Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Beeyon]

Again, you are making an argument from incredulity because you don't understand the state dept's email, or classified networks.

You've repeatedly made this argument, and I want to briefly respond to it because I initially found it persuasive.

You're entirely correct that sending classified information to Clinton at either an unclassified @state.gov address or an @clintonemail.com address constitutes a mishandling of classified information. So in a very real sense, Clinton is not responsible for the mishandling because her choice to operate a private server was irrelevant to whether a co-worker sent classified information to her general purpose email address.

However, this argument naively assumes all mishandling the same. But this is not an accurate assumption. Leaving a classified file in a protected property zone is in fact less bad than leaving a classified file at the mall.

Therefore, it is accurate to conclude that Clinton's decision to run a personal server could have made the mishandling worse than it would have been.

You will of course argue that this isn't true because the state emails were hacked. But that is an invalid argument based on both ignorance and hindsight. There is no evidence supporting the personal server's integrity. And Clinton could not have known that the state servers were vulnerable. A valid counter argument could be based on evidence that Clinton's personal servers were implemented with better security that the state servers, but she does not appear to be asserting this.

Admittedly, there is no concrete evidence that the personal server made the mishandling worse. But that is not an excuse in the classified world; a potential release of information is treated as a release of information until proven otherwise. Hilary was not directly responsible for mishandling classified information, but she is responsible for making the release worse.

 

[plague311]

There is no evidence supporting the personal server's integrity.

Outside of the fact that there has been no hacked information released or anyone that has claimed to have penetrated Hillary's server.

 

[Dog Town]

Outside of the fact that there has been no hacked information released or anyone that has claimed to have penetrated Hillary's server.

You would be incorrect!

 

[plague311]

You would be incorrect!

Now all you need to do is provide evidence of a positive hack and we'll be good to go.

 

[Dog Town]

Now all you need to do is provide evidence of a positive hack and we'll be good to go.

You should proof read your quote first. Before the goalposts go flying!

I even made the obvious part yellow! Are you blind?

 

[davefoc]

No, they wouldn't, just like the multiple news reports stating that other top officials emails, that used the government system, have limited* emails from that time frame. I don't think the internet works like you think it does.



I don't think you've been paying attention. The government email system wasn't archiving emails on a regular basis for the State Department.

I wish internet lawyers in general would at least take some fundamental IT classes to educate themselves before spouting off. I haven't even bothered wasting my time with all of the technical ******** people are spouting here. It would take years.

OK, from this post it sounds like you have a pretty high opinion of your IT knowledge. I take it when you used the word internet above you meant to imply that I don't have your knowledge of how email servers in large organizations work. So tell us, which email systems, in large government organizations don't save emails? Which email systems in large government organizations aren't backed up?

Based on your deep knowledge of this field could you tell us whether it is easier for IT personnel to retrieve emails from the systems that they administer than it is for IT personnel to retrieve emails from systems that they don't know exist and don't have access to?

ETA: Would you say in most of the email systems you are familiar with it is impossible to retrieve emails unless they have been released through a formal archiving process?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Outside of the fact that there has been no hacked information released or anyone that has claimed to have penetrated Hillary's server.

You would be incorrect!

Are you going to back up your claim of "incorrect" , or just try to score Internet points playing semantic games ?

And please, don't even point out this piece of nonsense .... :
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You've repeatedly made this argument, and I want to briefly respond to it because I initially found it persuasive.

To the immediate point, my response was to this:

It doesn't take a friggin idiot to realize that sensitive probably classified material is going to be sent to the SoS on her email.

Nobody should be sending classified email, as you agree below. So I would like davefoc to stop beating this drum.

You're entirely correct that sending classified information to Clinton at either an unclassified @state.gov address or an @clintonemail.com address constitutes a mishandling of classified information. So in a very real sense, Clinton is not responsible for the mishandling because her choice to operate a private server was irrelevant to whether a co-worker sent classified information to her general purpose email address.

You do go on to make a good point:

However, this argument naively assumes all mishandling the same. But this is not an accurate assumption. Leaving a classified file in a protected property zone is in fact less bad than leaving a classified file at the mall.

Therefore, it is accurate to conclude that Clinton's decision to run a personal server could have made the mishandling worse than it would have been.

Is the state departments email truly a "protected property zone" ? Mail servers are Internet facing, usually in a dmz. I don't see how it could be a "protected property zone" , so I disagree that her cowboy homebrew server was in any worse in this regard.

You will of course argue that this isn't true because the state emails were hacked. But that is an invalid argument based on both ignorance and hindsight. There is no evidence supporting the personal server's integrity. And Clinton could not have known that the state servers were vulnerable. A valid counter argument could be based on evidence that Clinton's personal servers were implemented with better security that the state servers, but she does not appear to be asserting this.

But, I am arguing with the benefit of hindsight !

I don't think my argument is "running her own mail server is a good idea because it's just as secure", but rather "her decision to run her own mail server didn't actually result in something worse happening than if she had used hrc@state.gov"

IOW, you can't fault her based on outcomes, only on the idea that "potentially, it may have been worse, so it was a bad idea."

Admittedly, there is no concrete evidence that the personal server made the mishandling worse. But that is not an excuse in the classified world; a potential release of information is treated as a release of information until proven otherwise. Hilary was not directly responsible for mishandling classified information, but she is responsible for making the release worse.

Putting classified info on the non-classified email system is a potential release, no matter which non-classified email system, isn't it ?

 

[Ziggurat]

Outside of the fact that there has been no hacked information released or anyone that has claimed to have penetrated Hillary's server.

If the Russians or Chinese had hacked Hillary's server, why would they give any indication of having done so? They wouldn't. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you going to back up your claim of "incorrect" , or just try to score Internet points playing semantic games ?

And please, don't even point out this piece of nonsense .... :
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

You mean don't cite the well publicized claim that Hillary's emails were hacked for the proposition that someone claimed the emails were hacked?

'k.

bwhahahaha!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

OK, from this post it sounds like you have a pretty high opinion of your IT knowledge. I take it when you used the word internet above you meant to imply that I don't have your knowledge of how email servers in large organizations work. So tell us, which email systems, in large government organizations don't save emails? Which email systems in large government organizations aren't backed up?

Based on your deep knowledge of this field could you tell us whether it is easier for IT personnel to retrieve emails from the systems that they administer than it is for IT personnel to retrieve emails from systems that they don't know exist and don't have access to?

ETA: Would you say in most of the email systems you are familiar with it is impossible to retrieve emails unless they have been released through a formal archiving process?

davefoc, it's your claim that they could have just retrieved all of HRCs emails if she was using the state departments mail servers.

I've already provided evidence that it doesn't work that way based the state departments own admissions.

It's your burden to demonstrate that they regularly backup and archive all emails sent and received. Also please note that's different than backing up a pst (outllok data files) because that doesn't include emails that I delete and empty from the ""deleted items" folder.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Outside of the fact that there has been no hacked information released or anyone that has claimed to have penetrated Hillary's server.

You mean don't cite the well publicized claim that Hillary's emails were hacked for the proposition that someone claimed the emails were hacked?

'k.

bwhahahaha!

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

So, please quote in the article where they claimed to have penetrated or hacked Hillary's server ?

All I see is the claim emails were for sale, not how they were obtained.

And of course, it's all ******** anyway.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

So, please quote in the article where they claimed to have penetrated or hacked Hillary's server ?

All I see is the claim emails were for sale, not how they were obtained.

And of course, it's all ******** anyway.

Solid Point! I mean Hillary might have given her emails to the "hacker" for him to offer to sell them to the highest bidder on the black market.

I'm sure there is a totally innocent basis for him to have gotten her emails other than hacking the system.

 

[Ziggurat]

davefoc, it's your claim that they could have just retrieved all of HRCs emails if she was using the state departments mail servers.

I've already provided evidence that it doesn't work that way based the state departments own admissions.

Still using a posteriori justification for a decision that was made a priori, I see. Nope, not gonna cut it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Solid Point! I mean Hillary might have given her emails to the "hacker" for him to offer to sell them to the highest bidder on the black market.

I'm sure there is a totally innocent basis for him to have gotten her emails other than hacking the system.

I get an eye roll because you can't provide evidence for a claim you made ?

 

[plague311]

OK, from this post it sounds like you have a pretty high opinion of your IT knowledge. I take it when you used the word internet above you meant to imply that I don't have your knowledge of how email servers in large organizations work. So tell us, which email systems, in large government organizations don't save emails? Which email systems in large government organizations aren't backed up?

Everyone has a high opinion of something they know about. I don't claim to be an expert but I am educated in the field and have worked in IT long enough. I assume that I know enough to get by, and I know enough about the field to know when people are talking out of their ass. Combine that with the fact that I also run 3 virtual servers (email server, web server, and a DHCP server) just for ***** and giggles.

That being said, your questions are ridiculous. I don't claim to have knowledge of every large government organization, but as L8 has pointed out (previously and his most recent reply to you) ad nauseum that their system didn't archive regularly. Go back and read the *********** thread, he's posted it a million times. His response to you is better than what I'm going to type, I'm just bored and killing time before work.

Based on your deep knowledge of this field could you tell us whether it is easier for IT personnel to retrieve emails from the systems that they administer than it is for IT personnel to retrieve emails from systems that they don't know exist and don't have access to?

Relevance? If the files aren't archived, and they aren't backed up in any way then it doesn't matter where the "IT personnel" works. In this case, the actual government "IT personnel" has said that they didn't archive the emails, and given the fact the time frame was years before, they aren't able to retrieve the emails from that time. Again...something that L8 has posted a ton of times. Do you read the stuff he posts? Maybe that would be a good start for you. Here, I'll leave a link to all of them here. Take your time and really try to soak it in. L8 knows way more about this stuff than I do, and most of the people that are attempting to refute the stuff he is saying are doing so without any technical knowledge at all. You know, internet lawyers and all.

ETA: Would you say in most of the email systems you are familiar with it is impossible to retrieve emails unless they have been released through a formal archiving process?

I have no idea what this question means. Try phrasing it differently because it truly doesn't make sense to me. If the emails were never archived, and never backed up as with the State Department, then this question is just more of the same. It is completely irrelevant.

 

[plague311]

If the Russians or Chinese had hacked Hillary's server, why would they give any indication of having done so? They wouldn't. Your argument makes no sense.

I don't buy into conspiracy level ********, which is all this amounts to. If you want to say my argument makes no sense, go ahead, but don't try to refute it with your tin foil hat nonsense. Your pathetic rebuttal amounts to nothing more than, "You have no proof it didn't happen, so it stands that it absolutely could have happened."

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence it was hacked or admit that what you say amounts to nothing more than "thermite paint!!11!!1!ONE11!1!!ELEVEN!11!" gibberish.

 

[The Big Dog]

I get an eye roll because you can't provide evidence for a claim you made ?

Of course, because it is nuclear level pedantry, it is so silly and ridiculous I am a wee bit surprised that you even brought it up again.

headline: Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale.
Pedantic: It does not teh say they hacked Hillary's cowboy server!
world:

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't buy into conspiracy level ********, which is all this amounts to. If you want to say my argument makes no sense, go ahead, but don't try to refute it with your tin foil hat nonsense.

Wow, you've gone off the deep end.

Your pathetic rebuttal amounts to nothing more than, "You have no proof it didn't happen, so it stands that it absolutely could have happened."

You made a positive claim. You claimed that the absence of evidence was evidence of absence, the logic being that if her server had been hacked, we should have heard about it. But that makes no sense.

If her server had been hacked, how would we ever learn that her server had been hacked? Not, as you suggest, from whoever hacked it. The only other source of that knowledge would be from Hillary or her staff. After all, when the Russians hacked the State Dept, we didn't learn about it from the Russians, we learned about it from the State Dept.

But it's not a given that Hillary's camp would have told us if they had been hacked. First, she's already established a pattern of lying, and being hacked would make her look bad, so she's got obvious motive. And second and even more importantly, it's not a given that she would even know that she had been hacked. It's not like State knew they had been hacked as soon as it happened. Some very big hacks (like the Office of Personnel Management) have taken years to uncover. And this wouldn't even be a big hack to pull off, it's just one server, with a thumb drive's worth of data.

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence it was hacked or admit that what you say amounts to nothing more than "thermite paint!!11!!1!ONE11!1!!ELEVEN!11!" gibberish.

You seem to be confused. I have never made the claim that she was hacked. I made the claim that we don't know if she was hacked. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the point of my previous post is that we don't have evidence to the contrary), then yes, actually, it remains a possibility.

Computer systems get hacked. It can take a long time before a hack get discovered. Russia and China would have an obvious interest in Hillary's emails. We know nothing about the security of Hillary's servers because she isn't talking. None of this is "tin foil hat nonsense". And all of it adds up to the obvious fact that yes, it really is possible that Hillary's email system was compromised. Was it? I don't know (and never claimed to), but neither do you (even though you claimed to). Calling this "thermite gibberish" doesn't discredit me, it merely reveals your own fundamental unseriousness.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course, because it is nuclear level pedantry, it is so silly and ridiculous I am a wee bit surprised that you even brought it up again.

headline: Hillary Clinton Hacked Emails for sale.
Pedantic: It does not teh say they hacked Hillary's cowboy server!
world:

Headline:

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

Exposed! Libya Security Briefs, Algeria Hostage Info & More — Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K




But OK