Just had one of those "hmmm" moments...

Closed Thread

  #1  
Old 02-11-16, 05:18 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
Just had one of those "hmmm" moments...

Just finished doing my daughter's tax return (yeah, I still spoil her) and needed her routing number and account number for the direct deposit on the refund. Dropped her an email. About 15 minutes later she called me to give me the numbers as she did not want to send them via email. I'm thinking she should be running for President as she at least knows the meaning of the term comsec.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-11-16, 06:29 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 3,138
You have schooled her well, tow_guy_san
 
  #3  
Old 02-11-16, 06:32 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I agree your daughter should run for president unlike a certain other person we all know about, enough said though we wouldn't want it to become political:NO NO NO:.
 
  #4  
Old 02-11-16, 07:40 PM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 19,530
When it comes right down to it, I highly doubt that our phone / cell phone / cordless phone conversations are all that secure either. Why else would military channels need the extra security.
 
  #5  
Old 02-12-16, 05:22 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
Yeah, considered mentioning that to her, but for a cell conversation it would have to be monitored during the call (or recorded for later review), whereas the email could sit on a server somewhere (like in my BASEMENT, LOL) and get hacked. I'm sure our conversation was probably captured and is now residing on a huge server in a warehouse at NSA, but I don't think I'll worry about it.
 
  #6  
Old 02-12-16, 05:26 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
I'll see if I can find a couple of surplus STU-III's on ebay.
 
  #7  
Old 02-12-16, 05:52 AM
Handyone's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
That's funny. I was thinking of the STU-III when I read your original post about COMSEC.

I remember using this phone quite a bit in the late 80's and 90's.
 
  #8  
Old 02-12-16, 06:33 AM
Temporarily Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 10,986
I've had that conversation before as to which is more/less secure, the phone or the internet. I prefer the phone too. For the average person to capture a cell conversation he has to have a home made base station, which costs under $2,000, to build. Secondly, some cell phones automatically use encryption. The FBI still can't break the cell phone encryption, of the terrorist couple, in San Bernardino. They should take it to MIT.

As for Hillary, I don't know why she didn't stand up for herself & say that her server was just as or more secure than government servers. I guess that she didn't want to start a fight.
 
  #9  
Old 02-13-16, 03:39 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
Frankly I might have some respect for her if she had stood up right from the git-go and said, "boy did I screw up big time". She doesn't appear very big on admitting mistakes.
 
  #10  
Old 02-13-16, 04:56 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
Telephone is far more secure than email. With email, you have that message sitting on more than one server with both having unknown levels of security. And once the security is breached, everything is accessible. The weakest point is going to be the user password.

As a whole, the government isn't very good with data security. Hillary is catching a lot of flak for something everyone is government is just ignorant of.
 
  #11  
Old 02-13-16, 05:18 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
It shouldn't be ignored that Hillary broke the law when she used her private server. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are just as guilty too and they should be punished for what they all did. With Powell and Rice the statute of limitations may apply I just read headlines in finding the correct spelling of their names that say they might not be charged. In any case they are just as guilty and a conviction of any of them would send a strong message that no one regardless of party is exempt from the law. I know political It just had to be said
 
  #12  
Old 02-13-16, 06:19 AM
Temporarily Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 10,986
From Tow Guy
Frankly I might have some respect for her if she had stood up right from the git-go and said, "boy did I screw up big time".
Politicians & cops don't do that.

From Drooplug
As a whole, the government isn't very good with data security. Hillary is catching a lot of flak for something everyone is government is just ignorant of.
I agree with that. The government uses Akamai Cloud Services. Hillary used Big-IP form F5 Networks & her server pointed to mxlogic.net owned by John McAfee, from McAfee Anti Virus. As sleazy as John can be, he's tops when it comes to security. He also promised us a device that would thwart the NSA. As you can see, that never happened.

From Hedgeclippers
It shouldn't be ignored that Hillary broke the law when she used her private server. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are just as guilty too and they should be punished for what they all did.
Actually, such a law wasn't in effect when she set up her server. It was about 4 months later. Powell & Rice used private accounts not their own servers or domains. In other words, one law didn't cover the other. Don't forget to add Sarah Palin, to that list. She was the first to use her yahoo account, for government business. Someone hacked it by clicking on "forgot password" & answered the secret question. He reset the password & posted it, on the internet.
 
  #13  
Old 02-13-16, 11:00 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
My last word about Hillary and the others you pointed to Pulpo even if the law was not in effect at the time you have to agree it points to very poor judgment. Those who use that kind of poor judgement don't deserve to be in any government office including the White House.
 
  #14  
Old 02-14-16, 05:46 AM
Temporarily Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 10,986
I don't plan to vote for her.but not because of her email server. Her judgement is worse on other things.
 
  #15  
Old 02-14-16, 12:04 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
And just to point out, "everyone else was doing it" has never been an acceptable defense, except maybe inside the Beltway. Certainly never worked with my Dad!

Hedge, you summarized it very well. Perhaps a simple lack in judgement, but a Secretary of State should certainly be expected to know the basics of National Security 101, recognize classified material when they see it, and know the requirements for security of same. SecState is, after all, #4 in the pecking order behind the President.
 
  #16  
Old 02-14-16, 12:13 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,515
And now that most everyone has had a civilized comment, we'll close.
 
Closed Thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'