Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today, most are done with 1024 at least and more often with 2048 bit encryption, not possible to crack with today's technology.
False, I work in the field and generally it is either 128 or 256. Not sure where you pulled those numbers from. Next step up from here will probably be quantum encryption. 128 is brute forceable with the right computer set up, 256 is currently not but as quantum computing takes off it will become trivial. This will be a revolution in computing at some point in our lifetime and there will be a few years of transition where a large amount of transactions will not be secure if people with the right hardware are after them. That is why it will likely jump from 256 to quantum as all the major banks and governments try to get out ahead of the hardware becoming widely available.
False, I work in the field and generally it is either 128 or 256. Not sure where you pulled those numbers from. Next step up from here will probably be quantum encryption.
Where do you work? Maybe you should tell you boss that someone at your place need to start firing your IT staff.
Completely irrelevant. How you gonna send emails if your server ain't connected?
It's kinda silly to see someone post a rebuttal like this.
So your excuse has moved from, its impossible, to now completely acceptable and required..
there are LOTS of ways to send things like emails SECURELY. A private, home server, isnt one of them...
I run my own email serves, I dont for a second, believe that I can secure them, at a far better level than the US Government. I'd be a complete idiot to bring emails in house if I was Secretary of State, given it was naturally going to come back to haunt her..
Hillary doesn't have such authority to determine where the proper place is.
"Delete" is "lose."
Here's the law again:
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
I agree. There should have been some oversight that prevented Hillary from making such a bad decision.
Completely irrelevant. How you gonna send emails if your server ain't connected?
It's kinda silly to see someone post a rebuttal like this.
You are being silly.
Government can do that with ease. Communications within the government can be 100% secure without encryption but who wouldn't use encryption anyway?
We as commercial users do that too. It's called Private Network. In the civilian world, we either use Virtual Private Network or MPLS which is a physical private network.
If privacy is needed between two companies, an end-to-end encryption can be set up but it's not common.
Government can do that with ease. Communications within the government can be 100% secure without encryption but who wouldn't use encryption anyway?
Exactly. When I worked in Pittsburgh, our servers were in Chicago, and we had a direct line connecting the two locations that was not able to be hacked. This was required by law because we were dealing with medical records.
Watching the left defend Clinton, who wants to be in charge of writing laws mandating society is rather mind boggling.
And Hillary made the decision that the proper place of custody was her private e-mail server. She was wrong, it was a bad decision, but she didn't gather, transmit or lose any confidential information.
Yes she did. You admitted she did. You defended it by saying it didn't get transmitted to anyone that didn't have clearance, but she DID send classified emails through an unsecured server.
She thinks she's above the law, plain and simple. Proven by the fact that she stole when leaving the WH (only giving stuff back after getting caught).
I agree. There should have been some oversight that prevented Hillary from making such a bad decision.
And you think this woman has what it takes to be president. Good lord. You've just admitted that she's too stupid to make a rational and good decision, without someone else overseeing her, to prevent her from making a mistake.
I agree. There should have been some oversight that prevented Hillary from making such a bad decision.
The oversight is called "laws."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
