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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature