Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The onus is on the "no evidence" crowd (Score 1) 416

First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony.

It only looks like that if you don't know much about how classified information works. Read up on it from a source that isn't referring to Hillary Clinton, and then match that up to what she did.

Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about.

Where is the evidence that she created security holes which were exploited? An unreliable source is quoted as saying she did? Personally, I wouldn't trust a government server to keep my emails safe from prying eyes.

The last sentence is pretty key to this. We know the State Department email system was breached at least twice while she was Secretary of State.

Comment Re:The only possible hope (Score 1) 416

Which is why the information could not be electronically transferred and required that a human being look at it on the screen of the secure system and then transcribe it by hand to the insecure system. Which is what Clinton had here aids do.

There is no proof she ever had her aids do that.

There is no doubt that she should be prosecuted just for attempting to avoid the FOIA, which is the reason the server existed to begin with.

Pure speculation.

Comment Re:Does it even matter? (Score 2) 416

I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.

Comment Re:The only possible hope (Score 1) 416

I was pretty stunned when they granted him immunity. All he has to do is mimic Col. North and say, paraphrasing Col. North, "Everything I was told to do was legal and proper, everything that was a crime I take full responsibility for".

As soon as that happened, the case disappeared unless he decides to testify against her. Even then, it's not a strong case, unless they have written proof.

Comment Re:Does it even matter? (Score 1) 416

She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails.

Such a system did not exist until after Sect. Kerry became the Secretary of State. Until that time email retention was supposed to be done by printing a copy and ensuring that it was available for archiving. That's exactly what Ms. Clinton did; she printed copies of the emails that were related to her duties as Secretary of State and turned them over.

In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over.

Ah, but see, that's not what happened. She was ordered to turn over her work related emails, which she did do.

Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.

Actually no, it was the requirement. An electronic copy was not sufficient to meet the archiving requirements.

Comment Re:The only possible hope (Score 1) 416

It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.

Do you have proof that was her intention? If not, stop making such claims.

And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".

Nope, she didn't do that. She told them, and this is the direct quote "If they can't [send it via secure fax], turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Turn it into "nonpaper w no identifying header" doesn't mean copy and pasting it into a different system. It's rewriting the content in a way that is not classified and removing the State Department headers so it is not quotable as an official source. It has nothing to do with removing classification markers. To do that would be illegal.

The really interesting part of this is that the content probably wasn't classified anyway. Talking points rarely are, since the purpose it to give the information to the press.

Oh, and BTW, the information was sent by secure fax.

So when you wrote...

Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.

and

Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!

You are misstating the facts. I'm going to assume you didn't know better, so I won't accuse you of lying. But if you say the same thing again, you will be lying.

Comment Re: Discretion (Score 1) 554

I'm not claiming that we don't have inspectors saying the email contained classified material; that'd be stupid. What I'm asking about are your claims of the actual content in those emails, like your repeated claims of satellite imagery.

Can you share those sources for people that have actually reviewed the classified material that there were, as you claim, classified satellite imagery of North Korea in the email? All I've seen is conjecture and anonymous sources.

Comment Re:I dunno about you... (Score 1) 434

You've misquoted the data. The .78 is washing one hand only with water. The baseline, not washing, is 1.00.

Washing without soap decreases the spread of that particular illness by a third. That's quite effective. As I said, any soap will make it better, in the study I linked to using soap decreased it another third beyond washing without soap.

Comment Re:A few ideas (Score 1) 434

I do it all the time. As the CDC suggests, I sing the tune "Happy Birthday" in my mind, usually twice, while doing it. I've taught my daughter to do the same.

I don't really care if people think I'm weird for washing my hands well. I rarely get sick, and it's because I wash my hands. That said, I've been doing it for years, and nobody, at least not so I've noticed, has looked at me funny.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you can remove all pathogens. The comment you responded to said, "most pathogens". That's true. Hand washing for 20 seconds does remove most pathogens.

Comment Re:This is not how the world works (Score 1) 434

You've got a bit overboard. Washing your hands properly with or without soap does decrease the likelihood of spreading germs that make people sick, see The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study

Comment Re:I dunno about you... (Score 5, Informative) 434

Washing your hands without soap at all is quite effective, assuming you do a reasonable job at it. See The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study. Any soap will make the hand washing more effective. Anti-bacterial soap is no better than standard soap.

Slashdot Top Deals

A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions that make it fail. -- Jerry Ogdin

Working...