It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On the eve of Hillary's coronation, her courtiers are suddenly waking up to the fact that she cannot protect them.
The shock may be intentional. If Putin was indeed behind the hacking, he is only doing what underdogs through history have done to even the odds. Unable to match the foe in weight, he went for the king, or in this case the queen.
Democratic voters looked up to her to protect and defend the nation because that's what presidents do. By hacking Hillary and humiliating her, Putin has sent the message that she cannot even defend herself -- and what's the use of a president who can't defend herself?
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Hillary really doesn't have a great history of using government systems nor protocol design to keep data safe. Maybe not having her own bathroom server might be a good start? Not sidestepping government rules to prevent a record of her corruption?
And once again, do you think that's something she personally does? Or is it something her team does for her? Do you really think she knows how to set up or run a server, much less how to keep it secure?
Hillary was responsible for putting quality people in positions of responsibility, so the "how was I supposed to know?" excuse is a dog that just won't hunt.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
(Facepalm) So she's supposed to be an IT security guru, now? Is the CISSP a requirement to run for President, now?
Does anyone really think any of these candidates can stop a hack on a server? Does anyone even think most of these candidates
or voterscan even point out an email server if it was in the same room as them? (Note: you can also set up an email server as a "virtual machine" on another computer so that's a trick question lol.)
And obviously the President/Commander-in-Chief doesn't need to be able to defend himself or herself physically. That's the whole point in bodyguards and the Secret Service. And it's not like the President/Commander-in-Chief is going to be on the front lines so he/she can literally "protect" anyone, in the first place. In fact, the President/Commander-in-Chief and many other top officials are personally moved to safe, undisclosed areas during emergencies specifically to keep them out of harm's way.
So if anything, the people serving the President/Commander-in-Chief are the ones who are at fault or need more training if they can't protect the President/Commander-in-Chief. Not the other way around.
(rant off & yes, I was mildly triggered. lol. not sure why either. i might need another break from ats because everything's irking me now :mad
ETA: really? i wanted a grumpy face and it made a smiley face. grrr