She was given several opportunities to get a state department issued blackberry, and she refused.
You are contradicting yourself; you said her home server was "secret". But if it's secret, why would SD being trying to "correct" that situation? you cannot correct what you don't know about. And you still didn't address the "insisting others" question.
and it was a custom setup built at her home without the oversight of the department.
Being "custom" does NOT make it "home-brew". If I hire a professional to customize my car, it's NOT a home-brew job. It's only home-brew if I do it myself. I'd bet a paycheck 80% of English speakers would agree with me on that.
And, being set up without "oversight" does NOT by itself make it "secret". You are being fast and loose with words. I don't know whether it's drama-queening, or just having an outlier interpretation of English.
Is it because you don't understand the difference in security between network locations protected by a VPN and an official state department IT staff? I repeat myself because you continue to fail to understand some real basics here about network security.
1. I'm not on trial, Hillary is. "Should have known" applies to her, not me.
2. Hillary is not expected to be an IT expert.
3. If an outside service is so "grossly" bad, why was Colin allowed it?
4. You've offered no clear evidence about the configuration of either servers DURING her time at SD.
5. The "official state department staff" are known screw-ups.
6. There are many ways to foul up VPN etc. also (assuming it was even in place). Gov't employees are not known for carefulness.
If you can find any classified material in Colin's email, then he should be prosecuted too.
If Colin had received or sent classified on the "regular" office email system (not the classified message system, but SD's regular unclassified email system), would you consider that "Gross Negligence" on his part?
when by attesting to her training, she knows that material can be classified even if unmarked.
For one, there's no evidence so far she actually received training, only a briefing (oddly called "indoctrination" on the form).
Second, like I already carefully explained, it's unrealistic for her to check every fact in every email: that's time-consuming grunt work. Perhaps the policy technically held her to that (because policy writers are mass CYA-ers), but unrealistic technicalities don't qualify for "gross" negligence, ONLY minor negligence; and I'm pretty sure a jury of typical normal people will agree. I'd bet a paycheck on it.
But failure to abide by department policy, that you insist others follow, is by definition gross negligence.
You are making phrase-rules up. And, where is this "insisting" documented?
Because if Clinton exclusively used her secret, insecure homebrew server for department correspondence,
You lie: it was neither secret nor home brew.
She attested that she did
References, please.
She should have simply deferred to the expert assistants at State to get her secure communications and secure devices.
Even if she used the regular office email server (not meant for classified stuff), those who put the classified info on it would STILL be in violation. Putting the wrong stuff on the wrong box A is not legalistically different than putting it on the wrong box B because the laws say shit about box type.
The "homeness" of the server doesn't change anything of significance. I'm tired of arguing that with you, I find you dense and repetitive.
She had no business demanding a private insecure server,
Only Colin can? It wasn't "gross negligence" when he used AOL? But if it's not AOL then BAM! it's suddenly switches to gross negligence? BoggleLogic.
How exactly is the prosecutor going to argue that her private server is a jillion times more evil/bad/leaky than AOL *and* that she should have known?
Microsoft, Oracle, SCO, and Comcast have the courage to screw over customers and society and not let anger, complaints, and societal degradation distract or discourage them.
Note that I have looked for such patterns. I've had similar debates about lambdas and related functional constructs before, and thus am keen to keep an eye out for possible uses.
The main problem is that the pattern of variations-on-a-theme (VOAT) often don't divide up simply into code blocks. If there are many different VOATs, there are also usually attribute-level variations, not just algorithm variations. OOP is (potentially) better than lambdas at managing a variety of VOAT inputs.
And OOP falls apart for even larger sets of VOATs, with some form of set theory being more flexible in my opinion. RDBMS are then often used to implement a set-oriented viewpoint.
VOATs rarely are so uniform that a simple technique or input difference (such as a code block) can handle them well. In other words, the real world is too messy. Maybe in some domains, such as systems software (OS's, compilers, database engines, etc.) there is more uniformity in the variations because the variations are generally managed by engineers. But law-makers, marketers, and business owners are people who often don't give a fudge about logical design, and thus make screwy VOAT patterns.
But then you may be throwing away your vote. We are more or less forced to pick the least of two evils.
But here's a practical approach: if pre-election polls suggest that one candidate is almost certainly to win, then vote for a 3rd party to at least send a message.
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome. Just like with so many other technologies, we rush into using them...
True, but there is no god or equivalent to stop us. The cold-war had so many armageddon close calls that it's beyond scary and makes me suspect Anthropic Principle is at play. Climate change or run-away AI may be the next Great Filter.
Humans always plow face-first into new tools & weapons. It's their nature.
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
We'll make a bunch of gun-loving Elvises (Elvi?) with IQ's of 230 (excluding Wisdom IQ).
failing to give proper training is a specific responsibility of the leader
I find that silly and unrealistic. Is she in charge of the plumbing also? You probably wish she'd install Java updates herself.
Forget technically, *legally* she's obligated
Dept. policy by itself is not federal law. But even if it were, there are three levels of negligence, and legally being obligated does not BY ITSELF qualify for level 3.
The State Department servers were in a better security position than any homebrew secret server.
Your usage of the word "secret" is pundit-like spin, as already explained. And it wasn't "homebrew", but a commercial firm. You are double-spinning. Knock it off.
If an outside service is a "level 3 evil", why did S.D. allow it (at least for others)?
You have TWO hurdles here to justify level 3: explaining to the judge/jury why it's "very bad" YET had been allowed in the past.
Second, that Hillary should have known the difference, being she is NOT an IT expert. It's perfectly reasonable that she reasoned that if it were allowed in the past, it cannot be "super bad".
Pics or it didn't happen [use of classified message system]
Before we delve into that, why does it matter for such a court case? I don't want to waste time debating moot stuff.
the abject disregard of policy,
For one, policy is not law. Second, she may not have known about specific policies or their implementation details. I agree she "should have known" and asked around more, but not knowing is not necessarily level 3.
Perhaps I'm injecting my personal experience from the work world into this. The CEO is not expected to micromanage many of such details, and have expert assistants to guide them. They are supposed to be focusing on the big picture, NOT auditing security and verifying Java security updates.
But "injecting my personal experience" is what juries often do, for good or bad. It's partly why we have juries: to supply a "community view" of the law rather than let only bureaucrats make the judgement.
I agree she was careless, but because following the letter of the policy is unrealistic and doesn't fit industry practice per CEO's, I would NOT rank her mistakes at level 3 (barring new info about the details of what actually happened).
Technically making the CEO in charge of plumbing may make them technically guilty of violating policy if an old pipe breaks, but not necessarily be realistic. To me, it would have to be a realistic rule to qualify as level 3.
In summary: being technically obligated by itself does not qualify for level 3. And department policy is not by itself federal law.
If you follow the letter of ANY policy manual, a good many CEO's or equiv would probably be in jail.
it is grossly negligent to be the head of the State Department and not know how to handle classified material.
Again, the devil's in the details. If S.D. failed to give her proper training and subordinates failed to screen material, the failure is a GROUP EFFORT, and the blame may be spread out, diluted in a sense, so that it doesn't approach level 3. It's unrealistic for her to verify every word herself; she has to rely on team-work to get anything done.
Technically she may be obligated to "own" every word, but failure to screen every word doesn't qualify as level 3 because it's highly unrealistic for someone in her position to practically do so. She'd have her face in screens and databases all day: a very expensive clerical worker.
(In my original message, "Monitor Team", I pointed out there should be a dedicated monitor team to prevent repeated errors. The system is fucked up such that I don't entirely blame the staff. But that is different than a trial.)
2) it is grossly negligent to run all work related business for the Secretary of State through a private email unsuitable for classified information, knowing that the job of Secretary of State requires the discussion of classified material.
You are again making the "box error" here. It's blatantly obvious to me you are making a mental mistake on this. Your neurons are firing wrong. Home-ness of the server means shit; the reguar office email server was also NCES.
And she probably did use the secure system (which is not "email"). The problem is putting the wrong food into the wrong mouth, not the existence of the mouths.
The key issue is how classified info got into non-classified-email-systems (NCES) and if H "should have known" in a way that qualifies as level #3. A trial would probably have to take SPECIFIC messages (with sensitive parts substituted or blackened) and explain to the judge/jury how and why she "should have known", and if it qualifies for level 3.
That's the kind of detail we are missing. As a juror, that's the kind of info I'd want to see to ascertain negligence level, not summary words from Mr. Comey. You convict on details and specific actions, not summaries.
I guess I am still not making myself clear. I have yet to find PRACTICAL use for such. Actual. Real world. Production. At least not the domains I work with.
I agree there may be occasional instances where it might save some code, but it's not common enough to stuff Yet Another Paradigm into the language. It may cause more confusion and language complication than it's worth.
Wouldn't it be grossly negligent if the Secretary of State didn't get training on the proper handling of classified information?
Of her? No. She can't micromanage every detail; there's a lot of ground to cover. Have you ever worked with executives? I agree it's negligent that she wasn't more curious about it and verify if it's required, but that's only level #1 or #2 negligence.
and Clinton never used either of those systems properly.
Perhaps, but whether it's the Level #3 of "negligence" depends on the specifics and details, which you never provide. It's innocent until proven guilty. Say it over and over and maybe it will finally sink in with you.
and giving information showing the corruption is a social good.
It may not if it only focuses on one party. Let's see the GOP's angelic emails now...
Both parties are corrupt, but if you only expose one party then voters shift to the other corrupt party, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but results in policies different from what voters actually want.
By the way, humans are inherently corrupt and you cannot get rid of all corruption without putting in place so many rules and monitors that nothing real gets done.
signed affidavit that she executed after her security training.
It doesn't say "training". It was something more like a briefing. AND it probably didn't cover server selection (or at least you haven't shown it has.)
Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.
One cannot judge without seeing the details of the circumstances: who sent it, why should she/they have known it was classified, etc. Again, details matter because it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I am surprised there is not more investigation on the rest of the SD staff. GOP and co only focus on H because they have an agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
You are contradicting yourself; you said her home server was "secret". But if it's secret, why would SD being trying to "correct" that situation? you cannot correct what you don't know about. And you still didn't address the "insisting others" question.
Being "custom" does NOT make it "home-brew". If I hire a professional to customize my car, it's NOT a home-brew job. It's only home-brew if I do it myself. I'd bet a paycheck 80% of English speakers would agree with me on that.
And, being set up without "oversight" does NOT by itself make it "secret". You are being fast and loose with words. I don't know whether it's drama-queening, or just having an outlier interpretation of English.
1. I'm not on trial, Hillary is. "Should have known" applies to her, not me.
2. Hillary is not expected to be an IT expert.
3. If an outside service is so "grossly" bad, why was Colin allowed it?
4. You've offered no clear evidence about the configuration of either servers DURING her time at SD.
5. The "official state department staff" are known screw-ups.
6. There are many ways to foul up VPN etc. also (assuming it was even in place). Gov't employees are not known for carefulness.
If Colin had received or sent classified on the "regular" office email system (not the classified message system, but SD's regular unclassified email system), would you consider that "Gross Negligence" on his part?
For one, there's no evidence so far she actually received training, only a briefing (oddly called "indoctrination" on the form).
Second, like I already carefully explained, it's unrealistic for her to check every fact in every email: that's time-consuming grunt work. Perhaps the policy technically held her to that (because policy writers are mass CYA-ers), but unrealistic technicalities don't qualify for "gross" negligence, ONLY minor negligence; and I'm pretty sure a jury of typical normal people will agree. I'd bet a paycheck on it.
In that case, doesn't the CMB radiation represent a frame of reference, kind of like the (discredited) Ether idea?
Explains Trumps' hair.
You are making phrase-rules up. And, where is this "insisting" documented?
You lie: it was neither secret nor home brew.
References, please.
Even if she used the regular office email server (not meant for classified stuff), those who put the classified info on it would STILL be in violation. Putting the wrong stuff on the wrong box A is not legalistically different than putting it on the wrong box B because the laws say shit about box type.
The "homeness" of the server doesn't change anything of significance. I'm tired of arguing that with you, I find you dense and repetitive.
Only Colin can? It wasn't "gross negligence" when he used AOL? But if it's not AOL then BAM! it's suddenly switches to gross negligence? BoggleLogic.
How exactly is the prosecutor going to argue that her private server is a jillion times more evil/bad/leaky than AOL *and* that she should have known?
Something was "open":
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Well, I sure know where to insert the new plug.
Trump!
(Perhaps being crazy is underrated.)
Hmmm, why did Wikipedia 86 the stage number anecdote?
Microsoft, Oracle, SCO, and Comcast have the courage to screw over customers and society and not let anger, complaints, and societal degradation distract or discourage them.
Addendum
Note that I have looked for such patterns. I've had similar debates about lambdas and related functional constructs before, and thus am keen to keep an eye out for possible uses.
The main problem is that the pattern of variations-on-a-theme (VOAT) often don't divide up simply into code blocks. If there are many different VOATs, there are also usually attribute-level variations, not just algorithm variations. OOP is (potentially) better than lambdas at managing a variety of VOAT inputs.
And OOP falls apart for even larger sets of VOATs, with some form of set theory being more flexible in my opinion. RDBMS are then often used to implement a set-oriented viewpoint.
VOATs rarely are so uniform that a simple technique or input difference (such as a code block) can handle them well. In other words, the real world is too messy. Maybe in some domains, such as systems software (OS's, compilers, database engines, etc.) there is more uniformity in the variations because the variations are generally managed by engineers. But law-makers, marketers, and business owners are people who often don't give a fudge about logical design, and thus make screwy VOAT patterns.
But then you may be throwing away your vote. We are more or less forced to pick the least of two evils.
But here's a practical approach: if pre-election polls suggest that one candidate is almost certainly to win, then vote for a 3rd party to at least send a message.
True, but there is no god or equivalent to stop us. The cold-war had so many armageddon close calls that it's beyond scary and makes me suspect Anthropic Principle is at play. Climate change or run-away AI may be the next Great Filter.
Humans always plow face-first into new tools & weapons. It's their nature.
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
We'll make a bunch of gun-loving Elvises (Elvi?) with IQ's of 230 (excluding Wisdom IQ).
I find that silly and unrealistic. Is she in charge of the plumbing also? You probably wish she'd install Java updates herself.
Dept. policy by itself is not federal law. But even if it were, there are three levels of negligence, and legally being obligated does not BY ITSELF qualify for level 3.
Your usage of the word "secret" is pundit-like spin, as already explained. And it wasn't "homebrew", but a commercial firm. You are double-spinning. Knock it off.
If an outside service is a "level 3 evil", why did S.D. allow it (at least for others)?
You have TWO hurdles here to justify level 3: explaining to the judge/jury why it's "very bad" YET had been allowed in the past.
Second, that Hillary should have known the difference, being she is NOT an IT expert. It's perfectly reasonable that she reasoned that if it were allowed in the past, it cannot be "super bad".
Before we delve into that, why does it matter for such a court case? I don't want to waste time debating moot stuff.
For one, policy is not law. Second, she may not have known about specific policies or their implementation details. I agree she "should have known" and asked around more, but not knowing is not necessarily level 3.
Perhaps I'm injecting my personal experience from the work world into this. The CEO is not expected to micromanage many of such details, and have expert assistants to guide them. They are supposed to be focusing on the big picture, NOT auditing security and verifying Java security updates.
But "injecting my personal experience" is what juries often do, for good or bad. It's partly why we have juries: to supply a "community view" of the law rather than let only bureaucrats make the judgement.
I agree she was careless, but because following the letter of the policy is unrealistic and doesn't fit industry practice per CEO's, I would NOT rank her mistakes at level 3 (barring new info about the details of what actually happened).
Technically making the CEO in charge of plumbing may make them technically guilty of violating policy if an old pipe breaks, but not necessarily be realistic. To me, it would have to be a realistic rule to qualify as level 3.
In summary: being technically obligated by itself does not qualify for level 3. And department policy is not by itself federal law.
If you follow the letter of ANY policy manual, a good many CEO's or equiv would probably be in jail.
I mean during her term. What they do now is irrelevant to the discussion.
Shout it out: "I want a Monsanto kid!"
Bullshit.
Again, the devil's in the details. If S.D. failed to give her proper training and subordinates failed to screen material, the failure is a GROUP EFFORT, and the blame may be spread out, diluted in a sense, so that it doesn't approach level 3. It's unrealistic for her to verify every word herself; she has to rely on team-work to get anything done.
Technically she may be obligated to "own" every word, but failure to screen every word doesn't qualify as level 3 because it's highly unrealistic for someone in her position to practically do so. She'd have her face in screens and databases all day: a very expensive clerical worker.
(In my original message, "Monitor Team", I pointed out there should be a dedicated monitor team to prevent repeated errors. The system is fucked up such that I don't entirely blame the staff. But that is different than a trial.)
You are again making the "box error" here. It's blatantly obvious to me you are making a mental mistake on this. Your neurons are firing wrong. Home-ness of the server means shit; the reguar office email server was also NCES.
And she probably did use the secure system (which is not "email"). The problem is putting the wrong food into the wrong mouth, not the existence of the mouths.
The key issue is how classified info got into non-classified-email-systems (NCES) and if H "should have known" in a way that qualifies as level #3. A trial would probably have to take SPECIFIC messages (with sensitive parts substituted or blackened) and explain to the judge/jury how and why she "should have known", and if it qualifies for level 3.
That's the kind of detail we are missing. As a juror, that's the kind of info I'd want to see to ascertain negligence level, not summary words from Mr. Comey. You convict on details and specific actions, not summaries.
Details Matter. Grow some.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You have an odd writing style.
Do you have evidence the regular office email server was protected by a DMZ, used a higher level of encryption, and had good backups?
If I remember correctly, it died and the backups were faulty.
I guess I am still not making myself clear. I have yet to find PRACTICAL use for such. Actual. Real world. Production. At least not the domains I work with.
I agree there may be occasional instances where it might save some code, but it's not common enough to stuff Yet Another Paradigm into the language. It may cause more confusion and language complication than it's worth.
Of her? No. She can't micromanage every detail; there's a lot of ground to cover. Have you ever worked with executives? I agree it's negligent that she wasn't more curious about it and verify if it's required, but that's only level #1 or #2 negligence.
Perhaps, but whether it's the Level #3 of "negligence" depends on the specifics and details, which you never provide. It's innocent until proven guilty. Say it over and over and maybe it will finally sink in with you.
It won't matter in a real case.
It may not if it only focuses on one party. Let's see the GOP's angelic emails now...
Both parties are corrupt, but if you only expose one party then voters shift to the other corrupt party, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but results in policies different from what voters actually want.
By the way, humans are inherently corrupt and you cannot get rid of all corruption without putting in place so many rules and monitors that nothing real gets done.
It doesn't say "training". It was something more like a briefing. AND it probably didn't cover server selection (or at least you haven't shown it has.)
One cannot judge without seeing the details of the circumstances: who sent it, why should she/they have known it was classified, etc. Again, details matter because it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I am surprised there is not more investigation on the rest of the SD staff. GOP and co only focus on H because they have an agenda.
I don't believe it matters. I'm not going to feed trolls. Show how and why it matters first.
Even though this election may be self-inflicted, Putin can take credit regardless, and use that to threaten other nations.
"If you don't do things our way, you'll end up with bozos in your election also."
That may be a more effective threat than nukes.