Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! (Score 1) 232

That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?

She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found. How many more billions of dollars investigating Hillary need to happen before your alarm is silenced?

There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.

So, sometimes where there's smoke, there's just a smoky BBQ, not an actual fire. How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 232

Palin wasn't dealing with top-secret State Department traffic.

Neither was Hillary. The top-secret stuff came in different channels. At best, someone hacked into the server might be able to identify the time and place she was handed top-secret material, but not the contents.

In fact, Palin properly separated her personal and political emails from her "official" government email.

In fact, she didn't.

Finally, Palin properly preserved all her emails.

No, she didn't.

But with no governemnt investigation into her, there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing to start an investigation. Hillary has always been subject to the standard that they investigate to find something they don't know is there. But Palin (and others on the (R) side) aren't subject to the same scrutiny.

Comment Re:Seriously, port scan data from 2012? (Score 1) 232

The scan wasn't run on the server. It was run on the IP of the server. A PAT on the router before the server would allow for that the router, or a different server behind it to have RDP open. But running a scan against an IP with no knowledge of what that IP is doesn't prove any particular machine was insecure.

Comment Re:Look over there! Benghazi! (Score 1) 232

While at the very least, Hillary set up a private email server (and a not particularly secure one) against government protocol.

Nope. She did what Rice and Powell had done before her. There were no rules against it at the time. The rules passed after exempted the existing external email. They still haven't found a law or rule broken, despite billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent investigating the Clintons. You'd think the "small government" (R) would try to save money, rather than blowing billions on witch hunts and goose chases.

Comment Re:Of course... (Score 1) 232

Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.

Nope. For one, she didn't break any rules (all the rules that it breaks came after it was up and running, and she had explicit permission to continue). And for another, there is nothing illegal about breaking a department rule. If she did insecurely store classified documents, it's only because someone else illegally emailed classified documents, which nobody is raising their hand to confess to that crime.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 232

Yahoo Mail has been hacked a number of times. And Palin wasn't put in jail for using a known insecure email service for official government business.

I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"

More like, "She didn't break a law, so stop spending millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating her."

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 3, Insightful) 232

repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious.

Name the lie. I've seen the accusations of lies against the Clintons for 30 years. But *never* have any of them stuck. And yet again, unsubstantiated accusations of "lying about it" being the problem, without actually establishing the lie.

The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem.

Are you talking about Fox News, of the Kerry Swift Boating now?

If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.

Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her? Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken, and nobody has been able to show otherwise. At some point it looks like a witch hunt, not accountability.

Your own mileage may vary.