mishandling top secret information. The Secretary's own department has gone after people for such things that are far less than 

 

 

110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have been classified at the time they were sent. 

8 of those chains contained information that was classified as top secret at the time they were sent and received on Secretary Clinton's unclassified private email server. 

36 contained info that was Secret at the time. 

8 contained confidential information. 

 

2000 were later up listed as confidential post their initial transition and receipt (another reason you don't use unclassified servers!)

There were several THOUSANDS of emails Secretary Clinton failed to turn over when she left office. Some of which had been deleted. 

Of those THOUSANDS, three (3) were classified at the time of transmission. 

 

Because she was not using a government account or exterior commercial account, there was no archiving of deleted emails (so the FBI has to just hope they recovered everything). 

The folks that cleaned out the Secretary's email server then cleaned their own devices that they used and did so in a way that make it impossible for the FBI to verify any content. 

 

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding with in those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation"

 

"None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system." - these systems weren't even on systems that had around the clock protection as would a government or even commercial sector account. 

 

"[E]ven if information is not marked classified in an email participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

 

Hostel actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact with.

She used her personal email extensively outside of the US in potentially hostile environments. 

 

 

 

 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/05/if-you-want-the-government-to-forgive-yo

 

 

 

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ's claims that he "mishandled" classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, "a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials" despite no "evidence he intended to distribute them." Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

 

Quoting the linked article:

 

"Obviously, this suggests the possibility that perhaps the FBI made the right call in Clinton's case, which probably does not sit well with many people. It also ignores the possibility that the Justice Department simply didn't want a fight against a powerful politician with unlimited resources to fight back during an election year and who may have control over their budget come January. Certainly many will believe that there are other considerations explaining why there will likely be no prosecution."

 

Soar. 

[Pariah]

Okay, just for the sake of curiosity, how many people honestly believed that there was even the slightest chance that Hillary Clinton would be indicted as a result of the recent FBI investigation? Anyone?

[Simon]

Hostel actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact with.

She used her personal email extensively outside of the US in potentially hostile environments. 

A lead-in note: be very careful going forward about quoting only those parts of an article or statement that agree with the point that you're looking to make.

 

From Comey's statement:

 

 

 

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

 

Email is fundamentally different from data at rest.  An obvious enough statement, but one that has been often and repeatedly overlooked in this whole discussion.

 

Now...I can't speak to hostel actors, who are generally concerned with finding cheap lodging, but hostile actors appear to be defined in Comey's statement as those who serve nation-states whose interests conflict with those of the U.S.  Saying that hostile actors likely had compromised the accounts of some of those Clinton was communicating with is not saying what you think it is -- it's saying that it doesn't matter in the slightest how secure the system she was sending from was, the recipient's system was compromised.  She could have been sending from an email server located in the depths of NORAD with 24/7 armed guard, it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest.

 

This is part of the problem with email -- it is communication over insecure channels, often to parties/systems with whom you have no direct control or oversight into.

[薔薇語]

 

A lead-in note: be very careful going forward about quoting only those parts of an article or statement that agree with the point that you're looking to make.

 

 

Simon, I did not misquote nor change the content in the particular or abstract of what the FBI director nor of the following article stated. It is already public knowledge what the Director has expressed, I kept his full address in my post, replied to a person already acknowledging the FBI's stance, and even lead my post with a full acknowledgment of the stance and why I disagree with it. The website I linked to was also very accurately quoted in the particular (since I did no summery of it) and in the abstract (the two quoted areas from it are quite characteristic of the article on whole). Nothing I quoted was incorrect or false. So, I do recognize the desire to have information not be mischaracterized and conceded to that. But I feel that your lead-in note would seem to be implying I mischaracterized something. 

 

 

Moving onto your second point: 

 

It was my understanding that the concern about the hostile actors was less that a single email could be intercepted but that the end points could be discovered and that part could be compromised. The State Department has a wealth of individuals, devices, and procedures on hand to combat this possible threat from outside threats. However, The Secretary's private email server was not covered by the reasonable protections the State department otherwise employs. Thus, I think the issue regarding the Secretary using a private and uncovered server raises issue of security.

 

Soar. 

[Simon]

It was my understanding that the concern about the hostile actors was less that a single email could be intercepted but that the end points could be discovered and that part could be compromised. The State Department has a wealth of individuals, devices, and procedures on hand to combat this possible threat from outside threats. However, The Secretary's private email server was not covered by the reasonable protections the State department otherwise employs. Thus, I think the issue regarding the Secretary using a private and uncovered server raises issue of security.

Incorrect regarding the risk of a recipient's system being compromised....and I think that you vastly overestimate the State Dept's resources and procedures.  Remember: the federal government's systems were compromised by multiple parties during the time period in question, with at least one of the compromises resulting in a large scale disclosure of information on state department employees.

 

Determining the source of an email is as simple as knowing the sender's address.  Public lookups will point you to the public-facing systems/servers.  That's how email works.

 

The risk of a recipient's system being compromised is that any information they receive needs to be considered compromised as well (regardless of its point of origin).  Again, that is the nature of email.

[Certified]

[Simon]

Stop that. Last warning.

[薔薇語]

Incorrect regarding the risk of a recipient's system being compromised....and I think that you vastly overestimate the State Dept's resources and procedures.  Remember: the federal government's systems were compromised by multiple parties during the time period in question, with at least one of the compromises resulting in a large scale disclosure of information on state department employees.

 

Determining the source of an email is as simple as knowing the sender's address.  Public lookups will point you to the public-facing systems/servers.  That's how email works.

 

The risk of a recipient's system being compromised is that any information they receive needs to be considered compromised as well (regardless of its point of origin).  Again, that is the nature of email.

 

Perhaps you and I are not quite on the same page. This could easily be the result of my lesser knowledge than yours in this field. So I am going to run through a bit of a scenario and you can correct me where I am wrong and hopefully why I am wrong. 

 

---

Assume I run a private server. On this server I keep sensitive information - let's say my bank account details (my name, acct numbers, user names, passwords, etc). This is also the server I use to host my private e-mail. 

 

While conducting myself, I send a person an e-mail from my private server. This person is not a nice person and is quite tech savy. Tracing back my e-mail address he finds the private server I use for things. Would a tech savy person have tools at his disposal to try and access other information on my server (assume I have either no or only mediocre security). 

 

Assume for the moment that instead of me, it was you. You, being the tech-wiz that you are, obviously show more care to update and protect your server(s). Would that not-nice-person be able to access information from your server as well as me (Techy-Dumb-Dumb McSimpleton)? 

 

--

 

As to the security level of the State Department (or any department at the federal level), I think this ignores the point - it will be more secure there than on her private server. Likewise, if there is a breach of some sort, the authorities have a greater chance of being aware of it and the details surrounding it (greater as compared to their ability to monitor a largely non-monitored private server). 

 

Lastly, this still doesn't get around the fact that her actions lead to the loss of e-mails that were deemed relevant to the government and subject to FOI Requests. This paints a bad light on the actions she took at Secretary of State. 

 

Soar. 

[Certified]

Not sure what I'm doing wrong since these are news stories that provide context for the discussion. Would it be inappropriate to link to FBI.gov page on their report on Bryan H Nishimura for his unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials as it has direct parallels to the Clinton case? 

[Simon]

Not sure what I'm doing wrong since these are news stories that provide context for the discussion. Would it be inappropriate to link to FBI.gov page on their report on Bryan H Nishimura for his unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials as it has direct parallels to the Clinton case? 

I've stated multiple times in this thread that linking to articles or videos does not absolve you of the rules of the thread -- they will be treated as if you made the statements yourself in a post.

[Simon]

Perhaps you and I are not quite on the same page. This could easily be the result of my lesser knowledge than yours in this field. So I am going to run through a bit of a scenario and you can correct me where I am wrong and hopefully why I am wrong. 

 

---

Assume I run a private server. On this server I keep sensitive information - let's say my bank account details (my name, acct numbers, user names, passwords, etc). This is also the server I use to host my private e-mail. 

 

While conducting myself, I send a person an e-mail from my private server. This person is not a nice person and is quite tech savy. Tracing back my e-mail address he finds the private server I use for things. Would a tech savy person have tools at his disposal to try and access other information on my server (assume I have either no or only mediocre security). 

 

Assume for the moment that instead of me, it was you. You, being the tech-wiz that you are, obviously show more care to update and protect your server(s). Would that not-nice-person be able to access information from your server as well as me (Techy-Dumb-Dumb McSimpleton)? 

 

--

 

As to the security level of the State Department (or any department at the federal level), I think this ignores the point - it will be more secure there than on her private server. Likewise, if there is a breach of some sort, the authorities have a greater chance of being aware of it and the details surrounding it (greater as compared to their ability to monitor a largely non-monitored private server). 

 

Lastly, this still doesn't get around the fact that her actions lead to the loss of e-mails that were deemed relevant to the government and subject to FOI Requests. This paints a bad light on the actions she took at Secretary of State. 

 

Soar. 

No, the State Department will not be more secure than on a private server. It is under more direct attack and often has lesser protection from said attacks due to much of the "political red tape" involved in assessing and securing the systems in question.  There's a reason I don't do security work in the government sector (though they've gotten markedly better at eliminating the obstacles in recent years).

 

As to your question:

 

I don't need to receive an email from you (or intercept one) to know where your server is.  Having your email address is enough.  Likewise, knowing where your server is (or having your email address) is not "access to the system."  It doesn't provide access in any form.  Knowing the IP address of a public-facing server is how the intertubes work and does not represent a vulnerability in any way.