Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
In networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
But as soon as they touch our heathen network doesn't that automatically create a breach?
Correct. Any non-Clintonian person doing that would be in gak load of trouble.
Emails across networks, for example? Is what you are discussing here the end result of Gore's "creation of the Internet"? Are they separate physical lines altogether?
Sorta. The government secured networks (SIPR) only talks to other secured (SIPR) devices. You can't simply open up your email on SIPR devices and send an email to public yahoo/AOL/google/outlook account.
Most of these devices are in SCIF or something of the like locations.
In any case... if information was extracted (manually by CD burning/thumbdrive coply/manually transcribed) from the SIPR devices and re-entered in unclassified communication systems... that's called a security spillage.
That's a big fething deal.
The technical jargon is that the military/DoD/others agencies uses SIPRnet. SIPRnet is NOT the internet... they're two completely different networks that don't talk to each other.
You missed the important question, as to what the secure network actually uses as it's network. Does it still go out over the same cables as all the other traffic, or does it have its own dedicated cables running from every military base, facility, etc., all over the world that connect only to the secure systems? If literally physically separate networks, fine.
Regardless of that anyway, ships at sea and commanders in the field and spy satellites clearly aren't using wired connections so are still transmitting over open air.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
But, when the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to ISIS... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
That isn't what she said. This is what she said:
Hillary Clinton wrote:I don’t want to speculate but here’s what we know and I think it’s important for voters to hear this and weigh it in making their choice in November… We know that a lot of the rhetoric used by Donald Trump is being seized on by terrorists… We also know from the former head of our counter-terrorism center, Matt Olson, that the kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.
No specific reference to ISIS.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
In networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
But as soon as they touch our heathen network doesn't that automatically create a breach?
Correct. Any non-Clintonian person doing that would be in gak load of trouble.
Emails across networks, for example? Is what you are discussing here the end result of Gore's "creation of the Internet"? Are they separate physical lines altogether?
Sorta. The government secured networks (SIPR) only talks to other secured (SIPR) devices. You can't simply open up your email on SIPR devices and send an email to public yahoo/AOL/google/outlook account.
Most of these devices are in SCIF or something of the like locations.
In any case... if information was extracted (manually by CD burning/thumbdrive coply/manually transcribed) from the SIPR devices and re-entered in unclassified communication systems... that's called a security spillage.
That's a big fething deal.
The technical jargon is that the military/DoD/others agencies uses SIPRnet. SIPRnet is NOT the internet... they're two completely different networks that don't talk to each other.
You missed the important question, as to what the secure network actually uses as it's network. Does it still go out over the same cables as all the other traffic, or does it have its own dedicated cables running from every military base, facility, etc., all over the world that connect only to the secure systems? If literally physically separate networks, fine.
Regardless of that anyway, ships at sea and commanders in the field and spy satellites clearly aren't using wired connections so are still transmitting over open air.
Yes... SPIRnet is a physically separate networks. If you want to get data, electronically, from SPIRnet network to say... your gmail account. You can ONLY do it by illegally copying it off the SPIR device, and manually send it via unclassified device.
That's what "air gapped" means.
As to the ships at sea or any assets using wireless communication devices... they're using military only equipment (from start to finish) with their own encryption protocols when dealing with classified information.
This is not to be confused with the UNCLAS system that exists in conjunction with SPIRnet. That network is called NIPRnet... and, as far as I know, that network *is* connected to the world wide web (behind firewall/security of course).
But, when the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to ISIS... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
That isn't what she said. This is what she said:
Hillary Clinton wrote:I don’t want to speculate but here’s what we know and I think it’s important for voters to hear this and weigh it in making their choice in November… We know that a lot of the rhetoric used by Donald Trump is being seized on by terrorists… We also know from the former head of our counter-terrorism center, Matt Olson, that the kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.
No specific reference to ISIS.
ISIS is not our adversary?
wut?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 22:57:43
So just to be clear: despite zero evidence, Hillary should be charged with treason. But it's not very presidential of her to point out that saying gak like "I will have our military kill their families, wives, and children" is being used by our enemies as motivation?
d-usa wrote: So just to be clear: despite zero evidence, Hillary should be charged with treason. But it's not very presidential of her to point out that saying gak like "I will have our military kill their families, wives, and children" is being used by our enemies as motivation?
No... I thought it was clear that she suggested Trump is giving "aid and comfort" to our adversary....
So, according to Hillary, wink-nod-wink it's Trump who should be charged with treason.
d-usa wrote: And you make that leap of logic based on what?
It's hate logic. It's a distinct from of logic from standard logic where anything that furthers your righteous indignation becomes logical regardless of how much actual sense it makes.
d-usa wrote: And you make that leap of logic based on what?
It's hate logic. It's a distinct from of logic from standard logic where anything that furthers your righteous indignation becomes logical regardless of how much actual sense it makes.
Oh... so you believe she didn't mean what she said...
Oh... so you believe she didn't mean what she said...
I said nothing of the sort.
Why give her such a pass?
A pass on what? Pointing out that Trump's words have been used in recruitment messages, and may be helping groups like ISIS recruit?
Hillary never said he should be charged with treason. She quoted Matt Olson, who accused trump's language and rhetoric as providing aid and comfort. And even Olson didn't call for Trump to be charged with treason. EDIT: Olson isn't even the only one to make that claim I'll point out. Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta pretty much said the same thing ("aiding and abetting"). He also directly accused Trump of sedition*, unlike Olson;
"He’s not only accusing the president of the United States of treason and collaborating with the enemy, but in many ways what he’s saying about restricting Muslims from coming into this country, doing surveillance on Muslim mosques, is basically aiding and abetting the enemy at a time we ought to be unifying, working with the Muslim community, to try to protect against future attacks.”
The power of reading. Stop shoving words into peoples mouths and actually pay attention to whose saying what when and where and you might actually escape that house of cards you've built for yourself.
*Originally said treason, but treason requires siding with the enemy in this context, which no one has accused Trump of doing. At best, Pannetta has accused Trump of sedition. Brain moving faster than fingers.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 23:48:19
d-usa wrote: And you make that leap of logic based on what?
Uh... what she hyperbolically said recently...
Gotta side with whemb and hils here. It's what she said (badum tish). It's also fact, the donald is saying really terrible, horrible things to some terrilbe, horrible segments of America that he is fully on their side. Unsurprisingly, this is also being used by our terrible, horrible enemies as very effective propaganda.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: And you make that leap of logic based on what?
It's hate logic. It's a distinct from of logic from standard logic where anything that furthers your righteous indignation becomes logical regardless of how much actual sense it makes.
Oh... so you believe she didn't mean what she said...
Why give her such a pass?
She meant that asking why we don't nuke terrorists and saying that as president our soldiers will indiscriminately murder innocent women and children who may be related to terrorists until they give up, aids terrorists because "America says they will nuke our country and murder your mothers, wives, and children, so we must kill them before they kill us" makes great propaganda. She also is clearly on the record as saying that this kind of language is proof that he doesn't have the discipline and foresight to be president.
You seem to argue that pointing this out is somehow the same as arguing that he should be charged with treason. I don't see any reason to think that, but of course I'm not our resident expert on arguing for treason charges without any actual evidence.
d-usa wrote: And you make that leap of logic based on what?
It's hate logic. It's a distinct from of logic from standard logic where anything that furthers your righteous indignation becomes logical regardless of how much actual sense it makes.
Oh... so you believe she didn't mean what she said...
Why give her such a pass?
She meant that asking why we don't nuke terrorists and saying that as president our soldiers will indiscriminately murder innocent women and children who may be related to terrorists until they give up, aids terrorists because "America says they will nuke our country and murder your mothers, wives, and children, so we must kill them before they kill us" makes great propaganda. She also is clearly on the record as saying that this kind of language is proof that he doesn't have the discipline and foresight to be president.
You seem to argue that pointing this out is somehow the same as arguing that he should be charged with treason. I don't see any reason to think that, but of course I'm not our resident expert on arguing for treason charges without any actual evidence.
No. Stop.
I knew what she meant.
I'm wanting ya'll to acknowledge that Hillary says stupid gak too.
If my favored candidate's stupid remarks amounts to his aleppo brain-fart... then, I'm secured in the knowledge that Johnson isn't the buck fething nutso like the top 2 candidates.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 23:50:36
Not the same. Johnsons drug of mind altering choice is distinctly different from Trumps or Clinton's. Though I would venture a guess that by swapping their drugs of choice, they might all benefit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 23:57:59
I'm wanting ya'll to acknowledge that Hillary says stupid gak too.
I thought you wanted people to acknowledge she was saying it was treason. Now you just want people to say that it hasn't been used in propaganda by bad people? Even though it has? Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
I'm wanting ya'll to acknowledge that Hillary says stupid gak too.
And I'm wanting you to stop this stupid little game of "the other side is just as bad." These two things are not equivalent, and I'm not going to pretend they are for the sake of your glass house.
A pass on what? Pointing out that Trump's words have been used in recruitment messages, and may be helping groups like ISIS recruit?
Hillary never said he should be charged with treason. She quoted Matt Olson, who accused trump's language and rhetoric as providing aid and comfort. And even Olson didn't call for Trump to be charged with treason. EDIT: Olson isn't even the only one to make that claim I'll point out. Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta pretty much said the same thing ("aiding and abetting"). He also directly accused Trump of sedition*, unlike Olson;
"He’s not only accusing the president of the United States of treason and collaborating with the enemy, but in many ways what he’s saying about restricting Muslims from coming into this country, doing surveillance on Muslim mosques, is basically aiding and abetting the enemy at a time we ought to be unifying, working with the Muslim community, to try to protect against future attacks.”
The power of reading. Stop shoving words into peoples mouths and actually pay attention to whose saying what when and where and you might actually escape that house of cards you've built for yourself.
*Originally said treason, but treason requires siding with the enemy in this context, which no one has accused Trump of doing. At best, Pannetta has accused Trump of sedition. Brain moving faster than fingers.
Look, I'll submit that yes Trumps rhetoric is awful.
But, this whole conversation started how BOTH candidates are suffering from self-awareness:
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
No, no, it didn't.
Aid And Comfort to the Enemy... that sounds awfully like treason.
And yet, ya'll want to go down this conversation tangent when I posted giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" sounds like treason?
I'm wanting ya'll to acknowledge that Hillary says stupid gak too.
I thought you wanted people to acknowledge she was saying it was treason.
Nope.
Now you just want people to say that it hasn't been used in propaganda by bad people? Even though it has?
Good thing I didn't argue as such...
Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
When the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to our adversaries... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
I'm wanting ya'll to acknowledge that Hillary says stupid gak too.
I thought you wanted people to acknowledge she was saying it was treason.
Nope.
Now you just want people to say that it hasn't been used in propaganda by bad people? Even though it has?
Good thing I didn't argue as such...
Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
When the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to our adversaries... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
Saying gak that aids and comforts our enemies? Bombastic.
Calling someone out for that? Not bombastic.
Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
When the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to our adversaries... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
Wow. You're actually glitching and on a loop. Nevermind then
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
When the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to our adversaries... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
Wow. You're actually glitching and on a loop. Nevermind then
So me trying to explain Clinton is as bad as Cheeto Jesus is glitching and on a loop?
Or is there another side to what she said in this instance that is 'stupid'. If so, feel free to point it out.
When the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to our adversaries... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
Wow. You're actually glitching and on a loop. Nevermind then
Have you tried switching him off and on again?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
It's unfortunate that we have two long term members, including one in very high standing, starting to comment on a person rather than their argument. Many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions.
After years of arguing against the same argument, you get the urge to switch it up. Especially when the same basic argument gets repeated in a new form every week, and the person making the argument is clearly not concerned with reality.
whembly wrote: And yet, ya'll want to go down this conversation tangent when I posted giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" sounds like treason?
You're the one who brought it up in the first place.
You've gone from blatantly ignoring what other posters are saying to ignoring your own posts.
It's unfortunate that we have two long term members, including one in very high standing, starting to comment on a person rather than their argument. Many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions.
Agreed. Posters should actually respond to what other posters say. They shouldn't casually change the subject mid discussion to play "goatcha", and they shouldn't constantly shove words into people's mouths and move goal posts. Honest discussion engenders respect, and productive conversation. It's a damn shame this thread (including previous incarnations) has been ramrodded for years by certain posters engaging in childish games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/21 00:45:58
