RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[jhunter1163]

This election was Clinton's to lose and with this email scandal she just might have lost it. It would be helpful if she could just take all the grief and bad press all at once, but the way this is going this scandal is going to last for a long time as new information gradually trickles out and the Republicans exploit it with the Benghazi hearing.

I think it's extremely unlikely that this will harm her in the long run. The voting public has a very short memory; this "scandal" will probably have run its course by Christmas, and Clinton will continue her inexorable march to the nomination and the Presidency.

 

[theprestige]

16.5, would you mind fleshing out how Clinton can prove that she wasn't hacked? As far as I know, it's impossible to prove a negative, so this appears to be an unprovable request.

One good approach to this kind of risk is to provide documentary evidence that you applied the currently-accepted best practices for preventing attacks, detecting attacks when they occur, mitigating the impact of such attacks as slip through, finding the gaps in your prevention strategy, and closing those gaps.

In my company, this is done by contracting a reputable security consultant to periodically scan our systems for known vulnerabilities. They provide a written report of the results, and we in turn provide written attestations that we have reviewed the report and fixed the vulnerabilities detected. To close the loop, the security consultant does another scan, and provides another report documenting that the previous vulnerabilities have been fixed.

This is basic information security. In my opinion, Hillary failed at her job not when she got hacked (which we may never be able to prove), but when she did not take even these basic steps to prevent hacking.

I might give her a pass if she had used State's email system, due to bureaucratic inertia, etc. But she chose to set up her own system, beyond government oversight. That neither she nor her advisors thought to establish their own oversight, to a high standard commensurate with the importance and sensitivity of the office of Secretary of State, is unforgivable.

I don't need to prove that she got hacked to know that she screwed the pooch. I only have to prove that she made no serious effort to avoid getting hacked. And that evidence is in: She screwed the pooch.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think it's extremely unlikely that this will harm her in the long run. The voting public has a very short memory; this "scandal" will probably have run its course by Christmas, and Clinton will continue her inexorable march to the nomination and the Presidency.

Oh, good timing

Emails to Hound Clinton for months and into next year

while there has been an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP, you will notice that the lawsuits have also been brought by Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times.

I don't think that people are going to forget that Slick Hilly is a huge liar a bit "untrustworthy."

 

[davefoc]

I think it's extremely unlikely that this will harm her in the long run. The voting public has a very short memory; this "scandal" will probably have run its course by Christmas, and Clinton will continue her inexorable march to the nomination and the Presidency.

Of course it will harm her. The question is will it harm her enough in the key states that she loses the election assuming she wins the primary which is substantially less likely than before this scandal came to light.

It doesn't need to harm her very much. The margins in the key states will be tiny between the Democratic and Republican candidates and giving up even a small percentage may be enough to lose the election.

One thing that I think is interesting is that the selection of the next president of the US may be in the hands of a few FBI agents whose report may be the deciding factor in how this works out for Clinton. The Obama administration is doing what it can for her, even putting a Clinton loyalist in charge of dealing with the issue. I think this will work to mitigate her failure to comply with email archiving rules until she was forced to. I think the big issue left for her is what the FBI finds and reports about the handling and distribution of classified material on her server. An FBI report that absolves Clinton looks very unlikely to me. And an indictment seems unlikely as well. I think the report will not be kind to her but it won't outright eliminate her chances.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Obama administration is doing what it can for her, even putting a Clinton loyalist in charge of dealing with the issue.

I had not heard this, can you fill in some more details please?

 

[davefoc]

One good approach to this kind of risk is to provide documentary evidence that you applied the currently-accepted best practices for preventing attacks, detecting attacks when they occur, mitigating the impact of such attacks as slip through, finding the gaps in your prevention strategy, and closing those gaps.

In my company, this is done by contracting a reputable security consultant to periodically scan our systems for known vulnerabilities. They provide a written report of the results, and we in turn provide written attestations that we have reviewed the report and fixed the vulnerabilities detected. To close the loop, the security consultant does another scan, and provides another report documenting that the previous vulnerabilities have been fixed.

This is basic information security. In my opinion, Hillary failed at her job not when she got hacked (which we may never be able to prove), but when she did not take even these basic steps to prevent hacking.

I might give her a pass if she had used State's email system, due to bureaucratic inertia, etc. But she chose to set up her own system, beyond government oversight. That neither she nor her advisors thought to establish their own oversight, to a high standard commensurate with the importance and sensitivity of the office of Secretary of State, is unforgivable.

I don't need to prove that she got hacked to know that she screwed the pooch. I only have to prove that she made no serious effort to avoid getting hacked. And that evidence is in: She screwed the pooch.

Although I don't have direct experience in this area, what theprestige says above is completely consistent with the kind of things I thought would be involved in managing a server where security is a major issue.

I disagreed slightly with his conclusion though in that I don't think we know what kinds of security procedures Clinton had in place. From what has gone on so far it seems like there are hints that special attention to security was not a priority for Clinton and this server. This is strange, She and none of her advisers seems to have considered what a big deal that is for SoS communications. But if and until the FBI report is released about what went on here I don't think we can know much about this.

 

[wareyin]

I disagreed slightly with his conclusion though in that I don't think we know what kinds of security procedures Clinton had in place.
<snip>
But if and until the FBI report is released about what went on here I don't think we can know much about this.

It is quite refreshing to see these facts being stated.

 

[davefoc]

I had not heard this, can you fill in some more details please?

Good grief, now I have gone over the cliff. I know of some anti-Clinton stuff that 16.5 doesn't?

The State Department's latest push to delay release of the Clinton-related emails came as an agency spokesman said Wednesday there was no conflict of interest in the decision to appoint a retired diplomat, Janice Jacobs, to oversee the State Department's handling of information requests even though she had made a $2,700 donation to Clinton's presidential campaign in June.
"We understand how some people might have that perception," State Department spokesman John Kirby said, referring to Secretary of State John Kerry's decision to appoint Jacobs to lead the agency's overwhelmed information-processing staff. He added, "Ambassador Jacobs was chosen for her exemplary service, particularly in this kind of area, and the secretary is 100 percent convinced that she's the right person for the job."

More stuff:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-received-classified-hillary-clinton-emails/

 

[jhunter1163]

Oh, good timing

Emails to Hound Clinton for months and into next year

while there has been an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP, you will notice that the lawsuits have also been brought by Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times.

I don't think that people are going to forget that Slick Hilly is a huge liar a bit "untrustworthy."

You might want to read past the first paragraph when you link things. From your own link:

As time drags on and the race for the White House heats up, voters may well grow tired of the email story.

“It could also ultimately help her campaign craft a narrative that suggests that the conservatives are willing to throw anything against the wall to see what sticks,” said Lawless, the political science professor.

“The more lawsuits and the longer this drags on, the more it looks like it’s politically motivated, the easier it is for her campaign to do so.”

 

[The Big Dog]

It is quite refreshing to see these facts being stated.

At least one of those is an opinion, and the other says "I don't know." So... yeah.

Do we know what if any security measures Clinton had in place? Well, it seems that the person to ask is Hillary or her Campaign.

But her campaign declined to provide NPR with any details about how the server was protected..

And she ain't saying.

Actual facts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good grief, now I have gone over the cliff. I know of some anti-Clinton stuff that 16.5 doesn't?

More stuff:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-received-classified-hillary-clinton-emails/

I was aware of this, I thought you meant that the person at the FBI who was in charge of that part of the investigation was a Clinton loyalist.

 

[wareyin]

At least one of those is an opinion, and the other says "I don't know." So... yeah.

Do we know what if any security measures Clinton had in place? Well, it seems that the person to ask is Hillary or her Campaign.



And she ain't saying.

Actual facts.

'We don't know Clinton's security measures' is an actual fact, despite Ziggurat's and your assumptions.

 

[Ziggurat]

You might want to read past the first paragraph when you link things. From your own link:

“In some ways, the longer this story is out there, the more reason people will have to continue to doubt her trustworthiness.”
...
“It could also ultimately help her campaign craft a narrative that suggests that the conservatives are willing to throw anything against the wall to see what sticks,”
​

Two opposing quotes, from the same person. Looks like she's just covering her bases. No matter the outcome, she can claim to be right. Not terribly helpful.

What I find more interesting is this contrast:

"So far, the most consequential legal action has come in response to a lawsuit from Vice. In May, a federal judge in that case ordered the State Department to release thousands of Clinton’s emails every month, with an ultimate deadline of having all 55,000 pages of her work-related emails out by mid-January."
...
"“The quest for former Secretary Clinton’s emails was ginned up and continues to be pushed by Republican operatives who want nothing more than to hurt Hillary Clinton,” said Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman with the Clinton-aligned rapid response group Correct the Record."
​

So apparently Vice are Republican operatives. Who knew?

 

[The Big Dog]

You might want to read past the first paragraph when you link things. From your own link:

Hi, thanks for posting, and a special thanks for the gratuitous insult that I had not read the entire article.

I had indeed read the entire article that I linked, and specifically read that section, and specifically anticipated that someone would cherry pick that section and as such posted this specific sentence in my post:

"while there has been an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP, you will notice that the lawsuits have also been brought by Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times."
there was no doubt In my mind that someone would cherry pick that sentence, although it had not occurred to me that someone would accuse me of only reading the first paragraph.

Still, the issue has already started to define her.

The No. 1 word associated with Clinton, according to Gallup, is “email.”

I read all the way to there. Thanks for suggesting otherwise.

 

[plague311]

This is basic information security. In my opinion, Hillary failed at her job not when she got hacked (which we may never be able to prove), but when she did not take even these basic steps to prevent hacking.

...

I don't need to prove that she got hacked to know that she screwed the pooch. I only have to prove that she made no serious effort to avoid getting hacked. And that evidence is in: She screwed the pooch.

Got any evidence? You know, something that isn't just pulled out of your ass? I've been looking all over the place to figure out what her software, hardware, and overall setup of her server was and can find nothing specific. Here you speak with absolute certainty that you know she had ****** security. How? Where are you getting this from?

Although I don't have direct experience in this area, what theprestige says above is completely consistent with the kind of things I thought would be involved in managing a server where security is a major issue.

Of course you would believe him, yet he provides absolutely 0 evidence to backup what he says. Both of you are going off of nothing more than what you think, or what you feel with absolutely no experience in the field at all (correction: I have no idea what 'theprestige' has for experience). Once again, before you childishly chastise me for bragging up my experience, read what you're typing and compare it to 9/11 truthers.

"I have no evidence to support what I'm saying, but through my internet research I really feel like I am right."

Get me someone with a degree in the field that agrees with you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Got any evidence? You know, something that isn't just pulled out of your ass? I've been looking all over the place to figure out what her software, hardware, and overall setup of her server was and can find nothing specific. .

I'm not sure I understand the vitriol.

in any event, the reason you can't find information about the server is that Hillary and her minions refuse to release it.

She claims that her server was not hacked, but when asked for proof or even any details about its security, they refuse to release it.

Thinking about this critically, one could and in fact should draw the conclusion that the information about the security or lack thereof is in fact damaging to them.

[T]he omission by a party to produce relevant and important evidence of which he has knowledge, and which is peculiarly within his control, raises the presumption that if produced the evidence would be unfavorable to his cause.

 

[davefoc]

...


Of course you would believe him, yet he provides absolutely 0 evidence to backup what he says. Both of you are going off of nothing more than what you think, or what you feel with absolutely no experience in the field at all (correction: I have no idea what 'theprestige' has for experience). Once again, before you childishly chastise me for bragging up my experience, read what you're typing and compare it to 9/11 truthers.

"I have no evidence to support what I'm saying, but through my internet research I really feel like I am right."

Get me someone with a degree in the field that agrees with you.

...

I disagreed slightly with his conclusion though in that I don't think we know what kinds of security procedures Clinton had in place. From what has gone on so far it seems like there are hints that special attention to security was not a priority for Clinton and this server. This is strange, She and none of her advisers seems to have considered what a big deal that is for SoS communications. But if and until the FBI report is released about what went on here I don't think we can know much about this.

I believed the part where he outlined the procedures that an organization where security was important might take to protect their servers against hacking. ETA: I thought he provided a good faith basis that explained why he would know this.

I didn't agree with him that we can know what Clinton and the people in charge of her server did with respect to this.

I was glad to see you post, because you have told us about your extensive IT experience. Did you think that theprestige's overview of the kinds of things that might be done to provide for the security of servers was accurate? Would you like to expand on it? Do you know what kind of security measures that Clinton had in place on her server? Perhaps you could comment on whether the measures she had in place were in compliance with the requirements for servers where classified material is stored?

 

[theprestige]

Got any evidence? You know, something that isn't just pulled out of your ass? I've been looking all over the place to figure out what her software, hardware, and overall setup of her server was and can find nothing specific. Here you speak with absolute certainty that you know she had ****** security. How? Where are you getting this from?

I'm judging her on the same criteria my employer judges the quality of my own work: Failure to demonstrate compliance. If I told my boss that I don't need to provide evidence that my systems are secure, and that he should just assume they are, I'd be fired.

"Trust but verify" is great, but if I can't verify, then I can't trust. That failure of trust is the problem. When it comes to information security, that failure of trust is what I find unacceptable.

The Secretary of State's mail server is at risk by default. That neither she nor her staff are able to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to mitigate that risk is damning. That you cannot find any sign that they took steps to mitigate that risk is damning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... while there has been an orchestrated attempt by Clinton and her camp to blame all her problems on the GOP, you will notice that the lawsuits have also been brought by Vice, Gawker, the AP and breaking news on these issues (as shown yesterday) by CBS, WaPo and the New York Times....

You keep calling FIOA requests, "lawsuits brought against Clinton". What are they suing her for? Were they injured?

 

[The Big Dog]

You keep calling FIOA requests, "lawsuits brought against Clinton". What are they suing her for? Were they injured?

I don't keep calling the "lawsuits" "lawsuits brought against Clinton."

I am baffled why you would make something like that up.

From the earlier link:

There are 35 separate, active public records lawsuits against the State Department that deal with the emails of Clinton or her top aides.

The courtroom drama will likely drag on for months, keeping the email issue in the headlines even as Clinton seeks to go on the attack against her 2016 rivals.

.....

The State Department requested to have 32 of the cases consolidated earlier this month, so that the 17 different judges responsible for them would coordinate their demands and refrain from issuing “a hodgepodge of orders.”

What an incredibly odd post.... not sure how it is possible you are missing this....