FBI Director James Comey Testifies Before US House Committee On Witchhunt

[Morphine Prince 109,654]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

A private server is still far more secure than the AOL servers by virtue of them being in the public sphere.

Honestly why are you arguing this with me?  Take a Computer Security class and get back to me.

Comey just said it was less secure than gmail, or maybe I heard wrong. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

Comey just said it was less secure than gmail, or maybe I heard wrong. 

Context. Nowadays security is much better than it used to be back in Powell's term. Google is also more reliable than other companies in terms of security.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

This entire hearing is backfiring on the GOP really badly.

[FATCAT 60,888]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

There is a huge difference except it's the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

A private server is still far more secure than the AOL servers by virtue of them being in the public sphere.

Honestly why are you arguing this with me?  Take a Computer Security class and get back to me.

Just because a server hosts free "public" email, doesn't make it less secure than a privately owned server. The tech behind both servers, HTTPS essentially, is a secure channel. AOL would have used this security protocol. (Not to mention, spam and other non-listed or suspicious emails would have been dropped into spam. The private server that Clinton used had this security as well, but per released details, these features were DISABLED. Traffic over HTTP would be visible to anyone on the network, unencrypted. In fact, Her own office had trouble sending and receiving messages from the server, because it wasn't a cleared host, and they had to disable their OWN spam filters to be able to receive her messages.

Im a sophomore computer science major.

I think it's you who should take a few classes.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

Just because a server hosts free "public" email, doesn't make it less secure than a privately owned server. The tech behind both servers, HTTPS essentially, is a secure channel. AOL would have used this security protocol. (Not to mention, spam and other non-listed or suspicious emails would have been dropped into spam. The private server that Clinton used had this security as well, but per released details, these features were DISABLED. Traffic over HTTP would be visible to anyone on the network, unencrypted. In fact, Her own office had trouble sending and receiving messages from the server, because it wasn't a cleared host, and they had to disable their OWN spam filters to be able to receive her messages.

Im a sophomore computer science major.

I think it's you who should take a few classes.

You're using literally one facet of security to make a generalization for the entire state of the server.

The mere fact that access to the server is inherently limited to a few handlers makes the server exponentially less likely to be a target of a breach.

Not to mention that we are talking about security back in the 1990s when it wasn't as well established and documented as it is today. 

So I'm glad you think you're on to something, but you really aren't. You're just once again selectively using arguments and completely failing to include context.

Try again.

[FATCAT 60,888]

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You're using literally one facet of security to make a generalization for the entire state of the server.

The mere fact that access to the server is inherently limited to a few handlers makes the server exponentially less likely to be a target of a breach.

Not to mention that we are talking about security back in the 1990s when it wasn't as well established and documented as it is today. 

So I'm glad you think you're on to something, but you really aren't. You're just once again selectively using arguments and completely failing to include context.

Try again.

Omfg there is no getting across to you.

Every argument you spew is a commentary on your own behavior. It's you that are relying on selective and baseless arguments. You jokingly say you're a hill-bot, but you're worse than that. I feel really sorry for you. 

You actually believe the bullshit.

[Morphine Prince 109,654]

Comey: Clinton's server was less secure than Gmail. 

[Morphine Prince 109,654]

A lot of Republicans are the ones asking accusatory questions in this hearing lol. 

It's so funny. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Omfg there is no getting across to you.

Every argument you spew is a commentary on your own behavior. It's you that are relying on selective and baseless arguments. You joking say you're a hill-bot, but you're worse than that. I feel really sorry for you. 

You actually believe the bullshit.

Where are the selective arguments?

The topic at hand is a comparison of practices. You tried to justify the security of Powell's decision when that's already a meaningless argument because no matter what he still didn't use the State Department's server. Then you tried to compare it to the private server, falsely using one argument which I actually conceded to you in order to make a generalized statement about the security of the system, ignoring all actual chronological and technological context and other important components like user count and access per unit time, as well as the fact that any CS major would know that stringer cyber security is a recent development and still needs a lot of work in both application and awareness.

The only person I feel sorry for is you. You are actually arguing FOR Powell now because he represents an argument against Hillary, even when presumably you should also be against him for his practices. 

The entire argument being presented here is that he still demonstrated similar practices and received no consequences for his actions. Yet for some reason you insist that Hillary take the punch.

You don't just hold her to an impossible standard while dismissing the many failures of your preferred candidate, you also demonstrate hypocritical logic such as stating that "intent shouldn't matter' when that's the only defense Bernard has going for regarding his 600 page violations regarding donations. 

You don't realize it. You talk and your own opinions with no regards to context or how that may conflict with your arguments, ALL because you loathe Hillary in a demonstration of irrational animus that matches the GOP's.

Sit down FATCAT. Your words are as shallow as your arguments.

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Where are the selective arguments?

The topic at hand is a comparison of practices. You tried to justify the security of Powell's decision when that's already a meaningless argument because no matter what he still didn't use the State Department's server. Then you tried to compare it to the private server, falsely using one argument which I actually conceded to you in order to make a generalized statement about the security of the system, ignoring all actual chronological and technological context and other important components like user count and access per unit time.

The only person I feel sorry for is you. You are actually arguing FOR Powell now because he's against Hillary, even when presumably you should also be against him for his practices. 

The entire argument being presented here is that he still demonstrated similar practices and received no consequences for his actions. Yet for some reason you insist that Hillary take the punch.

You don't just hold her to an impossible standard while dismissing the many failures of your preferred candidate, you also demonstrate hypocritical logic such as stating that "intent shouldn't matter' when that's the only defense Bernard has going for regarding his 600 page violations regarding donations. 

You don't realize it. You talk and your own opinions with no regards to context or how that may conflict with your arguments, ALL because you loathe Hillary in a demonstration of irrational animus that matches the GOP's.

Sit down FATCAT. Your words are as shallow as your arguments.

I really hope you found some peace in that wall of text. Because you're far down the rabbit hole.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I really hope you found some peace in that wall of text. Because you're far down the rabbit hole.

I mean look at this. You have no response to it other than deflection.

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Also a wall of text is a single paragraph with no spaces or indentation and lacks separation of contexts. So you can't even use internet lingo correctly. 

Stop embarrassing yourself. You've already done it by flip flopping on your views repeatedly in an ultimate display of hypocrisy.

[Morphine Prince 109,654]

Did she destroy evidence though?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Did she destroy evidence though?

No but there are ground that her lawyers did by deeming them personal emails. 

They were ultimately recovered and out of those e-mails only three turned out to have some classified information in the body tagged with a (C) for confidential but were actually not labeled as such in the header as classified.

[FATCAT 60,888]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I mean look at this. You have no response to it other than deflection.

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Also a wall of text is a single paragraph with no spaces or indentation and lacks separation of contexts. So you can't even use internet lingo correctly. 

Stop embarrassing yourself. You've already done it by flip flopping on your views repeatedly in an ultimate display of hypocrisy.

 Guess I'll have to work harder on my internet lingo.

Why should I respond to you? You can't help yourself. There's no reason to try and correct unchangable behavior.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

 Guess I'll have to work harder on my internet lingo.

Why should I respond to you? You can't help yourself. There's no reason to try and correct unchangable behavior.

May I remind you that you're the one quoting me?

For a time I thought you were actually being a bit more accepting and less intolerant but one day you randomly reverted to being outright hostile. There is no explanation for this other than irrational animus.

Perhaps I think there's still hope. I know from personal experience that people are more likely to continue fighting rather than concede and reach consensus, but I also know that they still tend to take the knowledge to heart despite appearances.

By all means though. Keep being hostile.