Clinton Used Special Program to Delete Emails (BleachBit) - Polidicks

[B][url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425[/url][/B] [quote] Hillary Clinton’s lawyers used a special tool to delete emails from her personal server so that “even God can’t read them,” House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy said on Thursday. Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the use of [B]BleachBit, computer software whose website advertises that it can “prevent recovery” of files[/B], is further proof that Clinton had something to hide in deleting personal emails from the private email system she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Clinton has long said that the deleted emails were all of a personal nature, relating largely to yoga and her daughter’s wedding, but Gowdy said he did not know whether the Democratic nominee considered emails pertaining to the Clinton Foundation to be personal. [B]It’s a question he said he hopes reporters ask Clinton the next chance they get[/B]. [/quote] Regarding that last bolded bit, I think it's funny that we're at a point where a statement like that needs to be qualified with "the next chance they get" because Clinton refuses to hold a press conference and address the myriad of questions that the public has for her, after being caught lying time and time again. [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/24/hillary-clinton-still-has-no-good-answer-on-why-she-hasnt-held-a-press-conference-in-263-days/]It has been 265 days since Clinton held a press conference.[/url] BleachBit is so proud of their software and the fact that it was used by Clinton, they advertise it on their homepage: [t]https://i.imgur.com/iMqlSXC.png[/t]

Pretty good advertising for your product, to be honest. These things are great for disposing of old hard drives, but I've only ever used dban. Haven't heard of BleachBit until now. Sounds like it has more control than just nuke the drive it's saved to like dban.

Wow, yeah, there's no denying the intent if someone explicitly wants to securely delete something. Nice big fuck-you to the FOIA, christ. "You want access to our publicly-funded correspondence and actions? Fuck you, we nuked it from orbit. Suck it tax-payer." On the topic of Bleachbit: I've honestly never seen any reason to do anything more than a couple of runs of: dd -if /dev/urandum of=/dev/$yourdrive (Reads a shit-ton of random numbers, and writes them onto whatever drive you put in. Nukes pretty much everything on it, on a very low level). After the second run, whatever after-image that might be recoverable from just zero-ing the drive is as-good-as gone. At their core, all "Secure Delete" software does pretty much the same thing. I mean, you need a Linux machine for the "dd" command, but anyone that has a need to do this, would probably have that. Honestly, if you want data on a drive to be absolutely gone, light it up with termite, blow it up, crush it in a machine.

Just makes it more of a laugh that Comey and the FBI let her off on the "intent" exemption. Once again, are we supposed to believe she accidentally installed and used this software?

[QUOTE=Krahn;50953253]Wow, yeah, there's no denying the intent if someone explicitly wants to securely delete something. Nice big fuck-you to the FOIA, christ. "You want access to our publicly-funded correspondence and actions? Fuck you, we nuked it from orbit. Suck it tax-payer." On the topic of Bleachbit: I've honestly never seen any reason to do anything more than a couple of runs of: dd -if /dev/urandum of=/dev/$yourdrive (Reads a shit-ton of random numbers, and writes them onto whatever drive you put in. Nukes pretty much everything on it, on a very low level). After the second run, whatever after-image that might be recoverable from just zero-ing the drive is as-good-as gone. At their core, all "Secure Delete" software does pretty much the same thing. I mean, you need a Linux machine for the "dd" command, but anyone that has a need to do this, would probably have that. Honestly, if you want data on a drive to be absolutely gone, light it up with termite, blow it up, crush it in a machine.[/QUOTE] The point of these programs is to be idiot proof. As in, you don't actually need to know how a computer even works to nuke your drive. Might as well let the automated tool garble up a HDD and zero it for you rather than fucking around in a terminal. Less chance you'll fuck something up if you don't know how to use terminals that well.

[QUOTE=Krahn;50953253]Wow, yeah, there's no denying the intent if someone explicitly wants to securely delete something. Nice big fuck-you to the FOIA, christ. "You want access to our publicly-funded correspondence and actions? Fuck you, we nuked it from orbit. Suck it tax-payer." On the topic of Bleachbit: I've honestly never seen any reason to do anything more than a couple of runs of: dd -if /dev/urandum of=/dev/$yourdrive (Reads a shit-ton of random numbers, and writes them onto whatever drive you put in. Nukes pretty much everything on it, on a very low level). After the second run, whatever after-image that might be recoverable from just zero-ing the drive is as-good-as gone. At their core, all "Secure Delete" software does pretty much the same thing. I mean, you need a Linux machine for the "dd" command, but anyone that has a need to do this, would probably have that. Honestly, if you want data on a drive to be absolutely gone, light it up with termite, blow it up, crush it in a machine.[/QUOTE] [I]Some[/I] people do consider 1/2 pass random deletion on a magnetic drive to still be sensitive. There are specific techniques dealing with the encoding of the drive being erased in combination with 4+ passes of random to be more secure. (so 5 or more passes). Granted, us normal people likely a single random would be fine. But, it kinda makes sense for a state-actor level person like Hillary to rely on a longer-running tool.

[QUOTE=Krahn;50953253]Wow, yeah, there's no denying the intent if someone explicitly wants to securely delete something. Nice big fuck-you to the FOIA, christ. "You want access to our publicly-funded correspondence and actions? Fuck you, we nuked it from orbit. Suck it tax-payer." On the topic of Bleachbit: [B]I've honestly never seen any reason to do anything more than a couple of runs of:[/B] dd -if /dev/urandum of=/dev/$yourdrive (Reads a shit-ton of random numbers, and writes them onto whatever drive you put in. Nukes pretty much everything on it, on a very low level). After the second run, whatever after-image that might be recoverable from just zero-ing the drive is as-good-as gone. At their core, all "Secure Delete" software does pretty much the same thing. I mean, you need a Linux machine for the "dd" command, but anyone that has a need to do this, would probably have that. Honestly, if you want data on a drive to be absolutely gone, light it up with termite, blow it up, crush it in a machine.[/QUOTE] Isn't not using Linux a reason enough?

oh gasp the news conference thing, its not as if she hasnt been at town halls, debates, taken questions at stump speeches or even done interviews in the intervening time

[QUOTE=Sableye;50953381]oh gasp the news conference thing, its not as if she hasnt been at town halls, debates, taken questions at stump speeches or even done interviews in the intervening time[/QUOTE] Just move along folks, ignore the fact that no other candidate is this allergic to the press! It's okay because she fields questions at town halls packed with her supporters, don't worry about it! [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] Imagine if Trump refused to speak to the press with the same conviction Clinton does. Be honest with yourself, would you be defending him like you are Clinton, or would you be lambasting him for dodging reporters and avoiding hard questions that may make him look bad? I think everyone knows the answer, regardless of how you choose to reply.

Couldn't she just argue that secure deletions are routine for her for security purposes?

[QUOTE=srobins;50953442]Just move along folks, ignore the fact that no other candidate is this allergic to the press![/QUOTE] Hahahaha whaattttt. Trump has outright said he would prevent the press from reporting on him if he doesn't like them. In fact, he's already started doing just that; [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/donald-trump-media-ban-guardian-denied-entry-campaign-event[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html[/url] [url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/[/url] If anything, Clinton has somewhat decent relations with the press. Comparatively. Despite there being a hardcore of right/ alt-right websites reporting on her "poor health" and "murders" and constantly bringing up fucking Benghazi like it means anything, she isn't banning them or taking them to court (as far as I know). Trump however, has a history of trying to silence the press when they call him out on any of his shit.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50953456]Couldn't she just argue that secure deletions are routine for her for security purposes?[/QUOTE] Secure deletions at the appropriate time and under the appropriate protocol, yes. Secure deletions just as investigators are asking her to hand over emails, tens of thousands of which have been recovered after her deletion efforts (and proven to be work related or confidential), no. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;50953465]Hahahaha whaattttt. Trump has outright said he would prevent the press from reporting on him if he doesn't like them. In fact, he's already started doing just that; [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/donald-trump-media-ban-guardian-denied-entry-campaign-event[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html[/url] [url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/[/url] If anything, Clinton has somewhat decent relations with the press. Comparatively. Despite there being a hardcore of right/ alt-right websites reporting on her "poor health" and "murders" and constantly bringing up fucking Benghazi like it means anything, she isn't banning them or taking them to court (as far as I know). Trump however, has a history of trying to silence the press when they call him out on any of his shit.[/QUOTE] I think you're missing the point. Trump still speaks with the press, gives lengthy interviews, etc. The statement isn't being made as praise for Trump, if anything it's an insult to Clinton that her moronic opponent seems more capable of interacting with the press and opening himself up for criticism (despite how poorly he reacts). Please don't turn this into some witch hunt for Trump supporters, because I'm not one.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50953456]Couldn't she just argue that secure deletions are routine for her for security purposes?[/QUOTE]She wasn't supposed to have any of this at all, if she needed a reason for deleting secure material then she had secure material where she wasn't supposed to and that's the issue. There was clear intent, she knew what she was doing, and this just makes it even more obvious.

Yeah he speaks to the press and gives lengthy interviews as long as the press disagrees with him, then when they don't they revoke their press privileges. Clinton doesn't do press conferences because the format isn't to her strengths. I don't think that's a particularly egregious aspect of her. I'd actually prefer it if Trump was more like that and less tyrannical in how he deals with the press.

[QUOTE=srobins;50953467]I think you're missing the point. Trump still speaks with the press, gives lengthy interviews, etc. The statement isn't being made as praise for Trump, if anything it's an insult to Clinton that her moronic opponent seems more capable of interacting with the press and opening himself up for criticism (despite how poorly he reacts). Please don't turn this into some witch hunt for Trump supporters, because I'm not one.[/QUOTE] Trump only talks with the press he likes. Surrounding himself with more yes-men as per usual. That isn't a "healthy relationship" with the press. It's clear bias in press freedom. Either talk to none of them and let them report on whatever, or talk to all of them. Picking and choosing looks bad unless you're excluding publications that are objectively tabloid trash (Breitbart, The Daily Heil, The Young Turks, etc.). Preventing The Washington Post and the fucking Guardian from coming to press events is ridiculous if you're allowing other press groups in.

[QUOTE=srobins;50953467]Please don't turn this into some witch hunt for Trump supporters, because I'm not one.[/QUOTE] it's p cowardly to start feigning that you aren't a Trump supporter right after your claim that Trump is better than Clinton at something is torpedoed. No one said you were a Trump supporter, you're just wrong.

[QUOTE=srobins;50953442]Imagine if Trump refused to speak to the press[/QUOTE] I dream of a day such as this, tbh.

I would much rather Clinton not do press conferences than do press conferences that purposefully fill the room with friendly recorders.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50953506]Trump only talks with the press he likes. Surrounding himself with more yes-men as per usual. That isn't a "healthy relationship" with the press. It's clear bias in press freedom. Either talk to none of them and let them report on whatever, or talk to all of them. Picking and choosing looks bad unless you're excluding publications that are objectively tabloid trash (Breitbart, The Daily Heil, The Young Turks, etc.). Preventing The Washington Post and the fucking Guardian from coming to press events is ridiculous if you're allowing other press groups in.[/QUOTE] Okay, since you seem physically incapable of digesting the point being made here: I'm not praising Trump or his relationship with the press. I'm using it as a contrast for the frequency of interactions with the press as compared to Clinton. Trump, the man who as you point out is extremely hostile towards press, wants to impose authoritarian punishments and restrictions on free press, and who revokes access frequently, [I]still has a more open relationship with the press than Clinton.[/I] I'm not saying Trump is good, I'm saying Clinton is doing bad. The fact that you have to justify her relationship (or lack thereof) with the press by pointing out naughty things Trump has done is crazy. Please settle down for a second and recognize, for the third time, that I'm not praising Trump or trying to paint his press relationship as something to strive for. I'm on your team here, I agree Trump is an idiot and treats the press horribly. I'm only making the comparison to note that despite how bad he is, he still interacts more with the press than Clinton. Is that simple enough?

[QUOTE=Krahn;50953253]Wow, yeah, there's no denying the intent if someone explicitly wants to securely delete something. Nice big fuck-you to the FOIA, christ. "You want access to our publicly-funded correspondence and actions? Fuck you, we nuked it from orbit. Suck it tax-payer." On the topic of Bleachbit: I've honestly never seen any reason to do anything more than a couple of runs of: dd -if /dev/urandum of=/dev/$yourdrive (Reads a shit-ton of random numbers, and writes them onto whatever drive you put in. Nukes pretty much everything on it, on a very low level). After the second run, whatever after-image that might be recoverable from just zero-ing the drive is as-good-as gone. At their core, all "Secure Delete" software does pretty much the same thing. I mean, you need a Linux machine for the "dd" command, but anyone that has a need to do this, would probably have that. Honestly, if you want data on a drive to be absolutely gone, light it up with termite, blow it up, crush it in a machine.[/QUOTE] She's just deleting some emails though, so I think for eunuchs commands shred would be more appropriate. e.g. shred -n5 -v /var/benghazi (-n is the number of passes. 5 is pretty paranoid but not ridiculous like the default of 25 sometimes)

I use this to delete all the cp I download, it works great. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick? or real deal?" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=srobins;50953525]Okay, since you seem physically incapable of digesting the point being made here: I'm not praising Trump or his relationship with the press. I'm using it as a contrast for the frequency of interactions with the press as compared to Clinton. Trump, the man who as you point out is extremely hostile towards press, wants to impose authoritarian punishments and restrictions on free press, and who revokes access frequently, [I]still has a more open relationship with the press than Clinton.[/I] I'm not saying Trump is good, I'm saying Clinton is doing bad. The fact that you have to justify her relationship (or lack thereof) with the press by pointing out naughty things Trump has done is crazy. Please settle down for a second and recognize, for the third time, that I'm not praising Trump or trying to paint his press relationship as something to strive for. I'm on your team here, I agree Trump is an idiot and treats the press horribly. I'm only making the comparison to note that despite how bad he is, he still interacts more with the press than Clinton. Is that simple enough?[/QUOTE] Trump is doing fine now. Give him power, and the freedom of the press is gone. Clinton is doing mediocrley with the press, but give her power, and they still have the power they have now. Sure it's simple enough but it doesn't mean you're right or we have to agree that is the only breakdown of the situation that makes sense.

I've usually used Dave's Nukeboot to wipe hard drives. If all else fails, a nice hot fire or a few slugs to the drive is equally good.

[QUOTE=OvB;50953160]Pretty good advertising for your product, to be honest. These things are great for disposing of old hard drives, but I've only ever used dban. Haven't heard of BleachBit until now. Sounds like it has more control than just nuke the drive it's saved to like dban.[/QUOTE] I have an old hard drive I fucked up and would like to nuke, both of these sound interesting. Thanks for showing me the program to use, Hillary!

"Clinton is fucking awful" "Okay lol so u SUPPORT TRUMP!?!?!" Why can't they both be fucking awful?

[QUOTE=geel9;50953854]"Clinton is fucking awful" "Okay lol so u SUPPORT TRUMP!?!?!" Why can't they both be fucking awful?[/QUOTE] Question Hillary and you're an alt-right trump supporting misogonist

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50953582]Trump is doing fine now. Give him power, and the freedom of the press is gone. Clinton is doing mediocrley with the press, but give her power, and they still have the power they have now. Sure it's simple enough but it doesn't mean you're right or we have to agree that is the only breakdown of the situation that makes sense.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you mean with this post? Clearly you can read, clearly you saw me say that I do not support Trump, so why bother bringing up that he will hurt freedom of the press when I explicitly acknowledged that fact in the post you're replying to? What exactly do you disagree with here?

[QUOTE=srobins;50954096]I don't understand what you mean with this post? Clearly you can read, clearly you saw me say that I do not support Trump, so why bother bringing up that he will hurt freedom of the press when I explicitly acknowledged that fact in the post you're replying to? What exactly do you disagree with here?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]we don't have to agree that is the only breakdown of the situation that makes sense.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=srobins;50954096]What exactly do you disagree with here?[/QUOTE] That Trump is better with the media because he creates an echo chamber of yes men that give him positive coverage over Clinton who doesn't seek positive or negative coverage at all. Like I said, I have much more respect for Clinton not doing press conferences over Trump doing press conferences where no one asks him any hardball questions. [QUOTE=geel9;50953854]"Clinton is fucking awful" "Okay lol so u SUPPORT TRUMP!?!?!" Why can't they both be fucking awful?[/QUOTE] Misconstruing the argument from both parties.

[QUOTE=geel9;50953854]"Clinton is fucking awful" "Okay lol so u SUPPORT TRUMP!?!?!" Why can't they both be fucking awful?[/QUOTE]Ive been screaming this from the rooftops for what feels like ages. People wonder why I don't want to vote this year. It's like asking me if I want to drink a bleach and ammonia cocktail or go soak in a hot bath of acid. I'd rather kick the shit out of the person who offered me that "choice" to begin with.