Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
Yes because the leftists seem to be real good on "facts". Just like that apparent gender wage gap that both Obamanation and Shillary sloganeered to get female votes.
But we know to progressives, their feelings trump any real facts.
|
See, it's hard to argue facts with trolls, because as soon as you throw the facts in their faces they run away and hide and wait for the post to slide four or five pages back in the discussion. Just like you're about to do with this one as I bury you in facts.
The gender wage gap is real, and there is no denying it. Women have always got paid less, especially in many male dominated industries. The one places where women have an edge are businesses where women are the dominant gender or they run themselves. There are some tangible reasons why women get paid less, but the reality is that they do earn less than men. Here are the facts to prove just that.
http://www.aauw.org/research/the-sim...ender-pay-gap/
I'm sure you're going to cry foul based on the source, because it is an advocacy group for women. Well, don't worry troll, I come prepared with a non-partisan report from congress on gender pay inequity.
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_ca...-committee.pdf
Man, I hate it when the facts stack against you like that. It's almost like you live in your own little isolated bubble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
You mean those emails that she deleted? You don't delete that many emails, if you weren't trying to hide something. This is after a federal subpoena, that's criminal in itself. But totally continue with apologizing for this criminal cultural sodomite.
|
See, this is why you can't be taken seriously. You don't know anything about the incident nor who was responsible for what happened. From another post in another thread explaining the email issue:
This is a complex issue. It boils down to data classification and labels, who is responsible for data handling according to those labels, who is responsible for management of the email system and the overall security of it, and who is responsible for the approval of the configuration of the system and the clearances for individuals who manage the system.
Data classifications are pretty straight forward. There is no grey area when it comes to data classification and labels. If a document has a classification label affixed to it you must protect it as per the classification standard for that label. If something is public, anyone can see it. If it is internal, only individuals from the agency should have access to the data. If it is confidential, there is a restriction and it may only be handled by individuals cleared to do so. Labels of this type are normally associated to the operational issues affecting an agency and are handled through role based controls. One you get into labels above that, they become protected by layers of security policy and mechanisms. These mandatory access controls provide no wiggle room. If they have one of these labels affixed you are compelled to handle the data in the appropriate manner or face criminal prosecution.
An important thing to understand about data classification and handling is that a document does not receive a label until there is some type of administrative action that identifies the information as requiring a specialized label. A document may be circulating in email for days, months or years before is receives a classification label. Only at that point is anyone compelled to handle that information with the procedures as outlined in the security policy. So in this particular case, it is very likely that the information is Clinton’s email was there prior to the application of the classification label.
As to who is responsible for handling information and who is accountable, well Clinton is responsible for her data handling. No one else’s. Each individual is responsible for their own actions when it comes to data handling. Responsibility extends to what you do when you receive information with a sensitivity label. Receiving information is legal, because you have no control over who is sending information to you. The requirement to follow security protocols is on the individual who sent (disseminated) the information. If you receive information and you do not forward it (second party dissemination) you have broken no law. If you elect to sit on it, you must do so by storing in a secure location, usually an encrypted database or file share on a server. If you save it locally to your workstation, you may be in compliance so far as your workstation uses full disk encryption (FDE). Almost all federal systems are mandated to use FDE, strong passwords with a minimum complexity of three and a minimum length of 8-15 characters (depends on agency), and multi-factor authentication to access systems. This is where server configuration comes into play.
The Clinton team procured the services of a third party to manage her email system. This contractor would normally be cleared for service provision by the State Department, as this is Clinton’s home agency. They would have to submit the appropriate credentials and go through a substantial background check just to be a government contractor to the State Department. This is SOP and every department does it. So these guys would have been fingerprinted, interviewed, a wants and warrants run through NCIC, and then, depending on the access requirements, a background exam and polygraph. I suspect that since these guys were handling government data, even just email, they would have had to do the full boat. It isn’t fun, as they really go through the history of your personal relationships and check everything. I’ve been in some of these systems and it is scary the information available to the feds to establish relationships. Seriously, it would blow your mind. So these guys would have been vetted to the Nth degree if the State Department had anything to do with it. The fact that they got these guys to do a synchronization between Clinton’s server and the State Department servers tells me they knew about them and had properly vetted them.
So now it comes down to the configuration of the server. Here is where things get a little dicey. These guys didn’t sound like they were Exchange experts nor security engineers. I don’t think they did anything but a standard configuration as you would expect from any business. Based on the comments from the feds they definitely did not use encryption on the server in any shape or form. These guys are ones responsible for managing the server and responsible for the proper configuration of the system. If there is any wrong doing in this regard the buck stops with the contracted third party. If they screwed the pooch and didn’t configure it properly they would be the ones accountable. Clinton and the State Department face a possible reprimand, and it could be substantial with penalties as documented in policy, but they aren’t falling on their swords. The only way Clinton has to fall on her sword is if she practiced second party dissemination of information with a security label.
Normally, because of mandatory access controls, it is unlikely you are going to get information through email without appropriate encryption placed on the doc. Normally, information that has a mandatory access control will be protected on secure infrastructure when you have to log in remotely to view the document. This is part of every agencies Data Loss Prevention (DLP) strategy and it is mandated for most federal agencies that handle documents requiring a mandatory access control. These systems have everything logged in the most verbose manner, so they know who has accessed what, when, from where, and by what device.
Comey’s original comments clearly stated that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. To prosecute, there must be intent. If Clinton forwarded an email that was not labelled, and a sensitivity label had been affixed after the fact, there is no intent. She would have to forward something that clearly had a handling label on it, or pull it from a system that she knew was secure. If this was the case, she would have been charged and frog marched in front of the media. The FBI granting immunity to the service providers confirms much of my suspicions. They granted these guys immunity on configuration in hopes of nailing Clinton for dissemination of classified information. Unfortunately, there wasn’t any evidence to support the claim and the immunity left the FBI holding a big steaming bag of ####. This happens more often than law enforcement likes to admit because they will give up a small fish in hopes of nailing a big one. It didn’t work here.
One last thing I would like to point out. The use of BleachBit is a joke. Seriously, this has the government security community privately laughing. BleachBit is effective in “erasing” information so your boss or local system administrator can’t see it, or fully recover information, but the feds use tools and hardware that can recover data after a multiple pass DoD wipe (writing 1s and 0s across the full disk). EnCase is a bad motherfugger when it comes to recovering data, and it can crack some of the best security around. That doesn’t even include some of the homegrown tools available to the Computer Forensics experts are Quantico. There is no hiding deleted files from the Feds unless you know what you are doing, and these guys clearly didn’t have a clue. They would have had to burn the system completely down to the ground to make that data go away. A free piece of software ain’t getting the job done.
I'm curious how what the Clinton team did is any different to you than what Karl Rove and the Bush Administration did when they ran a private server at RNC headquarters and deleted 330 MILLION emails when they were told to produce them?
Also, WTF is with that bolded comment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
Because you would have absolutely zero chance in a debate with me.
|
Really? Remember this?
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4677
You were given your chance before the election and you ran away. You completely disappeared for pages and pages. What happened there tough guy?
See you in five or six pages, troll.
