Hilary email

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal. It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal.

You keep getting stuck on the legality issue (which is still being investigated?) but avoiding the "stupid, incompetent" issue.

It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her (intuition?) it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

"had someone tell her"? Stephens told her that it was good enough and probably "smart" enough to not have a show of American force at the consulate, or in Libya in general. That really turned out well. Yeah, her style of leading on bad advice will make her a "good enough" President.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep getting stuck on the legality issue (which is still being investigated?) but avoiding the "stupid, incompetent" issue.

I don't believe the legality of the server is not being investigated as the DOJ has already chimed in on this. The FBI is more broadly investigating if any classified information was mishandled by the last 5 Secretaries including Clinton.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

Bingo.....

But then again there's that whole "Holiday Inn Express" thing you're arguing with.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device