Again ... Thanks in advance for providing links to the "evidence."

And no, I won't waste my time and give you a crash course in hacking 101.

Its called evidence ... find some.

... declaring their superior knowledge on some topic.

I work in emerging technology. I have for years. So I know a few things about computers.

Here's an interesting thing for you to consider.

Official government servers have been hacked in recent years, and we have EVIDENCE that it occurred.

Meanwhile, you want to declare Hillary's server "was" hacked ... even though you have no evidence to prove that actually happened.

See the problem you have?

Probably not.

Not a big surprise there.

was far less secure than my PC (Google is your friend) and yet I get dozens of alerts each month of random hackers trying to attack my machine. And I'm not a tempting target like a celebrity or the U.S SoS. Thank you for proving my point.

You guys are making a weak case, and then demanding WE go look for the evidence that supports your claims.

No.

If you have an accusation to make, its on you to provide the evidence.

If you have EVIDENCE .... post it.

the fact that she put her communications at risk of being hijacked without a trace is gross negligence

.... for not setting up her private server, etc? Aka, used undue influence to get special treatment to disobey tech security rules in 2008?

I was in IT, and have had the unpleasant task of telling higher ups that they wanted me to set up their server against the rules. The one time I got pushback, my supervisor backed me up. If I hadn't said the rules, it would have been my job on the line, because I was the one who was supposed to be both tech savvy and enforce security rules.

That's far more my concern about this email server when it comes to her executive leadership. Not whether existing tech problems (because the Bush administration was also using private emails for the Secretary of State when not in their ClassNet) led people to give into a person's request without doing their own job of knowing network security and enforcing it even on your boss, when that's your job.

So now you meander off on some new topic about an alleged "threat" to some one's job to set up the server.

Again ... prove her server was hacked. That's what you are trying to claim with this sill OP.

You can't back it up ... that's become clear.

To some other non-point.

My bad.

Because I was responding not to you, but to the person who said your request for proof was a nonsensical question.

Dial back on the coffee hon.

And edit: Just in case I did hit the wrong button, which I fully admit was possible, I would have hoped reading my post would have demonstrated that the response was to BeanMusical's snark about a question that made sense, not your request for proof of the alleged hacking. But ifvI did it the wrong button, and I didn't make myself clear,cI hope this does.

That seems like the appropriate intelligent thing to have done.

radio program.

Because her email was hacked.

While we are being silly.

They extradited "Guccifer" from Europe. He hacked into an account that led to the Hillary email scandal. He claims to have things stored in the cloud to bargain for a reduced sentence. Only time will tell.

WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.


Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred. Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0