It's more that the benefits are weighted upward...
I'm not sure what you mean. The ratio of GDP going to the top relative to rest has changed since trade expanded; it's not across-the-board multiplication. It's been almost flat for the middle class.
And the super-wealthy are running amok buying politicians.
Modern computer hardware would cost thousands of dollars instead of hundreds;
Many would rather have respectable jobs over prettier GUI's. Especially young adult males: if you don't find them a job and respect, they'll riot, rape, rob, and war. It's how they are wired. It's why dictators find a way to employ their younger population at almost any cost, including sacrificing consumer choice.
Seems everything is blamed on N.K. these days. It's perhaps too easy to do: everybody believes they are jerks, and they can't sue back for defamation if the accusation is wrong.
I'm not saying they didn't do it, only that their situation sure makes them a highly convenient scapegoat.
It reminds me of the time that our boss retired, and every problem was blamed on him afterward because he wasn't around to set the record straight. We knew the accusers were full of it because he didn't even work on most of the projects that flopped. We started to blame plumbing problems on him as a running joke.
That's the theory. But practice has found problems with this.
First, the benefits of free trade seem to go to the wealthy, not workers, for as of yet unknown reasons.
Second, comparative advantage removes diversification: you become a few- or one-product country, creating risk. The potato famine and Valenzuela's problems come to mind. You put all your eggs in one basket.
Third, many countries wish to subsidize labor in order to keep their population from rioting, in part by making consumption difficult but exports easy. A side effect is a country having excess US currency, which often ends up being invested in bubble-inducing sectors, destabilizing the world economies.
The theory cannot handle inequality and bubbles properly. The cash bubbles, inequality, and de-diversification (C.A.) create more instability and domino effects of crashes, due to increased linkage of country economies.
It's kind of like making your boat more efficient by tossing out the spare motor and spare battery: it runs faster and more efficient, UNTIL something bad happens. Protectionism may create some duplication (inefficiency), but that duplication is also a buffer from risk.
Our government became a plutocracy and did things us voters didn't ask for, like lopsided trade policies and legalized bribery (Citizens United ruling), so that the plutocrats could grow even plutoier.
And the Indian government keeps selling the virtues of "free trade" also whenever there is trade and visa contention. It's becoming the same way.
I pointed out why your INTERPRETATION doesn't make sense. You failed to address the criticism, repeating your flawed interpretation again instead of addressing your interpretation gaps head on.
And again, I did not claim forwarding and CC'ing is a FULL solution in itself, only a possible step. You keep referring to the related statement as if I'm implying it's a full solution.
Hold on here, how was the archive requirement satisfied for other State Dept. office workers who DID use the office email server? Surely, they didn't all print them all out.
I've worked for the federal government and I've sold product to the federal government...
I have no way to verify your experience was actually directly relevant to this email issue. That's why I'm asking for the exact text of laws you claim snag her.
They want the upsides of open trade, such as H1B wages flowing back to India and offshore outsourcing setting up shop, but NOT the downsides, such as allowing foreign products in that may reduce local jobs. This frustrates Americans to no end.
It IS complicated. It's a gov't bureaucracy. I've worked at them before. Almost nobody follows the rules to the letter because the letter is so messy, vague, and contradictory nobody could.
there is precisely one acceptable and legal way to follow the law under the Federal Records Act:
I thought you said there were 3.
You incorrectly presume that the email system is a valid recordkeeping system for federal records; it is not.
I did NOT say that, not for final archiving at the end of her tenure. It's simply the SAME intermediate form that would have been used even IF she used the right server.
You keep coming back to using your knowledge of how email systems work and how YOU would perform a search for records.
I was simply pointing out that your claims depend on implementation details that vary.
there are large windows when there are simply no emails. Are we really to believe that she didn't send/receive any emails during periods she was known not to be on vacation in a location without cellular access?
She often used the phone. Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.
And the State Department reported that hack
There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)
Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.
It's also the thinking of anyone using common sense.
I guess I don't have common sense then. I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did something sinister.
It appears your political bias is tainting your interpretation of incomplete information. I suggest you take yoga or something to remove the bias.
She says there was nothing classified on the server, turns out there was.
That has NOT been directly proven.
She said there was nothing 'marked' classified, then we find out markings are irrelevant.
That's not what happened.
Hell, she claimed she did it only for the simplicity of carrying one device... yet email footers show windows where she was sending from multiple devices during the same times.
You are splitting elephant hairs. 3 devices is still better than 4. And I've never seen usage stats on those to devices to see if they were common. You fill in the blanks with Fox Colored Glasses.
She also went on to delete emails which she did not have the right to destroy per the Federal Records Act and State Department rules which implement the law.
Please elaborate. Which ones?
The fact that she and her staff did not report suspected hacking attacks though does suggest that the content may have been at risk (so there you go)
The State Dept. server WAS hacked. They were BOTH Yugo's, so there.
items 'born classified' were not
The "born classified" thing is contentious and nebulous. It's not clear-cut, like an SQL WHERE clause.
We have at least one email asking a staffer to send a document in an insecure means.
That's the GOP's interpretation. She claims it was short-hand shop-talk that was misconstrued. Whether that's true or not we don't know yet; we only have 2 varying interpretations of a terse message. Your bias is showing now.
The statute and regulations specifically made her responsible for assuring that the policies were implemented. This has nothing to do with the technician, IT or anything or anyone else.
You mean it would be her job to log into the archive server and run SQL queries or similar herself to verify her messages are in the archive system? I call bullshit. That's unrealistic of the top officer and even executive level. As I read it, that's what you are claiming.
True, it may be a bad policy and is somebody dumping the problem onto management so their technicians are not held at fault. (More on this later.)
But, I wouldn't expect someone at H's level to be PRACTICALLY responsible for verifying the actual existence of bits on the archive system, and would call it a stupid policy. Written policies typically have a lot stupid shit if you scrutinize them.
Therefore, the use of an email system to store the records is specifically disallowed.
No. As I interpret it, it says use of email as the FINAL storage of records for "official" archival purposes is disallowed. It's not about what can be put on the email server, but what COUNTS as an official archive.
There were three recordkeeping systems that were an option for emails. Copying and forwarding is not one of them.
As a FULL archive step/procedure, correct, but that's not what I saying.
Let me try to explain it another way. Legend:
H = hillary A = official archive system(s) E = regular office email system T = outside email system
H writes email X1 to a foreign diplomat from T. She CC's her colleague, who has an account on E. Thus, a copy of X1 is now in E.
Now suppose Superman reversed time and H starts over as Sec. of State. THIS time she uses E as her primary work email account, and sends message X2, which has the same content as X1 did, but originated from E.
Now, technicians normally run a procedure that transfers messages from E to A. For those who use an account in E as their primary account, they don't have to do anything special; it's part of regular IT procedures.
Now it's possible that by using T, H is responsible to ensure to that her messages SOMEHOW end up on A.
Since she always CC'd or forwarded work-related emails written on T to E, E contains copies of all her work-related messages.
Then to get those messages on to A, she has to rely on technicians.
Your quotes refer to what can be or what can serve as A, NOT what can or cannot be on E. The guidelines for A don't really care about E either way. They only specify what A needs. (Maybe E could potentially serve as an A, but that seems moot here.)
The IG's report doesn't blame technicians or miscommunication between management and IT; it blames the Secretary and her staff for doing things they were prohibited from doing and failing to do things they were required to do under statute.
It could be office politics because if the techies did their job wrong, it makes the IT managers look bad and/or responsible. Of course they are going to try to blame and/or put the verification burden on somebody else, via statute text even. It's what humans do. If they can deflect blame/responsibility, they will.
After all, Microsoft holds the user liable if Excel does math wrong and the user loses a billion dollars because of it by investing wrong. (User should do a secondary check, but in this case H may have no such comparable option since the result is in obscure techie formats with limited access rights.)
I will only hold it against her if she violated a good statue, not a poor one that expects her to write and run SQL or whatnot.
it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it
The "regular" office email system was NOT designed for classified materials either: it was rather generic. (A separate system, which is not typically characterized as "email", was intended for the classified messages.)
You imply she used her Pinto to transfer goods when she could have used the company's Lexus. BUT, the company car was a actually Yugo.
The implication that her decision put info at risk is false.
(Putting classified materials on the regular office email system would be a mistake also. Whether that actually happened is still an open question. Much if not all of the reported classified stuff found was retroactively classified.)
I don't think they intended senior management run the listed tools. It's not Hillary's job to type command lines, etc. I suspect a technician typically runs a dialog box and/or command lines, running the listed tools, to specify which messages in the email system, such as Exchange, get archived in the proper way.
Perhaps it was her job to make sure the technician followed through, because she used an outside service.
Perhaps she asked them, perhaps not. Her team hasn't had time to thoroughly review the accusations and present their side of things yet, the report is new. They should have a fair chance to review and comment before we take this report verbatim.
We don't now which one of these event paths actually happened:
1. She didn't know of the requirement to ask the technicians to run extra procedures. Whether that's her fault or not is hard to say. It could be argued that's expecting her to micro-manage IT issues. Her job wasn't to manage IT and somebody from IT arguably should guide and assist her. The CEO of orgs I worked for would expect some hand-holding for such rather than know or care Capstone from SMART from Flux Capacitors.
2. She did know, but didn't bother or forgot to ask the technician for assistance. That blame would fall on her.
3. She did ask the technician, but the technician forgot. This would perhaps be the technician's fault. If the techie forgot, one may argue it was H's job to follow up to make sure it was done, but typically if a CEO asks for something once, the burden is on the receiver to get it done, NOT the CEO for periodic follow-ups.
4. Techie did the procedure, informed H it was complete, but did it wrong. H wouldn't be able to know, she's not a technician to run the inspections, queries, etc. to make sure it's in the archive system properly. That blame would probably fall on the technician.
5. She did ask the technician, but techie misunderstood what she was asking, and did it wrong or did the wrong thing. Blame is hard to say. Miscommunication happens.
Copying and forwarding emails is specifically disallowed
Where did you get that? As I read it, it says that alone is not sufficient to qualify for proper archiving, NOT that it is disallowed. (Other steps would be needed.)
My kid is taking a programming class in high school. The curriculum is more geared to covering topic bullet points than in learning via experimentation.
When I took BASIC in high school way back "then", we got to noodle around with fun graphics. I made a minimalist version of Space Invaders, for example.
I learned the value of subroutines by seeing the mess made by not using them. That's far more concrete and direct learning than "you should use subroutines because the book says so".
How do you suppose a search will work for emails the Secretary sent outside the State Department?
No, she would CC the SD in that case and it would then be on the same system as if she were emailing from SD from the beginning.
Being on the system via CC doesn't seem sufficiently different from being on the system via originating from it, unless the text of the rule dictates such, but so far somebody's produced such text.
The claim that copying people in the State Department on an email makes that email just as searchable as searching her email account is incredulous.
That depends on how it's indexed. If it's indexed on field X, then field-X searches are easy. I doubt the policy dictated implementation at that level, but you are welcome to quote the exact text if it does.
(It would be dumb to hard-ware such implementation details into administrative policy in my opinion, unless there were a compelling reason. Generally one is stuck with whatever a vendor provides, and hard-wiring it would limit vendor choices, over-pivoting the vendor selection decision on a single feature.)
And it only has to satisfy the rules, whatever they are, not necessarily be super-convenient. Technique X may be more convenient to search than technique Y, but unless the policy DICTATES technique X, it's moot to this situation.
The issue is that she put her personal privacy above her statutory duties as Secretary.
I'm not interested in general "judgement" issues in this particular thread, I want to know the exact policies that were alleged violated and see the policy text for it. I want to nerdal around in the details, in terms of policy text and technology.
That sounds like the way NA wants the State Dept. (SD) to send them the records, and not necessarily how an employee of SD submits them to SD itself. I don't think it was her role to prepare data transfers from SD to SA.
And, anything cc'd or forwarded to the regular SD email system would be just as searchable as an email written directly on it or sent from it. Being forwarded or cc'd does not render it any less searchable.
Secretary Clinton said she didn't want anyone to be able to search or examine her personal emails.
Personal emails are NOT covered by the archive rules, only work-related ones.
Slashdot Mirror
At least N.K. wouldn't be so sneaky about Windows 10: they'd simply force it on you; no surprises or gimmicks.
MS: "The corner 'X' only means "cancel" on Tuesdays of odd months, blah blah blah..."
I'm not sure what you mean. The ratio of GDP going to the top relative to rest has changed since trade expanded; it's not across-the-board multiplication. It's been almost flat for the middle class.
And the super-wealthy are running amok buying politicians.
Many would rather have respectable jobs over prettier GUI's. Especially young adult males: if you don't find them a job and respect, they'll riot, rape, rob, and war. It's how they are wired. It's why dictators find a way to employ their younger population at almost any cost, including sacrificing consumer choice.
Seems everything is blamed on N.K. these days. It's perhaps too easy to do: everybody believes they are jerks, and they can't sue back for defamation if the accusation is wrong.
I'm not saying they didn't do it, only that their situation sure makes them a highly convenient scapegoat.
It reminds me of the time that our boss retired, and every problem was blamed on him afterward because he wasn't around to set the record straight. We knew the accusers were full of it because he didn't even work on most of the projects that flopped. We started to blame plumbing problems on him as a running joke.
And Jupiter's red spot is shrinking. We are all doomed, I tell ya, dooooomed!
That's the theory. But practice has found problems with this.
First, the benefits of free trade seem to go to the wealthy, not workers, for as of yet unknown reasons.
Second, comparative advantage removes diversification: you become a few- or one-product country, creating risk. The potato famine and Valenzuela's problems come to mind. You put all your eggs in one basket.
Third, many countries wish to subsidize labor in order to keep their population from rioting, in part by making consumption difficult but exports easy. A side effect is a country having excess US currency, which often ends up being invested in bubble-inducing sectors, destabilizing the world economies.
The theory cannot handle inequality and bubbles properly. The cash bubbles, inequality, and de-diversification (C.A.) create more instability and domino effects of crashes, due to increased linkage of country economies.
It's kind of like making your boat more efficient by tossing out the spare motor and spare battery: it runs faster and more efficient, UNTIL something bad happens. Protectionism may create some duplication (inefficiency), but that duplication is also a buffer from risk.
Our government became a plutocracy and did things us voters didn't ask for, like lopsided trade policies and legalized bribery (Citizens United ruling), so that the plutocrats could grow even plutoier.
And the Indian government keeps selling the virtues of "free trade" also whenever there is trade and visa contention. It's becoming the same way.
I pointed out why your INTERPRETATION doesn't make sense. You failed to address the criticism, repeating your flawed interpretation again instead of addressing your interpretation gaps head on.
And again, I did not claim forwarding and CC'ing is a FULL solution in itself, only a possible step. You keep referring to the related statement as if I'm implying it's a full solution.
Hold on here, how was the archive requirement satisfied for other State Dept. office workers who DID use the office email server? Surely, they didn't all print them all out.
I have no way to verify your experience was actually directly relevant to this email issue. That's why I'm asking for the exact text of laws you claim snag her.
They want the upsides of open trade, such as H1B wages flowing back to India and offshore outsourcing setting up shop, but NOT the downsides, such as allowing foreign products in that may reduce local jobs. This frustrates Americans to no end.
Sorry, that's false. The regular office system was a generic pile of crap ALSO. It was NOT "special" in terms of safety/security.
As far as "the law", this was an internal procedures review, not a general law review. (That day may come later.)
It IS complicated. It's a gov't bureaucracy. I've worked at them before. Almost nobody follows the rules to the letter because the letter is so messy, vague, and contradictory nobody could.
I thought you said there were 3.
I did NOT say that, not for final archiving at the end of her tenure. It's simply the SAME intermediate form that would have been used even IF she used the right server.
I was simply pointing out that your claims depend on implementation details that vary.
She often used the phone. Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.
There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)
Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.
I guess I don't have common sense then. I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did something sinister.
It appears your political bias is tainting your interpretation of incomplete information. I suggest you take yoga or something to remove the bias.
That has NOT been directly proven.
That's not what happened.
You are splitting elephant hairs. 3 devices is still better than 4. And I've never seen usage stats on those to devices to see if they were common. You fill in the blanks with Fox Colored Glasses.
Their security "works" because terrorists don't have the patience to wait in line, and attack mental clinics instead.
Sure, if you dip the entire patient in the stuff, but it would kill the patient also. Please stay out of the medical biz.
Please elaborate. Which ones?
The State Dept. server WAS hacked. They were BOTH Yugo's, so there.
The "born classified" thing is contentious and nebulous. It's not clear-cut, like an SQL WHERE clause.
That's the GOP's interpretation. She claims it was short-hand shop-talk that was misconstrued. Whether that's true or not we don't know yet; we only have 2 varying interpretations of a terse message. Your bias is showing now.
You mean it would be her job to log into the archive server and run SQL queries or similar herself to verify her messages are in the archive system? I call bullshit. That's unrealistic of the top officer and even executive level. As I read it, that's what you are claiming.
True, it may be a bad policy and is somebody dumping the problem onto management so their technicians are not held at fault. (More on this later.)
But, I wouldn't expect someone at H's level to be PRACTICALLY responsible for verifying the actual existence of bits on the archive system, and would call it a stupid policy. Written policies typically have a lot stupid shit if you scrutinize them.
No. As I interpret it, it says use of email as the FINAL storage of records for "official" archival purposes is disallowed. It's not about what can be put on the email server, but what COUNTS as an official archive.
As a FULL archive step/procedure, correct, but that's not what I saying.
Let me try to explain it another way. Legend:
H = hillary
A = official archive system(s)
E = regular office email system
T = outside email system
H writes email X1 to a foreign diplomat from T. She CC's her colleague, who has an account on E. Thus, a copy of X1 is now in E.
Now suppose Superman reversed time and H starts over as Sec. of State. THIS time she uses E as her primary work email account, and sends message X2, which has the same content as X1 did, but originated from E.
Now, technicians normally run a procedure that transfers messages from E to A. For those who use an account in E as their primary account, they don't have to do anything special; it's part of regular IT procedures.
Now it's possible that by using T, H is responsible to ensure to that her messages SOMEHOW end up on A.
Since she always CC'd or forwarded work-related emails written on T to E, E contains copies of all her work-related messages.
Then to get those messages on to A, she has to rely on technicians.
Your quotes refer to what can be or what can serve as A, NOT what can or cannot be on E. The guidelines for A don't really care about E either way. They only specify what A needs. (Maybe E could potentially serve as an A, but that seems moot here.)
It could be office politics because if the techies did their job wrong, it makes the IT managers look bad and/or responsible. Of course they are going to try to blame and/or put the verification burden on somebody else, via statute text even. It's what humans do. If they can deflect blame/responsibility, they will.
After all, Microsoft holds the user liable if Excel does math wrong and the user loses a billion dollars because of it by investing wrong. (User should do a secondary check, but in this case H may have no such comparable option since the result is in obscure techie formats with limited access rights.)
I will only hold it against her if she violated a good statue, not a poor one that expects her to write and run SQL or whatnot.
The "regular" office email system was NOT designed for classified materials either: it was rather generic. (A separate system, which is not typically characterized as "email", was intended for the classified messages.)
You imply she used her Pinto to transfer goods when she could have used the company's Lexus. BUT, the company car was a actually Yugo.
The implication that her decision put info at risk is false.
In fact, the regular office email system was eventually hacked.
(Putting classified materials on the regular office email system would be a mistake also. Whether that actually happened is still an open question. Much if not all of the reported classified stuff found was retroactively classified.)
I don't think they intended senior management run the listed tools. It's not Hillary's job to type command lines, etc. I suspect a technician typically runs a dialog box and/or command lines, running the listed tools, to specify which messages in the email system, such as Exchange, get archived in the proper way.
Perhaps it was her job to make sure the technician followed through, because she used an outside service.
Perhaps she asked them, perhaps not. Her team hasn't had time to thoroughly review the accusations and present their side of things yet, the report is new. They should have a fair chance to review and comment before we take this report verbatim.
We don't now which one of these event paths actually happened:
1. She didn't know of the requirement to ask the technicians to run extra procedures. Whether that's her fault or not is hard to say. It could be argued that's expecting her to micro-manage IT issues. Her job wasn't to manage IT and somebody from IT arguably should guide and assist her. The CEO of orgs I worked for would expect some hand-holding for such rather than know or care Capstone from SMART from Flux Capacitors.
2. She did know, but didn't bother or forgot to ask the technician for assistance. That blame would fall on her.
3. She did ask the technician, but the technician forgot. This would perhaps be the technician's fault. If the techie forgot, one may argue it was H's job to follow up to make sure it was done, but typically if a CEO asks for something once, the burden is on the receiver to get it done, NOT the CEO for periodic follow-ups.
4. Techie did the procedure, informed H it was complete, but did it wrong. H wouldn't be able to know, she's not a technician to run the inspections, queries, etc. to make sure it's in the archive system properly. That blame would probably fall on the technician.
5. She did ask the technician, but techie misunderstood what she was asking, and did it wrong or did the wrong thing. Blame is hard to say. Miscommunication happens.
Where did you get that? As I read it, it says that alone is not sufficient to qualify for proper archiving, NOT that it is disallowed. (Other steps would be needed.)
This is so people will have the bandwidth to (unwittingly) download the bloated Windows 10.
I can, but it would get one kicked out of class
My kid is taking a programming class in high school. The curriculum is more geared to covering topic bullet points than in learning via experimentation.
When I took BASIC in high school way back "then", we got to noodle around with fun graphics. I made a minimalist version of Space Invaders, for example.
I learned the value of subroutines by seeing the mess made by not using them. That's far more concrete and direct learning than "you should use subroutines because the book says so".
No, she would CC the SD in that case and it would then be on the same system as if she were emailing from SD from the beginning.
Being on the system via CC doesn't seem sufficiently different from being on the system via originating from it, unless the text of the rule dictates such, but so far somebody's produced such text.
That depends on how it's indexed. If it's indexed on field X, then field-X searches are easy. I doubt the policy dictated implementation at that level, but you are welcome to quote the exact text if it does.
(It would be dumb to hard-ware such implementation details into administrative policy in my opinion, unless there were a compelling reason. Generally one is stuck with whatever a vendor provides, and hard-wiring it would limit vendor choices, over-pivoting the vendor selection decision on a single feature.)
And it only has to satisfy the rules, whatever they are, not necessarily be super-convenient. Technique X may be more convenient to search than technique Y, but unless the policy DICTATES technique X, it's moot to this situation.
I'm not interested in general "judgement" issues in this particular thread, I want to know the exact policies that were alleged violated and see the policy text for it. I want to nerdal around in the details, in terms of policy text and technology.
That sounds like the way NA wants the State Dept. (SD) to send them the records, and not necessarily how an employee of SD submits them to SD itself. I don't think it was her role to prepare data transfers from SD to SA.
And, anything cc'd or forwarded to the regular SD email system would be just as searchable as an email written directly on it or sent from it. Being forwarded or cc'd does not render it any less searchable.
Personal emails are NOT covered by the archive rules, only work-related ones.
Hitler came back as Windows 10
At least now the workers can kick the shit out of the bots and know they are butthurt. And unlike human attacks, it's only a misdemeanor.