On 02/16/2017 07:47 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I remarked earlier that several security proposals would not in practice be useful because Hillary's main security concern was not the Russians stealing her emails, not Wikileaks stealing her emails, not the Chans stealing her emails, but Obama stealing her emails.
On 2/18/2017 1:46 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
Are you daft ? Obama had more important things than to go through Hillary's emails. He already knew all about her and her failure as Secretary of state.
Illegally employing her own email server was an anti Obama security measure, not an anti Wikileaks or anti Chan measure. She would have been more secure against Wikileaks, the Chans, and the Russians, had she done the legal thing and used the official government (aka Obama) controlled mail server. Similarly, Google ratting out Petraeus to Obama has caused a sudden and striking disinclination to use Gmail among persons of interest. On 02/16/2017 07:47 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
Similarly, it is clear that if Trump had a chat with Assad of Syria clearing a bombing run Isis in Syria, his target list would appear in the New York Times, as he bitterly complained in his latest press conference.
On 2/18/2017 1:46 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
Again - are you Daft ? Assad is in a bitter fight with Isis - he would not leak that info.
Of course Assad would not - but the State Department is supporting Isis, and would. And someone in the government, probably the CIA or the State Department did leak the equivalent info about the raid in Yemen to Al Qaeda, resulting in many injuries and a death.
...Not that i support that horrid dictator. I did work on the Streisand effect for Assad's regime.
I totally support Assad. He stands between the US State Department, and the genocide of all Alawites, Christians, and all Shiites of Palestinian descent in Syria. The State Department aims to do to Alawites in Syria what it did to Tutsis in the Congo, and a side effect that they do not much care about or rather like is that Christians in Syria would get genocided also.
Nonsense. Trump did not get the right info - he did not know how well defended the site was.
Al Qaeda tells us that they knew what was coming. So chances are that the site *became* well defended shortly after the decision to attack it was made. There is a tendency to analyze security as if your home computer was secure, which it is not. But the error of analyzing security as if your organization was secure and cohesive is a greater error. Trump is at far greater risk of being spied on by the CIA and the State Department than the Russians, and the consequences of that spying are more severe. Similarly, Hillary was primarily concerned about Obama spying on her, and was right to be concerned. Petraeus should have been similarly concerned. So security really has to be in the hands of the end user, rather than the organization. Trump, Hillary, Podesta, Petraeus, and the Chairman of the Board are never going to use PGP, or even correctly use browser Certification Authorities. Podesta and Hillary's information technology guy did not seem to know what a website certificate is, or how it works.