WikiLeaks leaks CIA director's private emails – including his nat sec clearance dossier Days after a teenage stoner hacked the AOL email account of CIA director John Brennan, WikiLeaks has published highly sensitive files from the spymaster's inbox. The documents include Brennan's application for national security clearance, with address, phone number, passport details, and the names and addresses of associates …
At first I thought he was some sort of complete idiot for having important stuff on an AOL mail account, but the suggestion that talking to Iran to try and sort things out is an unexpected breath of sanity in this world.
Still, we all have nothing to hide, so nothing to fear from our emails. Right?
At first I thought he was some sort of complete idiot for having important stuff on an AOL mail account, but the suggestion that talking to Iran to try and sort things out is an unexpected breath of sanity in this world.
That's probably why this had to be on an AOL account - gives the US government probable deniability in case anyone dares accuse them of behaviour that is actually sane :)
If you mean "sane" like England following the appeasement politics of Neville Chamberlain, I'll take the diametrically opposite choice thank you.
There is nothing that Iran could offer that would make me want to speak with them about any subject.
You couldn't believe a word of it, so why bother.
Right now, they are already testing ballistic missiles in violation of a 2010 UN Resolution that is supposed to prevent them from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/west-asks-investigate-iran-ballistic-missile-test-151021224636658.html
Given that they are already lying, what makes you believe ANYTHING that came of the weak and ineffectual Iran deal that Kerry got the US into?
Hilary Clinton had a poorly managed emil-server and now this CIA director has a private AOL-mail account with many highly sensitive and confidential documents.
Conclusion: The higher echelons do not see themselves as responsible for the security of their data-storage. They regard it as "something techie" for which someone else is responsible.
Except it turns out none of Clinton's emails (at least of those known so far) contained classified or even sensitive information. The redactions in the emails that were released were not made by the CIA, which stated they were all fine to be released, but by the republican chair of the committee investigating Benghazi! When asked about it he was forced to admit this.
As is typical in political witch hunts, they had a winning hand but overplayed it trying for a home run that would knock her out of the race. That's why Biden decided not to run and Sanders numbers are dropping - she will roll to a nomination and can run against the republicans during her primary campaign while they squabble with each other and tear down their eventual nominee.
Clinton was still very stupid and naive using a private email account instead of a government one, but using AOL to discuss anything remotely related to your job as CIA Director is worse! It allows the possibility of social engineering on AOL employees as well as attacking the generally pitiful password reset methods (if people are dumb enough to answer the "security questions" truthfully, and you're a public figure for whom the high school you graduated from is probably published on wikipedia) I doubt Clinton's private server had a "reset password" link or an admin you could call pretending to be Hillary.
"Clinton was still very stupid and naive using a private email account instead of a government one,"
Maybe she thought, at least with not using gov servers the certainty of all her communication being read drops from 100% to 99.9999999999999999%, and they at least have to make some effort to snoop on her
Bullsh@t, prove it. You can't.
The FBI investigation wouldn't be ongoing if she hadn't done something questionable. Obama would have shut it down but he knows he can't this time.
You're just "spinning for Shrillary".
The committee does not even need to find anything glaring, just MORE evidence she was trying to hide what she was doing as Secretary of State.
She lied that she had a private server to begin with, she lied when she said she didn't use private email.
She used her position as Secretary for financial gain in a pay to play scheme with speaking engagements for her husband Bill being compensation for favors from her state department office.
And we all know about the Whitewater scandals they barely got out from under.
The fact is that they hung out General Petraeus for far lesser acts and the so called classified data never left his locked desk drawer unless he was there and they should do the same to her.
More than 50% of the public find her unable to be trusted.
Why do we need a sneaking liar for President? We already have one who's used his office unethically and unconstitutionally.
Liar.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/second-review-finds-classified-material-was-hillary-clinton-email-report-n423201
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-release-214246
And contrary to the spin coming out of the offices still trying to defend this criminal, it does not matter how they were marked. Since she had to agree to protect classified information in order to get her clearance that means she was responsible for knowing what type of information gets classified. One of those types of information is communications from other countries diplomatic staff regardless of actual content. And those were the first ones marked classified on review.
But, I suppose we shouldn't get facts get in the way of a good two minute rant.
Looks like a nice way to spread some interesting tidbits that make the CIA boss look
a. Human
b. A Good Guy (tm)
Hopefully the rest of it will serve to reinforce the idea that he is
a. a Moron
b. Evil Incarnate (tm)
Otherwise the internets will just become that little bit more boring.
Question 2: have you ever paid willingly or accidentally paid any attention to someone's rights, be it legal, moral or human?
Answer: Yes.
Thank you kindly. Feel free to grab a brochure on your way out, "Things not to pay attention to when working for US government". Have a nice day.
While it might not necessarily be a *good* thing that these emails have been leaked this way, let's be honest. If he was using an AOL account for classified information and some kid managed to hack it and get all this data, chances are it was compromised a *long* time ago and rival governments are well aware of what it contains. Much like when people were invited to try and hack an electronic voting booth a while back as a statement of confidence, and not only were people successful but they found it had *already* been compromised before they got anywhere near it
While I haven't much sympathy for the director of the CIA, I'm not sure I understand the justification for releasing everything. If there are key bits that look relevant to the public interest (I know there was a memo about torture for instance) by all means those should be released, I'm just not sure about all the random, but personal, fluff.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
