1) Like TFA said, they may have wanted to put a place-holder instead of an actual and possibly still active email address, such as "[Person X]" instead of say "hrc@privateservers.com". That by itself is not illegal.
2) Please elaborate. It was against "proper practice"* to use it for WORK emails*.
3) Please elaborate. It was the Benghazi investigations that started the whole thing, not leaks. And being leaked does not mean it's not used anymore, it just means one is likely to start getting a shitload of spam and trolls.
* Outside services were not strictly forbidden, but H didn't get the written approval required by the official policies of S.D.
The auditors usually won't need access to open-ended person search tools, they mostly just check existing cases.
And the top-level auditors (auditors of auditors) should probably be rotated and/or lent cross-agency so that a bad apple doesn't have time to spoil an entire agency.
Nothing is 100% foolproof; it's a matter of reducing average risk.
When I complained to the store (Sears) they said that all washing machines are made that way now [90's]
That's a really dumb justification for suckage. "Sure, we suck, but so do our competitors now." I see now it's not just limited to telecoms and presidential candidates.
I suppose the appliance makers could argue that power-saving regulations limit their ability to make the "big iron" washers you talk about. Some of the older stuff from say the 50's were tough, stable, lasting, and easy to repair, but were also power-hogs.
By the way, our semi-old washer only has that problem if you wash big items like winter blankets or jackets. One has to be home to monitor it during such, else it dances around the garage. Being in a warmer region, it's usually not a problem.
I purchased both of them during the dot-com bubble. I was itching to get in on the "dot com profits", but did feel the companies were overvalued. My reasoning was that the Internet as a whole would continue to grow, but that existing companies were individually too unpredictable.
Thus, I looked for stocks that would grow as a side-effect of the Internet rather than direct Internet stocks. I cannot say all my stock picks were good decisions, but this set in particular mostly was.
"Fail" is not Boolean. "Grade" may be a better term. For example, a poorly written search justification with not enough detail or ambiguities. I don't think it's fair to outright fire or jail somebody for bad writing, unless maybe they don't improve after being warned.
Employees say the move was rejected by Ms. Mayer's team for fear that even something as simple as a password change would drive Yahoo's shrinking email users to other services.
At my company we call this "stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel".
My co is so clueless they step over both.
Seems playing with lightning releases their endorphins.
I was in so much pain that stopping the pain one way or another was more important to me than the fear of death. I thought something was really badly wrong such that death seamed a fairly likely outcome at the time, but ending the damned pain swamped any emotion about dying such that I don't even remember a fear of dying. Odd.
Some say stone pain can grow comparable to child-birth pain, but at least while giving birth one knows what the cause is. I had no clue.
All I could think of was an alien chest-burster
I think I shouted something about a toothy chupacrabra trying to get out to the medics when asked to describe the pain.
Re: "The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched."
Rewrite: "The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by checking existing records, and interviewing the person(s) who searched if any discrepancies or gaps are found."
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher. Example: "Related to case 12345, this person was a close match to the suspect description given by clerk at robbed market, who was interviewed by officer 84923 on Aug 7th." (In practice short-cut lingo can be used to reduce typing.)
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
3) The depth of the investigation will vary such that some will be pretty thorough. (Not every spot-check can be deep, but make enough deep to keep users on their toes.)
4) Those who've failed past audits or enter poor records are audited more often.
This won't catch every violation, but greatly reduces it because the search-user doesn't know which search will be audited and how deep the audit will be.
The reason this is not implemented is that governments and/or tax-payers don't want to pay for logging features and auditors.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see GOP so eager to prosecute Colin Powell or other employees that also used an outside service during H's tenure at State Dept.
You are just making up stuff without citations. Please stop.
1) Like TFA said, they may have wanted to put a place-holder instead of an actual and possibly still active email address, such as "[Person X]" instead of say "hrc@privateservers.com". That by itself is not illegal.
2) Please elaborate. It was against "proper practice"* to use it for WORK emails*.
3) Please elaborate. It was the Benghazi investigations that started the whole thing, not leaks. And being leaked does not mean it's not used anymore, it just means one is likely to start getting a shitload of spam and trolls.
* Outside services were not strictly forbidden, but H didn't get the written approval required by the official policies of S.D.
The auditors usually won't need access to open-ended person search tools, they mostly just check existing cases.
And the top-level auditors (auditors of auditors) should probably be rotated and/or lent cross-agency so that a bad apple doesn't have time to spoil an entire agency.
Nothing is 100% foolproof; it's a matter of reducing average risk.
So how can I personally profit off the bursting of this decade's AI bubble?
Nah, yours are too micro & soft
Be very afraid if they tell you you're "fired"
That's a really dumb justification for suckage. "Sure, we suck, but so do our competitors now." I see now it's not just limited to telecoms and presidential candidates.
I suppose the appliance makers could argue that power-saving regulations limit their ability to make the "big iron" washers you talk about. Some of the older stuff from say the 50's were tough, stable, lasting, and easy to repair, but were also power-hogs.
By the way, our semi-old washer only has that problem if you wash big items like winter blankets or jackets. One has to be home to monitor it during such, else it dances around the garage. Being in a warmer region, it's usually not a problem.
What? I thought that was a feature. "Thank you, Mr. Machine, for bringing me my fresh laundry."
Now I gotta get it myself.
"A.I. took away thinking jobs, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a thinker."
?
I have stocks in both UPS and FedEx. Thumpo!
I purchased both of them during the dot-com bubble. I was itching to get in on the "dot com profits", but did feel the companies were overvalued. My reasoning was that the Internet as a whole would continue to grow, but that existing companies were individually too unpredictable.
Thus, I looked for stocks that would grow as a side-effect of the Internet rather than direct Internet stocks. I cannot say all my stock picks were good decisions, but this set in particular mostly was.
Auditors should also be subject to audits.
Then their search-log should say, "Checking personal acquaintance due to NAWKC rules."
"Fail" is not Boolean. "Grade" may be a better term. For example, a poorly written search justification with not enough detail or ambiguities. I don't think it's fair to outright fire or jail somebody for bad writing, unless maybe they don't improve after being warned.
If you buy their software, arrival is not required.
Rats! There goes my scam:
http://www.yooha.com/
My co is so clueless they step over both.
Seems playing with lightning releases their endorphins.
First ship to be called "GALAXY N-VII"
Bah, blame it on Russia, it's what we do
And make those bastards pay for it
I was in so much pain that stopping the pain one way or another was more important to me than the fear of death. I thought something was really badly wrong such that death seamed a fairly likely outcome at the time, but ending the damned pain swamped any emotion about dying such that I don't even remember a fear of dying. Odd.
Some say stone pain can grow comparable to child-birth pain, but at least while giving birth one knows what the cause is. I had no clue.
I think I shouted something about a toothy chupacrabra trying to get out to the medics when asked to describe the pain.
Isn't that also in the Microsoft License Agreement?
but diddling Marvin is better. Martians all have 3 wankers and 3 cunts. (Any resemblance to a description of the Kardashians is purely coincidental)
Nope! I'm gonna have my brain cryogenically frozen, and be scanned into a brain emulator 200 or so years from now when tech advances.
Thus, I'll still be trolling Slashdot for thousands and thousands of years! Bwwaaaaa ha ha ha
Clarification:
Re: "The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched."
Rewrite: "The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by checking existing records, and interviewing the person(s) who searched if any discrepancies or gaps are found."
The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped:
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher. Example: "Related to case 12345, this person was a close match to the suspect description given by clerk at robbed market, who was interviewed by officer 84923 on Aug 7th." (In practice short-cut lingo can be used to reduce typing.)
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
3) The depth of the investigation will vary such that some will be pretty thorough. (Not every spot-check can be deep, but make enough deep to keep users on their toes.)
4) Those who've failed past audits or enter poor records are audited more often.
This won't catch every violation, but greatly reduces it because the search-user doesn't know which search will be audited and how deep the audit will be.
The reason this is not implemented is that governments and/or tax-payers don't want to pay for logging features and auditors.