the fact that she was having any work-related discussion on a private email server is criminally negligent in and of itself
Wrong. The State Dept. did not summarily forbid such; it's why Colin Powell used AOL. She apparently violated the State Dept. policy for using such a service, but violating dept. policy is not by itself a criminal act related to classified info. Even if she got the proper sign-off, it wouldn't change anything security-wise. Thus, not getting the proper sign off did not contribute to an identifiable security risk. (It may solve other problems, but that's not the sub-topic here.)
If you want to argue that such is "obviously more risky" than using the regular NON-classified dept. email server, be my guest, but that's murky and full of tech minutia. Further, Colin suggested to her that Dept. equipment is unreliable, giving her reasonable justification to avoid it.
Now perhaps it can be argued it's poor judgement, but it's NOT blatantly poor; It's nuanced poor. The Dept. email server WAS hacked, so we do have direct evidence it wasn't reliable. Colin turned out to be right.
Nowhere did she clearly violate a secrecy law. If you claim otherwise, I invite you to make a written case for it as if you were to present such an argument to a jury...
No, the US hides what they are doing using vague language* in the Patriot Act to justify it if caught. In this particular case, the Chinese gov't is telling the world what they are doing up front.
* Other vague language possibly got Hillary off the hook. Our laws are infested with vagueness. Vagueness favors those with better lawyers. It's why more little guys go to jail for classified breaches than fat cats.
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
The cost of living is one obvious factor to look at; the cost of living is much lower in many developing countries.
It may make more sense to look at the relative rates of professions within a given country. For example, how much do Indian accountants and cops make compared to Indian coders?
If the ratios are about the same, then the question is not really about IT salaries in the US, but why general salaries and the cost of living is different between countries.
Except Hillary Clinton RESPONDED on TOP SECRET email conversations
If they were vetted before or when sent to her, that would not happen. Back to my original point.
Hillary Clinton also IGNORED Podesta not talk about subjects on a insecure email channel, and Hillary did anyway...Colin Powel warns Hillary Clinton to be "very careful" to not get caught hiding her emails
Link?
Hillary Clinton set up the whole thing to get around FOIA laws.
Do you have direct evidence of that, or are you just guessing? I'm tired of guesses; they are a dime a dozen.
For the older stuff, replacing a washer took only about 5 minutes, while replacing an entire fixture is at least a 2 hour job, more if you screw up the caulking, which for some odd reason I do. Maybe I'll get it right after 30 tries.
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Most likely the video DID contribute to the size of the attack party. The main perp even said he was personally bothered by the video.
It's mostly moot anyhow, for what was stated at the time was based on complex and changing intelligence, and fear of tipping the suspects with too much public info.
While it's possible some of the statement decisions were politically influenced, without true Mind Reader tech, nobody will really know such that it's a waste of time and rude to point fingers based on mere guesses.
The problem with Microsoft's phone effort wasn't that Microsoft didn't invest in it soon enough...The reason Microsoft lost in the smartphone market was because their product sucked.
So the real debate was over how to suck.
MS has traditionally thrown essentially beta editions out at relatively low prices or as part of bundles, and then let the market and time debug it. But that doesn't work well with hardware.
With software, a bad product doesn't keep you from using your computer for other things. But bad hardware means you purchased a brick.
Edge is yet another brand we have to test UI's with. There are two Microsoft browsers now, and they both suck. (Insert my usual rant about fat-client-version-hell.)
Maybe we are buying the wrong stuff, but our faucets are all modular, there is no accessible washer like the old days. It's like cars: you don't repair them anymore, someone identifies the bad module and swaps in a new (expensive) one.
Plumbing has been car-ified! Self-service is dying. They have us by the balls.
I believe that phrase is often misinterpreted or taken out of context. When I read the fuller statement, my interpretation is that she was saying that in the immediate aftermath, getting shit done was more important than categorizing events as terrorist versus non-terrorist: a vocabulary exercise.
Mark Spencer fell through the Buzzword Tree and hit every branch on the way down, except maybe the Synergy branch:
HCSC spokesman Mark Spencer said, "We are adapting how we work to meet our members' needs in today's rapidly changing healthcare marketplace. We are modernizing our information technology systems, developing critical skills and capabilities within our IT workforce, and building strong collaborative partnerships with our business colleagues to rapidly deliver solutions that improve our service to members."
"We are transitioning to a blended operating model in which basic operational tasks are handled by strategic business partners, and critical strategy and design work is performed by HCSC employees," the statement said. "The new model uses more flexible and agile ways of working with new tools, allows us to invest in developing new capabilities and innovation, and reduces complexity related to years of maintaining legacy systems."
why aren't we seeing lawsuits from people in that position?
The visa workers are usually hired by the firm the main company is outsourcing too. Thus, the hiring practices subject to legal review are not by the main firm. They tell the judge or jurors, "Hey, we are just outsourcing the work, we don't do actual hiring of the workers. The outsourcing company selects workers for a project."
And the shenanigans used to justify visa workers are fairly well known, such writing the job "requirements" that happen to better fit a known visa applicant. Inspectors are often clueless dolts who don't know Javascript from Flux Capacitors: pump them full of mumbo jumbo and they glaze over. Or they don't have time to dig deeper to find the real requirements of the job, versus the claimed requirements. The outsource companies have a lot of practice writing around the law.
Oh join me fellow Comeyites, to give the iPhone a holy back door like God has asked of his followers, per Galatians 8:12. For God needeth space ships and God needeth back doors.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The State Dept. did not summarily forbid such; it's why Colin Powell used AOL. She apparently violated the State Dept. policy for using such a service, but violating dept. policy is not by itself a criminal act related to classified info. Even if she got the proper sign-off, it wouldn't change anything security-wise. Thus, not getting the proper sign off did not contribute to an identifiable security risk. (It may solve other problems, but that's not the sub-topic here.)
If you want to argue that such is "obviously more risky" than using the regular NON-classified dept. email server, be my guest, but that's murky and full of tech minutia. Further, Colin suggested to her that Dept. equipment is unreliable, giving her reasonable justification to avoid it.
Now perhaps it can be argued it's poor judgement, but it's NOT blatantly poor; It's nuanced poor. The Dept. email server WAS hacked, so we do have direct evidence it wasn't reliable. Colin turned out to be right.
Nowhere did she clearly violate a secrecy law. If you claim otherwise, I invite you to make a written case for it as if you were to present such an argument to a jury...
I just see a large blob of text, I don't see an argument.
No, the US hides what they are doing using vague language* in the Patriot Act to justify it if caught. In this particular case, the Chinese gov't is telling the world what they are doing up front.
* Other vague language possibly got Hillary off the hook. Our laws are infested with vagueness. Vagueness favors those with better lawyers. It's why more little guys go to jail for classified breaches than fat cats.
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
The cost of living is one obvious factor to look at; the cost of living is much lower in many developing countries.
It may make more sense to look at the relative rates of professions within a given country. For example, how much do Indian accountants and cops make compared to Indian coders?
If the ratios are about the same, then the question is not really about IT salaries in the US, but why general salaries and the cost of living is different between countries.
Can you show official or reliable info that says a "Classification Authority" has to do such and such relevant to the case?
Hillary wishes nobody invented email.
Maybe she can borrow that time machine Obama allegedly used to change his birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper.
If that were true, many of her staff should also be on trial.
I'm willing to bet you don't have legal expertise.
If they were vetted before or when sent to her, that would not happen. Back to my original point.
Link?
Do you have direct evidence of that, or are you just guessing? I'm tired of guesses; they are a dime a dozen.
Interviewing the survivors & witnesses, studying the crime scene.
For the older stuff, replacing a washer took only about 5 minutes, while replacing an entire fixture is at least a 2 hour job, more if you screw up the caulking, which for some odd reason I do. Maybe I'll get it right after 30 tries.
Something I don't get: vetting content sent TO her should not be her job. There should be professional scrubbers doing that kind of work. I've worked in many orgs, and executives aren't expected to be doing that kind of "grunt" work. It goes to cubicle peons, like me.
Also, her home server is not necessarily more or less safer than the regular office email. In fact, the regular S.D. email server was hacked. (There is a separate message system for classified content, but it's not technically "email". It's a diff animal.) The home-vs-office dichotomy seems moot, at least as far as handling classified info*. Putting it on the wrong office box versus the wrong personal box seems the same sin to me.
* She didn't get "official" approval to use a home server, and also didn't follow the proper rules for archiving. But that's diff than the classified info issue.
Most likely the video DID contribute to the size of the attack party. The main perp even said he was personally bothered by the video.
It's mostly moot anyhow, for what was stated at the time was based on complex and changing intelligence, and fear of tipping the suspects with too much public info.
While it's possible some of the statement decisions were politically influenced, without true Mind Reader tech, nobody will really know such that it's a waste of time and rude to point fingers based on mere guesses.
http://cmorse.org/missiongen/
So the real debate was over how to suck.
MS has traditionally thrown essentially beta editions out at relatively low prices or as part of bundles, and then let the market and time debug it. But that doesn't work well with hardware.
With software, a bad product doesn't keep you from using your computer for other things. But bad hardware means you purchased a brick.
"Hey, you found a really unique specimen here! I see a big research paper. Let's revisit that sample."
You: "Uhhhh..."
Use FireFox or Palemoon to at least not relinquish all the control to big corporations.
Edge is yet another brand we have to test UI's with. There are two Microsoft browsers now, and they both suck. (Insert my usual rant about fat-client-version-hell.)
Maybe we are buying the wrong stuff, but our faucets are all modular, there is no accessible washer like the old days. It's like cars: you don't repair them anymore, someone identifies the bad module and swaps in a new (expensive) one.
Plumbing has been car-ified! Self-service is dying. They have us by the balls.
I believe that phrase is often misinterpreted or taken out of context. When I read the fuller statement, my interpretation is that she was saying that in the immediate aftermath, getting shit done was more important than categorizing events as terrorist versus non-terrorist: a vocabulary exercise.
Mark Spencer fell through the Buzzword Tree and hit every branch on the way down, except maybe the Synergy branch:
The visa workers are usually hired by the firm the main company is outsourcing too. Thus, the hiring practices subject to legal review are not by the main firm. They tell the judge or jurors, "Hey, we are just outsourcing the work, we don't do actual hiring of the workers. The outsourcing company selects workers for a project."
And the shenanigans used to justify visa workers are fairly well known, such writing the job "requirements" that happen to better fit a known visa applicant. Inspectors are often clueless dolts who don't know Javascript from Flux Capacitors: pump them full of mumbo jumbo and they glaze over. Or they don't have time to dig deeper to find the real requirements of the job, versus the claimed requirements. The outsource companies have a lot of practice writing around the law.
Oh join me fellow Comeyites, to give the iPhone a holy back door like God has asked of his followers, per Galatians 8:12. For God needeth space ships and God needeth back doors.
Must...resist...Trump...joke
Wasn't that the plot of some recent car ad? If you get [snazzy car model], you can outrun rogue drones.