You would think Microsoft would make that easier to do.
What technical reason would there be to allow MS users the ability to modify the incoming/outgoing mail address to an entire archive of mail? What is the benefit to the user?
Last edited by HotHotHeat; 09-19-2016 at 07:21 PM.
Reason: also = allow
I would have liked to see a "Fill in the blank" section. Possibly even multiple choice.
1. Make America _____ Again.
2. The 2nd Amendment is:
a) A perfectly crafted piece of god-given literature that shain't ever be changed.
b) Written with India Ink
c) Essential to the lord-betrothed rights and freedoms of the citizens of this great nation, and I would like to destroy it.
You are smart. You should know that this doesn't matter.
It's a pretty damning timeline.
Days after an investigation into the contents of the server/emails, the IT guy asks for guidance of how to scrub an email address retroactivly.
Was told it would be impossible and illegal.
IT guys proceed to delete all of the contents, and wipes the server (with a cloth?) with a program called Bleach-bit - choosing to use software that would enable maximal denialbility.
There is an extensive posting-history of the guy talking about his access to a "VERY VIP" server, personal info that corroborates the circumstances, and the guy testified before Congress with legal immunity.
I'm not sure what definition of 'ethical' y'all are using.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
No, it matters, but what I meant was that even if she was totally in the right, this adds to the air of deception that continues to thicken around her.
You are smart. You should know that this doesn't matter.
You're right, it doesn't, but I'm really intrigued how anyone can spin this into something illegal. I mean, there are hundreds of sites where IT pros go to get advice and share scripting information. None of it is illegal and is actually highly encouraged within industry. This should be entertaining.
"I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out."
- Paul Combetta
Which, according to below, sounds illegal.
Quote:
Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
What technical reason would there be to allow MS users the ability to modify the incoming/outgoing mail address to an entire archive of mail? What is the benefit to the user?
Should have been green text. Obviously there should be no reason to do this, unless you are in government, big business or a criminal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I just wish the US would consult the CP legal experts on this email issue, Hillary'd have been locked up ages ago. Not sure how they keep missing all this obvious stuff.
Nothing at all. Just because you ask about how to do something does not mean you did anything illegal. Just because you research something on line does not mean you follow through on any instructions you found. This has been reviewed to the nth degree by the FBI. They have some of the best computer forensic scientists in the world. If they didn't find evidence of this, it didn't happen.
I mean, use your head. If these guys were asking about something as simple as stripping out email addresses, they sure as hell weren't smart enough to cover their tracks in making secure data disappear. This is as cut and dried as things come. These guys were small time IT consultants who were in way over their head. They were asked to change a retention schedule and when they couldn't figure out how to do that, they deleted the data. The deletion would have been fine if they had applied the retention schedule, but they screwed up by not enforcing the schedule and then deleting the data after the fact. If they are guilty of anything, they are guilty of incompetence in administering the email server. The feds would have found any malfeasance on these guy's part in a heartbeat.
Nothing at all. Just because you ask about how to do something does not mean you did anything illegal. Just because you research something on line does not mean you follow through on any instructions you found. This has been reviewed to the nth degree by the FBI. They have some of the best computer forensic scientists in the world. If they didn't find evidence of this, it didn't happen.
I mean, use your head. If these guys were asking about something as simple as stripping out email addresses, they sure as hell weren't smart enough to cover their tracks in making secure data disappear. This is as cut and dried as things come. These guys were small time IT consultants who were in way over their head. They were asked to change a retention schedule and when they couldn't figure out how to do that, they deleted the data. The deletion would have been fine if they had applied the retention schedule, but they screwed up by not enforcing the schedule and then deleting the data after the fact. If they are guilty of anything, they are guilty of incompetence in administering the email server. The feds would have found any malfeasance on these guy's part in a heartbeat.
An argument from personal incredulity is worthless.
You don't know what the FBI found. Only that they chose to not publically prosecute a cabinet level official.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The irony of this story. This has been going on for about a dozen years. Some of the more radical think tanks started this. It was also done to help promote sales of conservative books, pumping up their reviews to get free advertising. That was so effective they took to online new sources to provide support noise for stories they produced. You are also aware that this is Breitbart's (and the alt-right) long time modus operandi? This isn't news, as its an online strategy that has been going on for years. What's next? You going to break the news that water is wet?
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-19-2016 at 08:23 PM.
Reason: add video
