SNL opening bit on 12/14/19

[highfigh]

No, but he is the first Russian Leader that has successfully gained a US President's trust over US Intelligence Agencies!

The CIA's track record hasn't exactly been stellar and with the FBI's activities, Comey's admission that the FISA deal was sloppy (his word, I would call it 'criminal') and agents who decided that "he can't be allowed to win" trying their best to get rid of him, I don't have a lot of trust in them, either.

What do you think Obama meant when he told Putin that he would have a lot more freedom after the 2004 election?

 

[highfigh]

Yeah but he lies all the time so that declaration is meaningless.

On the other hand, US intelligence could be viewed as flawed/biased/agenda driven etc. Maybe trusting Puty is the smart move! Trump 2020!

Ask a compulsive liar if he's a liar- which answer do you believe? Congress and the current candidates- who's believable?

 

[KEW]

The CIA's track record hasn't exactly been stellar and with the FBI's activities, Comey's admission that the FISA deal was sloppy (his word, I would call it 'criminal') and agents who decided that "he can't be allowed to win" trying their best to get rid of him, I don't have a lot of trust in them, either.

What do you think Obama meant when he told Putin that he would have a lot more freedom after the 2004 election?

I think it is safe to say that if the FBI or CIA decided to make it their objective to prevent Trump from becoming president, they could successfully accomplish that objective.
To take the conversation of two individuals and project that on the entire agency seems a bit rash (especially considering that they were fired for that indiscretion, IIRC)! Any large agency will have people reflecting a wide variety of positions including political bias. However, their professional actions are subject to checks and balances!

But are you really saying that you agree Putin should be trusted over FBI/CIA? FBI/CIA are not perfect, but we are talking specifically in context with ex-KGB Putin. Do you really think Putin is simply a beacon of truth!

 

[highfigh]

I think it is safe to say that if the FBI or CIA decided to make it their objective to prevent Trump from becoming president, they could successfully accomplish that objective.
To take the conversation of two individuals and project that on the entire agency seems a bit rash (especially considering that they were fired for that indiscretion, IIRC)! Any large agency will have people reflecting a wide variety of positions including political bias. However, their professional actions are subject to checks and balances!

But are you really saying that you agree Putin should be trusted over FBI/CIA? FBI/CIA are not perfect, but we are talking specifically in context with ex-KGB Putin. Do you really think Putin is simply a beacon of truth!

I'm also concerned by Comey, who decided that no reasonable prosecutor would go after Hillary because he didn't see any intent on her part. How the eff would he know what she intended- just by her saying it? The FISA court was lied to in order to obtain the warrant(s)- the dossier was full of crap and they knew it.

Here's a definition of 'politics' that I hadn't seen before-

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."

How true it is.

No, I trust almost nobody in governments, in general- too many are in it for personal gain and glory. Putin is a special case in many ways- I know former Russians who have no trust for Russia and I believe them because they lived through things we, in the US, never hear about. My skepticism is due to the fact that the FBI is supposed to protect us on our own soil and by lying to a FISA court, they set a very dangerous precedent.

They have a problem with an agent- just poison them and let them die a horrible death. I don't know that the US has resorted to that. Sending people off was a way of life there and I doubt that has stopped. I actually know someone whose family was sent to a gulag for some 'offense' that would be no problem here- probably said something against Tsar Nicholas or Stalin. Took years for them to find their way back.

I saw Yakov Smirnoff in an old clip from Craig Ferguson's show- he said "In America, the police are nicer- they use warning shots".

Regarding the House sending the Articles to the Senate, Pelosi said “So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us, so hopefully it will be fairer and when we see what that is, we'll send our managers.”. Whose interests is she concerned with?

 

[KEW]

I'm also concerned by Comey, who decided that no reasonable prosecutor would go after Hillary because he didn't see any intent on her part. How the eff would he know what she intended- just by her saying it? The FISA court was lied to in order to obtain the warrant(s)- the dossier was full of crap and they knew it.

Here's a definition of 'politics' that I hadn't seen before-

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."

How true it is.

No, I trust almost nobody in governments, in general- too many are in it for personal gain and glory. Putin is a special case in many ways- I know former Russians who have no trust for Russia and I believe them because they lived through things we, in the US, never hear about. My skepticism is due to the fact that the FBI is supposed to protect us on our own soil and by lying to a FISA court, they set a very dangerous precedent.

They have a problem with an agent- just poison them and let them die a horrible death. I don't know that the US has resorted to that. Sending people off was a way of life there and I doubt that has stopped. I actually know someone whose family was sent to a gulag for some 'offense' that would be no problem here- probably said something against Tsar Nicholas or Stalin. Took years for them to find their way back.

I saw Yakov Smirnoff in an old clip from Craig Ferguson's show- he said "In America, the police are nicer- they use warning shots".

Sounds like we are in agreement. FBI and CIA are flawed, but not at the same level as Putin deals with!
I know Trump has access to review their reports on the Russian involvement in compromising our elections in 2016. I don't know if he has chosen not to look at it, but he (and his staff) are in a position to address false info if it is there.
The most obvious thing to me is he is still asking about who has the democratic server, which begs the question of which is true:
1) He is very much ignorant of what is going on and doesn't yet know that the Democrats used a cloud system for their email server.
2) He knows exactly what is going on, but chooses to ask about the server because he recognizes that his base is ignorant and it is a beneficial talking point to try to best justify his actions re: impeachment!

Regarding the House sending the Articles to the Senate, Pelosi said “So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us, so hopefully it will be fairer and when we see what that is, we'll send our managers.”. Whose interests is she concerned with?

I have been out of the loop for the past few days. I don't know anything about this to be able to comment on it.

 

[Alex2507]

Do you really think Putin is simply a beacon of truth!

Wait, forget the truth for a minute.

They're trying to figure out which lies to tell.

Okay, carry on.

 

[highfigh]

Sounds like we are in agreement. FBI and CIA are flawed, but not at the same level as Putin deals with!
I know Trump has access to review their reports on the Russian involvement in compromising our elections in 2016. I don't know if he has chosen not to look at it, but he (and his staff) are in a position to address false info if it is there.
The most obvious thing to me is he is still asking about who has the democratic server, which begs the question of which is true:
1) He is very much ignorant of what is going on and doesn't yet know that the Democrats used a cloud system for their email server.
2) He knows exactly what is going on, but chooses to ask about the server because he recognizes that his base is ignorant and it is a beneficial talking point to try to best justify his actions re: impeachment!


I have been out of the loop for the past few days. I don't know anything about this to be able to comment on it.

If the Democrats used a cloud server, it reinforces my belief that those are less secure than we're told and it also begs questions about the supposed server in Hillary's bathroom that should never have been unsecured.

I was hanging out with a friend who's strongly Democrat and I work with people who are the opposite- their opinions of the impeachment and its effects are 180° apart. My friend thinks he's being torn apart and the others think it effectively means nothing. Polls showed that in Wisconsin (since it was mentioned specifically in the skit), roughly 54% didn't want the House to impeach him but that may indicate where the people live because Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay are strongly Democrat.

 

[bigkrazy155]

@highfigh @KEW I have helped a government agency stand up a cloud email solution. It is FAR more complicated, with much more room for error than you'd expect. Even the cloud provider's technical staff could not easily answer some of our questions or satisfy our security requirements. It was quite the exercise in diligence.

 

[Trell]

Wait, forget the truth for a minute.

They're trying to figure out which lies to tell.

Okay, carry on.

It's not lies but "alternative facts".

 

[highfigh]

@highfigh @KEW I have helped a government agency stand up a cloud email solution. It is FAR more complicated, with much more room for error than you'd expect. Even the cloud provider's technical staff could not easily answer some of our questions or satisfy our security requirements. It was quite the exercise in diligence.

The fact that some of the staff couldn't answer your questions tells me that short cuts WILL be taken, by someone who unilaterally decides that the steps taken are 'adequate'. With security., I don't want adequate, I want total security- I have lost too much stuff that was locked to believe people can't get around most measures. As someone told me after I said that the garage at a house was unlocked, "Locks are for honest people".

I see the cloud as similar to using a bunch of storage containers spread around a large area with more than one key and key holder (for convenience) but not only one key/key holder for each, multiple entry points and more than one person knows how to enter. Because there's no easy way to stop multiple entries instantly, this method strikes me as less secure but it would ensure that all data wouldn't be lost in the event that one building burns down, which would be the case if it was all stored in one place. I suspect that heuristic attacks are some of the hardest to stop.

 

[KEW]

...the supposed server in Hillary's bathroom that should never have been unsecured.

Doesn't it scream BS to you when you hear about a server installed in a bathroom?
I can't say it is impossible, but what reason would anyone have to install a server in their bathroom?
Usually people installing servers know a little and might have apprehension about putting a server in the same room prone to getting steamed up from hot showers/baths.
I doubt she is living in a home where the bathroom is the only place the server would fit.
And what woman wouldn't want tha warm fuzzy nesting sensation of having a server in their bathroom?
It is, fundamentally, a highly suspicious rumor!

I would want more than reading about it on a social media site and unfortunately, some of the op/ed pundits will use such rumors for their media presentations if it serves their interest.

 

[highfigh]

Doesn't it scream BS to you when you hear about a server installed in a bathroom?
I can't say it is impossible, but what reason would anyone have to install a server in their bathroom?
Usually people installing servers know a little and might have apprehension about putting a server in the same room prone to getting steamed up from hot showers/baths.
I doubt she is living in a home where the bathroom is the only place the server would fit.
And what woman wouldn't want tha warm fuzzy nesting sensation of having a server in their bathroom?
It is, fundamentally, a highly suspicious rumor!

I would want more than reading about it on a social media site and unfortunately, some of the op/ed pundits will use such rumors for their media presentations if it serves their interest.

If the server is near the commode, it might be useful as a foot warmer.

I know that many see Wiki as an unreliable source, but this link has a couple of sections that show her lack of security for her info-

Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Read 'Clinton's use of BlackBerrys' and 'Domain names and email server' in the link.

 

[KEW]

If the Democrats used a cloud server, it reinforces my belief that those are less secure than we're told and it also begs questions about the supposed server in Hillary's bathroom that should never have been unsecured.

There is no doubt that the attention to security was less than it should have been!
My point is that Trump is talking about finding the server like it has somehow been taken to the Ukraine or something when it has been established that they used a cloud server. I mean the level of crazy behind Ukraine having knowledge/access to such a server is pretty extreme and we are hearing it from the President who has access to the actual facts!
Was Hillary supposed to have sent it to the Ukraine to hide it from Trump?

I was hanging out with a friend who's strongly Democrat and I work with people who are the opposite- their opinions of the impeachment and its effects are 180° apart. My friend thinks he's being torn apart and the others think it effectively means nothing. Polls showed that in Wisconsin (since it was mentioned specifically in the skit), roughly 54% didn't want the House to impeach him but that may indicate where the people live because Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay are strongly Democrat.

This is talking about the election vote, but from a WSJ poll released last Wednesday (before the impeachment vote), the impeachment process does seem to have galvanized both sides and skewed things slightly more against Trump:

In a caution for the president, however, some 48% of registered voters said they would vote against Mr. Trump, no matter who the Democrats choose as their nominee, while 34% of registered voters said they were certain to vote to re-elect the president, no matter who is nominated as his opponent.

The overall conclusion:

The results suggest that neither party accomplished one of its main goals during the impeachment debate. Democrats failed to persuade most Americans that Mr. Trump’s actions were serious enough to merit his removal from office, while Republicans have so far failed to build the backlash to impeachment that they had hoped for.

Americans Evenly Divided on Trump Removal, WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds

The three-month House inquiry has failed to build majority support among Americans for or against impeaching President Trump, leaving the nation evenly divided, 48% to 48%, on whether to remove the president from office, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

www.wsj.com

 

[KEW]

If the server is near the commode, it might be useful as a foot warmer.

You've got me there!

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Doesn't it scream BS to you when you hear about a server installed in a bathroom?
I can't say it is impossible, but what reason would anyone have to install a server in their bathroom?
Usually people installing servers know a little and might have apprehension about putting a server in the same room prone to getting steamed up from hot showers/baths.
I doubt she is living in a home where the bathroom is the only place the server would fit.
And what woman wouldn't want tha warm fuzzy nesting sensation of having a server in their bathroom?
It is, fundamentally, a highly suspicious rumor!

I would want more than reading about it on a social media site and unfortunately, some of the op/ed pundits will use such rumors for their media presentations if it serves their interest.

I think it was actually a “servicer”...
yuk.....

 

[highfigh]

There is no doubt that the attention to security was less than it should have been!
My point is that Trump is talking about finding the server like it has somehow been taken to the Ukraine or something when it has been established that they used a cloud server. I mean the level of crazy behind Ukraine having knowledge/access to such a server is pretty extreme and we are hearing it from the President who has access to the actual facts!
Was Hillary supposed to have sent it to the Ukraine to hide it from Trump?

This is talking about the election vote, but from a WSJ poll released last Wednesday (before the impeachment vote), the impeachment process does seem to have galvanized both sides and skewed things slightly more against Trump:

The overall conclusion:

Americans Evenly Divided on Trump Removal, WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds

The three-month House inquiry has failed to build majority support among Americans for or against impeaching President Trump, leaving the nation evenly divided, 48% to 48%, on whether to remove the president from office, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

www.wsj.com

I asked a friend who's original from Kyiv for his opinion of Kaspersky virus protection and he said he doesn't like it. When I asked why, he said "Because it's Russian!".

I think many underestimate the abilities of Russians and Eastern Block hackers, in general. They still see them as backward and less sophisticated WRT technology but they fail to realize that the US has been hacked by them many times. In fact, the number of times we have actually heard about it worries me- how many incidents have we NOT heard about?

We should sticky these results, to see how the percentages change by election time.

This song reminds me of Congress-

 

[highfigh]

Doesn't it scream BS to you when you hear about a server installed in a bathroom?
I can't say it is impossible, but what reason would anyone have to install a server in their bathroom?
Usually people installing servers know a little and might have apprehension about putting a server in the same room prone to getting steamed up from hot showers/baths.
I doubt she is living in a home where the bathroom is the only place the server would fit.
And what woman wouldn't want that warm fuzzy nesting sensation of having a server in their bathroom?
It is, fundamentally, a highly suspicious rumor!

I would want more than reading about it on a social media site and unfortunately, some of the op/ed pundits will use such rumors for their media presentations if it serves their interest.

Supposedly, it was an unused bathroom and if you have ever been in a home of that size, you know that it's very possible that it might have an unused bathroom or powder room, If it's true, it may have been a convenient place to put the server due to its proximity to some kind of path for mechanical systems and cabling- this, coming from someone who works in old, large homes and has had to find paths to upper floors when the owners wanted to install technology if the place was built like a fortress, with masonry and lath & plaster walls. The owners aren't always likely to give the big OK for knocking holes in the place and dealing with the experience. Because it might be a powder room, I see it as a plausible location but without proof from someone who saw it, any explanation is up for debate.

 

[panteragstk]

@highfigh @KEW I have helped a government agency stand up a cloud email solution. It is FAR more complicated, with much more room for error than you'd expect. Even the cloud provider's technical staff could not easily answer some of our questions or satisfy our security requirements. It was quite the exercise in diligence.

The fact that some of the staff couldn't answer your questions tells me that short cuts WILL be taken, by someone who unilaterally decides that the steps taken are 'adequate'. With security., I don't want adequate, I want total security- I have lost too much stuff that was locked to believe people can't get around most measures. As someone told me after I said that the garage at a house was unlocked, "Locks are for honest people".

I see the cloud as similar to using a bunch of storage containers spread around a large area with more than one key and key holder (for convenience) but not only one key/key holder for each, multiple entry points and more than one person knows how to enter. Because there's no easy way to stop multiple entries instantly, this method strikes me as less secure but it would ensure that all data wouldn't be lost in the event that one building burns down, which would be the case if it was all stored in one place. I suspect that heuristic attacks are some of the hardest to stop.

This shouldn't really be a thing. If their staff couldn't answer, then they aren't fimilar with FedRAMP. This is something I've dealt with when it comes to the cloud hosted apps I'm in charge of. The specific agency I was working with was concerned that the security level of AWS wasn't high enough so AWS went through the hoops of getting FedRAMP certified. I think they go up to level 4 or 5 (which is pretty high).

Granted, the stuff I was doing wasn't all that super secret when it comes to security. Mostly email and apps that allow the field guys to do their job, but it's still important for security considerations.

Also, SO many people that are technically IT in the government don't know squat. It's shocking how little they know. It's a ton of lifers that haven't kept up with modern technology so learning anything new isn't something a lot of them are willing to do.

I can tell you that having some rogue email server is not out of the realm of possibility. Some random staffer probably set it up and didn't think anything of it. Which is why that stuff is "supposed" to be heavily regulated.

 

[bigkrazy155]

This shouldn't really be a thing. If their staff couldn't answer, then they aren't fimilar with FedRAMP. This is something I've dealt with when it comes to the cloud hosted apps I'm in charge of. The specific agency I was working with was concerned that the security level of AWS wasn't high enough so AWS went through the hoops of getting FedRAMP certified. I think they go up to level 4 or 5 (which is pretty high).

This is an oversimplification. When you get into the area of critical systems (as I work in), you are talking about hundreds and hundreds of minimum security controls for FedRAMP moderate or high. Keep in mind that is the minimum. Our FISMA high systems must satisfy thousands of controls. It's not fair to say if a SME can't answer every one of those concerns they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[highfigh]

This shouldn't really be a thing. If their staff couldn't answer, then they aren't fimilar with FedRAMP. This is something I've dealt with when it comes to the cloud hosted apps I'm in charge of. The specific agency I was working with was concerned that the security level of AWS wasn't high enough so AWS went through the hoops of getting FedRAMP certified. I think they go up to level 4 or 5 (which is pretty high).

Granted, the stuff I was doing wasn't all that super secret when it comes to security. Mostly email and apps that allow the field guys to do their job, but it's still important for security considerations.

Also, SO many people that are technically IT in the government don't know squat. It's shocking how little they know. It's a ton of lifers that haven't kept up with modern technology so learning anything new isn't something a lot of them are willing to do.

I can tell you that having some rogue email server is not out of the realm of possibility. Some random staffer probably set it up and didn't think anything of it. Which is why that stuff is "supposed" to be heavily regulated.

Lots of things 'shouldn't' happen- doesn't mean they won't, unfortunately.

WRT government info- I would think they'd make it so secure it would be almost impossible to hack, but when best effort is required, leave it to the government to go with 'That'll do'.