DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:32 am**

No Vander, it is not understandable. If she wanted to use her server for low level communications like telling her staff that their offices are messy and need to be cleaned up...fine. But handling super sensitive documents like:

Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Putting this kind of information on a unsecured server is like Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pant leg to trans port them.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:47 am**

or Dick Morris letting his hookers use secure White House phone lines. Was he arrested or charged? No. He was fired.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:19 pm**

woodchip wrote:Putting this kind of information on a unsecured server is like Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pant leg to trans port them.

Just because it was a private server doesn't mean it was insecure. Just because it's a work server doesn't mean it is secure.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:24 pm**

And you know for a fact that her server was set up with the same security as the govt.? Not that it matters. She in essence checked out highly classified documents without following protocols.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:07 pm**

woodchip wrote:And you know for a fact that her server was set up with the same security as the govt.?

No I don't and neither do you, and that's why I am reserving judgment. I might not like her, but I won't condemn her without evidence of wrongdoing.

woodchip wrote:She in essence checked out highly classified documents without following protocols.

That's the gray area we don't know about yet.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:11 pm**

So vision, you think someone who puts some of the most sensitive intel on a homemade server is proper:

" Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers."

So what happens if she becomes President? She takes the nuclear football home and stores it under her bed? I suggest you imagine if Trump was being accused of this...would you be defending him just as vigorously?

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:15 pm**

woodchip wrote:So vision, you think someone who puts some of the most sensitive intel on a homemade server is proper:

1) We don't know if her server was insecure. You don't know. Fox doesn't know. No one outside the ongoing investigation knows.

2) Do you know what a mail server is and how to set one up? I do. It's actually part of my job description, along with managing hardware, software, routers, firewalls, and creating and maintaining security policies. I'm not sure how you are using the word "homemade" here and I'm 100% positive you don't know either.

3) None of us know the State Department policies on use of off-site hardware.

I'm not even getting into the alleged content. We are even less likely to know the nature of that stuff.

The more I read about this the less convinced I am that any crime has been committed. It reeks of inter-department politics. The whole thing looks contrived. One sign this is all a bunch of bull★■◆● is that I now read headlines that say the information on her servers was "above top secret."

Orly? "Above" Top Secret? So what is that called? Top-top secret? So, top secret isn't really top secret if there is a top above the top, right?

What a bunch of crap.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:05 am**

vision wrote:3) None of us know the State Department policies on use of off-site hardware

But anyone who clicked my prior links can learn the DoD's policies on setting up any hardware to be used with classified material. The policies are open and publicly available.

Orly? "Above" Top Secret? So what is that called? Top-top secret? So, top secret isn't really top secret if there is a top above the top, right?

"Above Top Secret" is media shorthand that anybody with even a passing knowledge of security clearances understands to mean "Top Secret with additional controls".

The lowest level of security is "unclassified", then "unclassified - for official use only", then "confidential", "secret", and "top secret". These are broad classifications.

Some specialized information is classified more strictly than even Top Secret, within the category of Top Secret but under additional designations -- either "Sensitive Compartmentalized Information" or "Special Access Program". These typically use code names -- something might be classified under the SCI code "Green Hero Relic" and can only be accessed by people with the clearance "TS/SCI Green Hero Relic".

This is the sort of information you don't mess around with. And I guarantee Hillary's private server didn't meet all of the requirements for dealing with such information, because some of the requirements have to do with auditing that we know wasn't done because it's being done now after the fact.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:44 pm**

Lothar wrote:
So, top secret isn't really top secret if there is a top above the top, right?
Some specialized information is classified more strictly than even Top Secret, within the category of Top Secret but under additional designations -- either "Sensitive Compartmentalized Information" or "Special Access Program".

I can confirm this. [edited to remove info I really shouldn't post online]

"Top Secret" clearance isn't a pass into all super-secret stuff. It really means something more akin to "eligible to be granted special clearance into specific projects".

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:55 pm**

So it would appear vision doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:12 pm**

woodchip wrote:So it would appear vision doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

coming from you, this is precious.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:40 pm**

callmeslick wrote: coming from you, this is precious.

Said the man who doesn't shine with substantial comments

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:24 pm**

sigma wrote:
callmeslick wrote: coming from you, this is precious.
Said the man who doesn't shine with substantial comments

at least I don't float government propaganda as truth. Oh, and I'll put my substance, presented here, up with anyone on the board. That I don't always choose to focus on substance reflects amusement at folks sometimes. Like you, for instance.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 pm**

That is, you agree to accept that in any case you will call common sense - foreign propaganda, if it is in your interests?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:02 pm**

Well, as always, another uncomfortable question was recorded in the category of propaganda. And therefore it can be ignored. It is very convenient, is not it?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:02 pm**

Lothar wrote:And I guarantee Hillary's private server didn't meet all of the requirements for dealing with such information, because some of the requirements have to do with auditing that we know wasn't done because it's being done now after the fact.

Speculation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:59 am**

Former Sec Def Robert Gates: ‘Odds Are Pretty High’ Russia, China, And Iran Accessed Hillary’s Server

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:36 am**

note he writes, 'odds are pretty high',which is his speculation, and you didn't seem to put much stock in Gates when he suggested the entire GOP field had its head up its collective ass about ISIS.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am**

When Gates speaks about something in his area of expertise, I take stock in what he says. When he or anyone speaks about politics, I take what they say with a very small grain of salt. Hopefully you can understand the difference.

Posted: **Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:45 pm**

woodchip wrote:When Gates speaks about something in his area of expertise, I take stock in what he says.

such as, say, national defense and strategies?

When he or anyone speaks about politics, I take what they say with a very small grain of salt. Hopefully you can understand the difference.

ok with that, none of the comments cited by either of us were about politics. Not sure what his computer system security credentials are, though.

DescentBB

what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....

Re: what if.....