Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:#BernOrBust (Score 1) 482

With a Trump presidency what do we get? Four years of incoherent policy that shifts on a weekly basis

Yes, Trump's incompetence means he'd actually accomplish nothing.

While Clinton will be able to do plenty to issue more H1Bs, pass TPP-like treaties, and start another ground war in the Middle East.

Effectiveness is only good if you want what the effective person wants.

Comment Re:Get better skills (Score 3, Interesting) 482

I'm a 45 year old developer. I've learned more programming languages post-college than I learned in college. I've taken courses on managing development teams. I've read tons of books on various aspects of tech. I have skills that are useful and hard to find.

I'm of a similar age, and with a similar skillset. I've been replaced by H1B workers - it took two do do my job.

Congratulations on your good luck, and I hope it holds out.

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 1) 742

The SoS only has that power if the information first entered the government via the State Department.

If the information first entered the government via a different agency (DoD, DNI, etc) then the head of that agency is the one who gets to decide if it is classified. And the heads of the other agencies do not get to overrule that determination.

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 1) 742

Technically anyone with a classification was supposed to avoid reading those newspaper stories

Pedantic correction: They can read newspaper stories about the documents, they can't read the documents themselves.

Suggesting that Clinton should be indicted when the actual contents of the emails may have been as innocuous as a discussion of the front page of the NY Times might be legally plausible in an academic sense, but would expose the justice system to ridicule in practice.

And if that was the only "problematic" email, that argument would work. It isn't the only "problematic" email.

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 1) 742

Do you actually know why documents are classified and how they are supposed to be handled

Yes. And I don't even have to talk to other people about it.

However it isn't per say mishandling of classified documents.

Stripping the portion marking and header/footer from a document without proper review is either against "the rules" or "the law". Which it breaks depends on a lot of details of the specific circumstances.

But unless you have more context (e.g. the document she requested to have turned into a nonpaper had originally been classified by another agency rather than the State Department, and it indeed had been sent unclassified without that agency's approval)

The relevant email was redacted when it was released under FOIA. So either it contained classified, or someone illegally redacted it.

It should be noted that the secure fax mentioned at the end of the article was a printout of an email. Just to avoid more confusion.

Comment Re:Indict? (Score 2) 742

Stripping the classification markings off a document without proper review is a problem. Whether it breaks "the rules" or "the law" depends on a lot of details about the circumstances.

Does it matter at all to you that the information involved wasn't classified and so it doesn't matter what system it was sent over?

We don't know what was or was not actually classified, since that part was redacted....which you'd know by reading the article.

Since there are redactions, either there was classified information, or someone illegally redacted the document. It would be nice to know which.

Comment Re:Chain of custody? Forensics? Anyone? (Score 1) 742

The defense would have to say "Third parties could have inserted those emails". Thus admitting third parties had access to the server.

It's a little like saying "someone else could have put that dead body in my garage" when you are being charged with having a dead body in your garage.

Comment Re:Chain of custody? Forensics? Anyone? (Score 1) 742

Since some of the classified emails originated from addresses outside, including, Clinton's server is not the only place where these emails exist.

In addition, the way they would be excluded is a motion by the defense. To make that motion, the defense would have to admit that someone hacked their server in order to place fake emails.

Any charges against Clinton would be based on gross negligence in administering her server. Admitting under oath "Yeah, my server was routinely exploited by 3rd parties" would be admitting to gross negligence.

Comment Re:"concessions from the new Clinton government" (Score 2) 742

And why does he not think that Trump will win the White House, and what will his course of action be if he does? I don't get his motives here, except as some play for himself in some twisted logic game?

Clinton pushed for a stronger response to Crimea and an invasion of Syria while she was SoS. And Trump is kind of an isolationist, at least when it comes to the parts of the world Russia wants to influence.

So between Clinton and Trump, Putin benefits most from Trump.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs." - H. L. Mencken