Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he certainly doesn't fall under the category of "reliable and unbiased"
He's commenting on how it's easy to de-duplicate and filter down emails based on some very simple parameters (e.g. "Is this in the existing database?" and "Is this to/from Clinton?") and how that would cull down the number of remaining emails to a reasonable level which a small team could easily sort through.
Having said that, his explanation just muddies up the water further. If they could parse the emails this quickly, then why did it take months to do the initial assessment?
It doesn't muddy the waters at all. The first process was to go through all the emails and then go back to original sources and find it if this information was ever classified and when, and then hand it off to various other agencies for them to be able to determine if they need to retroactively classify and redact the emails before releasing them under the numerous FOIA requests. The initial part of the investigation also involved determining if the server's security had ever been compromised, which meant a bit of a deep forensic analysis and going through reams of logs. It's much more time-intensive than simply saying, "have we seen this before, is it to/from Clinton, and is it of a personal nature?"
And not only that, but for Comey to make the statement about whether or not this effects is decision to recommend indictment of Clinton or not all they have to do is cull that list down even further to examine only the emails involving her.
It took them several months to do this the first go around because they had to determine the importance and relevance of each individual email, and then before it could be released to the public (as there had been numerous FOIA requests) it had to go through several Federal agencies so they could retroactively classify and redact the documents.
In this case since there are no new emails that are pertinent they don't have to go through the same process, which expedites the timeline.
No, there were new emails. The reason the FBI could easily churn through them was because they were either of a personal nature (and thus not relevant) or didn't involve Clinton at all.
Because each email had to go through several Federal agencies to have any retroactively classified information redacted before they could be publicly released.
Seriously, anyone who's ever had to do de-duplication or pattern matching or anything like that could have told you how easy this is to do. It's almost like computers are good for this kind of stuff!
No no no no, people are totally misunderstanding what Apple means when they say their stuff is made "with sapphires," not "out of sapphires." Like when I say "I made this with my friend," there's a chunk of sapphire on the factory floor that people work with, like an pet rock.
It's not beyond possibility. They also routinely exploited security vulnerabilities in the DNC's databases to extract information from the Clinton campaign. Makes sense they'd have some insider information to aid in the execution of such an attack. Not that I'm saying it was Sanders supporters, just that it's not impossible.
The First Amendment allows you to speak whatever you wish. It does not protect you from the consequences of that speech. The government cannot prevent me from spilling all sorts of internal secrets, but that doesn't mean my employer cannot sue me for breaking my non-disclosure agreement.
Likewise you're legally free to advocate for treasonous action, and say things that "give comfort and aid to our enemies," but that doesn't mean you can't be indicted for it.
I think the weasel words here would be that it's for personal gain, not to cause damage to the country. In his own mind, it would enable his Presidency, which would be good for the country, and therefore not treasonous. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if that would stand up to any kind of legal muster.
But nothing she sent on that server was classified, right?
I mean, classified at the time, riight?
You say that like she could predict with 100% accuracy everything that could ever be desired to be classified at any time in the future by any other government agency in existence.
Say she's got some schedule of some Iranian government official's visit to the United States, and three years later that government official is implicated in funding of a terrorist group in the United States. The schedule says he was supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time on a certain day, but official records showed he never showed up, and all information available says he was in the right area at the right time to make his connection with the terrorist group. All of a sudden that schedule becomes classified, because we don't want the Iranians to know what we know, so all documents pertaining to this government official and their time in the United States is retroactively classified. Crazy, right?
Um, they already have all her emails, including the ones she deleted. That was part of he big FBI investigation. Remember when Datto handed over the trove of information to the FBI?
Secondly "Cybercrime"... is no crime at all if no one is harmed and the information that is put in the hands of those that should have had it to begin with.
So you're saying that Russia should have all the emails sent and received by the Secretary of State?
If anyone was ever going to have harm come to them from those emails... it's already happened
Unless there are certain other parties out there that don't have access to those emails, but would gain access to them by the Russians releasing them publicly. Trump has said "the press" would reward them "mightily" for releasing the emails, how else would "the press" reward Putin if it didn't mean they had unfettered access to them so they could parse it themselves?
the guilty party is Hillary for breaking federal law regarding the security of government communications.. not to mention basic common sense security measures.
Which is a poor deflection of the point at hand. If I forget to lock my car and you come in the middle of the night and hotwire it and steal it, are you not still guilty of grand theft auto? Does my negligence absolve you of your criminal activity?
Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.
You do realize that the Secretary of State (the office of which these emails would pertain to) would have lots of things to hide for national security reasons, right? That's kind of a big reason we have a classification system for government documents.
If this were some kind of third party candidate, I might agree. But this is a major party nominee calling for another country to commit cybercrime and violate our national security for his own political gain. That's kind of big news.
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
Your telecom/ISP may not have full access to any hardware you own, but there's still hardware you rent, and publishing the source of the firmware for that is something I doubt they would want.
Slashdot Mirror
He's commenting on how it's easy to de-duplicate and filter down emails based on some very simple parameters (e.g. "Is this in the existing database?" and "Is this to/from Clinton?") and how that would cull down the number of remaining emails to a reasonable level which a small team could easily sort through.
It doesn't muddy the waters at all. The first process was to go through all the emails and then go back to original sources and find it if this information was ever classified and when, and then hand it off to various other agencies for them to be able to determine if they need to retroactively classify and redact the emails before releasing them under the numerous FOIA requests. The initial part of the investigation also involved determining if the server's security had ever been compromised, which meant a bit of a deep forensic analysis and going through reams of logs. It's much more time-intensive than simply saying, "have we seen this before, is it to/from Clinton, and is it of a personal nature?"
Yes, that's exactly the case.
Many states allow people to change their vote on election day.
Implying you are somehow not getting the same government?
And not only that, but for Comey to make the statement about whether or not this effects is decision to recommend indictment of Clinton or not all they have to do is cull that list down even further to examine only the emails involving her.
In this case since there are no new emails that are pertinent they don't have to go through the same process, which expedites the timeline.
This seems to be the case. Demographic polling shows him losing the vote with anyone who has more than a High School Diploma.
No, there were new emails. The reason the FBI could easily churn through them was because they were either of a personal nature (and thus not relevant) or didn't involve Clinton at all.
In this case we have a trove of emails . Also note what Comey said: he said that this doesn't change their decision with regards to recommending to indict Clinton or not, so that means once they hit this point all they have to do is figure out if Clinton had sent any of the remainder of the emails, which is easily accomplished with a simple search.
Badda bing, easy work.
Seriously, anyone who's ever had to do de-duplication or pattern matching or anything like that could have told you how easy this is to do. It's almost like computers are good for this kind of stuff!
No no no no, people are totally misunderstanding what Apple means when they say their stuff is made "with sapphires," not "out of sapphires." Like when I say "I made this with my friend," there's a chunk of sapphire on the factory floor that people work with, like an pet rock.
The FBI already has all her emails, what's there left to get from the Russians?
It's not beyond possibility. They also routinely exploited security vulnerabilities in the DNC's databases to extract information from the Clinton campaign. Makes sense they'd have some insider information to aid in the execution of such an attack. Not that I'm saying it was Sanders supporters, just that it's not impossible.
Likewise you're legally free to advocate for treasonous action, and say things that "give comfort and aid to our enemies," but that doesn't mean you can't be indicted for it.
I think the weasel words here would be that it's for personal gain, not to cause damage to the country. In his own mind, it would enable his Presidency, which would be good for the country, and therefore not treasonous. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if that would stand up to any kind of legal muster.
You say that like she could predict with 100% accuracy everything that could ever be desired to be classified at any time in the future by any other government agency in existence.
Say she's got some schedule of some Iranian government official's visit to the United States, and three years later that government official is implicated in funding of a terrorist group in the United States. The schedule says he was supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time on a certain day, but official records showed he never showed up, and all information available says he was in the right area at the right time to make his connection with the terrorist group. All of a sudden that schedule becomes classified, because we don't want the Iranians to know what we know, so all documents pertaining to this government official and their time in the United States is retroactively classified. Crazy, right?
Um, they already have all her emails, including the ones she deleted. That was part of he big FBI investigation. Remember when Datto handed over the trove of information to the FBI?
Can they remove Trump? I mean, under their own bylaws aren't they kind of stuck with him?
So you're saying that Russia should have all the emails sent and received by the Secretary of State?
Unless there are certain other parties out there that don't have access to those emails, but would gain access to them by the Russians releasing them publicly. Trump has said "the press" would reward them "mightily" for releasing the emails, how else would "the press" reward Putin if it didn't mean they had unfettered access to them so they could parse it themselves?
Which is a poor deflection of the point at hand. If I forget to lock my car and you come in the middle of the night and hotwire it and steal it, are you not still guilty of grand theft auto? Does my negligence absolve you of your criminal activity?
Now, he can be charged and indicted on allegations of criminal activity, but strictly speaking he cannot be impeached at this point in time.
Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?
An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.
Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.
You do realize that the Secretary of State (the office of which these emails would pertain to) would have lots of things to hide for national security reasons, right? That's kind of a big reason we have a classification system for government documents.
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
So Soviet Earth?
Pretty sure Comcast has a remote management interface so they can turn on and off that Xfinity Wifi access point. Or so you can customize your Wifi access point via an app on your phone.
Your telecom/ISP may not have full access to any hardware you own, but there's still hardware you rent, and publishing the source of the firmware for that is something I doubt they would want.