So.. You are saying two things I don't agree with.
1. You don't need an example of someone being prosecuted for breaking a law to prosecute them for breaking a law. If that where true, then NOBODY could ever be prosecuted for breaking ANY law. So I owe you no example of such a prosecution. All I need provide you is the law, and she broke the law, Comey said so. His argument to let her skate is NOT part of the law, intent was NOT part of this law, only negligence is.
2. Hillary's "mistake" was carelessness, not inadvertent. "Inadvertent" implies someone who is trying, but suffered a laps in judgment for some instance. One would assume a thoughtful and caring person wouldn't recognize their "inadvertent" mistakes and take steps to both report them (as required) and attempt to not make them again. Hillary didn't report her mistakes, didn't attempt to not make them, she was careless OR she was simply clueless even after having received training on how to handle classified (which makes here stupid, which I don't believe for a second).
So you cannot have it your way here. Hillary was either uncaring and negligent or she is too stupid to understand the document she signed and the training she got when she received her security clearance. One is illegal the other makes here stupid. Take your pick...
Again go listen to Comey and you will find you are incorrect... There WHERE indications that parts of the messages being sent/received where classified.
Comey mentioned "portion marking" which where still in the copied text. This is a readily identifiable marking, consisting of text characters which is common in classified materials. They mark the "portion" of text in documents where different parts of the document have different classification levels. Clinton sent and received E-mails with both classified information AND portion marking.
Now if you want to argue that SHE didn't actually add that text to the E-mails, but merely forwarded text she was sent, fine, however, she WAS trained to recognize classified markings (including portion marks) as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better. Also, some of what she herself generated was classified at birth, by nature of what she was saying, and even though didn't carry any markings, AGAIN she SHOULD have known it's classification level, having received training on this as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better.
Now I know that Hillary has denied all wrong doing here, multiple times. However, unfortunately for her, her categorical denials have repeatedly been shown to be untrue. "It was for personal use only", "I never sent or received classified", "I never sent or received anything MARKED classified" are all things she's said about this as more and more facts came to light. She changed her story. That makes her either stupid enough to not really know what she was doing (which I don't believe for a second), a Liar (Which again, I'm not inclined to believe of her in this case), or flat out negligent and uncaring about her handling of classified information (and business communications outside of established channels) (Which I DO think is true).
Hillary's problem was she didn't care enough to follow the rules, then because she wasn't paying attention gets caught in multiple untrue versions of events trying to explain away what happened. She was negligent and didn't exercise proper care, not because she made a mistake, but because she didn't care. This, when handling classified, is illegal.
\
It was exactly this attitude that lost the election for her by the way. She was the heir apparent to the presidency and for all intents and purposes her winning was a foregone conclusion, both by the media and her campaign staff. She didn't care enough to even be concerned or make any adjustments to her campaign, instead drank her own pollsters Kool-Aid.
True.. Using bruit force crackable cyphers is common for one reason, it's cheap and easy to set up. If you use large keys and change them often, you will deny the adversary access to your communications for enough time to make it safe.
If it's going to take 80 years on average to find your key by bruit force attacks, and there are no back doors in your encryption algorithm, then you can be pretty sure that your adversary won't be able to read it for a couple of years. If you rotate your keys regularly, even if they do crack one key, they will only be able to read your communications for a short time, years after the fact.
In the end, it's all about risk management. How much risk are you willing to take with that message? What kind of damage would it do if somebody could read it in 5 years, 10, 20, 50. Encrypt with long enough keys and rotate them often enough to keep that information safe for enough time to make it useless and you've done your job.
Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.
The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.
You do understand that the President is the ultimate authority on what's classified and what's not. He can, on his own initiative, declassify anything at any time he so chooses. So by definition, he didn't improperly disclose classified information. It is literally his to do with as he pleases. You can argue the disclosure wasn't a good idea, but it wasn't a criminal act for the president.
Also, TREASON has a specific definition in the US Constitution. Sharing information with "a hostile foreign government" by a president just might not meet the requirements of the crime, depending on what information was supposedly given and the reasons it was given. One could argue that we are not at war with Russia, that they are only our adversaries on the world stage. There is no open conflict, so technically Treason cannot be committed.
Finally, Mueller is specifically limited to the investigation of Russian involvement in the Campaign. Mueller's authority to investigate crimes ends on election night unless there is a cover up of something he's allowed to investigate after that. This means that unless Trump's discussion with the Russians that you consider Treason is tied to the campaign, Mueller has no authority to even look at it. I assume he's staying within his bounds. Your mileage may vary.
Like I said, hand currier is a high bandwidth (and high latency) option. It's expensive, but with some pre-planning you can have enough key material in place to send whatever messages or data you want. You can put a whole bunch of one-time pads in a brief case if you can store them securely in small enough packages. Personally, I'm envisioning a large batch of USB keys or SS Drives with pads on them. Once you transmit the message, you destroy the pad by grinding the device into dust or overwriting it enough times to be sure it's not recoverable.
I don't suppose that you'd use it for everything, due to it's cost, but that's not the point. You encrypt the less critical stuff using less secure and cheaper techniques and reserve your one-time pads for the really sensitive stuff you never want cracked. But you *could* do the one time pad for everything if you had enough key materials hand transferred to do so.
Or are you looking for a *cheap* option that's convenient? In which case the expense of key exchange is your issue, not what kind or size of keys you are exchanging and you are going to sacrifice security in some way. In the end, the issue is how much risk are you willing to take with that data? That's your call not mine.
Actually, no. I'm going on what James Comey said his investigators found. She technically broke the law, multiple times.
Remember, the *only* part of Comey's statement I disagree with is his conclusion that no prosecutor would take the case and charge Clinton with felony counts for her gross negligence with handling classified information because he didn't find intent. Everything else he said was spot on. She broke the law, Comey clearly said as much, intent is NOT part of the statute, but gross negligence IS. Comey was wrong on that point.
Go listen to his statement on this if you don't believe me, then go read the statute. Draw your own conclusions. I'm simply disagreeing with Comey's conclusion and application of the statute, not his facts about what Clinton did or didn't do.
Putting classified onto an unauthorized system or taking it to an unauthorized location and storing it in an unauthorized way IS a crime. Unauthorized disclosure is just the result of unauthorized handling of classified. It's NOT treason, but mishandling classified information is indeed a crime.
Don't fall for Hillary's narrative. It's not true... Don't fall for those who claim she committed treason either, because that's not true. But there *could* be a crime here.
Go back and listen to Comey's statement when he was letting Clinton off the hook before the election. Where I don't agree with is conclusion (that no prosecutor would charge and try this case) it is CLEAR that she was extremely careless with classified information, which by the statute is criminal. Comey just let here skate...
I know right? That 100K of russkie money must have been very well spent..
Face it you guys, Hillary was such a bad candidate she lost to a novice, braggart, loud mouth real estate developer from Queens even after out spending him 2 to 1 along with that hum dinger of an October surprise "Access Hollywood" tape thing.
It should have been a blow out... Except that she and her campaign drank their own KoolAid, didn't bother to put in the effort to win, so she lost by the skin of her teeth...
I guarantee this will turn into a giant nothing burger and the DNC will have to "pivot" again to the next story about why the election was stolen by the russkies.
I think that narrative is coming apart at the seams right now so they will have to drop it. It looks like this laser like focus on this might result in a couple of the popular democrats getting burned. There is mounting evidence that the intelligence services where improperly used by the past administration to target their political opponents, which if true, would make Watergate look like a circus side show...
Now we hear that the russkies purchased Facebook ads? Unless it can be proven they coordinated this with the Trump campaign, what difference at this point does it make? Even if they DO prove coordination, what difference will it make unless Trump himself is proven to know about it? What's the likelihood of that? (Snowballs chance)
Try a new argument. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. Trump is only president because the electoral college ignored the will of the American people.
If you don't like this result, you are not going to like the 2024 election at all, the fist one after the 2020 census. The adjustment in house seats is very likely to take electoral votes from many of the very blue states and give them to the solidly red ones.
My point is that your average citizen of China isn't granted permission to leave by default. You need a good reason as defined by the state. The only thing that's really changed is that the bitcoin business is no longer seen as legitimate so leaving China on "business travel" is no longer valid, at least for this kind of business.
The notable exception was BEFORE now, when they where allowed to leave.
I know, I know... You say toe-mate-on I say too-mot-oh, you say poe-tate-oh, I say poo-tot-oh.
The rule in China is you must get permission to leave. The default answer is "no".
If the government has any issue with you, real or imagined, or you don't have an acceptable reason to go, the government will rubber stamp your request with "NO" and you don't get to go.
Is it any surprise the BitCoin guys/gals are not getting to leave?
How does this matter? It's not like a citizen of China is free to come and go at will to start with. They simply do not have this freedom. Getting out of the country is not a given.
That's how communism/socialism historically rolls. You just don't get to leave.
So why is it so strange or news worthy that specific people, with ties to a crypto currency which the country is currently trying to stamp out within its borders are not being allowed to leave? All this means is they are serious about their efforts to stop bitcoin, but we knew that already.
That's another way of making my point. Amazon's goal is to sell stuff, as much stuff as they can. They only care about this because the bad PR reduces sales..
Caught him? After he likely had 2 hours of unfettered access? AND the CEO admits that he just about didn't do anything...
Sure, they caught him, but it seems like they got lucky. If you are counting on getting lucky for your security systems to work, you have a security hole big enough to fly a fully loaded 747 though upside down....
The article I found on it (not WSJ) didn't give a time but it sounds like it was fairly late, and this guy is sitting alone in a conference room with multiple devices downloading files from the corporate network. I don't think the "I was just there for a meeting" defense is going to go very far.
This is horrible security on a number of levels...
Physical - How does an unauthorized person even get past the reception lobby and into a conference room? For Pete's sake people, don't let strangers wonder around the office by themselves. It's dangerous on sooo many levels.
Network - What kind of network security do you have? NOBODY, including your own employees should be able to just walk in and plug something into your network and get anything beyond an internet connection (if that). Personally, I'd dump any rouge device that pops up on my corporate LAN into purgatory. No connection for you! Beyond the "guest" network, I'd require authentication for network access.
If this story is true, this company has some serious security holes.
Slashdot Mirror
So.. You are saying two things I don't agree with.
1. You don't need an example of someone being prosecuted for breaking a law to prosecute them for breaking a law. If that where true, then NOBODY could ever be prosecuted for breaking ANY law. So I owe you no example of such a prosecution. All I need provide you is the law, and she broke the law, Comey said so. His argument to let her skate is NOT part of the law, intent was NOT part of this law, only negligence is.
2. Hillary's "mistake" was carelessness, not inadvertent. "Inadvertent" implies someone who is trying, but suffered a laps in judgment for some instance. One would assume a thoughtful and caring person wouldn't recognize their "inadvertent" mistakes and take steps to both report them (as required) and attempt to not make them again. Hillary didn't report her mistakes, didn't attempt to not make them, she was careless OR she was simply clueless even after having received training on how to handle classified (which makes here stupid, which I don't believe for a second).
So you cannot have it your way here. Hillary was either uncaring and negligent or she is too stupid to understand the document she signed and the training she got when she received her security clearance. One is illegal the other makes here stupid. Take your pick...
Again go listen to Comey and you will find you are incorrect... There WHERE indications that parts of the messages being sent/received where classified.
Comey mentioned "portion marking" which where still in the copied text. This is a readily identifiable marking, consisting of text characters which is common in classified materials. They mark the "portion" of text in documents where different parts of the document have different classification levels. Clinton sent and received E-mails with both classified information AND portion marking.
Now if you want to argue that SHE didn't actually add that text to the E-mails, but merely forwarded text she was sent, fine, however, she WAS trained to recognize classified markings (including portion marks) as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better. Also, some of what she herself generated was classified at birth, by nature of what she was saying, and even though didn't carry any markings, AGAIN she SHOULD have known it's classification level, having received training on this as a condition of her security clearance. She should have known better.
Now I know that Hillary has denied all wrong doing here, multiple times. However, unfortunately for her, her categorical denials have repeatedly been shown to be untrue. "It was for personal use only", "I never sent or received classified", "I never sent or received anything MARKED classified" are all things she's said about this as more and more facts came to light. She changed her story. That makes her either stupid enough to not really know what she was doing (which I don't believe for a second), a Liar (Which again, I'm not inclined to believe of her in this case), or flat out negligent and uncaring about her handling of classified information (and business communications outside of established channels) (Which I DO think is true).
Hillary's problem was she didn't care enough to follow the rules, then because she wasn't paying attention gets caught in multiple untrue versions of events trying to explain away what happened. She was negligent and didn't exercise proper care, not because she made a mistake, but because she didn't care. This, when handling classified, is illegal.
\
It was exactly this attitude that lost the election for her by the way. She was the heir apparent to the presidency and for all intents and purposes her winning was a foregone conclusion, both by the media and her campaign staff. She didn't care enough to even be concerned or make any adjustments to her campaign, instead drank her own pollsters Kool-Aid.
True.. Using bruit force crackable cyphers is common for one reason, it's cheap and easy to set up. If you use large keys and change them often, you will deny the adversary access to your communications for enough time to make it safe.
If it's going to take 80 years on average to find your key by bruit force attacks, and there are no back doors in your encryption algorithm, then you can be pretty sure that your adversary won't be able to read it for a couple of years. If you rotate your keys regularly, even if they do crack one key, they will only be able to read your communications for a short time, years after the fact.
In the end, it's all about risk management. How much risk are you willing to take with that message? What kind of damage would it do if somebody could read it in 5 years, 10, 20, 50. Encrypt with long enough keys and rotate them often enough to keep that information safe for enough time to make it useless and you've done your job.
Putting classified information directly in the hands of a hostile foreign government is actual TREASON, yet Trump still sits in the White House.
The good news is that Mueller does not appear like he's going to let him off the hook.
You do understand that the President is the ultimate authority on what's classified and what's not. He can, on his own initiative, declassify anything at any time he so chooses. So by definition, he didn't improperly disclose classified information. It is literally his to do with as he pleases. You can argue the disclosure wasn't a good idea, but it wasn't a criminal act for the president.
Also, TREASON has a specific definition in the US Constitution. Sharing information with "a hostile foreign government" by a president just might not meet the requirements of the crime, depending on what information was supposedly given and the reasons it was given. One could argue that we are not at war with Russia, that they are only our adversaries on the world stage. There is no open conflict, so technically Treason cannot be committed.
Finally, Mueller is specifically limited to the investigation of Russian involvement in the Campaign. Mueller's authority to investigate crimes ends on election night unless there is a cover up of something he's allowed to investigate after that. This means that unless Trump's discussion with the Russians that you consider Treason is tied to the campaign, Mueller has no authority to even look at it. I assume he's staying within his bounds. Your mileage may vary.
Like I said, hand currier is a high bandwidth (and high latency) option. It's expensive, but with some pre-planning you can have enough key material in place to send whatever messages or data you want. You can put a whole bunch of one-time pads in a brief case if you can store them securely in small enough packages. Personally, I'm envisioning a large batch of USB keys or SS Drives with pads on them. Once you transmit the message, you destroy the pad by grinding the device into dust or overwriting it enough times to be sure it's not recoverable.
I don't suppose that you'd use it for everything, due to it's cost, but that's not the point. You encrypt the less critical stuff using less secure and cheaper techniques and reserve your one-time pads for the really sensitive stuff you never want cracked. But you *could* do the one time pad for everything if you had enough key materials hand transferred to do so.
Or are you looking for a *cheap* option that's convenient? In which case the expense of key exchange is your issue, not what kind or size of keys you are exchanging and you are going to sacrifice security in some way. In the end, the issue is how much risk are you willing to take with that data? That's your call not mine.
Actually, no. I'm going on what James Comey said his investigators found. She technically broke the law, multiple times.
Remember, the *only* part of Comey's statement I disagree with is his conclusion that no prosecutor would take the case and charge Clinton with felony counts for her gross negligence with handling classified information because he didn't find intent. Everything else he said was spot on. She broke the law, Comey clearly said as much, intent is NOT part of the statute, but gross negligence IS. Comey was wrong on that point.
Go listen to his statement on this if you don't believe me, then go read the statute. Draw your own conclusions. I'm simply disagreeing with Comey's conclusion and application of the statute, not his facts about what Clinton did or didn't do.
Hand carried in tamper proof containers?
Expensive, but effective, high bandwidth and secure..
Not true...
Putting classified onto an unauthorized system or taking it to an unauthorized location and storing it in an unauthorized way IS a crime. Unauthorized disclosure is just the result of unauthorized handling of classified. It's NOT treason, but mishandling classified information is indeed a crime.
Don't fall for Hillary's narrative. It's not true... Don't fall for those who claim she committed treason either, because that's not true. But there *could* be a crime here.
Go back and listen to Comey's statement when he was letting Clinton off the hook before the election. Where I don't agree with is conclusion (that no prosecutor would charge and try this case) it is CLEAR that she was extremely careless with classified information, which by the statute is criminal. Comey just let here skate...
I know right? That 100K of russkie money must have been very well spent..
Face it you guys, Hillary was such a bad candidate she lost to a novice, braggart, loud mouth real estate developer from Queens even after out spending him 2 to 1 along with that hum dinger of an October surprise "Access Hollywood" tape thing.
It should have been a blow out... Except that she and her campaign drank their own KoolAid, didn't bother to put in the effort to win, so she lost by the skin of her teeth...
Yep, they have lost their ever loving minds over there on the left...
But hey, it's just the shoe on the other foot, the party out of power makes as much trouble as they can for the part in power. Politics as usual.
I guarantee this will turn into a giant nothing burger and the DNC will have to "pivot" again to the next story about why the election was stolen by the russkies.
I think that narrative is coming apart at the seams right now so they will have to drop it. It looks like this laser like focus on this might result in a couple of the popular democrats getting burned. There is mounting evidence that the intelligence services where improperly used by the past administration to target their political opponents, which if true, would make Watergate look like a circus side show...
Now we hear that the russkies purchased Facebook ads? Unless it can be proven they coordinated this with the Trump campaign, what difference at this point does it make? Even if they DO prove coordination, what difference will it make unless Trump himself is proven to know about it? What's the likelihood of that? (Snowballs chance)
Try a new argument. Hillary won by over 3 million votes. Trump is only president because the electoral college ignored the will of the American people.
If you don't like this result, you are not going to like the 2024 election at all, the fist one after the 2020 census. The adjustment in house seats is very likely to take electoral votes from many of the very blue states and give them to the solidly red ones.
LOL... Good one...
No, no we cannot.. (QED)
(waving hand) "This is not the hypocrisy you are looking for."
So.. You can now sue for negligence without having to prove any harm was actually done?
How on earth do you establish damages if you don't have evidence you where damaged in some way?
The judge did the right thing. The FTC dropped the ball and didn't have their ducks in a row. Sorry, go try again people...
My point is that your average citizen of China isn't granted permission to leave by default. You need a good reason as defined by the state. The only thing that's really changed is that the bitcoin business is no longer seen as legitimate so leaving China on "business travel" is no longer valid, at least for this kind of business.
The notable exception was BEFORE now, when they where allowed to leave.
I know, I know... You say toe-mate-on I say too-mot-oh, you say poe-tate-oh, I say poo-tot-oh.
The rule in China is you must get permission to leave. The default answer is "no".
If the government has any issue with you, real or imagined, or you don't have an acceptable reason to go, the government will rubber stamp your request with "NO" and you don't get to go.
Is it any surprise the BitCoin guys/gals are not getting to leave?
How does this matter? It's not like a citizen of China is free to come and go at will to start with. They simply do not have this freedom. Getting out of the country is not a given.
That's how communism/socialism historically rolls. You just don't get to leave.
So why is it so strange or news worthy that specific people, with ties to a crypto currency which the country is currently trying to stamp out within its borders are not being allowed to leave? All this means is they are serious about their efforts to stop bitcoin, but we knew that already.
qed
In 155 MPH winds? Why am I not surprised?
Actually, the issue will be power transmission lines.... Not generation capacity, unless they got really unlucky...
Heard of them? Of course, but they don't have any.. Puerto Rico is just about bankrupt so they cannot afford them or the fuel to run them.
That's another way of making my point. Amazon's goal is to sell stuff, as much stuff as they can. They only care about this because the bad PR reduces sales..
Caught him? After he likely had 2 hours of unfettered access? AND the CEO admits that he just about didn't do anything...
Sure, they caught him, but it seems like they got lucky. If you are counting on getting lucky for your security systems to work, you have a security hole big enough to fly a fully loaded 747 though upside down....
The article I found on it (not WSJ) didn't give a time but it sounds like it was fairly late, and this guy is sitting alone in a conference room with multiple devices downloading files from the corporate network. I don't think the "I was just there for a meeting" defense is going to go very far.
This is horrible security on a number of levels...
Physical - How does an unauthorized person even get past the reception lobby and into a conference room? For Pete's sake people, don't let strangers wonder around the office by themselves. It's dangerous on sooo many levels.
Network - What kind of network security do you have? NOBODY, including your own employees should be able to just walk in and plug something into your network and get anything beyond an internet connection (if that). Personally, I'd dump any rouge device that pops up on my corporate LAN into purgatory. No connection for you! Beyond the "guest" network, I'd require authentication for network access.
If this story is true, this company has some serious security holes.
Little Kimmy, I mean "Rocket Man with a suicide mission", Is that you? I didn't know North Korean despots took time for Slashdot..
Yea, but will you deliver it to my "friend's" house for me? Just bury it in the road out front.