It is over’: Congress certifies Trump’s win, over last-ditch Dem objections

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, IDWAF said:

If you cannot see how one affects the other, then you know very little about conventional hacking methods.  I'll just skip the offhanded personal attack though.

I think I see what you are trying to suggest, but my argument still stands - Are you trying to say that because Clinton stored information on a privately secured server, accessing those emails was NOT hacking? It was completely legal for people to get ahold of her emails?

 

It still involved illegally accessing something that is private and secured, it's just a matter of whether it involved illegally access a federally secured server or a privately secured one. Both would be illegal and would involve "hacking" though. So while her mistake may have made it EASIER to hack, it still had to have been hacked.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  There is evidence the DNC was hacked. There is no evidence Hillary's server was hacked that we know of. The CIA is pursuing the DNC hacking, while the FBI cleared Hillary. What I know about conventional hacking methods is the same as you, however it doesn't change that the premise of your argument was wrong.

 

  It was bigly of you to skip the personal attack this time. I know it's not easy for you, and with Trump being what he is, you certainly don't have the best role model at the moment.

Point A, there is no need to hack anything, as her emails were out in the open for a very long time.  Pretty easy to obtain what the hackers may have needed without evidence of any breech as there was in the DNC affair.

 

Point 2, their "clearing" of Hillary violated USC and US law.  Anyone who can read the USC or has even a limited knowledge of handling of classified material knows this.  There is enough evidence & similar cases floating around the internet to convince even the most simple, if only they were willing to accept the truth.

 

I only bypassed because that particular time, I didn't want to follow your lead.  Sometimes taking the high road is less satisfying, but the better choice.  That was one of those times.  Don't mistake it for weakness.  I just let you get one up for the moment.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, ccneat said:

Tell me about your depth of experience with hacking methods

I could, but then I'd have to kill you.  And some think that is not very nice.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

I think I see what you are trying to suggest, but my argument still stands - Are you trying to say that because Clinton stored information on a privately secured server, accessing those emails was NOT hacking? It was completely legal for people to get ahold of her emails?

 

It still involved illegally accessing something that is private and secured, it's just a matter of whether it involved illegally access a federally secured server or a privately secured one. Both would be illegal and would involve "hacking" though. So while her mistake may have made it EASIER to hack, it still had to have been hacked.

No, not legal.  But much easier.  Think 10 year old kid vs. the KGB that may have been required to get the DNC stuff.

 

All of this much ado about... not nothing.  Yes, it's a big deal.  But do not, for one minute, think that we don't do it to many foreign countries ourselves.  Shame on them for trying, but I do not blame them one bit.  The folks that allowed it to happen on our end, however, should probably lose their jobs.  They failed.  Somewhere along the line, a security protocol was allowed to be breached, and went undetected for who knows how long?  Bad news for us, certainly.

[Dakine10 5,452]

45 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 Sometimes taking the high road is less satisfying, but the better choice.  

     It's a weak character that get's satisfaction out of insulting people on the internet. You might want to try the high road a little more often.

 

[Dakine10 5,452]

55 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Point A, there is no need to hack anything, as her emails were out in the open for a very long time.  Pretty easy to obtain what the hackers may have needed without evidence of any breech as there was in the DNC affair.

 

Point 2, their "clearing" of Hillary violated USC and US law.  Anyone who can read the USC or has even a limited knowledge of handling of classified material knows this.  There is enough evidence & similar cases floating around the internet to convince even the most simple, if only they were willing to accept the truth.

 

 

     There is evidence that the DNC was hacked. If you can't acknowledge the truth, it's pointless to discuss the rest of your speculation. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

36 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

     There is evidence that the DNC was hacked. If you can't acknowledge the truth, it's pointless to discuss the rest of your speculation. 

Never said it didn't happen.  Let's proceed as if the information we are now receiving is true.  The DNC was hacked almost two years ago.  What are we, as a nation, to do about it now?  What is the proper response/retaliation?

[TBoneTX 45,299]

Talk about the topic, rather than each other, please.  Belay the digs.

[Teddy B 17,252]

12 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Point A, there is no need to hack anything, as her emails were out in the open for a very long time.  Pretty easy to obtain what the hackers may have needed without evidence of any breech as there was in the DNC affair.

 

Point 2, their "clearing" of Hillary violated USC and US law.  Anyone who can read the USC or has even a limited knowledge of handling of classified material knows this.  There is enough evidence & similar cases floating around the internet to convince even the most simple, if only they were willing to accept the truth.

 

I only bypassed because that particular time, I didn't want to follow your lead.  Sometimes taking the high road is less satisfying, but the better choice.  That was one of those times.  Don't mistake it for weakness.  I just let you get one up for the moment.

Huh? Where do you get this stuff from? And how was it "easy to obtain what the hackers needed" without them actually hacking into the private server? Doesn't your calling them hackers define what they may or may not have been doing, which is hacking?

Edited January 12, 2017 by Teddy B

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

13 hours ago, IDWAF said:

No, not legal.  But much easier.  Think 10 year old kid vs. the KGB that may have been required to get the DNC stuff.

 

All of this much ado about... not nothing.  Yes, it's a big deal.  But do not, for one minute, think that we don't do it to many foreign countries ourselves.  Shame on them for trying, but I do not blame them one bit.  The folks that allowed it to happen on our end, however, should probably lose their jobs.  They failed.  Somewhere along the line, a security protocol was allowed to be breached, and went undetected for who knows how long?  Bad news for us, certainly.

You are uninformed about the facts and scope of the cyber attacks. You are also wrong about a 10 you old having the skills to hack. You may be an expert in somethings, cyber security is not one of those topics.

Edited January 12, 2017 by ccneat

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

You are uninformed about the facts and scope of the cyber attacks. You are also wrong about a 10 you old having the skills to hack. You may be an expert in somethings, cyber security is not one of those topics.

I think he slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Teddy B said:

Huh? Where do you get this stuff from? And how was it "easy to obtain what the hackers needed" without them actually hacking into the private server? Doesn't your calling them hackers define what they may or may not have been doing, which is hacking?

That depends on your definition of the word IS

[Teddy B 17,252]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

That depends on your definition of the word IS

Definitely a gray area.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, ccneat said:

You are uninformed about the facts and scope of the cyber attacks. You are also wrong about a 10 you old having the skills to hack. You may be an expert in somethings, cyber security is not one of those topics.

You're probably right.  Post it, and the truth will come.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

food for thought...............