The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

«‹›2 »

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Jimbozig posted:

about emails

Here is a post from Crain on how this whole thing actually works in practice, which was a nice read that I hadn't seen literally anywhere else

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3778459&pagenumber=100&perpage=40#post460890609

quote:

So, with the whole "Hillary used a PDA to order Drone Strikes" as the new chapter of the emailgateghazi-saga, I decided to ask my father what the hell was actually up with the whole thing. Specifically he is a CISO in a government Agency, has been a CIO, has been a webmaster, sys-admin, and most other computer and system security related title/job combos in the government since like the 70s. I know no one else who could have more experience with exactly what this is (As in literally out of all the people I personally know).

So the TL;DR he gave me was a break down of how FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) actually works in the day to day for basic users and higher ups (including Cabinet level positions). You may have heard or read this act mentioned in the OIG report that was link previously, it's a major consideration when it comes to whether or not Clinton did any wrong and whether or not what she did is actionable.

So here is how, as it was explained to me in very simple but flowery language, information security is supposed to work.

1) Thou shalt have a CIO. Every department, agency, regulatory agency, etc, whatever. If it's a stand alone entity it has to a CIO. The CIO is where the buck stops. When it comes to signing off on exceptions to FISMA and other security rules, it's up to the CIO to sign off on it.

2) Thou shalt have a CISO. You can have more than one, but you need at least one. The CISO generates a risk report based on what rules the end users want to ignore (because following all the rules of FISMA means you most likely cannot do your job if it involves a computer). Do you not want to do XYZ? Well the CISO figures out what the risks in that are. Then passes those risks onto the CIO to be approved.

3) Thou shalt have the Department of Commerce. Because reasons. These guys exist here to just tell the AO/DAA: "Yeah sure". They pass the buck.

4) Thou Shalt have a AO/DAA. The AO/DAA (Authorizing Officer/Designated Authorizing Authority), who is also a CIO, will...do the job of the CIO and sign off on approved ATOs (Authorization to Operate) because that's his job, but in this flow chart he is actually further down the list even though he's the head of the department.

So if you want to do something and it's against FISMA, which it most likely is, you go to your CISO. You say "Hey, we need this router to get a bunch of new hires online, but the WEP isn't working right. So can you sign off on this so we can use it anyway". So the CISO sits down and figures out all the ways that's a bad idea, all the rules you're violating, and then passes that up to the CIO to be approved/denied. If it's approved things move forward. Now if there is a Hack, the big men with guns, badges, and warrants show up, an IT investigator (forget the actual name for this guy) goes through what happened and goes through the list of official FISMA rules and goes "HEY! You didn't follow this rule! The Router wasn't protected right!". To that you say "I was given approval from the CIO to do this" and show the documents.

The men with badges now go to the CIO and ask "The gently caress!?". The CIO is now in trouble because he didn't follow FISMA rules. BUT! The next stage of the investigation is the FBI looking to see if this was done deliberately to facilitate said hack. They find nothing. But it was a criminal investigation. Now the punishment is simply having the funding revoked since the CIO did not spend the funding he was already given to adequately secure government systems. No one else gets in trouble, but they were all investigated.

Now what does this mean for Hillary? Well let's go back to what McAlister posted (sorry about the spelling I can't remember ). 1) The server was already existing prior to her becoming SoS, 2) She did attempt to enter into compliance for the server and blackberry she uses when she took office, and 3) the server was only for the unsecured .gov email, as far as any investigation has shown she has followed the procedure for accessing and using secured information. AKA: Used the burn rooms and skifs in compliance with stated rules like leaving blackberrys/devices outside of secure access rooms, etc.

Here is how that breaks down:

- If Hillary was doing this the CIO is in charge of stopping her. Even if rebuffed on it the CIO is who is responsible.
- Since Hillary did attempt to enter into compliance she is completely clear of any possible criminal charges. Hands down. She was not deliberately attempting to circumvent FISMA rules for the purpose of compromising security. And single 30 second meeting with the CIO of her asking "Can we secure and connect my mail server for work?" suffices. (if documented) ((it is documented)).
- Even if approval for bringing her server/blackberry into compliance was denied it is up to the CIO to stop her from accessing it and using it for work related activities. That's literally the CIO's Job. Caveat: That's if the CIO was aware of the situation. But: That is a weak stipulation since it is your job to know as CIO and The CIO(s) in question did know.

Final point about the Drone blackberry approvals: My father says there is a trump card to FISMA loosely known by "Beans, Blankets, and Bullets". Sometimes in a different order, sometimes with Bombs instead of Bullets. Basically: If it involves the Military and specifically the Military completing a mission then all rules are out. That's why you don't have soldiers calling in troop movements in emergency situations on unsecured lines getting in trouble with the FBI and some Military CIO, beyond just basic decency. So those drone approvals could have been sent by Western Union for all anyone cares.

Hope you found this extra bit of inside info from someone whose literal job it is/was to do this exact thing.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 14:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 22:43

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

uXs posted:

Are those early voting ballots being counted (and results published) already, or are they just exit polls?

The latter, plus also at least some states have official tallies of party registration of early voters, just not actual vote counting

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 17:48

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Arcanen posted:

In contrast, someone like Princeton Professor Sam Wang PhD (who it must be emphasized has significantly, astronomically greater expertise in statistics, probability and modelling than Nate Silver, BA Economics, will ever have) has a lot less riding on the perceptions of his election predictions. He's less well known in the general public, and the election work is unrelated to his larger academic work in neuroscience.

I had no idea Wang was in neuroscience. I love him even more now :3:

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 22:10

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Cingulate posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/538politics/status/783665565554642944

annnnnnd

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

I only glanced at this, but isn't that first link just correlations between results in the simulations? As in, it takes into account polls, correlation between states, and everything else? The actual modeled correlation between states can't be that high, I don't think, else the model would have Iowa and Ohio very likely to go to Clinton given polling in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan (I suspect, anyway).

Edit: Or since weight for polls vs correlation with other state polls can be set by state probably, could be Ohio and Iowa don't care about other state polls and MI, WI, and MN do more. Would help explain 538's relative pessimism for Clinton across that whole region.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 22:15

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-campaign-is-almost-over-and-heres-where-we-stand/

538 posted:

Now that has become more apparent in the polling, and roughly a third of Trump�s 35 percent chance of victory reflects cases where he just barely gets over the hump in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.

Man, I just don't know. Doesn't there have to be something funky happening behind the scenes to both assume one candidate has a 1 in 3 chance of winning, but that 1 in 3 of the times he wins it's by a popular vote loss and electoral college win? Overall, the model is giving a 10% chance of the election having a popular vote and electoral college winner split.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 23:00

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Cingulate posted:

Trump is underperforming in red states, but his chances at states like Ohio are not as bad. So red states like Texas "eat" some of Clinton's margin.

I get the reasoning why it might be that high (and it's actually 12.6% of a popular/electoral split overall), I just don't believe it can actually be that high.

Edit: I don't have any good argument really, other than that seems absurdly high for something that very rarely happens. Every election is to some extent its own special snowflake of course, but I can't square that probability with reality.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 23:03

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

In any case, I do wish we could open up the 538 model and see the guts. Modeling correlations between states seems like an absolutely perfect thing to do, but without seeing exactly how they do it, it is tough to gauge whether there's any potential error there, ya know? Maybe demographics have changed too much across the data set they're using to estimate the correlations for those estimates to be useful. Maybe the weighting of a state's polling vs it's correlation with other states' polls can be tweaked differently. Maybe weighting of polls is too aggressive or permissive. I trust the 538 team is doing things in ways that make sense, but all of those possible sources of bias or error seem like they could interact in very non-obvious ways.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 23:11

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Convergence posted:

Just look up the numbers instead of positing some vague, meaningless perception of reality. There have been 43 presidents. There have been 4 cases where the winner lost the popular vote. It's historically 10% of the time.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

Nah, I made it very clear that I was saying I personally found it hard to believe, not that I was sure it was wrong.

Anyway, there have been 57 presidential elections, so that's 4/57, or 7%. One of those had neither candidate reaching the 50%+ of electoral votes needed, which is not what 538's 12.6% chance reflects, so it's actually 3/57 that have had an electoral college winner that did not win the popular vote, or 5%.

sourdough fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Nov 5, 2016

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 23:17

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Geoff Peterson posted:

Less than that if the makeup or tendencies of the electorate changes, thanks to GOP Gerrymandering. For instance, if white suburban women were to abandon the GOP for some reason this election, and we saw a spike in Hispanic voters.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 01:34

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Kilroy posted:

oh cool are we posting maps here's mine:

Hah Texas but not Ohio seems questionable

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 13:22

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Kilroy posted:

too many white people in ohio

I think people giving up hope on Ohio are premature. My map is yours, except give her Ohio and NH, definitely give Trump Texas, and AZ and Georgia are probably Trump but I want to believe.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 13:58

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Queering Wheel posted:

I'm pretty happy with this possible map, which I call the Half Satan.

e: and here's the Alternate Half Satan, maybe more realistic. Gives Clinton NC instead of GA, and a Nebraska electoral vote.

NC really isn't in doubt, so go Full Satan imo. If you think she wins AZ and more, throw em in there with NC!

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 14:32

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

CascadeBeta posted:

Illinois is not going red.

Those were just ways for them to get 333 haha

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 15:21

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

FuturePastNow posted:

All right if we're posting maps, here's my guess:

Trump will win Utah, otherwise yeah this is The True Map

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 19:33

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Hahaha, people said the same poo poo for this election and Obama's re-election. But I bet you're right this time!

*he says, as record Latino turnout crushes Trump to dust*

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 20:13

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

And Obama got 96% of the black vote in 2008, and 93% in 2012. Did I miss where the GOP fell apart? Because I'm pretty sure they have their own person running for president and he's getting a percentage of the vote.

Oh, you took "they'd die" literally? Yeah, they can keep losing national elections indefinitely. The house becomes incredibly unfavorable to them if anything comes of Obama's anti-gerrymandering thing or the 2020 census, too.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

No, I get that. it's the hyperbole that comes with it that is annoying.

Yeah, fair enough.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 20:25

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Fojar38 posted:

It seems a little weird to be panicking about white turnout in Florida unless you're assuming that every white vote is a vote for Trump even though that includes white women and whites with college educations.

Yuuuup. Women and whites with college degrees have moved way towards Hillary from 2012, and whites without college degree have moved more towards Trump. White turnout up doesn't mean Trump will outperform Romney (doesn't mean he won't either, of course).

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 17:48

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The 2012 results prove it. Heller ran 8 points better than Romney. That is by definition not a 1:1 correlation between ticket results.

People saying that NV-Sen is "a lock" because Clinton is ahead are not looking at the full picture. I agree that Cortez is the slight favorite, but not a lock at all.

He is talking about polling errors being consistent between top of the ticket and down ballot, not that votes are equal.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 17:58

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Ogmius815 posted:

I am Arzying because I am worried huge turnout reports are the silent majority finally materializing for Trump.

I wish this was in CSPAM so I could tell you what I want to tell you :flame:

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 15:46

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Crow Jane posted:

It varies by area. Mine was just pen, paper and a scanner here in Baltimore.

Just voted in Baltimore too, feels good :cool:

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 21:42

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

HOTLANTA MAN posted:

I'm the guy who just yelled gently caress JOE ARPAIO on CNN

I haven't lived in AZ for 8 years, but I love you :swoon:

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 22:04

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Crow Jane posted:

Do you think anyone whose last name isn't Pugh has a shot at mayor? Joshua Harris doesn't seem terrible despite being Green party, I'm halfway curious what'd happen if he won

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever, I've only been here a year and so don't know anything about local politics. Though I understand the answer to your question to be "no," because Baltimore goes democrat. I voted Pugh in the dem primary because she seemed less bad than Dixon.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 22:15

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

XyrlocShammypants posted:

It doesn't even make sense as county, seeing as how there are 29 counties in Utah

The entire county of Utah, obviously

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 22:49

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

negromancer posted:

NO.

As in a cake with a pregnant belly cut open with an umbilical cord coming out and next to the belly a bloody fetus.

Absolutely not work safe, btw in the spoiler.

This is the best cake in the history of cakes

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 22:57

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

CommieGIR posted:

New York Times is calling Florida for Trump

No, they aren't you dummy

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 01:15

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Petr posted:

I know it's only 2% of the vote, but florida looks bad.

why

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 01:17

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Attention idiots: the size of the circle tells you how many votes that area accounts for. Southern FL is bigly dem.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 01:19

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

lozzle posted:

No arzying here, Hillary has this in the bag and it won't be close.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 01:20

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I know that. but i am watching this. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
and trump has Florida and Virginia.

Look at the counties yet to report, or don't and continue being a gigantic baby

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 01:44

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

ImpAtom posted:

Ohio is gonna flip back towards Trump but it's fun to imagine.

No it isn't, Hillary is going to win Ohio

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:07

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Endorph posted:

because all the rural counties report first, then the huge democratic cities report much later

quote for new page

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:10

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Simiain posted:

Clinton is going to win Florida, Ohio and North Carolina. We can all relax

She's going to win one of Arizona or Georgia too

Also :ssj:

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:13

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

straight up brolic posted:

can we agree to at least wait until 20% of the state is reporting to post numbers

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:15

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

BleiddWhitefalcon posted:

Wait, how the gently caress is the Cheeto winning Virginia? Isn't that pretty solidly Democratic?

Endorph posted:

because all the rural counties report first, then the huge democratic cities report much later

Endorph posted:

because all the rural counties report first, then the huge democratic cities report much later

Endorph posted:

because all the rural counties report first, then the huge democratic cities report much later

Endorph posted:

because all the rural counties report first, then the huge democratic cities report much later

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:16

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Ewan posted:

Why are BBC calling 68/57 HRC/DJT whereas both NYT and Guardian have 44/51? What are BBC calling that the others aren't?

who cares

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:27

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

OddObserver posted:

Broward has mostly reported. FL isn't looking good
Thankfully NC looks much better.

gently caress YOU

https://twitter.com/ByronTau/status/796161838098640896

Byron Tau ‏@ByronTau 5m5 minutes ago
Simmer down on Florida everyone. Broward County has 0% election night votes reported.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:30

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Clinton currently winning Broward county (FL) by 40 points with 75/577 precincts reporting

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 02:44

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Florida Betty posted:

I'm watching the VA election website, not CNN: http://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2016%20November%20General/Site/Presidential.html

Under half a percent now.

Lol 10k votes separate them with 15% of the (NoVA) vote still to come in

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 03:37

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

Pollyanna posted:

60% is nowhere near enough. We'd need at least 85%.

You're dumb. She's down 5k votes with 14% left to report.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 03:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 22:43

sourdough: Apr 30, 2012

ImpAtom posted:

No she isn't. Losing VA means she lost, period. It's done.

Lol she's up in VA and gaining a bigger lead

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 03:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

«‹›2 »