Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

OK, I need some help here.

16.5, I've looked and I can't seem to find your thread on the Is it 2007? I'll be damned.

I'm sure avid readers will remember that you were equally outraged at that and I'm certain you would have created a thread on it; can you point me to it?

Thanks in advance!

Your Logical Fallacy is Tu Quoque

/the funny thing is I bumped the thread on the Bush email thing so that garbage arguments like "BUT BUSH!!!!" could be placed in their proper place

 

[12AX7]

Your Logical Fallacy is Tu Quoque

/the funny thing is I bumped the thread on the Bush email thing so that garbage arguments like "BUT BUSH!!!!" could be placed in their proper place

No, I want to see your thread on the matter.

Yours.

And just like your other pet topic, you shout "Tu Quoque!" as if it somehow negates your obvious partisan-fuelled selective poutrage.

 

[The Big Dog]

Say, I hear tell that Hillary is going to talk this afternoon about her cowboy server.

Lets play Hillary Bingo!

Take a drink when she says Colin Powell, Security, Tweet, full disclosure, partisan politics, woman as president/grrl power, non-story, nothing to see here, all is well.

Chug the bottle if she says "what difference does it make."

I'd put FOIA, subpoena, benghazi, and the name of the ambassador that got canned for using gmail on the list too but I assume that those did not focus group well.

 

[sunmaster14]

Still mind reading. How skeptical of you.

In certain situations, mind reading is not that hard. For example, right now I'm thinking of a positive integer which is less than or equal to 10. I often think of it when contemplating the number of legs that a spider has, or the number of vertices of a cube. Or, most recently, when counting up the number of times Obama has claimed to have first learned about a brewing scandal in his administration from the news media. The number is 8. Can you read my mind and figure out what number I'm thinking of?

 

[sunmaster14]

The Dems are going all in to defend Hillary on this, even going so far as to dig up Skeletor himself:



For anybody over the age of 40, doesn't this bring back creepy memories? Amazingly, Carville hasn't aged a bit. This is what we have in store for the next 18 months, and maybe the next 114. Uggh.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Did they actually state what the system has? I haven't seen that as of yet. As in, what software, physical or software firewall, OS, etc or are you referring to those other articles you posted that gave no system information, just what "experts" thought?

I asked for this a few days ago and received evasive bluster for a response.

 

[Sherkeu]

For anybody over the age of 40, doesn't this bring back creepy memories? Amazingly, Carville hasn't aged a bit. This is what we have in store for the next 18 months, and maybe the next 114. Uggh.

He really does look exactly the same!

I think we will get a little mea culpa today from Hillary that the email acct was secure and she wanted to keep things consistent on her blackberry she was used to (because shes, like, old, and tech challenged maybe?). And maybe a "so sorry" for not following the updated policy exactly (but she was following the old one that she knew!). She'll present these things as facts.
Then she'll do something relatable, like crack a joke about the snl skit.


Any other guesses?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In certain situations, mind reading is not that hard. For example, right now I'm thinking of a positive integer which is less than or equal to 10. I often think of it when contemplating the number of legs that a spider has, or the number of vertices of a cube. Or, most recently, when counting up the number of times Obama has claimed to have first learned about a brewing scandal in his administration from the news media. The number is 8. Can you read my mind and figure out what number I'm thinking of?

Sorry, no. All I'm getting is a dancing 8-bit goatse emoticon and that song by Rick Astley.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm sure the security at https://www.state.gov/ is better, right ?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004454fef83372b0d.png[/qimg]


It's clear you do not actually have the technical understanding of the security implications to have a reasoned discussion, but are simply parroting things you read on sites like gawker.

You would be better served dropping the FUD about the server, and stick with trying to demonstrate a law broken (which you still haven't done)

ETA: before someone points it out - i know it's not the same issue - just making a point

This exact pop-up is what I was mentioning upthread about how thoroughly full of suck .gov and .mil is. The security certificates don't "match" because the gov't buys them in bulk. For most sites you need to use IE because the gov't can't be arsed to write webpages for Firefox and then you need to allow security executions Every Single Session.

 

[The Big Dog]

I asked for this a few days ago and received evasive bluster for a response.

Lets be clear here, Hillary has the server, Hillary has not released anything about the server, and you are asking us to comment on the specs of the server? You serious? The evasive bluster is coming from Hillary

I cited several articles where a host of computer security experts analyzed the public face of the system and brought forward myriad security flaws.

 

[Ziggurat]

My point with the "can't delete emails" comment was\is still factual. Once anything is sent on the internet it leaves a "paper trail". The recipient gets a copy, it passes through any number of servers before getting to that recipient, etc. My clarification is even if Hillary had physical access to the server itself, deleting them off the server would not delete them in their entirety. I hope this clarification helps. I don't want to "smack of inexperience", especially in a field I work in, and have an education in.

Several problems with this argument.

First, it doesn't matter if there is a "paper trail" on some server somewhere: if the contents of the email are not preserved, then a log somewhere indicating that an email was sent doesn't suffice. The contents of emails are NOT typically stored anywhere except the server that sent the email and the recipient. Second, it doesn't matter if the emails aren't deleted "in their entirety". If they become inaccessible to the state department for any reason (whether because State can't access them or because it doesn't even know where to look), then what good does it do that a copy might exist somewhere else? If Hillary emailed someone not in the US government, then the US government cannot access that person's copy of the email. And lastly, Hillary many not have been the only user of her email server. Any emails between her and others using her server would indeed be deleted permanently if she deleted them from her server.

Oh, and one more thing. Those emails she's turning over to State? Remember how they were described as 55,000 pages of emails? Did you ever wonder why they were described in terms of pages and not in terms of the number of emails?

It's because she printed them out and sent the printouts to State. Now state has to go through them manually. Yeah, Hillary really wants to be transparent.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Lets be clear here, Hillary has the server, Hillary has not released anything about the server, and you are asking us to comment on the specs of the server? You serious? The evasive bluster is coming from Hillary

I cited several articles where a host of computer security experts analyzed the public face of the system and brought forward myriad security flaws.

Thanks for admitting you actually don't know Jack about the actual specifications and installed software. Your continued use of the descriptor "cowboy/homebrew" will be filed under "pulled from goatse."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Lets be clear here, Hillary has the server, Hillary has not released anything about the server, and you are asking us to comment on the specs of the server? You serious? The evasive bluster is coming from Hillary

I cited several articles where a host of computer security experts analyzed the public face of the system and brought forward myriad security flaws.

No, they didn't analyze ****.

They noted who the domain name registrar was, and that certificates for VPN access to an unknown system on the domain had self signed certs.

Then they made FUD comments that have little basis in reality, and people like you imagined the sky was falling.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<snip>
It's because she printed them out and sent the printouts to State. Now state has to go through them manually. Yeah, Hillary really wants to be transparent.

That's not against a rule or law, is it ?

In fact, printing things out is standard archival procedure, isn't it ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks for admitting you actually don't know Jack about the actual specifications and installed software. Your continued use of the descriptor "cowboy/homebrew" will be filed under [grow up]

Oh wait, I know that it is a cowboy server that Clinton set up on her own in violation of the very cable she signed prohibiting it, I know it is a homebrew server because her house was listed as the server location and the security for it sucked. i also know she has still not turned over the actual emails

Dodge on the computer experts? Duly noted.

Dodge on the fact that hillary is withholding the facts? Noted.

Water for Hillary? Duly carried.

Lol, leave Hillary alone! By the way, your crass reference in your post is also noted. See ya around.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh wait, I know that it is a cowboy server that Clinton set up on her own in violation of the very cable she signed prohibiting it, I know it is a homebrew server because her house was listed as the server location and the security for it sucked. i also know she has still not turned over the actual emails

Dodge on the computer experts? Duly noted.

Water for Hillary? Duly carried.

Lol, leave Hillary alone!

Actually, you don't know that, as I already outlined:

apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home.

links back to :
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b78b...-ran-homebrew-computer-system-official-emails

and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home.

I'm getting tired of seeing this quote interpreted as meaning the server was physically located in her house.

The domain name registrant used that physical address to register the domain name. It in no way implies that the server was physically located at that physical address.
ZERO evidence has been provided as to the servers actual physical location.

And as far as security:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

There’s no evidence, of course, that Clintonemail.com was ever actually compromised. University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze says judging its security versus the State Department’s own email servers would require more information.

Because the only information we have is the registrar. And they tried to scare readers with some FUD:
nyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account.

Then they go one to list actual incidents with state.gove email.
But no evidence that anything actually happened to clintonemails.com.

So, to recap:

No matter where it was located (and we don't know where it was located) , HRCs cowboy/homebrew email server could easily have been more secure than state.govs email server. Without any evidence, it's difficult to say.

This discussion of security and servers that you clearly are not knowledgeable about is getting very old and tired.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Who's carrying water? I'm just trying to push you to stop using emotional descriptions of computer equipment you don't actually know Jack about. Critical thinking. It uses facts. Look around the forum for examples if you're not sure what I'm talking about.

Personally I don't give half a cracker about Hillary. I think she had her shot and needs to get the heck out of the limelight and stop using all the Democratic Candidate air in the room. She's unelectable and at the moment her apparent momentum is keeping other decent candidates nervous. If she gets the nod people who think like you do will Get Out The Vote in droves and even Herman Cain could get elected just because he's Not Clinton. Strategically, she's a terrible choice for the Democratic Party even if, as president, she would create Wold Peace or whatever. Because running her would guarantee a Republican win.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not against a rule or law, is it ?

It complies with the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Furthermore, regardless of the legal status, it's pretty obvious that the only reason to print out hard copies instead of transferring electronic copies is to make it harder to search those emails. There is no other benefit, not to State and not even to Hillary.

ETA: and of course we still have only her word that these are all the relevant emails (and withholding any would be a violation of the letter of the law as well). Do you trust that they are? Why should we?

In fact, printing things out is standard archival procedure, isn't it ?

No, it's not standard archival procedure for emails.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It complies with the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Furthermore, regardless of the legal status, it's pretty obvious that the only reason to print out hard copies instead of transferring electronic copies is to make it harder to search those emails. There is no other benefit, not to State and not even to Hillary.

Since they can be easily scanned and OCR'ed and made searchable, the idea that they are actually more difficult to search doesn't float - ie I don't agree it's obvious.

ETA: and of course we still have only her word that these are all the relevant emails (and withholding any would be a violation of the letter of the law as well). Do you trust that they are? Why should we?

It's not necessarily about trusting her - it's that I lack evidence the process or ability to withhold documents.works functionally differently for anyone else.

So no, in general I don't have a problem with people having discretion in classifying their communicators.

No, it's not standard archival procedure for emails.

I believe it was specifically outlined earlier in the thread as one of the accepted way to archive emails - thus making it SOP.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since they can be easily scanned and OCR'ed and made searchable, the idea that they are actually more difficult to search doesn't float - ie I don't agree it's obvious.

How quickly do you think 55,000 pages can be scanned and OCR'ed (with the necessary corrections)? Sure, it will probably get done, but it's hardly what I would call "easy". And it sure as **** isn't going to be quick.

It's not necessarily about trusting her - it's that I lack evidence the process or ability to withhold documents.works functionally differently for anyone else.

No. You do trust her, because if you didn't trust her, you would put the burden of proof on her to show that she has handed over everything relevant.