[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What kind of security matters

On 02/18/2017 04:54 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
> 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.

The only party i really support in Syria is the YPG. It's the
non-murderous force of modernism in Syria. Assad might protect some of
the Alawites and Christians but he has far far too much blood on his
hands. I really find it hard to forget the pictures of regular everyday
people who got horrifically tortured for simply getting caught up by
Assads police force.

>> 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.

Hillary's IT people and Podesta really were the example of the worst
security possible.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature