News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by mcphage on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:25PM (#12536270)
> Literally what point are you making?

The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails—they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. Before her, nobody gave a shit. After her, nobody will give a shit. They don't matter, except that they can be used to criticize Clinton. So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them.

> I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on

They wouldn't have. The rest of us had much bigger complaints to make, that complaining about deleting emails would have been a laughable waste of time.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by PKop on Monday September 19, 2016 @10:16PM (#12536516)
I served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was held to a high standard in regards to OPSEC and security around classified information. Being as careless or purposely negligent as she was would have gotten me or anyone else court martialed.

Hillary Clinton is a grown ass woman. She knows what she'd doing. She held a position of high responsibility, that deals with highly sensitive intel that impacts many facets of national security, and had an obligation to keep her correspondence secure as well as open to FOIA requests.

That she didn't, and has repeatedly lied about it, should concern everyone. That she was willing to leave her server open to possible hacking simply for personal convenience and gain, should concern everyone. It does me.

How is it just deleting emails? She's literally hiding her tracks and doesn't want people to see what she's talking about. And when caught, she lies and deletes the evidence. I honestly do not understand how someone like you, who ostensibly is lecturing us about simply being rah rah for "our team" can NOT care about this. Honestly how can't you? You are literally telling us not to look at it through the lens of our favored political party. So then don't. How is this defensible?

I'm a little less familiar about previous instances, but if you're referring to Colin Powell's actions.. from what I've read they are no where near the extent to which she used private server for gov't communication.. BUT! I absolutely do not support him doing it either! If he broke a law, he should be prosecuted. I'd be ok with it happening even now.

Do laws and regulations have any meaning anymore if they don't apply to those at the top? We all have our favorites, and surely there is hypocrisy when we like to look the other way when it's "our guy/gal"... next time something like this happens I'll definitely care then too. A big part of it is about what kind of precedent it sets for future politicians. How much more will they hide from the public with no threat of consequences?

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by koube on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @01:21AM (#12537253)
He's not talking about Powell's actions, where Powell recommended that Clinton use a private email. He's talking about the Bush administration, who avoided any email controversy on their private email server simply by deleting all 22 million emails.

None of them broke any law, as laid out by Comey, who is famous for bashing heads with politicians. The law was executed by Comey faithfully and there was no crime to prosecute.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by PKop on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @02:18AM (#12537499)
Ok so this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...

Yea that's terrible. If there was evidence of a (possibly) compromised, unsecured personal server, with high level officials talking about national security on it (including Bush) then I would think it would be even worse. But it is bad as is.

Also, I think Bush was a pretty terrible president in many respects and overall I'm not a fan of his.

If he used, or personally signed off on the use of, then he should have been held responsible. As well as others that did so themselves.

And Powell's recommendation that Clinton use a personal server is a perfect example of an arrogant, entitled, self-interested "leader" who only cares about political expediency and convenience for themselves at the expense of destroying government transparency and risking security leaks and hacks.

As a General who above all should know this better than anyone, he's a disgrace for recommending this, in my opinion.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by jessaustin on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @09:03AM (#12539168)
As a General who above all should know this better than anyone, he's a disgrace...

If watching the pundit shows has taught me anything, it's that there are few classes of public figures more venal, hawkish, shameless, or blatantly self-serving than the military brass. It's a miracle they can convince anyone to follow their orders.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by gjolund on Monday September 19, 2016 @10:33PM (#12536583)
Great response, looking forward to seeing their reply.
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by umanwizard on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:36PM (#12536335)
> The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails

Based on what evidence?

> they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for.

I'm no fan of Trump either. I wish Clinton were a good candidate so she would wipe the floor with him.

> So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them.

I was 12 years old when Bush was elected. That's why I didn't care about whatever he may or may not have done.

You know absolutely nothing about me or anyone else and you are presuming people's motives without any evidence or justification.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by Retric on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:54PM (#12536425)
Based on nobody criticizing the several prior people in that same position that did the exact same thing.

Sure, if it was just one or two that's one thing, but A email is public in the first place and B when your the fifth person in a row to do something you generally assume that's just how it's done.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by newman314 on Monday September 19, 2016 @11:12PM (#12536733)
Does not make it right (for anyone). Equal rules should apply.
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by oh_sigh on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @11:51AM (#12540441)
Is there as much evidence available with bush as there is with HRC?
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by gjolund on Monday September 19, 2016 @10:31PM (#12536576)
I ran IT for a financial firm that went through an FBI investigation, if i had done this (like they asked repeatedly) I would have gone to jail.
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by oldmanjay on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:30PM (#12536305)
Are you trying to claim that no one complained about Bush? If so, I have to assume you are rather young.
Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by mcphage on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:34PM (#12536317)
> Are you trying to claim that no one complained about Bush?

No, we complained constantly. But we had more important things to complain about then where his email server was.

Re:House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's emai... by nitsujio on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:59PM (#12536452)
Mcphage is trolling when he says nobody cared about Bush's emails.

Politifact tells the truth of it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...

Mcphage is trolling. Let's not feed him anymore.