Absolutely no one in government should implement a 'private email server'...

[TheProgressive]

GW Bush did it. Hillary Clinton did it...Who else?

If you are doing the official business of the United States of America, all emails should be sent/received and 100% accounted for on
federal secured email servers.

Otherwise, where is the transparency (top secret emails withstanding)? Otherwise, it gives the impression of
corruption... And that should not ever be permitted by the American public.

Period.

[PoliticAverse]

1. For those unaware of the Bush email issue there's a Wikipedia article on the topic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

[TheProgressive]

9. Thanks for providing this link...

The republicans could have cared less about GW Bush and the Turd Blossom private email server.
But they are Sooooooo concerned about Hillary's email server.

Sorry - you can's be hypocritical about one and not the other...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. and Colin Powell

[kelliekat44]

73. But was Hillary's server hacked? Was Powell's? Did China get into their e-mail systems or just

the Federal government systems, including Pentagon? Did Snowden hack these private servers? Just asking.

[SheilaT]

2. I agree.

What's actually incredibly scary to me is the apparent ignorance of technology in the government.

I'm a year or so younger than Hillary, and I'll be the first to tell you that I'm somewhat behind the technology. No smart phone for me. But I'm not Secretary of State. I do use as much technology as I'm comfortable with, but someone in the government should be far ahead of someone like me.

I am aware that many parts of our government are behind the times technologically. I know that a decade or so the air traffic control system was in a huge crisis because back in about 1968 some genius at the FAA said, "Lease computers? Are you kidding? We'll BUY them!" and so four decades later they were still using 1968 technology, and were in a real bind about upgrading. Meanwhile, private industry all said, "We'll lease, no problem" and got new computers as needed. For the most part.

My now ex was an IT guy, and in the early 90's was hired to upgrade the computer system of a very large wholesale liquor distributor in the Midwest. They'd bought a computer system some years earlier, never upgraded, and now were in a real crisis mode. Ex was hired, got them the new computer system they needed, and then stayed on because he was able to persuade management that they needed to constantly keep abreast of things, not wait until it was a crisis again.

That's a personal story that has not very much to do with the e-mail server issue, but serves to indicate how complex the technology is, and how easy it is to do something wrong.

[stevenleser]

4. See my #3. One of the things you find as an IT Person is if you prevent folks from doing their jobs

by having an inadequate technology infrastructure in an organization, they will go around it.

[SusanCalvin]

39. ^THIS^

If you can't change an entrenched system, and it's seriously preventing you from doing your job, well.....

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I currently have no strong opinion about HRC specifically, but I certainly see how your point could apply.

[goldent]

68. The other thing you learn,

is that when some big shot wants to break security rules, don't even think about pushing back, just let them.

[stevenleser]

74. Depends on the organization. That doesn't fly most places anymore.

A big shot would be OK doing so if the infrastructure was so bad that a business case could be made that they have to break the rules to do their job.

Otherwise, IT Security is mandated from the highest level in most organizations now. Nowadays, even a senior partner or board member will be in trouble with the rest of the leadership if they open an organization up to hacking and other issues.

[goldent]

76. "Otherwise, IT Security is mandated from the highest level in most organizations now"

This is true. The problem is the people in the highest levels ultimately report to Hillary. And people do not get to the highest levels by telling their boss "No."

Most likely the IT people get together to discuss the issue, and come up with various solutions to try to please the boss. But the "highest level" people will block those solutions from even being suggested to the big boss, because they don't want to be viewed as the person who is being a hard ass and making life difficult. Hillary has the reputation, whether deserved or not, of not suffering fools gladly.

This is the reality of how organizations work.

[stevenleser]

77. Nope, State and the US Government has other safeguards and folks to whom you can report wrongdoing.

First off there is the State Department office of Inspector General. https://oig.state.gov/ to whom individuals can report wrongdoing anonymously.

If one doesn't like that the State OIG reports to the SecState, you can go to the Inspector General for the entire dc federal government, http://oig.dc.gov/page/about-office-inspector-general

Another big for instance is the President's White House Chief of Staff.

If folks are concerned about anything the SecState is doing, just off the top of my head those are three folks/agencies you can go to to report that and two of them, both of the Inspector Generals listed, can be reported to anonymously.

[goldent]

79. I'm talking about the reality of how things work

In reality, less than 1% of IT people would report on a major figure like Clinton, and the higher up you go the less likely someone will report. It just isn't worth it for 99% of people. What people do is say "well, we did our best but our hands are tied" and make sure there is documentation to CYA, and then have lunch.

[stevenleser]

80. I am too. And with the OIGs there is anonymous reporting so that takes away reluctance.

The military and federal government implemented Inspector Generals with anonymous reporting specifically to avoid what you are talking about.

But of course, people at State would have to believe it is wrongdoing and they probably don't think that. And that is because what Clinton did was in line with previous SecStates and what they all did was on account of weak and out of date Information Systems infrastructure that was preventing them from doing their jobs.

[stevenleser]

3. The State dept email system was essentially unaccessible remotely. Clinton was almost always remote

Meaning she would never have been able to access her email.

This is not a new thing. Secretaries of State have been complaining about inadequate technology for 15+ years.

[TheProgressive]

6. Sorry... these excuses are not allowed.

It is the 21st century. The government has all the technology required and is in use
in the military.

The technology is already there...

And.... What on Earth did SoS do in the 100 years prior to 2015?

[stevenleser]

13. Of course it's allowed because it's the truth. And you obviously don't know the first thing

about procurement in the government. But I'm not surprised about that at all. The smears against Hillary depend on that kind of ignorance.

Departments have their own budgets. Just because the USAF gets an expensive plane doesn't mean state gets air if money to spend or gets the benefit of the DOD's information systems.

[TheProgressive]

14. Really?

For the United States of America's Secretary of State?

What on earth did they do before emails?

No excuse unless it is on purpose...

Just saying...

[stevenleser]

15. If you bothered to do any research, you would know this has been complained about by the last 5

secretaries of state.

Before emails? Are you serious? You want the US SOS to send smoke signals or something?

[TheProgressive]

19. Do you have a link for the 'last 5' SoS?

So, we only had 'smoke signals' and went right to emails? Is there anything in between?

And, in case you have missed my point - Really? the United States of America's Secretary of State's communications are easily intercepted by anybody?

[stevenleser]

21. So you admit you have done no research on this at all before opining? Because links on this abound.

Here are a few links to get your started.

Under SecState Warren Christopher
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/06/world/the-state-department-a-snail-in-age-of-e-mail.html

The State Department: A Snail in Age of E-Mail
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 6, 1995

WASHINGTON, March 5— While many politicians talk these days about propelling the nation into the new information age, State Department officials often feel stuck in the Dark Ages as they wait two hours for electronic mail to make its way to an Under Secretary one floor above.

"In the morning it's not so bad, but from noon to three, when the E-mail traffic picks up, it can take two or three hours," said David Johnson, a State Department press officer.

The snail's pace of the electronic mail system is emblematic of the State Department's antiquated computer system. Department employees say it is embarrassing for the diplomats of the world's richest, most powerful nation to be saddled with such a backward system. Many employees have 15-year-old Wang computers that resemble boxy green-screened television sets. They complain that they cannot use floppy disks with their computers. They cannot "surf" on the Internet -- explore the network that links millions of computer users around the world. They cannot sign on to use information stored in faraway databases. They cannot send electronic mail to other Federal agencies, and often walk messages over to the National Security Council because they are reluctant to send classified messages by fax.

Under Colin Powell
http://www.mediaite.com/online/secretary-of-state-colin-powell-also-used-personal-email-account/

In a statement to Politico, an aide to Colin Powell, who served under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, confirmed that he too relied on a personal email account and did not know of any rules preventing him from doing so.

The statement from Powell’s camp reads:

He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State. He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.

He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world.

The account he used has been closed for a number of years. In light of new policies published in 2013 and 2014 and a December 2014 letter from the State Department advising us of these polices, we will be working with the department to see if any additional action is required on our part.

[TheProgressive]

24. My point remains...

Really? in this day and age, high officials in the United States of America do not have secure transmissions?

Do you think this is 'just because of money' or on purpose?

[stevenleser]

28. Which goes back to my second comment to you. You don't understand government procurement.

This is not a mystery to anyone who does. To save time I will summarize:

Every year when a government agency does its budget, it figures out what it needs, itemizes them and send its budget request in.

Then they get notified how much they are going to get and it is some percentage less than that. Since Reagan, it has usually been a lot less than that.

Then a process ensues where the leaders of each agency and sub-department figure what they can and cannot live without. Generally people are the most important thing so the first thing to figure out is whether they can keep all of their people and not lay anyone off with the pittance they are getting for an annual budget.

The second thing is the most important functions of the agency. Then the second most important and so on.

Towards the end is infrastructure, like Information Technology. Usually, there is very little money left for that and certainly not enough for an advanced new email system and servers and the training to go along with it.

This is a simplification and ignores issues like specific capital requests and such but generally, technology is way behind in most government agencies for that reason. It keeps getting pushed to the back burner until it literally grinds the function of the agency to a halt. Then finally money is spent on it.

[TheProgressive]

29. Don't you think the communications of the United States Sec of State...

...should be absolutely secure? Do you want Russia and China to know everything that is said by our SoS?

After all these years? After all the technology advances? Is it on purpose?

It's an excuse that is not acceptable --- Period....

[stevenleser]

31. Short answer? No, I don't. All of that persons communications don't need to be secure.

Very few of them do in fact. When they do they use a special email system, which Hillary used.

[TheProgressive]

37. Ok, now this is interesting...

So, according to your post, there *is* a special email system for the SoS that Clinton used. Procured and secured by the US Gov, I assume you are saying...

That's the only thing that is important here. If Clinton used the secure email system for official US business - who on earth can complain about that? Person emails are just that - nobody's business - and can be used on any email system...

Did we just resolve this issue?

[stevenleser]

40. No. That system is specifically for classified emails. It's not supposed to be used for normal SOS

business.

It is also used by a number of different agencies.

If the Secretary of State wants to find how how things are generally going in the Latvian embassy, she wouldn't send an email from the secure email system.

And if Hillary was not in her office, she wouldnt be able to use the regular state email to send it.

[TheProgressive]

43. Do you have some sort of security clearance to know this?

Or work in the State Department?

You seem to know the secure internal workings of the State Department and the federal government...

[stevenleser]

47. This all came out with the Chelsea Manning situation. nt

[TheProgressive]

49. Thanks very much - that clears everything up!

[Recursion]

70. Anyone who has worked for the government knows about class/unclass partitioning

There is a classified network and an unclassified network, and never the twain shall meet. A computer that can view classified documents shouldn't be able to access the Internet at all.

[Recursion]

69. Yes. All classified emails are supposed to be kept to the classified network

If there were classified emails being sent to her standard State email account, that's a breach no matter where the server was hosted.

[malokvale77]

66. It really is laughable...

considering the billions of dollars that go into the mic and homeland security, that we can't afford secure communication for our SOS.

Why can't people here see how ludicrous that argument is.

[stevenleser]

78. Because there are people who know better. And here is a simple example that should drive it home.

Just because the Department of Defense gets a lot of money, doesn't mean the Social Security Administration is flooded with extra money.

[Marr]

65. The Secretary of State is not the Pawnee Parks Department.

Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2015, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

C'mon-- you've got to be kidding with that procurement argument.

I'm aware of the fact that past SoS's have offered the same excuses-- that doesn't mean it's any less absurd. They've all had the same impetus to wall off their communications from public review.

[alarimer]

75. Have you not been following the ACA website debacle?

It is like that every single day at every government agency in the country, state and federal.

There are rules about what you can purchase and how much. There are rules about who you can purchase from. A large government agency is usually a hodgepodge of computer systems. I doubt very much they can keep track of who has what. It isn't incompetence, exactly, it's mostly just the scale of things.

[cheapdate]

23. WTF? You think the State Department should use telegraph cables?

Pump your brakes man. There was no law in place requiring the Secretary to use official government email AT THE TIME. There is a law in place now.

[TheProgressive]

25. Yes, technology went right from telegraph to...

...emails...

And, I have a hard time with 'well there was no law in place'....

[pnwmom]

62. You don't believe in laws? Well, that's obviously the problem then. n/t

[TheProgressive]

63. Accusation not borne in fact....

Nice try...

[Thor_MN]

44. They weren't using email in 1915, obviously...

[TheProgressive]

45. I just love these responses...!

[Thor_MN]

48. And we love the whine about absolutely everything...

deflect, move the goalposts, take off on tangents...

[MyNameGoesHere]

51. As do I

Please continue. You're funny. Not very informed, but funny.

[TheProgressive]

57. I'll be happy to take a test and compare the results to yours...

[Hekate]

50. The federal government has been repeatedly hacked. We have not heard Word One about Clinton....

....being hacked. Doesn't that tell you something?

All of her correspondence has been preserved on govt accounts because she sent them to people in federal offices. Doesn't that tell you something about the bogus nature of this GOP generated non-scandal?

The technology you say is already there in the federal government is in many cases completely outdated, inadequate, and vulnerable to hacking. The Chinese have even hacked the Pentagon. Doesn't that tell you something about the concerns of SoS Clinton regarding her mail and files?

But that's okay, "Progressive." Go ahead and believe FOX.

[TheProgressive]

55. Isn't it bothersome...

...that the United States Federal Government can be 'hacked'? Do you think that maybe Microsoft et.al. purposefully puts holes in their software to allow this? Of course they do. It is on purpose.

If they wanted secure communications - they could do it.

Get it?

[pnwmom]

61. Colin Powell used a private server and erased all the emails after he left office.

And email didn't exist for 100 years before 2015.

You want Hillary to have been retroactively responsible for following a law that wasn't enacted till after she left office. Good luck with that.

[snagglepuss]

12. If that's the case how would it have been possibe to

have a different server (private one) but one that ensured transparency in some way?

[stevenleser]

17. The first responsibility of anyone in any job is to get the job done. If the appropriate materials

are not being provided to you to do that, you are not only well within your rights to go out and get them yourself, most folks who are on the ball wouldn't think twice about it.

[TheProgressive]

20. So, I guess...

When Republicans use secret not-transparent communications - that's ok with you?

[stevenleser]

22. I'm not impressed by logical fallacies like Straw men. nt

[TheProgressive]

30. Not a straw man - it is fact...

[stevenleser]

32. No, it's not. You've demonstrated you really don't have a handle on this at all. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

33. What stevenleser seems to be saying is "The ends justify the means"

Gee, now where have I heard that before?

[stevenleser]

34. No, I'm not saying that. But that is an interesting straw man.

BTW the last name is Leser. Just like its written on my screen name.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Yo, Fallacy King! You need to expand your repertoire.

While accusing everyone under the sun (rightly or wrongly) of the strawman fallacy, you've used both the Fallacy of Antiquity ("that's the way it's always been done&quot and the Argumentum ad Populum, better known as the Bandwagon Fallacy ("everybody else has been doing it&quot .

Happy researching!

[stevenleser]

42. Well, if they use different fallacies, I will call them out on them. People seem to like to try to

alter the arguments I use to make them easier to attack.

[Hekate]

52. Thank you Steven for taking this on in your answers throughout this subthread. Why do they ...

...want to believe FOX's Big Lie?

[dsc]

5. If this was so obvious then why wasn't it banned?

The main reason is that the government was so behind technicalogically that if they did ban such use then their Secretary of State would be chained to a desk and pretty much useless.

[TheProgressive]

7. Really?

Sounds like a real lame excuse...

[stevenleser]

16. No, it doesnt. Your continued objections without any knowledge sound lame. nt

[LuvLoogie]

54. That you are incredulous does not mean

that the facts have no bearing on reality. The facts, law and logic do not rely on your belief in them.

[diabeticman]

8. I agree 100% No one no matter which party should use a "Private email server" to conduct the busines

of this country.

[Bunkalup]

10. It does not matter which email system they use, the NSA reads all of them anyway.

[TheProgressive]

11. Its more about transparency - don't you agree?

[PowerToThePeople]

18. I agree. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. What about text on cell phone?

[Recursion]

71. What about it? (nt)

[pnwmom]

35. Colin Powell, as I understand it. But it would be nice if the antique government

system was frequently updated, as business systems are.

[Indydem]

36. The problem is the Hatch act.

Politicians are required to keep a separate everything (phone number, email address, cell phone, etc.) for campaigning.

When an email goes into the wrong address, now they are in violation of any number of other issues.

It's a fucking mess.

[David__77]

38. If it wasn't against the rules, I don't have a problem with it.

It if was against the rules, then I think it's important to cite the policy violated specifically. If a specific policy was violated, then I would like any individual involved to acknowledge that. If not, then as far as I'm concerned, there's not much to address other than, possibly, what the policy should be changed to.

[WillyT]

53. It Gets Worse...

Tips on Deleting Emails From Email Book Hillary Clinton Wanted to Read
Aug 12, 2015, 7:03 PM ET
By JONATHAN KARL and SUMMER FIELDS
ABCNews

<snip>

The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations.

Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

“Some people are hoarders, some are checkers,” the authors write. “The main thing to consider is that once you do decide to delete, it’s like taking the garbage from your kitchen and putting it in your hallway. It’s still there.”

The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.”

But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.

On page 215, the authors list “Stupid (and Real) Email Phrases That Wound Up in Court.” Number one on the list? “DELETE THIS EMAIL!’ Later, on page 226, the writers warn, “If you’re issued a subpoena, your deletion binge will only make you look guilty.”

The FBI is investigating the handling of classified information in Clinton’s emails, while she maintains she has done nothing illegal or improper.

<snip>

More: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042

[LuvLoogie]

58. Oh brother don't wet yourself.

From the summary on Google books:

Send—the classic guide to email for office and home and an instant success upon its original publication—has become indispensable for readers navigating the impersonal, and often overwhelming, world of electronic communication. Filled with real-life email success (and horror) stories and a wealth of entertaining examples, Send reveals the hidden minefields and pitfalls of email. It provides clear rules for handling all of today’s thorniest email issues, from salutations and subject lines to bcc’s and emoticons. It explains when you absolutely shouldn’t send an email and what to do when you’ve sent (in anger or in error) a potentially career-ending electronic bombshell. And it offers invaluable strategies to help you both better manage the ever-increasing number of emails you receive and improve the ones you send.

In this revised edition, David Shipley and Will Schwalbe have added fresh tales from the digital realm and a new afterword—“How to Keep Email from Taking Over Your Life,” which includes sage advice on handheld etiquette. Send is now more essential than ever, a wise and witty book that every businessperson and professional should read and read again.

[LuvLoogie]

64. Yeah a real "Anarchist's Cookbook" there, Will...

You and Gowdy need to get to the bottom of this...

Hey Look! A squirrel!!

[malokvale77]

67. That is so funny.

I needed the laugh tonight.

Thanks WillyT.

indeed.

[jtuck004]

56. Contractors and service members all over the air force ran them for years, may still.

You just need a budget and a copy of windows

There is a whole 'nother network for top secret crap. They sit behind locked steel doors. 'Course, that's not the easiest way in for some.

[Pharaoh]

59. Scott Walker did too

Madison — Thousands of documents unsealed Wednesday link Gov. Scott Walker to a secret email system used in his office that would avoid public scrutiny when he was Milwaukee County executive.

The records also show that on the day before he was elected governor in 2010, the secret investigation into links between Walker's county government staff and his political campaign was widened to include four more aides. That same day, search warrants were executed on Walker's campaign and county offices, as well as the homes of some of his assistants.

It is against state law in Wisconsin for public employees to work for political parties and campaigns while being paid by taxpayers to provide government services.

Throughout the secret investigation, Walker said he had zero tolerance for government employees doing campaign work while on the clock. But the newly released records detail almost daily interactions between his top county and campaign staffers.



http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/court-set-to-release-emails-documents-tied-to-ex-aide-to-scott-walker-b99208267z1-246128301.html

[pnwmom]

60. That is the law now, so of course. It wasn't the law when Hillary was SoS. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

72. Sarah Palin had a problem with this, too, when she was governor.