Snowden: Clinton's Private Email Server Is a 'Problem' 344
An anonymous reader points out comments from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a new interview with Al Jazeera about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was the U.S. Secretary of State. Snowden said, "Anyone who has the clearances that the Secretary of State has or the director of any top level agency has knows how classified information should be handled. When the unclassified systems of the United States government — which has a full time information security staff — regularly get hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server ... is completely ridiculous." While Snowden didn't feel he had enough information to say Clinton's actions were a threat to national security, he did say that less prominent government employees would have probably been prosecuted for doing the same thing. For her part, Clinton said she used the private server out of convenience: "I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be."
total bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton: "I was so busy dealing with the world's problems that instead of using my work email that I get for free I got some guy I knew to build a server for me, my associates, and my husband's foundation."
Does anyone actually believe this line of bullshit?
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was not thinking a lot
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
no but this gem, i believe
I was not thinking a lot
We hold some truths to be self-evident.
I mean, FFS, the Clintons have been in positions of power for what? 36 years... (since the 1st term began as Governor of Arkansas.)
It's clear she should have an inkling how to act in office, and yet, like so many of the political ilk, she uses her skills for evil instead of good.
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it was more like "The rules only apply the schlubs, they don't apply to me."
Re: (Score:2)
no but this gem, i believe
I was not thinking a lot
I like this one:
"I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be."
Isn't this why they have a staff to make these decisions and procedures in place as to how the "email system" should be?
Clinton said she used the private server out of convenience
Oh, so we should all be able to make these kinds of decisions for our own convenience. Obviously that's the most important consideration.
Re:total bullshit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are IT staff responsible for this. So, what role did those folks have in allowing classified e-mail to leave (and re-enter) the network? Or are we supposed to believe that she just appended her signature block to hillary@mysever.com and nobody noticed when Bashar al-Assad asked Clinton for her biscuit recipe? Did Clinton just use an auto-forwarder configured in an Outlook client?
Can someone clue me in on the technical background of this? FFS, I can't send a single e-mail from my corporate network without the legal bullshit automatically appended.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the hell else is the IT guy who set this all up for her taking the fifth??
If he actually explains to anyone how he set up that private server and then connected it to the state department servers he is going to be going to jail for a looong time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if you're not willing to prosecute Bush for not thinking, why the zealism to get Hillary prosecuted?..
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
hillary can do damage still, bush cant
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, let's move on for a war criminal wanted for crimes against humanity and focus on a mail server that was receiving non-classified email as much as a state state.gov address would ....
Neither President Obama nor Bush is "wanted" for any "crimes against humanity" by the ICC, INTERPOL, or any government. The emails that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned over from her server have been found to include at least two emails with Top Secret information, and that information was always Top Secret, as well as hundreds more with classified information. The FBI is investigating this matter, has seized the server, and the emails held by her attorney. It seems pretty clear that one or more people were reckless with handling classified information, and may have passed it on to people without security clearances and an official need to know. There is a genuine possibility someone will be prosecuted for this.
Clinton emails contained spy satellite data on North Korean nukes [washingtontimes.com]
New Clinton Violations In Use Of Thumb Drives For Emails [dailycaller.com]
Re:total bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Torture.
Stupid fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Nothing the US did constituted torture under US law at the time.
You also got the use of "stupid" wrong.
And the Holocaust wasn't illegal under German law at the time. When AT&T allowed NSA to tap their lines that was illegal at the time, and Congress then passed an ex-post-facto law exonerating them.
Please explain how both of those fall into your simplistic picture, preferably without your head exploding from the contradictions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm stupid, not malicious."
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, Democrats know she's lying too (Score:5, Insightful)
But they have to pretend she wan't because they know they'll end up holding their nose and voting for her anyway.
Because it's their graft, dishonesty and corruption, and Republicans can never be allowed to win, ever, for any reason.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you say it as if Republicans aren't exactly the same thing. Do you think a lot of them thought Bush would be a great President?
Re:Oh, Democrats know she's lying too (Score:4, Insightful)
here is food for thought: perhaps more conservative organizations were questioned by IRS because proportionally THEY do more bad things?
I think most conservatives would want to fire a police chief who told his deputies to go out and find some N-------- who weren't doing anything and harass them. From what we've seen leak out of Lerner's emails, that's what the IRS was doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad evidence shows that typical cover-ups from this administration continue and the persons performing illegal activities are government officials.
IRS permanently destroyed up to 24,000 Lerner emails after subpoena [washingtonexaminer.com]
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF RESPRESENTATIVES IRS E-mails: Part II [house.gov]
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone actually believe this line of bullshit?
Unfortunately, yes... It should be obvious. Lots of people are going to vote for her regardless... There's not a lot that be done. Maybe, if we can wake up the non-voting block, it might be possible to defeat democrats and republicans. Even together they are a minority block of less than 40%.
What other choice is there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sanders is interesting, but I doubt he is going to get national traction. What other realistic choice do you have?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even like her, but I will vote for her just to keep a Republican out of the white house.
This is why we need Instant-runoff voting [wikipedia.org]. It's the same for both sides, there's usually a third-party candidate for either side who is more practical politically, but doesn't have enough corporate sponsors to really run in the race--to stand a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have something better than plurality voting, but most voters don't bother to utilize it. Instead they sit at home during the primaries and only bother to vote until they have only two choices, if they bother to vote at all.
Since the states have their primaries on different dates, the effect is a sort of run-off voting. The first states vote, and those candidates who do poorly are ignored by voters in other states who vote on later dates, so that they can put their votes where they will make a d
Re:What other choice is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even like her, but I will vote for her just to keep a Republican out of the white house.
The irony is that you're part of the problem. The same people who will vote for any R just to keep a D out of the white house.
Further, your vote might not even count, if you're in one of the majority of states that aren't a contest, which is even more of a crime.
Frankly, our elections are a joke, anyone with any brains can see that. You think we really have a choice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people are going to vote for her because she seems to be the only Democrat that is going to have a chance of winning...
Anyone who votes for her based on that logic is so stupid that they don't deserve to live, much less vote. Hillary being the Democrat nominee is the absolute best way of guaranteeing that we end up with a Republican president.
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone actually believe this line of bullshit?
Honestly, if she was using the e-mail address associated with that SMTP server before she become Secretary of State, yes.
Most people don't like to use several e-mail accounts. It's a pain in the butt. If she was used to using that one and used it as she communicated with the officials that became her superiors and subordinates before becoming Secretary of State while planning the transition, then they were used to contacting here there and she was used to contacting them from there.
Should she have switched to a government-provided e-mail account? Probably. I don't say, "absolutely," specifically because of the high profile leaks that we've seen over the last decade, such that the mail might actually have been safer on that server that no one thought to compromise than on a government one.
As an aside, Governor Palin used private e-mail for government functions too, actually registering addresses with public mail servers (yahoo if I remember right) after becoming Governor of Alaska, and specifically citing her newly-found position as the account name. There was no prosecution over that either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hillary cannot hide behind the retarded defense as believably as Sarah.
It's much more likely she saw an advantage to being able to delete her own emails
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. She thought she wasn't leaving a paper trail which could lalter be used against her if she said or did something she might later regret.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary not only picked the emails that were released she carefully wiped the server with multiple writes
According to her, she used a cloth.
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside, Governor Palin used private e-mail for government functions too, actually registering addresses with public mail servers (yahoo if I remember right) after becoming Governor of Alaska, and specifically citing her newly-found position as the account name. There was no prosecution over that either.
There was prosecution over that. The son-of-a-Democrat-state-Congressman who hacked her email was convicted and IIRC, he did jail time. But there was no official business in Palin's emails. Remember, the emails at one point were in the custody of the son of an elected official from the Democratic Party. If there was anything incriminating in that email, you'd think the kid, or his father, or his father's party, would have publicized it better.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people don't like to use several e-mail accounts. It's a pain in the butt. If she was used to using that one and used it as she communicated with the officials that became her superiors and subordinates before becoming Secretary of State while planning the transition, then they were used to contacting here there and she was used to contacting them from there.
"Pain in the butt" is not a justification of using a personal email account for official government business.
Should she have switched to a government-provided e-mail account? Probably. I don't say, "absolutely," specifically because of the high profile leaks that we've seen over the last decade, such that the mail might actually have been safer on that server that no one thought to compromise than on a government one.
The answer should obviously be "absolutely". The law states all official correspondence must be on a government secured system. This assures all email is kept, archived, and secured. She used a personal email system specifically to get around these safeguards, going so far as to warn her people not to use their government accounts to contact her. She knew exactly what she was doing -- keeping her
Re:total bullshit? (Score:4, Informative)
Leaks or not, the law says she was supposed to use her secure government-provided email for work. She ignored that law.
No it didn't say that till two years after she left office. Also the government email isn't secure and can only be used for non secure communication. Secure communications require usage of an internal distribution server that is secure and is not actually email.
Re: (Score:2)
Factual and correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Also the government email isn't secure and can only be used for non secure communication. Secure communications require usage of an internal distribution server that is secure and is not actually email..
???
Secret email is email. It's on a segregated, airgapped network, but it's still POP3 or IMAP and SMTP. Everyone who works for the government has a regular email address that you can't use for classified communications, and then if you have access to be on a classified network, you have an additional email address on the classified side.
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
Leaks or not, the law says she was supposed to use her secure government-provided email for work. She ignored that law.
No it didn't say that till two years after she left office. Also the government email isn't secure and can only be used for non secure communication.
Nice cherry-pick, but her home email server is not considered secure communications either. I'll address the "two years after she left office" below.
Secure communications require usage of an internal distribution server that is secure and is not actually email.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Secure communications are carried out using the same fucking tools as unclassified communications on networks that appear *nearly* the fucking the same to end-users. In this context, ZOMFG, Hillary is an end-user. One that is a headache for admins, but an end-fucking-user nonetheless.
There is literally nothing Hillary could do better on her home server than she could do on the state department's servers, except violate the Federal Records Act [wikia.com]; unless of course your argument is that the functional portion of 44 U.S. Code 3101 (June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title V, 506(a), as added Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, 6(d),64 Stat. 58) was not in effect when Hillary left office in Feb 2013 (hint: she was just shy of 3 when the law went into effect). For fuck's sake, the law was modified halfway through her term, by Obama's executive order and she still fucked that up (regardless of your feelings about EOrders and their impact on Federal agencies, agency heads are expected to salute the flagpole or GTFO).
I find it really hard to believe neither of the lawyers in that family could see that was a bad idea. I picture the dumber of the two saying something to the effect of "Um, hon, running an email server out of the house for SECSTATE business is dumber than me sticking a cigar up Monica's hoo-hoo and then cumming on her dress."
Look! I'd really, really like to embrace Hillary as a candidate, but I find her history of sneaky [wikipedia.org], slimy [wikipedia.org], dishonesty [wikipedia.org] fairly well established.
I also hate every Republican candidate, for varying reasons. I hope I'm not put into a position of choosing between one of them and her in the ballot booth.
Quit trying to defend her. Stop siding with THEM. I gives a fuck - one side or the other PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING, FLOAT A CANDIDATE THAT IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A FUNCTIONAL RETARD SLURPING ON THE GENITALS OF MULTIPLE 501(c)(3) PACs.
Let us all stop being sheep, please.
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell when she is lying. Her lips move!
Re: (Score:2)
Now at some point this probably should have occurred to her IT staff, but since there was no rule against what she was doing and there had been no scandals about this previously maybe they decided it didn't
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Informative)
but since there was no rule against what she was doing
No, that's the problem. There were not only rules, but there were laws against what she was doing. Had you or I broken those laws, then ignored a federal order to turn over those e-mails and wiped our e-mail server instead, we'd be sitting in an iron cage right now.
Re: (Score:2)
but since there was no rule against what she was doing
No, that's the problem. There were not only rules, but there were laws against what she was doing. Had you or I broken those laws, then ignored a federal order to turn over those e-mails and wiped our e-mail server instead, we'd be sitting in an iron cage right now.
With the advance of technology since the 70's, 18 1/2 minutes of tape is equivalent to about 100 servers now, so just wiping 1 server is only like a 10 seconds or so, not much to get worked up about, it could have accidentally happened when people were transcribing the emails, right? Maybe her chief of staff should blame this whole thing on a "sinister force" ;^)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's the problem. There were not only rules, but there were laws against what she was doing. Had you or I broken those laws, then ignored a federal order to turn over those e-mails and wiped our e-mail server instead, we'd be sitting in an iron cage right now.
According to the State Department she violated neither policies nor laws.
The retention laws only required that copies of relevent emails be saved but it didn't specify how - one of the ways that was accepted was printing out the emails, another was to CC a government email address that would retain the email.
There have been new laws, that were enacted two years after she left office that would now require usage of a government email address for correspondence or a copy of the correspondence to be on a gover
Re:total bullshit? (Score:5, Funny)
According to the State Department, the former head of the State Department violated neither policies nor laws.
Well, case closed then!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't remember Palin using her Yahoo account for government business.
I remember that it is a felony to use the government email for campaigning and other non-government uses. .gov account..."
I also remember scores of times in her hacked and published Yahoo mail where she said, "...this is government business, please reply to my
But no, I don't remember her executing gubernatorial duties through her Yahoo account. I'm pretty sure the Democrats would have seized on such a thing, but if you have something
Re: (Score:2)
Now at some point this probably should have occurred to her IT staff, but since there was no rule against what she was doing and there had been no scandals about this previously maybe they decided it didn't matter.
But apparently there was a scandal about using non-official email: Scott Gration (former Ambassador to Kenya). As I recall, Hillary actually ended up firing him after the office of inspector general report came out about him (I think technically he tendered his resignation right before the report came out, but that's equivalent to firing in the world of government). It's just that not using official email wasn't the only thing he was fired for, so people don't remember it too well (it was buried in the ot
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the cronies missed, or didn't care, that using a private server would look bad. So that's either a sign of incompetent cronies, or a sign of cronies who care more about doing their jobs than they do about playing at adversarial politics...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Strangely this was not a problem for the hard Radical Right when Karl Rove created the same setup for the Bush Administration (probably a violation of the Federal Records Act for a President and his White House advisors) and then ordered the backup tapes destroyed when it was discovered (definitely a violation of multiple federal laws and regulations). IOKIYAR.
sPh
Re: (Score:3)
bush isnt in office, and isnt running for office. bush can no longer harm us anymore
hillary can
And she wants to be President! (Score:5, Insightful)
She doesn't understand why this is a big deal, and says "I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be." - really? She's the Secretary of State and doesn't think of security? Why would anyone want to see her as President?
Re:And she wants to be President! (Score:5, Interesting)
We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be.
And she wants to have her finger on The Button (tm). Doesn't anyone else find this disturbing?
Re:And she wants to be President!Bullshit.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, she is applying for the top security job in the US!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why don't we do an experiment? Elect Clinton and see how many wars are started. This constant smear campaign story submissions about trivial flaws is tiresome since her rivals are likely an order of magnitude worse.
Considering she instigated the whole Libya civil war, I'd say we can expect to see a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
And Libya was an icon of peaceful commerce and US support _before_ she did anything as Secretary of State?
Moammar Ghadaffi had 42 years of corrupt leadership of Libya to instigate a civil war, and to alienate other nations, and he did a very thorough task of it. The amazing thing is that the war took so _long_ to start. Hillary Clinton could not have added much to trigger the war, except to help send in US troops, which she did not do.
Not to overplay the "ironic" label, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not to overplay the "ironic" label, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this history of public service? She had a Senate seat that was given to her, simply as preparation to be President. As if she's from New York, or anywhere near it...
Well, she did make a 10,000% profit in commodities in six months, and giant profits on Arkansas land deals while her husband was Governor. I'll grant those feats are pretty impressive. Not as impressive as a 'charity' foundation that rakes in many millions from overseas billionaires while she is simultaneously Secretary of State. What public service, exactly, has that charity funded by the way?
That's what I see in the 'public record' AC. What do you see?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Bush the Younger lived and worked in Texas as a young man. I believe he is retired there even now.
Hillary, on the other hand, had to quickly buy a house in NY as she got on the ballot. There was some question at the time as to whether she was actually a resident.
But I didn't attempt to draw an equivalence between the two families in the first place.
Lies upon lies (Score:5, Insightful)
"I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be"
Clinton thought hard about the kind of email system there would be. It was the kind under her exclusive control; to be wiped at will. As usual, the Clinton's statements are 100% out of phase with the truth.
Someone should have been perp walked by now.
Gowdy is starting to subpoena people; Pagliano — one of Clinton's henchmen from the State Department — may have to publically take the 5th as soon as next Thursday. Democrats need to get use to the idea of months and years of ugly, damning headlines, just like the 90's. But don't worry; eventually Clinton will get back on the "rich+corporations pay their fair share" message and our hate filled sheeple will put her in office, because that's who we are.
Trying to be dismissive (Score:5, Insightful)
We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be.
It's obvious she's trying to imply that there were lots of important issues to deal with, and she didn't want to waste time on trivialities. But she's wrong.
The role of Secretary of State often deals with sensitive information from both our own government, governments of other nations, and opposition groups living under repressive regimes. Safeguarding that information is paramount. Being dismissive regarding the security aspects of an important communications tool that was routinely used for classified comminications is troubling because, no matter which way you try to spin it, she comes off either as ignorant or supremely arrogant (or perhaps both). Yes, there was unrest all over, Hillary - and you don't see how mishandling sensitive information about that unrest was problematic?
I'm not looking forward to this next election. Whether you look to the left or to the right, it's clowns all the way down.
Be fair to clowns (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots? How is it that most everything she would put in an email would not be classified at least confidential, if not secret?
I mean, I would think that most every message the Secretary of State writes would be eyes-only to the people it is intended for. There's going to be a handful of "Congratulations on the birth of your Prime Minister's daughter", but most things she sends dealing with government business are going to be sensitive.
I'm not buying the "confused grandma" defense (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary Clinton is not stupid, and she's a lawyer. Before anyone is given access to classified information, my understanding is that they have to take a class in how to manage classified information and they have to sign an agreement saying they will abide by the rules governing classified information.
Now Hillary Clinton is saying that she doesn't really understand all this confusing stuff. "Wipe the server.. you mean with a cloth?" Oh sure, Mrs. Clinton.
About a week before the news broke about her private server, Hillary Clinton was on a talk show and she said [washingtonexaminer.com]: "So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry." Then she said that the reason she set up a private server was so she could carry a single device. Now she's saying she was so busy saving the world that she didn't have time to think about what kind of server to use... which is why she didn't just use the server provided for her to use, but took steps to set up her own server and get everyone to use it?
I'm not buying it. The obvious reason why someone in her position would set up her own server, under her control, is to make sure that she would have control over which of her emails could be unearthed (e.g. by a Freedom of Information Act request). Notice that when she was finally forced to turn over emails, she picked and chose which emails to turn over, and then wiped the server to make sure nobody could ever get anything else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3209380/Former-attorney-general-says-classified-email-scandal-disqualifies-Hillary-Clinton-serving-president-s-prosecuted-breaking-federal-law.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Also, we can't be sure that her private server wasn't compromised. If her admins didn't get every security patch applied fast enough, someone could have 0wned it over the Internet; and if it wasn't guarded 24/7 someone could have gained physical access to the server in the middle of the night. Secretary of State is a high-profile job with access to a whole bunch of secrets; I think China and Russia probably both have copies of all her emails from her time as Secretary of State. (Whereas the USA only has the ones she turned over, printed on paper.)
And we just found out about a really bad smoking gun. Hillary Clinton has claimed that no classified emails were on her server, but we have evidence that she had one or more people systematically copying messages from a secured system and sending them to Hillary's server. Details here [nationalreview.com]. The key quote:
So some group known as "ops" is going to "convert" a message from the classified message system to "the unclassified email system"? That's go-to-prison stuff right there.
If you are a fan of Hillary Clinton... are you okay with a
Re:I'm not buying the "confused grandma" defense (Score:5, Insightful)
So some group known as "ops" is going to "convert" a message from the classified message system to "the unclassified email system"? That's go-to-prison stuff right there.
No, sanitizing classified material and releasing unclassified versions is their job. No "go to prison" there.
'Go-to-prison' comes in when someone orders a subordinate to send them a copy classified material over an insecure communications system. It also disproves any "I didn't know" defense.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a fan of Hillary Clinton
Kind of weird now that you mention it, I don't know anyone who's a Hillary fan anymore. I know plenty of people who were, but aren't anymore. But I don't know anyone who would describe them as a fan.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty, guilty, guilty. Where was the protective high quality router? Who did the backups on both Denver and Chappaqua servers (it seems there were two machines at least.) Was a RAID part of the system? Where were the local and remote backups kept? Who archived the emails? Where are the archives and backups? Who monitored daily machine and server access?
Providing "60,000 pages of paper copies of emails." is just an excuse to hide the metadata in the emails, which is just, well, criminal.
Come on, come o
All Right! Where are the tape backups? (Score:2)
Not one single mention of an email backup function has EVER been mentioned.
No one operates a server where you know accounts are going to have critical communications and enclosures with a tape or HD backup
Re: (Score:2)
"Without" a tape or HD backup. Sorry for the typo.
Yep, it just happened that way (Score:2)
That fact that she got to delete thousands of "personal" emails without any review was an unexpected bonus, that's all.
China (Score:4, Insightful)
We constantly blast China for hacking. I tend to think: If the data is worth stealing, US companies/gov/individuals have a duty to lock it up and protect it. I know it is very American to blame all of one's problems on someone else. If you get hacked, it is your own damn fault.
People such as Hillary have a duty to protect sensitive information. If her email was hacked, don't blame the Chinese (Or North Koreans or Russians...). Blame her.
All systems are compromised (Score:3)
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no such thing as a secure computer. Even if it is never connected to the Internet, but certainly if it is. Government computer/network, corporate, private, personal; they are all penetrated or will be if someone cares to do so. And someone certainly cares to do so for every high level government official in the US, UK, Russia, China, etc.
sPh
The KGB is returning to manual typewriters (Score:2)
Key facts (Score:2)
Here are some key facts that many people get wrong. If you have evidence they are incorrect, feel free to provide alternative evidence.
1. She claimed she did not knowingly send or receive classified info through her server. It's quite possible somebody ELSE sent her classified info when they should not have, and didn't label it properly. Whose "fault" that is, well, we will wait and see.
2. The "office" server she should have been using was NOT designed for classified material either. (There was a separate s
Re: (Score:3)
1. She claimed she did not knowingly send or receive classified info through her server. It's quite possible somebody ELSE sent her classified info when they should not have, and didn't label it properly. Whose "fault" that is, well, we will wait and see.
She was Secretary of State. She didn't think classified stuff would be flowing through that server? Uh huh.
2. The "office" server she should have been using was NOT designed for classified material either. (There was a separate system(s) for that.) Thus, her home server being more of a secrecy risk than the regular office server is a questionable claim.
But when her email was subpoenaed it would have been turned over in a timely manner, without her getting to choose which emails got turned over.
3. Messages that were deemed to have classified info were either mostly or entirely re-classified after the fact. The scope of this is still under investigation.
See #1.
4. Using a home server was NOT illegal at the time, as long as a copy of each work message came from/to a gov't server, which would typically be the case. (So far they have not found a non-copied work message that I know of.)
True. This is how we know that when she cherry picked her messages to turn over, she left quite a few out. "Chelsea, meet me at Starbucks at 3" is quite different from "Hil, this dude will give me $500k for a speaking fee if you don't hold fast t
Re: (Score:2)
Review #2. It's NOT a home versus office server issue. If she had put classified info on the "regular" office server, it would STILL be the INcorrect action.
I'm not sure what your point is here. (Actually, the office server died. It would have been gone.)
Born Classified (Score:2)
A number of emails a secretary of state are inherently classified by nature - the official term is "Born Classified". It is not possible to be secretary of state and not send some classified information from whatever email account you are using for that job - even if it was a one word reply on which way a decision with long-term ramifications should go in regards to another country...
Re: (Score:2)
1. Link?
2. It would have reduced total number either way. That's splitting hairs
3. Alarms are a different issue. The SS has neither confirmed nor denied monitoring. They probably can't talk about it.
4. Link? Note that a subpoena for work-related emails and a subpoena for the server are two different things.
5. Has yet to be proven. Much of it was classified AFTER the fact.
6. The info Blumenthal sent was already public. It was not secret.
7. Link?
Why Snowden? (Score:2)
Do we really need Snowden to tell us this? What is he now, the media's go-to guy for computer security? He's playing a key role in our understanding of CIA/NSA operations, no doubt, but he doesn't have any more expertise on the Clinton email scandal than your average Slashdot reader.
Re: (Score:3)
Edward Snowden is also a computer professional with direct experience of of federal failure to obey laws in the name of political benefit, and direct experience of how "secure" documents can be duplicated and leaked.
The problem is much worse than it seems (Score:2)
The really awful thing about Clinton storing all kinds of classified data on her server is not just that some of it may have been stolen...
Np, the far worse problem is that because she wiped the server, the intelligence community now has now way to know exactly WHAT information may have been leaked, and (again because the server was wiped) no way to have a good idea of the probability of it having been hacked or not - meaning anything she or anyone she worked with had access too, has all got to be considere
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this any different from Colin Powell's email - whose private server did he use? Is it only different because he's not running for President - and there's no bogus Benghazi commission looking for stuff to embarrass him with. Or is there really something particularly dangerous or sinister here (and I don't mean 'potetntially sinister' - there will always be conspiracy theories around the Clintons).
Anti-Clinton people always talk about Petreus's prosecution for sharing secret info - except that he act
Re: (Score:2)
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no such thing as a secure computer. Even if it is never connected to the Internet, but certainly if it is. Government computer/network, corporate, private, personal; they are all penetrated or will be if someone cares to do so. And someone certainly cares to do so for every high level government official in the US, UK, Russia, China, etc.
sPh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Edward Snowden devastated U.S national security interests by releasing tons of classified emails.
But you know who's emails Snowden didn't release? Hillary's...
I think Hillary's private email server was a truly bad idea even if just politically.
That said she kept her emails safe from Edward Snowden.
You know who else's emails he didn't release? Palin's, Jeb Bush's, Trump's, .... Just because the guy in division X doesn't have access to the resources in division Y, doesn't mean division Y is safe or doing it right.
Re:Total Innocence (Score:5, Interesting)
You or I would be sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial for either of these. She's not only running for president, she's got a large majority of idiots willing to vote for her. I don't give a squat about her positions on any issues. She is corrupt, slippery, slimey, and elitist.
I sincerely hope Biden runs. Not because I think he'll win, but hopefully that will be the final straw that brings other, better democrats out of the woodwork to run for president. As things go now it's looking the the repubs are going to win the White House next year.
Re: (Score:3)
"She is corrupt, slippery, slimey, and elitist." These are the qualities needed to attract Bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Biden against Trump? I would bet Biden would win. Hillary is tainted per the reasons you mentioned. I would never vote for her (not that my votes counts living in a ruby red state)
Re:Total Innocence (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man that's amusing.
Re: (Score:3)
Write in vote for Sanders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does the ballot limit itself to 2 candidates?
Re: (Score:3)
If "security" is just protecting against external threats, and she knew of internal threats, then a private email server makes sense for some types of email.
Yes, but the "internal" threats were these pesky things like the Inspector General, Congressional Oversight, Special Prosecutors, FOIA requests, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or in the case of the Bush Administration, Dick Cheney using the NSA to spy on other government officials (admitted to by John Bolton).
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
To control the message and hide shady deals... ie contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for political favors... most likely.