[ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump
spike66 at att.net
Sat May 7 22:31:07 UTC 2016
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 2:17 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
> >…There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn sure is a law against covering it up.
>…But I'm a libertarian so I think there damn sure SHOULDN'T be such a law…
Libertarian is about freeing the proles and restricting the leadership. Anyone in a position to be blackmailed should have an open video link to the world. Being open is the best protection against blackmail.
> >…We have 30,000 emails intentionally erased. Compare that to Nixon’s 18 minutes of erased audiotape, and note that Nixon didn’t bother insulting our collective intelligence by suggesting those 18 minutes were just yoga routines, wedding plans or love notes to then-governor Bill Clinton.
>…In the middle of the worst political scandal of the last century it wold be expected that when the president meets with his chief political adviser they would discus it, especially when we know for a fact they talked about it just before and just after the 18 minute gap. But Mrs. Clinton was involved in no scandal at the time and I can see nothing ridiculous about somebody's personal E-mail server having E-mails about yoga or wedding plans or love notes…
John, Mrs. Clinton has never been free of scandal in my memory. That Clinton Foundation drips with suspicion. It enables anyone to “donate” while removing their identity. It enables money laundering and outright purchase of government influence.
When Mrs. Clinton erased that material, she appears as guilty as did Nixon, or more so. She erased the evidence of her innocence. Why? In doing so, she took on the burden of proof that the erased material had nothing in there about how much she would accept in exchange for what deals by the State Department. Any judge could see that was destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. It transforms presumed innocence into presumed guilt. The defendant guilty of destruction of evidence now has the far more difficult task of proving innocence.
If it really was only yoga and wedding plans, there was an easy way to maintain privacy while not implicating herself: choose some non-political credible witnesses, such as a former surgeon general and a head of a hospital, doctors, perhaps add a couple yoga instructors. They get to review the yoga. Nothing there they haven’t seen. Wedding plans: get a retired wedding planner or three, someone with no particular political agenda, get one from France, one from England, one from Romania, where they scarcely ever heard of Mrs. Clinton or Chelsea. The love notes to Bill, get three or four marriage counselors. Have them review the emails in question, then write reports that simply verify that which no one seriously believes: that those 30,000 messages were about yoga, weddings and love notes. We knew what that stuff was as soon as Mrs. Clinton risked prison to get rid of it: there were sneaky deals trading State Department influence for speaker fees and donations to the Clinton family “charity.” Everyone who didn’t guzzle the old koolaid knows what she erased.
Now however… we find out that Guccifer and probably others have those 30,000 emails. We know that if she is given command of the military, those grunts will be constantly on the move, killing and being killed by those whose business is none of ours.
>…And if I did have access to a top secret E-mail server with the best security the NSA can provide (and she did) then I'd use that to discuss all my deep dark nefarious secrets not my personal E-mail server…
On the contrary sir. That information on the government secret email server is carefully archived and can be accessed by the government. Mrs. Clinton could not erase that. It is useless for doing the kinds of deals Mrs. Clinton erased. No need to even activate the account. Oh wait… she didn’t.
>…All I can see evidence of is she was sloppy with security…
On the contrary, she was very careful to set up security so that she was the gatekeeper of everything. She wanted to ensure that was never subject to FOIA. Incidentally, when one has a security clearance, they repeat over and over that sloppiness with security will land your ass in prison.
>…a sloppiness that never caused the country any harm as far as anyone knows…
As far as anyone knows, ja, but we have no way to prove that. When Mrs. Clinton wiped that server (what, with a cloth or something?) she took on herself the burden of proof that none of that ever leaked, proof we have never seen. When she uttered the comment “I don’t know how it works digitally at all…” she took upon herself the responsibility to prove she didn’t get hacked. We have now very plausible reasons to doubt her word that none of it leaked. We have further reasons to doubt none of it is harmful if leaked. We risk electing a president who would be a puppet, with a dozen hostile world leaders pulling the strings.
>>… So why do we have a different standard, a far different standard today?
>…Because one involved the people's business and one did not…
Proof please? Failing proof, even a trace of evidence? Selling State Department favors is the people’s business.
>… One involved the president ordering the burglary of the offices and home of political opponents and burglarizing their psychiatrists to try to get dirt on them; and the other involved the president getting a blowjob…
Heh. John, the other involved making deals to trade State Department influence for untraceable cash. That is a bit more serious than a blowjob.
>>… It causes that politician to be vulnerable to blackmail.
>…That was the same lame excuse that was used for decades to keep gay people from getting government jobs…
No again. Gay people could get clearances way back (I knew an openly gay clearance holder in 1989 who had already held a top level clearance for years.) But gays could only be cleared if they were open and everyone knew, including their grandparents, their dog, everybody. It was all about the risk of blackmail. It still is, both for gay and straight.
>… I guess Bill's crime wasn't getting a blowjob but for failing to keep it secret…John K Clark
No John, the crime was neither of these. The crime was lying under oath. The other isn’t illegal. The Bill’s girlfriend made a demand, he took a chance, failed to deliver. She carried out the threat. He was deposed. He lied under oath. That is illegal as all hell. By letting him skate, we set a dangerous precedent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat