Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[TheL8Elvis]

Ok, then I am misunderstanding the situation. What markings are missing?

All of them except "(c)"

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/basic-marking-requirements-email.pdf
So the (c) is step 1.

Steps 2 & 3 are absent.

 

[Ziggurat]

We know that it wasn't properly marked classified, at least according to the manual TheL8Elvis linked on classifications markings.

That only adds blame to Hillary's underlings, it does nothing to excuse her.

 

[Fudbucker]

IMO, no, it wouldn't.
Attempts are not evidence of success, no matter how much you want it to be so.

When you don't know what the outcome of the attacks were (which we don't) and each attack has a chance of success (which it does), then yes it is evidence.

It's very easy to prove this. Let's say the odds of any hacking attempt being successful are 1% (you can quibble over the number, but not the fact that it will be greater than 0).

So there's hacking attempt 1, then another attempt, and another... It's like playing the lottery: each ticket has an extraordinarily low chance of winning, but if you buy enough, you can guarantee you'll win. If a system is attacked enough times, and each time there's a chance of success, eventually it becomes ridiculous to believe every attempt was a failure.

The hypothesis "Clinton's system was compromised" is true if just one attempt was successful. As the number of attempts increase, the chances that one of them were successful also increases. The logic of your position is that if Clinton's server was under attack 24/7, for years, a million separate attempts to compromise it, you wouldn't think that that's evidence that it was ever compromised. If you don't see why that's ridiculous, read up on confirmation theory, I guess.

I'd be curious if someone else agrees with you, and could try to explain it in a different way.

Me too, I'm obviously not doing a good job explaining.

You mean the IT guy who cooperated with the FBI ?

Yes, only after he was granted immunity. We don't know what he's told the FBI.

I'm believing the leak that claimed there was no evidence of compromise:

Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/u...said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0
A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

That, and the lack of any leak or evidence to the contrary.

There's been too much "according to people close to the investigation.". The New York Times is just as partisan as Fox News.

Again, Guccifers self-serving claim, by itself, is not evidence he hacked anything.

Of course it is because it's a credible claim. He hacked Bush and Clinton's friend Blumenthal, so his claim is prima facie credible. Possibly he's lying, but possibly he's not.

Again, if a thousand people like Guccifer, who all had a history of hacking people close to Clinton, claimed to have compromised her system, either her system was compromised or every single person is lying. It's more likely her system was compromised.

 

[plague311]

Of course not because every attempt has been a failure,

Equally applicable to Hillary's server. There has not been a single substantiated claim that someone has entered the server. Even the person that claims to have "hacked" her server has absolutely no evidence to backup his claim. No information on the server, what security it ran, how he got in, or anything else.

Also, I'm sick of the word "hacked" being used for everything. Guessing someone's password isn't hacking, it's guessing someone's password. Just like DDOS'ing someone's computer isn't hacking. It's script kiddy ******** that anyone can do. It's not all that tough.

and there's no evidence the paranormal exists.

Just like there's no evidence Hillary's server was "hacked". Absolutely none, not a single iota of evidence that it happened at all.

Has every hacking attempt been a failure?

It would appear so considering the security logs don't show any entrance to the server, and there's nothing else that gives any indication that her server was broken into.

Is hacking paranormal?

It might as well be for all of the knowledge you seem to have on the subject.

 

[Ziggurat]

All of them except "(c)"

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/basic-marking-requirements-email.pdf
So the (c) is step 1.

Steps 2 & 3 are absent.

Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:

E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.​

Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?

 

[Ziggurat]

Equally applicable to Hillary's server. There has not been a single substantiated claim that someone has entered the server. Even the person that claims to have "hacked" her server has absolutely no evidence to backup his claim.

The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.

 

[plague311]

read up on confirmation theory, I guess.

Of course it is because it's a credible claim. He hacked Bush and Clinton's friend Blumenthal, so his claim is prima facie credible. Possibly he's lying, but possibly he's not.

Again, if a thousand people like Guccifer, who all had a history of hacking people close to Clinton, claimed to have compromised her system, either her system was compromised or every single person is lying. It's more likely her system was compromised.

Holy *********** irony Justice League. Telling someone to read up on confirmation theory, then go on to list a bunch of word salad equating to your own confirmation theory.

Do you have any experience in IT at all? The things you say directly fly in the face of how the internet and **** like that works. I know I'm only a network administrator so IT security is only about 40% of my job, but wow. I'm learning a lot of from you that I didn't learn, despite JUST graduating.

 

[plague311]

The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.

So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.

 

[The Big Dog]

Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:

E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.​

Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?

You will also note that in addition to the "c" marking, the earlier text of the email specifically notes that the the talking points were not included in the "pouch" which is of course the classified courier pouch for the transmittal of classified information.

So not only was it marked the body of the email itself reinforces that it was classified.

 

[Fudbucker]

And there's no evidence that a successful hack exists, and all evidence points to every attempt being a failure. Which is why claiming that the number of attempts is evidence of a successful attempt is just wrong.

The only good evidence we have is that at least two attempts were made. We don't know if they were successful, but we do know that people are successfully hacked all the time.

I don't know why this is hard. The hypothesis in question is "Clinton's server was compromised". In order for that to be true, every attack made against it had to have failed. Every single. If each attack has a chance of succeeding, as the number of attacks increases, the odds that every single attack was a failure drops until it becomes too remote a possibility to believe, and you're forced to accept the alternative: Clinton's system was compromised.

Now, we don't have a million bazillion hacking attempts. But we know of at least two, and if the two attacks had a non-zero chance of being successful, they count at evidence. If the chance of success is greater than zero, they can't NOT count as evidence.

 

[Fudbucker]

So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.

Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?

 

[plague311]

The only good evidence we have is that at least two attempts were made. We don't know if they were successful, but we do know that people are successfully hacked all the time.

Your constant denial that security logs show no evidence that there was a hack is getting to be utterly pathetic. Two attempts to hack a server is dog ****. I have more attempts than that on personal equipment, naturally depending on what a "hacking attempt" is it could be hundreds.

I don't know why this is hard. The hypothesis in question is "Clinton's server was compromised". In order for that to be true, every attack made against it had to have failed.

Yeah, and we have evidence of 2 attacks. For some reason you're like...shocked that a few attempts failed. It could be 2,000, hell it could be 200,000 attempts and I wouldn't be surprised if every single one failed. It depends what they're attempting to do to get into the server. Again, saying "hacking" is stupid. It's a blanket term that means nothing to me. Think of the hundreds of thousands of attacks that google\yahoo\bing face daily. They all fail.

Every single. If each attack has a chance of succeeding, as the number of attacks increases, the odds that every single attack was a failure drops until it becomes too remote a possibility to believe, and you're forced to accept the alternative: Clinton's system was compromised.

Huh? This doesn't even make sense in the IT world. Everything ever has a chance of succeeding. I have a chance of flying by myself without help, but I would still guess it isn't going to happen. You're coming to a conclusion based on nothing more than your ignorance of how this **** works. You're so far off base it's not even funny. Net security is forever changing. Patches, updates, hot fixes, etc. all update net security. You don't just install "net security" and be done. I don't know what software she was using or what detection software she had so that's why I'm not making claims like you.

Now, we don't have a million bazillion hacking attempts. But we know of at least two, and if the two attacks had a non-zero chance of being successful, they count at evidence. If the chance of success is greater than zero, they can't NOT count as evidence.

I don't know if you're playing semantics here or what is going on. Every website you go to, every script you run from a site, every cookie you get has a chance of "hacking your intertubez! OMGZ!ONE!1!!ELEVENTY!". They aren't evidence of **** other than someone was poking around the internet. The "attacks" could have just as easily been scripted and no human ever saw them.

Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?

I don't speak in certainties when it comes to the IT world, as anyone that actually works in IT would tell you is a pretty standard. I can't say either way. What I CAN say is that there is no evidence to support a statement, other than someone who has hacked before made a completely unsupported statement. If you want to take that evidence, go right ahead, but it's a ******** argument to try and defend.

 

[Fudbucker]

So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.

I don't what "absence of evidence" you're talking about. We have the IG report stating there were two attempts:

"Cooper, according to the report, reached out to Huma Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011 to notify her of the hacking problem, an occurrence that happened twice that day. He said he "had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says.
“Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min,’” the report reads.

And don't blame me for using the word "hack", which appears in the IG report.

www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz4BUZRCQtX

And the other evidence is Guccifer's claim.

"The hacker has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials, including former President George W. Bush and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Lazar’s hacking into Bush’s email account exposed self-portraits and other paintings that the former president had after leaving office.

His access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/280911-clinton-hacker-guccifer-expected-to-plead-guilty

But in Hillary-land none of this is evidence. Everything breaks her way all the time and all negative claims about her are lies, because Hillary.

 

[plague311]

I don't what "absence of evidence" you're talking about. We have the IG report stating there were two attempts:

"Cooper, according to the report, reached out to Huma Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011 to notify her of the hacking problem, an occurrence that happened twice that day. He said he "had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says.
“Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min,’” the report reads.

Nothing showing that they were hacked, and it sounds like they had some pretty top notch detection software or maybe hardware. I don't know if they were using a physical firewall or what. Again, I have no idea.

And don't blame me for using the word "hack", which appears in the IG report.

Wasn't blaming anyone, I was saying the term is dog ****. It doesn't do anything to explain what is happening.

www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz4BUZRCQtX

And the other evidence is Guccifer's claim.

"The hacker has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials, including former President George W. Bush and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Lazar’s hacking into Bush’s email account exposed self-portraits and other paintings that the former president had after leaving office.

His access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/280911-clinton-hacker-guccifer-expected-to-plead-guilty

But in Hillary-land none of this is evidence. Everything breaks her way all the time and all negative claims about her are lies, because Hillary.

Now let me point something out to you. Neither of those email accounts were on a private server using private security. They were hacked using brute force attacks (guessing a password a bunch of times until they get in). Powell used Gmail, and Blumenthal used yahoo I believe. Again, those aren't really "hacks" as much as it is guessing. It's also not impressive. Buy a computer off of craigslist, get a rainbow chart, some software and hack wi-fi's. Doing it will get you in a ton of trouble if you get caught, but they aren't impressive by any means.

 

[Tony Stark]

Funny that people are freaking out because there were a couple attempts to hack Hillary's server given that we know for a fact that the state department system was hacked.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?

Of course there isn't.

Seems odd there's not a mention of Clinton in here, doesn't it ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/bush-hackers-other-victims-637098
FEBRUARY 14--As federal agents hunt for the culprit who illegally accessed several Bush family e-mail accounts, The Smoking Gun has learned that the hacker’s victim list also includes a U.S. Senator, a senior United Nations official, security contractors in Iraq, two former FBI agents, and a Department of Defense supervisor.

No, it's not odd, becuase he just made up ******** red meat to throw to the HDS crowd (way after her knowledge of her server was made public), and they ate it up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.

Really ? I don't agree, many of "The people most likely to have done so" *********** live just to tell you all about it.

 

[Fudbucker]

Nothing showing that they were hacked, and it sounds like they had some pretty top notch detection software or maybe hardware. I don't know if they were using a physical firewall or what. Again, I have no idea.



Wasn't blaming anyone, I was saying the term is dog ****. It doesn't do anything to explain what is happening.



Now let me point something out to you. Neither of those email accounts were on a private server using private security. They were hacked using brute force attacks (guessing a password a bunch of times until they get in). Powell used Gmail, and Blumenthal used yahoo I believe. Again, those aren't really "hacks" as much as it is guessing. It's also not impressive. Buy a computer off of craigslist, get a rainbow chart, some software and hack wi-fi's. Doing it will get you in a ton of trouble if you get caught, but they aren't impressive by any means.

Perhaps that's what Guccifer did to Clinton as well.

And the bolded seem to be odds with any strong claims regarding Clinton's server (i.e., "Clinton's server was never compromised).

Or maybe you think it could have been compromised? Possibly? Tiny percent chance someone got in?

 

[Fudbucker]

Of course there isn't.

Seems odd there's not a mention of Clinton in here, doesn't it ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/bush-hackers-other-victims-637098
FEBRUARY 14--As federal agents hunt for the culprit who illegally accessed several Bush family e-mail accounts, The Smoking Gun has learned that the hacker’s victim list also includes a U.S. Senator, a senior United Nations official, security contractors in Iraq, two former FBI agents, and a Department of Defense supervisor.

No, it's not odd, becuase he just made up ******** red meat to throw to the HDS crowd (way after her knowledge of her server was made public), and they ate it up.

Well, I can see why you had trouble earlier. Apparently it's impossible Guccifer could be telling the truth. Right. Carry on, intrepid skeptic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:

E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.​

Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?

Because it was on her server, that would make my de facto initial thought that an email doesn't contain classified data. It doesn't have all of the markings a classified document should. Perhaps someone lifted out the non-classified parts and sent that, believing it was not classified, and it was later deemed classified during an over-zealous review.

I don't know.

It doesn't change my opinion of the big picture - I don't believe it would have been any different had she had an State Dept. email. I think it's irrelevant, and won't change anything.

I guess Kudos to fox (or whoever) for finally finding some classified markings out of 30k emails, if that is in fact what those are.

But shouldn't matter to most of the HDS sufferers in the thread - they have been calling Clinton a congenital liar since before they knew she had an email server.