Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Fairly sure it was as close to common knowledge as anything of that sort was (considering how tech savvy our population wasn't, even compared to more recent years), actually. People just cared less unless it was actually causing problems, as NFO states in a different manner, heh.

Regardless, calling it a trick learned under cheney is disingenuous as all hell. Sorta' thing's been common with higher level (and/or all levels of) admin for about as long as there's been internet to be used by admin and an IT putting up hoops they don't want to jump through. It's less than ideal, but as black marks go it's not exactly a dark one, especially if the usage has been actually checked and found not to have been a problem in other ways.

Which in clinton's case it was. By swaths of our legislative and criminal systems, as well as silly amounts of the general population. Repeatedly. For months.

[scriver]

As I see it there is no other reason for wanting using a private email/service other than wanting to be able to keep what you say away from the public. It's a breech against accountability, it's a breech against government transparency, and it's a breech against common sense. It shouldn't be allowed and people shouldn't accept it being practiced by their leaders. Maybe it's because my culture is a lot more zealous about transparency of public records, but I just don't see how you can just take these things in stride.

Regardless, calling it a trick learned under cheney is disingenuous as all hell.

I say that because as far as I know Clinton was advised to do it by Powell. I might be letting my bias against Cheney go too far in simply assuming that it was deliberate technique employed by his cabinet. I admit I'm now feeling those assumptions are pretty conspiracy-theoristical and Cheney-is-a-cartoon-villain-ical; I don't have any support for it.

[Madman198237]

Unless it's an actual private correspondence.


Which of course is just the blurry mess that constitutes the answer for "How much privacy can you have as a government administrator?", specifically high-level members of government.

[Karnewarrior]

I admit I'm now feeling those assumptions are pretty conspiracy-theoristical and Cheney-is-a-cartoon-villain-ical; I don't have any support for it.

Cheney wasn't a cartoon villain? Shit, my whole childhood just went down the drain... I thought he was the guy from Rocky & Bullwinkle!

:V

[nenjin]

For the same reason morons use "password" for their password.

Actually taking infosec seriously is very inconvenient, and "important people" dont like inconveniences. (those are for little people.)

Throw in some QED about Dunning-Krueger and believing that convenience trumps security, as it relates to competency in infosec heavy jobs.

I work with a multi-million dollar company that has a 2 layer security portal provided first by AVG, and now Avast, on their main server.

Guess what the password is on both layers of the portal. :|

[misko27]

Doesn't matter, nonconstitutional monarchies are not automatically boundaryless tyrannical monarchies where the king can do whatever he whims and everyone else just had to go along with it.

Sure, but I feel you're underselling the analogy they were making.

Trump knows well that a lot of what he asks people is well out of what he legally can ask people to do; when he asks, then, he's either actually insane, or he's under the impression they'll do it anyway simply out of respect for his office. Similarly your monarch may not be able to command you to do whatever, and even if they can actually doing so might be very counterproductive to keeping that position, but nonetheless, if you're walking down the street and the King says "Yo, do this thing for me," you might well do it. Not because his words are backed by the threat of legal murder, but because he's your damn king, he's your Sovereign, you refer to him as 'My liege', you serve him at least as much as he serves you (if not much more), he serves not at your pleasure or in your name but by his own birthright, and so on. There is a very real sense in which he is, in fact, your boss. The President is not the same thing, but there are ways, important ways, in which Trump thinks of himself more akin to that than a temporary executor of the people's will.

Unrelated: Tomorrow is the Alabama Senate Primary. why is this relevant? Both Trump and Mitch McConnell have backed Luthor Strange for the position (Trump has even campaigned for him), but Roy Moore remains a massive threat to Strange in the polls. Moore is a former state Supreme Court Justice who became famous for refusing to remove a monument of the ten commandments from the building, and radically anti-McConnell. GOP is very worried that Moore's success will provoke a rash of primary challenges.

[Loud Whispers]

Bloomberg says Trump warned Saudi Arabia & the UAE off invading Qatar, but Trump and Saudis deny this claim. Is bloomberg fake newsing?

I work with a multi-million dollar company that has a 2 layer security portal provided first by AVG, and now Avast, on their main server.
Guess what the password is on both layers of the portal. :|

I hope they're at least different variations of password123

Trump knows well that a lot of what he asks people is well out of what he legally can ask people to do; when he asks, then, he's either actually insane, or he's under the impression they'll do it anyway simply out of respect for his office. Similarly your monarch may not be able to command you to do whatever, and even if they can actually doing so might be very counterproductive to keeping that position, but nonetheless, if you're walking down the street and the King says "Yo, do this thing for me," you might well do it. Not because his words are backed by the threat of legal murder, but because he's your damn king, he's your Sovereign, you refer to him as 'My liege', you serve him at least as much as he serves you (if not much more), he serves not at your pleasure or in your name but by his own birthright, and so on. There is a very real sense in which he is, in fact, your boss. The President is not the same thing, but there are ways, important ways, in which Trump thinks of himself more akin to that than a temporary executor of the people's will.

Depends on what they're asking though. If my sovereign asked me to do something I'd probably do it just because they're being polite more than anything. And if you're feeling disinclined you can just be all 'no lol'
At any rate this is all you dudes fault for making head of state and head of government the same person. And I think everyone's inability to accurately describe any monarchy ITT is proof that the American President is an elected King, elected by people who don't understand how Kingdoms work

*edit

But ironically, when the leaders of the American Revolution tried to work out what powers they should give to the newly created American presidency, the only models available were those of contemporary European monarchies, and especially the British. And so the founding fathers gave to the American presidency just those powers they erroneously believed King George III still possessed - to appoint and dismiss his cabinet, to make war and peace, and to veto bills sent up by the legislature. From the outset, then, the American presidency was vested with what might be termed monarchical authority, which meant that it really was a form of elective kingship. So when Henry Clay, the leader of the American Whig Party regretted that, under Andrew Jackson, the presidency was "rapidly tending towards an elective monarchy", he was in error because it had been an elective monarchy from the very beginning.

American politics inventing fake news, circa 1783

[Frumple]

Moore is a former state Supreme Court Justice who became famous for refusing to remove a monument of the ten commandments from the building, and radically anti-McConnell. GOP is very worried that Moore's success will provoke a rash of primary challenges.

Moore's also the one that's been the judicial equivalent of disbarred like... two or three times, now, iirc. Helluva' thing to have "I was effectively fired from an elected position, repeatedly" as one of your campaigning chops.

[Dunamisdeos]

Not to be a downer (because I certainly appreciate the email irony going on), but people got their panties in a twist when they found out Hillary may have sent classified information over an unsecured email account, and then (again, this is what I witnessed) when they found that she absolutely did, and when the Democrat-led administration decided that no action would be taken, it hugely deepened the presupposition that she was an out-of-touch aristocrat who felt herself and her party was above the plebs/deplorables.
 
Politico says there is no indication that Kushner sent classified info, also it looks like it was just him responding to people sending him news articles?
 
So, less traction than I would like for a comparison between HILARRY EMAIILLS and this. Seems like a deliberate attempt to rile people up to me.

[Culise]

Moore is a former state Supreme Court Justice who became famous for refusing to remove a monument of the ten commandments from the building, and radically anti-McConnell. GOP is very worried that Moore's success will provoke a rash of primary challenges.

Moore's also the one that's been the judicial equivalent of disbarred like... two or three times, now, iirc. Helluva' thing to have "I was effectively fired from an elected position, repeatedly" as one of your campaigning chops.

Ah, but you see, you don't say "I was impeached for violating the Constitution and ignoring legal mandates on multiple occasions."  You say, "I stood up for my beliefs, and the [Communists/fat cats/SJWs/plutocrats/career politicians/activist judiciary/other target of choice] tried to have me punished.  If you want someone who will stand up for what is right, vote for me."  It's all about framing.

[Frumple]

Oh sure, that's the sort of spin it gets. Still a helluva' thing, heh.

Not to be a downer (because I certainly appreciate the email irony going on), but people got their panties in a twist when they found out Hillary may have sent classified information over an unsecured email account, and then (again, this is what I witnessed) when they found that she absolutely did, and when the Democrat-led administration decided that no action would be taken, it hugely deepened the presupposition that she was an out-of-touch aristocrat who felt herself and her party was above the plebs/deplorables.
 
Politico says there is no indication that Kushner sent classified info, also it looks like it was just him responding to people sending him news articles?

Eh, people got their panties in a twist because people were screaming it was worth getting their panties in a twist about it, more than anything. Account was private, not unsecured, just (mostly?) not secured by department resources. What classified info was involved also involved other folks with clearance, and a near as people could tell, the stuff in question didn't seem to be particularly compromised (and not in the sort of "doesn't seem" our election infrastructure is involved with, where every few weeks someone comes back out and goes, "Hey, remember how we said it was only that bad? About that..."), so on, so forth. It was poor craft, so to speak, but far, far from catastrophically poor.

More, it's not like there's not more than one political figure that did things of near, equal, or worse magnitude on that front, with the same or less consequences for it, and a fucked up different degree of response. Some people might have legitimately been bugnut concerned about the infosec aspect, but it's hella' sketchy that was the primary cause of the response that was.

Any case, the kush thing seems mostly to be about who was involved and things said previously. Already forgot the details of this particular incident, but that lot has been having this thing happen with morbidly impressive frequency where they go "I totally didn't do that/didn't have communication with those people" (sometimes under oath, ha), and then a bit later stuff gets dug up that says, "Uh, no, you totally did, and we have copies or whatev' now."

Basically less a matter of infosec per se and more a matter of shit what we impeached a president for that one time. The emails comparison is probably more of a generalized go-fuck-yourself kinda' thing towards everyone (or at least everyone that's not torch and pitchforking with equal fervor for vaguely similarly or far more meaningful issues) that's been riding the butter, really. After goddamn months of being deluged with those emails, some folks are somewhat tetchy

[Dunamisdeos]

Yeah I mean the politico article even goes as far to say that is happened under the Obama administration. In the end it's a bunch of people in an office, and the usual problems (like email security) will exist. To be clear, I did not find the whole email issue to be severe enough to effect my vote. Seemed (and seems) trivial.

As Culise said, it's about framing. They all but said outright that yes, Clinton violated some rules that would generally elicit action on our part, but we are going to take no action and we aren't going to say why. And it wasn't so much that the people she was sending it to was the problem, and more that any wahoo could look at that classified information (which they obviously did). To them, it was "I don't need to take responsibility for this, because I'm Hillary Clinton".

With the people I know who had a problem with it and still talk about it, it's not so much "BUT THE EMAILS" but more "BUT THE UTTER LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY". All in how it's framed.

[wierd]

Frumple, it is fallacious to think that just because something seems innocuous, that it is-- especially as it relates to infosec.

Even a very trivially tiny attack surface can be an important attack surface. Infosec is entirely about removing and minimizing attack surface. Had Hillary been serious about infosec, she would never have even contemplated running her own email server. Instead, it is patently obvious that she considered infosec a secondary, necessary evil-- not something that is essential to the safe and secure operation of her country. 

Again, see my quip about QED on Dunning-Krueger, and how it relates to infosec decisions of this nature, and what that implies about competency.

edit:

Pretty spot on Dunamisdeos--  The review board asserted that the action was severe enough to normally warrant disciplinary action (the severity is typically on the level of "you will never work in infosec EVER AGAIN, and will likely spend time in jail dude." for this kind of thing, at that level of security, just to be clear on that)-- but for mysterious and undisclosed reasons, "no prosecutor would pursue this case".  (And why is that, mr FBI head? Do tell! [sound of crickets])

[RedKing]

Are we really having the "BUT HER EMAILS" conversation? I mean, Jesus fuck...I am no fan of the woman and I've let it go.
At this point, I don't care if she was plotting half a dozen political assassinations on her private server. It'd still be better than the incompetent clusterfuck we have now. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be on the brink of war with a nuclear state because Clinton had a Twitter addiction and poor impulse control.

[Dunamisdeos]

Are we really having the "BUT HER EMAILS" conversation? I mean, Jesus fuck...I am no fan of the woman and I've let it go.
At this point, I don't care if she was plotting half a dozen political assassinations on her private server. It'd still be better than the incompetent clusterfuck we have now. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be on the brink of war with a nuclear state because Clinton had a Twitter addiction and poor impulse control.

Isn't that like, pretty much what is happening right now though? Trump's addiction to publicly displaying his poor impulse control in regards to N. Korea?

Also, it came up because of the whole Kushner email thing.