Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hillary and the email

Hillary and the email (Page 4)
Thread Tools
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2016, 10:33 AM
 
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2016, 11:24 AM
 
Now they are looking into PASSWORD SHARING! Hillary and her staff are incapable of following or comprehending the law.

Fox News: FBI Looking Into Whether Clinton Aides Shared Passwords
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2016, 02:23 PM
 


-t
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2016, 02:34 PM
 
Have you seen the slow police chase showing Hillarys bus being tailed by many police SUV's (like the OJ chase)?
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2016, 02:47 PM
 
The source called this witness Hillary's "webmaster".

Webmaster?

What year is it again?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2016, 02:51 PM
 
In the context of this scandal, the description is fitting.

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2016, 02:32 PM
 
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

All of Clinton's damning emails are now on WikiLeaks. Enjoy.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 07:43 AM
 
So, the State Department seems to have misplaced almost every single email from Hillary's "webmaster".

     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 07:47 AM
 
They need to fire the IT contractors for DoS. ALL OF THEM, unless the stuff shows up ASAP!
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They need to fire the IT contractors for DoS. ALL OF THEM, unless the stuff shows up ASAP!
It's not like there aren't ten thousand consultants here near DC who have an inkling of data security to hire in place.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 10:03 AM
 
Yup!
I have to deal with this on a daily basis with several layers of passwords, encryption methods and making sure graphic designers are compliant who are not so IT security aware. I get to take several classes and tests yearly to maintain the clearances. Dept of State must be really incompetent and stupid, or the Clinton aids and Obama political appointees are involved.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 10:15 AM
 
So........NOW its the IT tech who set up Hillarys server who NOW has "Missing" emails. Bwa-Haa-Haa! I'm sure Hillary has them stored next to the bloodied shirt of Vince Foster.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 12:35 PM
 
How much more obviously corrupt can DC get? It's a damned disgrace. Back in the day they at least tried to look sneaky when they were doing illegal, unethical shit. Now they don't even bother.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 12:11 PM
 
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 12:19 PM
 
I wonder how the Clinton campaign will prioritize the scandals? Email, then Clinton initiative donations, then her record at DoS, and the rest? We get to watch her go down slowly ALL SUMMER! This is great! Looks like it will be Bernie vs Trump this fall. I wonder who Hillary will throw under the bus first Uma or Mills?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 12:51 PM
 
When it's all set and done, neither Hitlery nor Sanders will run.

At the last minute, the DNC will bring our Biden or Kerry.

Too much risk with Hitlery. Some states won't allow changes to the ticket shortly after the convention.
Just imagine the nightmare: Hitlery is locked in, and then has to drop out, leaving some states w/o a candidate for the Democrats. Too much risk.

-t
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 01:07 PM
 
So do you think the hated Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will set things up for Warren/Biden or somesuch? Wait, She might be gone before Hillary.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So do you think the hated Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will set things up for Warren/Biden or somesuch? Wait, She might be gone before Hillary.
Whoever makes that decision, they are working on Plan B, ready to swoop in.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 02:37 PM
 
I see the chances of her getting indicted as, let's see, carry the four...

Zero percent.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see the chances of her getting indicted as, let's see, carry the four...

Zero percent.
Based on what ?

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 04:44 PM
 
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Based on what ?

-t
Obama has the inside dish. If there was any probability it was going to happen he would have told her to step aside.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
Based on what ?

-t
The old adage of "No harm ... no foul." When David Petraeus was CIA Director he actually gave classified information to his mistress ... and he was able to simply resign and plead guilty to a misdemeanor for "Mishandling Classified Information". What Sec. Clinton is accused of is a far cry from that. There's been no evidence that national security was actually .... not potentially ... compromised. Add to that the fact that the legal standard ... not the State Department policy standard ... requires intent on her part to jeopardize national security. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This was a straight-up BONEHEADED move on her part. A completely self-inflicted wound on her part so it's real difficult to feel sorry for her now that she's in the hot seat because of it. And the GOP will milk it for all its worth as a political issue. But as a legal issue anyone anticipating some sort of felony indictment over this given the circumstances is being unduly optimistic IMO.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Obama has the inside dish. If there was any probability it was going to happen he would have told her to step aside.
Obama is not a Clinton fan.
He just happens to like Trump even less.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Obama is not a Clinton fan.
He just happens to like Trump even less.

-t
He put her on his team. He owns it now whether he wants to or not.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The old adage of "No harm ... no foul."
Oh, if only the Rule of Law worked the same as flag football, right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He put her on his team. He owns it now whether he wants to or not.
I don't think she can win, right now. Somehow she's worked herself into being distrusted more than Trump. I'm not sure how in the hell that happened, but it took some effort.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2016, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't think she can win, right now. Somehow she's worked herself into being distrusted more than Trump. I'm not sure how in the hell that happened, but it took some effort.
Right now, she can't win, but there aren't many people left for her to alienate. Trump on the other hand has to not alienate more people for six months straight. That's a tall order.

As an aside, it's nice for once to have the use of a gendered pronoun in discussion of a presidential election convey more information than "one of the people running... figure it out from context, pal".
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 03:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't think she can win, right now. Somehow she's worked herself into being distrusted more than Trump. I'm not sure how in the hell that happened, but it took some effort.
I don't think that she has worked herself into that position, it's the months and months of vilification and below-the-belt politics: she has had to endure 7 Benghazi hearings (I'm not opposed to having 1 but the other 6 were just for show) and accusations that she was somehow complicit in covering up her husband's affairs. For me the thing is simple: Maybe you are convinced that Clinton stands for bad policies, you can elect someone else in 4 years, but Trump will permanently damage the whole system.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 03:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Right now, she can't win, but there aren't many people left for her to alienate. Trump on the other hand has to not alienate more people for six months straight. That's a tall order.
I think the difference is whether people will go out and vote, and Trump for sure can mobilize his supporters. Hillary has more of a problem here. Plus, Trump tends to gain votes by alienating and insulting people.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 07:10 AM
 
I'd agree with that but since he is driving left wing voters to violence like no-one before him, perhaps they are motivated too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 07:13 AM
 
It really doesn't matter what the reasons are. Democrats are starting to realize their candidate is not going to win, and no level of denial will change that.

Which brings us back to the question above: will the DNC pull the plug on Hillary before the convention ? The odds are increasing.

-t
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 08:16 AM
 
Hillary set up the server to bypass the FOIA requests.
She was specifically told NOT TO.

In her emails she is caught telling her aids to strip off security classifications.
Willfully.

She keeps claiming 'nothing new' but we all know that all she does is LIE.
She keeps referring to her private E-MAIL ACCOUNT, not her non-secure SERVER.

Hillary, Mills and Uma are all in BIG TROUBLE.

The server was hacked and many of her emails showed up on WIKILEAKS.
She didn't do well in protecting the contents of classified documents.
Bad Judgement is what Hillary does most.
Doesn't look like a very good candidate for President.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think that she has worked herself into that position, it's the months and months of vilification and below-the-belt politics
That's not even started yet, wait until after the primaries. I have no doubt she'll wear the Woman card out before the race is through.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 01:48 PM
 
( Last edited by BadKosh; May 26, 2016 at 02:38 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Hillary set up the server to bypass the FOIA requests.
She was specifically told NOT TO.
Yes, and she didn't publish her speeches, etc. etc. That's all valid criticism. But that means she is still not in the same class as Trump.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 10:28 PM
 
Publishing speeches and evading FOIA requests are entirely different animals.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2016, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Publishing speeches and evading FOIA requests are entirely different animals.
Yes, but both are similarly politically charged. Nevertheless, I think it's still a long stretch to put her in the same class as Trump.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but both are similarly politically charged. Nevertheless, I think it's still a long stretch to put her in the same class as Trump.
Right. Tell me more about Trump's pending issues that could cause criminal indictments.
And what "class" is Trump in ? The miffed OreoCookie class ?

Thought so.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but both are similarly politically charged.
The technical phrase for this is "tough titty in the city"... it's no excuse for evading the law.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 11:25 AM
 
I'll admit, I'm a little surprised on how many normally pro-Clinton media outlets have started slamming her all at once.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Right. Tell me more about Trump's pending issues that could cause criminal indictments.
He was in construction. In New York. Isn't it obvious what type of people he was in contact with?
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
And what "class" is Trump in ?
He is a bigoted xenophobe who will say anything for effect to get elected. He doesn't even have convictions that he isn't willing to compromise on. He is thin skinned and a show man who surrounds himself with people he dominates (look how many former Republican contenders are now working for him). Apart from his knack for handling the media, I don't see anything that would be an asset for his time as a politician. But he does so by tapping into the fear of a segment of the population, he turns negative comments and career killers into votes. And while he is not beholden to his donors' interests, but he certainly has his own interests in mind. That's Trump's class.

Electing him would be a declaration of bankruptcy for the Republican party. And since the US political system only has two parties, that'd be a catastrophe. Monoculture is not good for anyone. Voting for Clinton puts someone in power who is politically experience, and whose power is kept in check by Congress (Republicans have majorities). (People seem to forget that the legislative has the majority of the power.) If Trump becomes President, this would permanently damage the US political system. And he wouldn't be kept in check by a Republican Congress, most of the people who were dismissive of him are now cozying up. Even a blind man with a cane can see who the better option is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:04 PM
 
Is he a bigoted xenophobe, or is he saying bigoted, xenophobic things to get elected.

I doubt he's more bigoted or xenophobic than any given rich, old, white New Yorker.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
BS when the President is doing everything by exec orders.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He was in construction. In New York. Isn't it obvious what type of people he was in contact with?
I'd like you to say who you're talking about.

No... come closer.

Say it into my lapel, please.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The technical phrase for this is "tough titty in the city"... it's no excuse for evading the law.
No, it is not. And higher-ups in Washington have gotten away with giving false testimony under oath in Congress (James Clapper comes to mind). But I think all of these are really just distractions from having a discussion about Clinton's policies (e. g. that she has become the neocons' darling or her connections to banks). Of course, on many issues Republicans would be throwing stones in their own glass house, for instance Clinton has gained the support of many traditionally Republican donors after Trump became the presumptive nominee. So instead attention is wasted on Benghazi and emails.

If I were in the shoes of a traditional Republican voter, I'd feel like a Socialist in the 2002 French Presidential Elections: if I have the choice between Chirac and Le Penn, I'd swallow my pride and vote for the sane option.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:10 PM
 
I think this is a pretty balanced take on this entire issue ...

If you've worked in IT for any amount of time, you've run across the shadow IT syndrome—employees using outside services to fix a problem rather than using internally supported tools. Sometimes (but rarely), it's actually mission-essential. For example, at a previous employer, when half the company lost access to e-mail and the content management system because a network card was stolen in a smash-and-grab at the telco's co-location facility, I set up a password-secured Wiki on my personal Web server to handle workflow and communications for a day. (The CIO was not happy, particularly when my boss wanted me to write an article about it. The corporate counsel had the story spiked because it exposed a Sarbanes-Oxley breach—not exposed by me, but by the company's failure to have a backup system.)

Often, people use shadow IT at work because of a lack of official IT resources to support a need. But they also use shadow IT for personal convenience—especially the personal convenience of executives and managers who want what they want and will twist the arm of someone in IT to support it whether it's within policy or not (or find someone else to do it for them and then tell IT they have to support it).

Just Make It Happen

A certain class of executives wants a specific phone supported or special IT support for their chosen staff, and they want it now, rules and regulations be damned. "Yes" is the only answer they ever hear, and they will keep asking until they hear it—either from the IT department or from someone who will do it for them on the side. When I worked in IT, particularly when I moved up to a role as a "director of IT strategy" at a previous employer, these requests for special treatment happened so frequently we started calling it the "entitled executive syndrome." No matter how many times I explained the laws of physics and the limits of our budget and capabilities, I was told to find a way to make it happen… or come up with a creative workaround.

Sure, there's often a reason for dissatisfaction with the organizational norm. But skirting the norm can create all sorts of regulatory and legal headaches—Sarbanes-Oxley-related ones are the most common in the corporate IT world. Looking at the government sector, shadow IT has constantly gotten people in trouble for a host of other reasons: federal records laws, Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) violations, and privacy violations. For example, in 2010, doctors at a Department of Veterans Affairs got caught using Google and Yahoo cloud calendar services to schedule surgeries, breaching the security of health care data. They used it because it was more convenient than the VA's internal shared calendar system.

And lest we forget, well before Clinton came to the State Department, members of the George W. Bush administration used a private e-mail server (at gwb43.com) run and paid for by the Republican National Committee—at least 88 accounts were set up for Bush administration officials in order to bypass the official White House e-mail system and avoid the regulations around presidential record retention, the Federal Records Act, and the Hatch Act (which bans the use of government e-mail accounts for political purposes, among other things). In the process of using that system, more than 5 million e-mail messages were "lost," which led to the resignation of a number of White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. None of the e-mails for 51 of the 88 accounts was preserved by the RNC.

Clinton was well aware of the Bush administration e-mail fiasco before she was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State. She even told the State Department's assistant secretary for diplomatic security that she "gets it" after being briefed on why there were problems with her using a BlackBerry.

As previous e-mails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests have shown, Clinton pushed hard to get the State Department's information security officers to approve her use of a mobile device for e-mail and do it from inside the State Department's secure executive suite—largely on the grounds that she was uncomfortable using a PC. The National Security Agency suggested she use an approved secure device capable of doing Secret-level classified e-mail as well as official unclassified e-mail. But the State Department was unprepared for the cost of supporting such a device, and its IT department didn't have the resources (nor, likely, the skills) in-house to support it.

Sure, the State Department's IT support is not exactly customer-centric. But its IT department has supported BlackBerry devices for unclassified e-mail in the past, and if Clinton could have dealt with sticking to using a computer while inside the State Department secure compartmented information facility (SCIF) and using a BlackBerry for unclassified e-mail, the State Department could have probably accommodated her. It was purely about Clinton's discomfort about using a PC for e-mail and her desire to use e-mail just like she did while running for office.

So, as the State Department Office of the Inspector General reported, she paid a State Department staffer (who had worked for her directly in the past) off the books to create a shadow e-mail service of her own, and she used a personal BlackBerry not configured to State Department security standards to carry out official business. Having had a BlackBerry and the full control offered by private e-mail service during her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton knew what she wanted, and she was going to have it whether it was approved or not. And she provided the same shadow e-mail service to her core staff as well—taking all of their communications off the grid and out of federal oversight.
Clinton’s e-mail scandal another case of the entitled executive syndrome | Ars Technica

I certainly get this phenomenon. I've been that dude myself for the last 15 years or so because I insist on using a Mac laptop in a Windows shop. Even during the time when I worked for an IT consulting company that was partially owned by Microsoft! And for the last 9 years as an iPhone user. Now I'm on the other end of it when members of the executive suite ... including the COO and CEO .... come to me to set them up to get access to their emails and network files on their iPads when they travel because even though I'm the Product Manager for the enterprise systems at the company ... I've also become the "unofficial Apple device go-to guy" over the years. Now is iOS device support even in our SLA? Nope! Nor was jury-rigging a way to get the CEO's contact data onto his iPhone because he insisted upon using ACT! instead of the officially supported MS Outlook. The issue here seems to be Sec. Clinton's insistence on being able to communicate and conduct official business while on the go on the only device she knew how to use comfortably ... which was her Blackberry. And that very reasonable request was running smack dab into the reality that the State Department's IT systems were still operating in the Stone Ages. We are after all talking about the US government which couldn't launch a nuclear weapon strike if there wasn't a still functioning floppy disk drive laying around. So this is why as a legal matter it's going to be difficult to indict a high-ranking government official over this. The intent here was not to jeopardize national security but simply to be able to do the job efficiently while on the go. And I suspect that if we weren't talking about a Democratic political figure most of our good friends on the right would instead see this as a prime example of government inefficiency relative to the private sector.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Say it into my lapel, please.
and smile!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:27 PM
 
@OAW

Knee-jerk response...

Bush has a private email server to conduct business it is illegal to conduct on government accounts.

Clinton has private email server to conduct business it is illegal not to conduct on government servers.

     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,