Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Belz...]

For the late arriving commentators who have not bothered to read the actual thread.

Nice. Putting two posts back to back even though the second wasn't answering the first.

By the way?? Even for you, that's a pretty argument-free post.

[SNIP] Obviously, pointing out that your post doesn't counter the one you quoted IS the whole argument.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nice. Putting two posts back to back even though the second wasn't answering the first.



What are you, twelve? Obviously, pointing out that your post doesn't counter the one you quoted IS the whole argument.

'k

 

[Belz...]

'k

 

[plague311]

Seems pretty clear that not only am I disputing this nonsense: "They've looked at the logs, they've torn the server apart, and there is absolutely no evidence in any way, shape or form that the server has been compromised" I am and have completely nuked it from orbit.

Danth's law, huh? I'd say that's about par for the course LoL. You do realize that logs, backups, etc. aren't held on local storage, right? They're held offsite, generally away from wherever the server is located, so that if the place burns down, gets robbed, or hacked they still have backups in other places. That's how they figure out how hacks happen. Again though, back to your headboard raising.

And here we are, one and all, where you are bizarrely arguing about bleach bit and who well she wiped her server, and I am sitting back enjoying reminding folks about bleach bit and the fact she wiped her servers.

Reminding people of something you know nothing about, have no clue how it was used, have no clue how it works, and have no clue what the effects of the program you're reminding people of has on anything. Keep it up. The best is that you're implying I'm a moron. I love it.

Say maybe I should get a younger sibling, or even better a friend who works in the District Attorney's office to explain "obstruction of justice" to us?

Perhaps, but they'll probably just treat you like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving since the FBI has closed the book, along with everyone else...but yeah. Let me know how it goes.

And we have not even gotten to the point where we talked about Hillary drooled out her lies about cooperating with the various investigation!

Now please regale us with tales of what exactly happened when her IT team used bleach bit to wipe her server.

avid readers are dying to know.

I bask in your lack of any form of IT knowledge, while personifying Danth's law, and being smug about it. Keep it up. You're a hoot.

 

[The Big Dog]

You see people, now that is helpful. When the investigators went to "tear apart the server," Hillary's team of incompetents had already wiped it, but they forgot about the "backups."

Oh wait, that is not true Hillary and her team of incompetents also tried to obstruct the investigation by changing the configuration long after the documents had been requested to delete the backups.

But Hillary's team of incompetents screwed that up too! You see after the had their "oh ****" moment and went on a wipe/purge frenzy of the server and the backups they didn't know that Datto had automatically backed the stuff up too and didn't delete that.

Hillary and her gang can't even obstruct justice correctly!

Thanks to all the folks adding their "expertise" to the overwhelming demonstration of Hillary's skullduggery and outright lies in connection with the server!

With friends like you guys, Hillary does not need enemies.

 

[phiwum]

"cowboy" defined as a person who is reckless or careless.

Now no one has claimed that all private email servers are cowboy servers, what we are saying that Hillary's homebrew slapdash private email server was cowboy.

I have not seen any evidence that her private email server was slapdash or homebrew.

Do tell, if you have a smidgen of evidence that it wasn't competently administered.

Far as I'm concerned, the issue over the server is that official bidness ought to be done on official servers, not that she had incompetent administrators.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have not seen any evidence that her private email server was slapdash or homebrew.

Do tell, if you have a smidgen of evidence that it wasn't competently administered.

Far as I'm concerned, the issue over the server is that official bidness ought to be done on official servers, not that she had incompetent administrators.

The issue is both! But rather than force you to review this thread where the flaws in the system have been thoroughly covered, take a gander at

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

 

[plague311]

You see people, now that is helpful. When the investigators went to "tear apart the server," Hillary's team of incompetents had already wiped it, but they forgot about the "backups."

So much ******** in one post, I'll try to keep it minimal. First off, they didn't "forget" about the backups. Datto had illegally created a backup that Clinton willingly turned over to the FBI. Pretty basic stuff there and easily verifiable by your own links.

Just so you know, people "change their configuration" for servers all of the time. Daily.

From the information provided, Clinton put in a request to change the data retention times, which is extremely common. You wouldn't know that, since you have no clue how IT works, but yeah. Those requests happen all of the time, mostly because people don't want to pay for increased storage for older data. Again, nothing strange or devious about it. Just standard operating procedure for the conspiracy theorist. Normal things always look devious when you're looking through confirmation bias.

FYI: I've changed backup data points on 3 servers today because of storage issues they're experiencing. I'll be sure to inform them of their deviousness. LoL

*snip* Hillary and her gang can't even obstruct justice correctly!

Probably because they weren't trying to obstruct justice. In addition to the backup that they found from Datto, they were also provided multiple other snapshots of the virtual server when asked. So, uh, what are you talking about? You don't know? Ok, didn't think so.

Thanks to all the folks adding their "expertise" to the overwhelming demonstration of Hillary's skullduggery and outright lies in connection with the server!

Thanks to all those personifying Danth's law for adding in their complete and utter nonsense on topics they know absolutely nothing about in hopes of trying to headboard raise just a little bit more. It's fun watching people drowning in a conversation they can't handle, and still trying to act like they're the top dog (pun intended) in the room. It's cute.

With friends like you guys, Hillary does not need enemies.

I'm not her friend.

The issue is both! But rather than force you to review this thread where the flaws in the system have been thoroughly covered, take a gander at

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

You're linking to an article that is 2.5 years old, and written before the investigation and subsequent evidence. That is truly pathetic. We both know there are a bunch of articles out since then that dispute most of the stuff in that article. Also, all of the supposed problems are labeled with "could happen" or "might have" or "it's possible".

Sad. Low energy and sad.

 

[Belz...]

Hillary and her gang can't even obstruct justice correctly!

Yeah, what monsters! At least Trump obstructs justice openly and properly!

 

[The Big Dog]

So much ******** in one post, I'll try to keep it minimal. First off, they didn't "forget" about the backups. Datto had illegally created a backup that Clinton willingly turned over to the FBI. Pretty basic stuff there and easily verifiable by your own links.

Interesting! I do enjoy you applying your expertise to our on going discussion of the many and various ways Hillary and her team tried and failed to cover her tracks with regard to her server! Now when you say Datto "illegally" created a backup, what law did they break?

And she "willingly" turned it over to the FBI, you say? Hmm, do you think that there is say a legal method that the FBI could have used to get it with Hillary's benevolence in turning over the backup that datto "illegally" made?

And people "change data points" all the time? fascinating! Because we had a seminar where the lawyers said not to do that when there was an investigation ongoing and the documents, like they were here was subject to governmental requests and subpoenas.

"It's fun watching people drowning in a conversation they can't handle, and still trying to act like they're the top dog (pun intended) in the room. It's cute."

Indeed it is!

 

[plague311]

Interesting! I do enjoy you applying your expertise to our on going discussion of the many and various ways Hillary and her team tried and failed to cover her tracks with regard to her server! Now when you say Datto "illegally" created a backup, what law did they break?

Let me explain this to you simply, since I don't have the time to look up code numbers. What Datto did was take data that wasn't theirs, backed it up without the permission of Clinton, and then found it later. They admitted to this, they admitted it shouldn't have happened. The articles littered throughout this thread even quoted Datto as saying that they checked with Clinton, and her lawyers before turning over the data because of that very fact.

No matter what you think, it's illegal to take someone's data and keep it. It could be labeled as data theft pure and simple. It's net security 101.

Here's some help:

The FBI report notes several attempts to hack the Clinton server, although none were successful, as far as the agency could determine. The same cannot be said of the State Department’s email system, which ran on antiquated Wang machines well into the 2000s until Colin Powell ordered an upgrade. Since then, it has been hacked repeatedly.

Datto, a data protection company, had been backing up Clinton’s messages for years, yet nobody seemed to know about it—not the techie who tended to the Clintons’ private email server, not the Clintons, not even Datto’s CEO Austin McChord and his employees.

Think about it: Hillary Clinton’s lightly attended, home-based email server turned out to be more secure than the State Department’s ostensibly well-fortified computer network

Source

All statements confirming exactly what I've been saying, while you've been laughing and implying I have no idea what I'm talking about. Standard CT stuff!

And she "willingly" turned it over to the FBI, you say? Hmm, do you think that there is say a legal method that the FBI could have used to get it with Hillary's benevolence in turning over the backup that datto "illegally" made?

I couldn't possibly care less if they could have gotten it or not. I said she turned it over, and she did. Quoted here

“With the consent of our client and their end user, and consistent with our policies regarding data privacy, yesterday, Tuesday, October 6, Datto delivered a hardware device to the FBI containing all backed up data related to Platte Rivers Networks' client known to be in its possession,” Datto said in a statement.

And people "change data points" all the time? fascinating! Because we had a seminar where the lawyers said not to do that when there was an investigation ongoing and the documents, like they were here was subject to governmental requests and subpoenas.

Oh man, you once had a seminar that said stuff! OMG! Was it held by, like, total IT people that totally knew what they were totally talking about? Great. Anecdotal, BS argument is anecdotal. But yeah, your seminar definitely trumps my degree and experience in the field.

On this, I will concede a little bit. She shouldn't have done it, it was stupid, but not illegal.

"It's fun watching people drowning in a conversation they can't handle, and still trying to act like they're the top dog (pun intended) in the room. It's cute."

Indeed it is!

You should get back to reading all the sources that support what I've been saying so I can laugh a little more when you imply I don't know what I'm talking about. You precious little thing, you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let me explain this to you simply, since I don't have the time to look up code numbers. What Datto did was take data that wasn't theirs, backed it up without the permission of Clinton, and then found it later. .

Oh by golly, take your time! Look up those "code numbers."

"Was held by, like, total IT people that totally knew what they were totally talking about? Great. Anecdotal, BS argument is anecdotal. But yeah, your seminar definitely trumps my degree and experience in the field."

Actually, I said it was held not by "total IT people that totally knew what they were totally talking about.' I said it was seminars held by "lawyers."

But I had no idea, no idea at all that you had a "degree and experience in the field" of data retention policies as respects things like litigation holds, data preservation requirements when facing subpoenas and governmental investigations.

Please do tell and I will whip the lawyers who gave that seminar with a wet noodle based on your degree and experience in the field!

Nice tho of Hillary to "consent" to give to the FBI the documents she and her gang of misfits thought they had well and fully destroyed.

 

[NoahFence]

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/media/the-macedonia-story/

They may be hiring, TBD! Get your resume in!

 

[The Big Dog]

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/media/the-macedonia-story/

They may be hiring, TBD! Get your resume in!

Did you mean to link to The New York times, because that is Hillary's fake news target today in connection with the email scandal blame game.

 

[NoahFence]

Did it happen or did it not happen?

All evidence I've seen is that it happened, and the story is 100% accurate. You'll have to fill me in on where I've gone wrong.

Or is this another in a long line of things you refuse to admit have any truth to them despite the fact that nobody aside from ignorant keyboard warriors disputes them?

 

[phiwum]

The issue is both! But rather than force you to review this thread where the flaws in the system have been thoroughly covered, take a gander at

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

Thanks for the link.

The first point is that Clinton didn't use government paid employees to secure her site. This is true, but is no evidence that her site would be less secure had she done so.

The second is that her domain name registrar could have been hacked and hence emails redirected. I suppose that's an issue. It didn't happen, but it could have.

As the article also states, the state department has a poor record for security, so it's not at all clear that emails on the private server were more vulnerable than if she had used a government server.

That said, as I said before, security in official emails should be the responsibility of the relevant government agency and she should not have used a private server. But your article does not support the claim that by doing so, she jeopardized US interests to any non-trivial extent. Private email administrators are not, far as I know, less competent than government paid admins.

 

[plague311]

Oh by golly, take your time! Look up those "code numbers."

"Was held by, like, total IT people that totally knew what they were totally talking about? Great. Anecdotal, BS argument is anecdotal. But yeah, your seminar definitely trumps my degree and experience in the field."

Actually, I said it was held not by "total IT people that totally knew what they were totally talking about.' I said it was seminars held by "lawyers."

But I had no idea, no idea at all that you had a "degree and experience in the field" of data retention policies as respects things like litigation holds, data preservation requirements when facing subpoenas and governmental investigations.

Please do tell and I will whip the lawyers who gave that seminar with a wet noodle based on your degree and experience in the field!

Nice tho of Hillary to "consent" to give to the FBI the documents she and her gang of misfits thought they had well and fully destroyed.

Let's see where you've trotted the conversation to now.

Well, whatever the lawyers told you hasn't seemed to be an issue for Hillary. So it's not just my expertise or experience that I'm counting on. That of the FBI and the rest of the people involved seem to be on the same page as me considering how it's all shook out. Strange, that. It's just you and other internet lawyers that seem to be screaming from the mountain top. It's almost the same as what CTists do. They find something that agrees with them and then deny everyone and everything that says otherwise.

Any comments with regards to the articles that support my statements from tech sites? Any reason why you seem to be posting 1 and 2 year old articles to try and make your point?

For the record though, I'm literally enrolled, and going for my bachelor's in IT Security and Data Protection. That being said, I agreed Clinton shouldn't have done it, it was stupid but not illegal. Quit strawmanning.

Good to see you finally admitted I was right with regards to the backup. You're coming along!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[The Big Dog]

For the record though, I'm literally enrolled, and going for my bachelor's in IT Security and Data Protection.

Ohhhhh, I bow in deference to your expertise.

Of course "IT security and data protection" isn't really the same as "litigation holds, data preservation requirements when facing subpoenas and governmental investigations", now is it?

A tip? It isn't.

 

[Shalamar]

Did it happen or did it not happen?

All evidence I've seen is that it happened, and the story is 100% accurate. You'll have to fill me in on where I've gone wrong.

Or is this another in a long line of things you refuse to admit have any truth to them despite the fact that nobody aside from ignorant keyboard warriors disputes them?

Look up Illusiory Superiority. So far the only fact that TBD has correct, is the existence of Hillary Clinton.

It seems anything that contradicts TBD's perceived narrative is 'Fake news'.

 

[Shalamar]

Ohhhhh, I bow in deference to your expertise.

Of course "IT security and data protection" isn't really the same as "litigation holds, data preservation requirements when facing subpoenas and governmental investigations", now is it?

A tip? It isn't.

You are frankly, wrong, and actually avoiding the conversation.