As far as I'm concerned the modern olympic revival is dead and should be burned to the ground. Maybe a post-modern olympics could be reborn from the ashes after a break but the current machinery needs to stop.
Also remember that Trademarks are designed to prevent confusion, not bestow ownership of words. As long as you're referring to the real Olympics when you say "Olympics" it's not a trademark violation. The IOC anc USOC are trying to push the bounds to mean that anyone who says the word "Olympics" is claiming they are affiliated with the Olympics. That's just not how our language works; for example:
"The once proud and inspirational Olympic Games, International Olympic Committee, and United States Olympic Committee have slowly transitioned into a rancid pool of self aggrandizement and exploitation more disgusting and dangerous than the actual virally fecund waters they hope to subject world class athletes to in exchange for billions in corrupt corporate sponsorships as well as untold costs in local revenue and societal wellfare."
Talking about the real Olympics? Yep. Not claiming to represent the Olympics? Nope. Then you're A-Okay!
Fingerprints make terrible authenticators (passwords). Think of all the best password advice and then try to apply it to a fingerprint.
1) Don’t post it in plain sight 2) Don’t just use one password 3) Change your password if it is exposed 4) Don’t use dictionary words 5) Include numbers, capital letters and symbols
We leave your fingerprints all over the place every day. You've got 10 fingers, so you've got 10 passwords. What happens when you injure one or a company you've trusted has its database hacked? 9 passwords... The complexity of the hack is correlated with the complexity of the scanner, not the complexity of your finger print. Some scanners check only a few points and allow leeway to prevent failed scans. The "dictionary" is limited by scanner technology, which is out of your control, not by the "password" you select.
Guilty people get equal protection under the law, that's how we find out they're guilty to begin with. Tossing all the law-abiding citizens under the bus with a terrible precedent to 'get' one scofflaw who sure as sh*t looks guilty is wholly unacceptable.
Most people don't appreciate the concepts of (or difference between) Identification, Authentication, and Authorization. Fingerprints can be fine for Identification, claiming you are someone, just like a username that may be public knowledge. But it's not an Authentication and all the fingerprint scanners in the world seem to ignore that for ease of access.
It's reminds me of those services that could charge fees to your account based solely on your phone number. Just because someone knows my publicly available identification info doesn't mean that that 1) are me and 2) are authorized to make charges.
Powell had a couple of "whoopee boo-boos" but he didn't intentionally avoid the secure systems provided for his entire tenure, physically leaving the SCIF rooms all his actual work was done in to use an unsanctioned blackberry in the name of "convenience".
Trouble is, the security they ran on the server was so bad they have no idea whether it was breached or not. The "logs" don't show any hacks, but they also don't show no hacks. There have been multiple statements from high level intelligence agency chiefs stating they would be shocked if the server had not been infiltrated by foreign governments. Essentially we'll never know the full text of the emails, but China has had them for years.
Yup, yup, yup. She never wanted anyone to see any of them, personal or professional. That was the whole point.
Her Dept signed sworn docs that they turned over all pertinent records, including all work related emails, even though NONE of her emails were archived. Woops! 21 months later they submitted 30,000 emails (as a result of Guccifer 1.0 and the Bengazi hearings) and swore (again!) that was it, the other 33,000 weren't work related. But FOIA emails in her staffers and other government officals' inboxes have repeatedly proved that to be false. The FBI (and the Russians and Chinese probably) are reviewing those last ones that were never willingly released.
Remember, Bill was President Clinton first. They set up a foundation that has received around 3 billion dollars in donations, which is affiliated with mail.presidentclinton.com. There's a lot of speculation that Hillary was using this 'stealth' server to hide the mixing of business and pleasure between the Dept of State and the Foundation. That's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' for me, I'm content to focus on the legitimate and provable FOIA and mishandling State Secrets claims.
According to publicly available computer records, the IP (Internet Protocol) address for the mail.presidentclinton.com server is 126.96.36.199 from at least 2009 to 2011. Records also show that mail.clintonemail.com server has the same exact IP address, 188.8.131.52, from at least May 21, 2010 to October 21, 2010. That means the two servers must have been in the same location for that overlapping time period.
The Clinton staffers using blank logs as proof that nothing happened is like claiming your store wasn't robbed, even though the doors were wide open for 4 years, because the security cameras were turned off. We didn't see anyone come in a take all the files... we didn't see them NOT get taken either...
Stupid enough to buy an encryption cert but misconfigure the server to use the default one instead? http://archive.is/mfOH8
In order to ensure her e-mails were private, Clinton’s system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet -- a good step, McGeorge said. However, when McGeorge examined the set-up this week he found it used a default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton’s service. Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate. “It’s bewildering to me,” he said. “We should have a much better standard of security for the secretary of state.”
It is a ton of information with links to the sources; details like how she wasn't allowed to bring her Blackberry into her office (a SCIF) so she had to leave the secured area to read her email instead of using a secured computer.