Common Sense wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

And for anyone who thinks this isn't a big deal, simply replace the name Hillary Clinton with the name Dick Cheney in the AP story I posted above and then tell me you feel the same.

The quote of the week! A name change and the coverage would be completely changed!


 

You think there is NO coverage now ????  EVERY media outet for the last couple of days has had this as one of its story lines !  The real quesiton is whether the oppostion can make something out of it or not. 

 

TheLagerLad wrote:

And for anyone who thinks this isn't a big deal, simply replace the name Hillary Clinton with the name Dick Cheney in the AP story I posted above and then tell me you feel the same.

That is so true.
Of course, this is equally true -
For anyone who thinks this is a big deal, simply replace the name Hilary Clinton with the name Dick Cheney and tell me you'd feel the same.

For conservatives, the reaction It would change from condemnation to "yea, it was stupid But", and then would follow a diatribe about how the press will "do anything" to get Dick Cheney.

Such is the tribalist two-step.

Last edited by Goose (3/04/2015 5:06 pm)

The only thing I'm going to say about this is that they better find something illegal in those emails or any credibility they might have had is gone. This is getting stupid and ridiculous. Instead of fishing to find any little speck of whatthef*#ckever, they should be addressing the issues that we're all facing that they keep choosing to ignore.

Good article about the Clinton e-mail story from a security perspective

“Although the American people didn’t know about this, it’s almost certain that foreign intelligence agencies did, just as the NSA knows which Indian and Spanish officials use Gmail and Yahoo accounts,” says Chris Soghoian, the lead technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. “She’s not the first official to use private email and not the last. But there are serious security issue associated with these kinds of services…When you build your house outside the security fence, you’re on your own, and that’s what seems to have happened here.”

The most obvious security issue with Clinton running her own email server, says Soghoian, is the lack of manpower overseeing it compared with the State Department’s official email system. The federal agency’s own IT security team monitors State Department servers for possible vulnerabilities and breaches, and those computers fall under the NSA’s protection, too. Since 2008, for instance, the so-called Einstein project has functioned as an umbrella intrusion-detection system for more than a dozen federal agencies; Though it’s run by the Department of Homeland Security, it uses NSA data and vulnerability-detection methods.

Clinton’s email wouldn’t have the benefit of any of that expensive government security. If she had hosted her email with Google or even Yahoo! or Microsoft, there might be an argument that those private companies’ security teams are just as competent as the those of the feds. But instead, according to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her server from her own home. Any protection it had there—aside from the physical protection of the Secret Service—would have been limited to the Clintons’ own personal resources.

A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name. Unlike the State Department’s State.gov domain, Clinton’s Clintonemail.com is currently registered with a private domain registrar, Network Solutions, as a simple Whois search reveals. The domain Clintonemail.com (and thus its registrar) was certainly known to at least one hacker: The notorious celebrity hacker Guccifer first revealed it in 2013 when he spilled the emails of Clinton associate Sydney Blumenthal.

Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account. And Network Solutions is far from the Internet’s hardest target: Hundreds of its domains were hacked in 2010, a year into Clinton’s tenure at the head of the State Department.

Even if Clinton used the account only for personal messages rather than those of international importance (say, something along the lines of: “Let’s go ahead and drop those bombs, Bibi”) the notion that they could be both intercepted and spoofed through a common hacking vector is particularly troubling. “Even the most mundane of communications can be interesting to an intelligence service,” says the ACLU’s Soghoian. The NSA, he points out, thought it was worthwhile to monitor German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal cell phone, for instance.

Perhaps the shield of inevitability will be broken and we can get a contested primary.