231–240 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They offered her a non-blackberry alternative. That's not what happened here.
You could rephrase it, "if you don't provide [an easy and] secure way to get shit done, motivated individuals will figure out how to get shit done, security be damned. happens every time. that's what happened here."
Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…
Actually no, we're fortunate this isn't happening in 2017, or 2018. We can still keep her out of office, and we should, on moral grounds, not party grounds. Unfortunately, the alternatives to her aren't that great either. I'm hedging my bets until November, hoping some sort of miracle happens. Hoping this election invokes the 12th amendment and goes to the house. I feel none of the current candidates would be eligibl…
Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…
That would have made it more difficult for the NSA to spy on her. I know this sounds cynical, but really, do you think the NSA doesn't spy on our government officials?
Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…
>Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She didn't want the one they offered her, which was an older-style Windows Mobile phone. As the emails frequently note, she is not a "computer person", she knew how to work one kind of device for accessing email and refused to use anything different. They offered her a secure computer with a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the rationale for not giving everyone secure smartphones? And I mean high-ranking officials, SoS certainly ranks considering how much she/he is in foreign countries with foreign leaders. Can someone in the know explain why the NSA would deny such requests?
In all fairness, Obama's use of a smartphone was unprecedented. I read (but cannot find a reasonable source now) that Obama's Blackberry was tethered to a private base station, not any kind of public network, cellular or otherwise. So "secure smartphone" is a term that really means "secure infrastructure". That infrastructure simply isn't scaleable. [Edit: See this HN comment for sources. https://news.ycombinator.com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She probably won't if Trump is elected. A lot of people are saying there's no way she gets indicted before the election. However, if Trump is elected, he's already said he's going to indict her and send her to prison. Therefore, I if you want to see her indicted, you're probably going to have to vote for Trump.
I have no doubt he said this, but can you recall when and or link to him stating this? Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na7EKNUkKYM
His language was pretty measured. He didn't say he would be prosecute her, but used the phrase, "We'd have to look into it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that links to the daily caller is a serious news source. Plus the article is a pile of stupid innuendo that conflates what Hillary did with Petraeus providing contemporaneously classified documents to his journalist fuckbuddy. Further, clearly nobody in government had a contemporaneous problem with it since they saw the email address every time they communicated with Hillary Clinton. Whenever they sent her an…
Ad hominem? Sure, news sources can be biased and we should be discerning when we look at them, but that doesn't automatically mean that the source is automatically wrong 100% of the time.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/obamas-fancy-new-mansion-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She didn't want the one they offered her, which was an older-style Windows Mobile phone. As the emails frequently note, she is not a "computer person", she knew how to work one kind of device for accessing email and refused to use anything different. They offered her a secure computer with a…
If our Secretary of State and would-be President can't be bothered to learn how to read email on a PC, even (especially) for the sake of information security, I think that deserves a little bashing.