2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you're upset about the email server, you must despise Snowden and Manning.
The only rational way to be outraged about the security implications of a private email server is if you are seriously obsessed with national secrets. The risks were tiny, there was no classified information on it, and there's no evidence that it was breached. It's arguable whether information is safer on a private server than on a State server where a lot more people have access to it, but either way, it wasn't an intentional leaking of information.
So only people with an unhealthy obsession with keeping government information secret could possibly care about this. Unless, of course, people are just talking about it in order to score political points for Trump. But otherwise, anyone legitimately concerned about the security implications of the email server must be utterly outraged at the leaks from people like Snowden. Snowden actually did compromise national security, and he did it intentionally.
But given that Glenn Greenwald, who is one of Bernie's big cheerleaders, was a big part of the Snowden leak, somehow I doubt that the Bernie crowd really cares about national secrets. It's just a political game to help Trump become president.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)StarTrombone
(188 posts)Manning is in prison
Not sure what your point is
YouDig
(2,280 posts)criticizing Hillary for something as trivial as an email server is hypocrisy.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)vs. wanting to HIDE illegal activity?
Your post is a joke.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Profile information
About YouDig
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:35 PM
Number of posts: 362
Number of posts, last 90 days: 362
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 343 posts in the last 90 days (95% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 3 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I get it. Thanks.
There are so many of them. I guess that's what happens when you stop using pest control. Pretty soon this place is going to be uninhabitable.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Nothing wrong with hiding information. We don't have to answer questions from the cops or even in court in front of a judge.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Are you arguing that Hillary was acting as a whistle blower and collecting classified information to pass on to the American people? Come on.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)The actually security risks of what Hillary did are totally inconsequential, which makes it very weird that people are obsessed with it. All the more weird when it comes from people who support Snowden. Those people can't possibly care about the sanctity of government secrets. The only possible reason they could be going after Hillary for it is to score political points to help Trump win.
brush
(53,871 posts)Granted, it's a fantasy but they're sticking with it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Snowden and Manning intentionally revealed classified information because they believed the system was used to hide information the people were entitle to know. I will not get into what Clinton did or did not do, but it was nothing like what Snowden or Manning did.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Hillary used private email, something that many other government officials had done before, and at the very worst put non-classified information at slightly higher risk, with no intention. There's no comparison whatsoever.
As to what Snowden and Manning thought, if thinking that you have a good reason is a justification for committing crimes, then there would be no criminals.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I can understand why because the answer is none
You want people to treat a private email as if it were a private server
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Not in terms of either the law or security. In terms of trying to help Trump get elected, sure, there's a reason to try and pretend there's some big difference.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Wrong again.
Her private server was very unsecure. Email clients like Google, Hotmail and Yahoo! have/had teams of security personnel and security measures in place to protect their clients personal information even before it was a legal requirement because the loss of that sort of information would cut into their bottom lines.
Were they 100 percent secure? No. No one is. Were they far and away more secure than Hillary's private, open-to-the-Internet, unencrypted server? Hell yes.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Yahoo and gmail accounts get hacked all the time. They have security questions people can guess, and tech support people that can be socially engineered. Notice that the Romanian guy who claimed to have gotten into Hillary's server had no evidence of it, but he was able to get into a lot of other private accounts by social engineering. The more people who have access, the less secure. That's also why Snowden was able to leak all the NSA files. Their encryption is top-notch, but the weakest link is never the encryption, it's humans.
You don't really understand computer security at all.
What part of "are they 100 percent safe? No. No one is," did you not understand? Or do you just choose not to read?
But what gmail and yahoo have that Hillary didn't was dedicated security staff and security products installed. Nothing is fool proof, but why don't you read something from the IT industry: https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
Here... read the scan - but you probably don't know how.
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mail.clintonemail.com&latest
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I guess this is one of those cases where you are determined not to understand the the truth. The humans involved are the weakest link. The NSA had plenty of dedicated security staff but still got breached. Yahoo accounts get hacked all the time. That Romanian guy did it over and over, but couldn't get anything off of Hillary's server.
Fortunately, you don't work in computer security, so the fact that you don't understand this isn't really a big deal. All that will really happen is you'll make some clueless posts on the internet.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)National security secrets are kept on closed-loop systems. They are NOT kept on outward-facing servers that are open to communications with the public and you cannot email into our out of them. In order to access them, you have to go into a room called a SCIF, it's a metal-fortified white room dressed as a regular office to log onto these servers. You cannot bring your precious Blackberry in, which Hillary hated. That a few government offices were hacked is concerning, but the hackers were never anywhere near the classified and sensitive national security information like that, that was found on Hillary's server. It had been hand-typed as it read off either SIPRnet or JWICS and copied into an email, which is a violation of protocol.
BTW, the NSA's website was hacked - not their server. Most organizations worth a damn keep their website server separate from their internal server. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-group-hacked-the-nsa-website-to-demonstrate-widespread-bug-freak
That said, again, for the apparently reading impaired, NO ONE IS 100 PERCENT SAFE, but Hillary's server was less safe than most.
Fortunately, I do work in cyber security and I know these things.
And, I think we know who the clueless one is and it's not me.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Its a huge difference no matter how you try to diminish it
YouDig
(2,280 posts)But who would have thought so many Trump supporters on a Democratic website.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)People who think saying "trump" over and over is a.valid response
And those saying dems since 1968 ( registered and member) are.rw.trump.supporters
I would never say it but some might say it the apex of political dumbassery
Not me mind you... But some.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)If it offends you you should address it with the admins
You might be more successful with that than you will be trying to hide behind calling people here on du rwers instead of intellegently addressing the issues
TheBlackAdder
(28,218 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)destroyed/ made disappear totally the hard drives containing State records of his Governor years. Not even any records to use FOIA on. That's not a server with emails, that's the entire STATE property computers 'gone' vanished.
2cannan
(344 posts)From the timeline:
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_1
snip
January 21, 2009 - February 1, 2013: In her time as secretary of state, Clinton uses only her private email account on her private server for all her work and personal emails. There are 62,320 emails sent to or from her hdr22@clintonemail.com address, which is an average of 296 a week, or nearly 1,300 a month. Clinton will later claim that roughly half of these (31,830) were private in nature and she will delete them before investigators can look at them. The Washington Post will later explain, "Most of her emails were routine, including those sent to friends. Some involved the coordination of efforts to bring aid to Haiti by the State Department and her husband's New York-based Clinton Foundation - notes that mixed government and family business, the emails show. Others involved classified matters. State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as 'confidential,' the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) Twenty-two of her emails will later be determined to be classified "top secret" or even higher than top secret in some cases, due to the mention of highly secretive SAP, or secret access programs. (The New York Times, 1/29/2016)
YouDig
(2,280 posts)They were retroactively classified, same thing happened to Colin Powell. The whole thing is nothing.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Some of her emails were retroactively classified, same as what happened with Colin Powell. There's a lot of overclassification, and different agencies don't always agree on what should be classified.
The more important point is that Snowden leaked classified and damaging information on purpose. Hillary didn't leak anything.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You're looking very very uninformed here.
A. Her server had sensitive data on it. Doesn't matter if it's classified or not. The statute only cares if the information is sensitive regarding national defense/security.
B. The author of that blog is Paul Thompson. He wrote this book: The Terror Timeline. You know who uses that? Richard Clarke. It's on the reading list for the course he teaches at Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline
Conspiracy blog.
2cannan
(344 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Not sure what you're on about.
Everything directly on the time line is a summation of the stories in the links he provides.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,241 posts)On Mon May 9, 2016, 10:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
But the quote doesn't say what the nutcase who wrote the blog claims.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1931493
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The "nutjob" he is discussing is an active duer so this is a callout and a personal attack
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 9, 2016, 10:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the blogger is blogging outside of DU, then his status at DU, active or not, is inconsequential.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The 'nutjob' is NOT named in the post so you're giving me squat to adjudicate.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have been a DU member for 12 years, and I didn't know that the referenced blogger was a DUer, so I don't know how this poster who joined DU this year could be expected to know it. Also, it could be argued that the referenced blogger is a public figure and therefore subject to criticism.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Obvious personal attack is obvious.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)"There is no comparison whatsoever." Yep. That about sums it up. Thanks.
KPN
(15,661 posts)So if it's classified a crime, it's a crime? And if it's classified legal, it's legal?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)At least shake it up a bit so it isn't so damn obvious. Liberals are supposed to be the creative ones.
Leopards can't change their spots.
Trolls can't change their warts.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)It's possible for people to see Clinton's server as simple haphazardness and see Snowden and Manning as determined whistle blowers, which would explain why we see that happening. You're going to have to flesh out your argument a little better if you want to convince anybody.
You also make a load of claims in your first paragraph that can't yet be substantiated--that's the job of the current investigation. Nobody can know in advance how those investigations will play out, even if they've got a confident guess.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)I thought she had it in the bag?
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)hows them apples and oranges
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)You are trying to deflect. What Snowden and Manning did is not the same as what Hillary did. Their judgment and ethics are not called into question since neither of them are running for office.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Correct. They committed serious crimes. Hillary's did basically nothing, the only consequences are political, and the Trump supporters are eagerly jumping on it.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Unless your talking out of your...ear. Which I think you qame. But you have a good day.
In your world up is down and down is up.
Broward
(1,976 posts)All authoritarians are.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So patriotic. Maybe they'll send roses to the FBI.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But it is pretty damn stupid to mount a candidate under active FBI investigation.
Rass
(112 posts)Hillary ran a private email server that was likely hacked by many different unknown parties. She thought that her I.T. employee(s) could do better than trained government specialists. That is a whole new level of stupid.
Snowden uncovered illegal government surveillance of Americans (illegality was later affirmed by a court of law). That disclosure was in the public interest. Hillary's email server was made to hide likely illegal behavior . Big difference. There is a reason the FBI is pissed and she is not going to be let off the hook easily. Winning the presidency for her is a race against time. She has a few months and FBI investigations to dodge until then. Desperation makes people do crazy things.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)For example, insisting that the clear choice of the Democratic electorate drop out of the race.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)#BernieLogic. It berns.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rass
(112 posts)NSA's phone spying program ruled illegal by appeals court
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And transported without gov security clearance, Hillary was not transporting the physical materials, just using cyber transportation.
Good points, Snowden is still charged with espionage, has an outstanding warrant and his passport is still revoked.
Rass
(112 posts)Guccifer the Romanian hacker was interviewed by the FBI and admitted having access to it. No one knows how many other parties broke in.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Rass
(112 posts)Guccifer was extradited by the FBI and interviewed by them. Did I fail to mention the FBI interview?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Rass
(112 posts)Not much detail available.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Clinton was not leaking data to show that crimes against citizens were being perpetrated. She wanted her own server for convenience and to avoid FOIA requests - the opposite of transparency. It just so happens that it was unsecure and was probably hacked by every state agent from Russian to China.
You didn't ever go look up whistle-blowing, did you?
YouDig
(2,280 posts)If you do, then you would be horrified about what Snowden did. If you don't, then the only reason to go after Clinton for her minor error is to help Trump get elected. And I have a pretty good guess as to which reason it is.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I couldn't care less about either one of them.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)but a person who laughs at the horrible death of a nation's leader, and at the potential for war with another country, and who gets "diplomatic advice" from people who have a lot of blood on their hands.
Rass
(112 posts)Governments can and do commit crimes. The public has a right to know if the government tortures citizens in secret (Chicago). They also have the right to know if they are being spied upon (NSA). These are unconstitutional crimes. The public doesn't have a right to know every single aspect of governmental affairs. That is why we elect representatives, to make the proper decisions.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)data security and secrecy in her own selfish way.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I get so very tired of this ... I vote this to be the only way to address this most resent of nonsense OPs
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Of course it is.
It's amazing what otherwise intelligent people can justify in the name of "winning" (while of course hypocritically criticizing Hillary for doing same.)
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)the ties with the Clinton foundation and State Dept business are another matter entirely.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Are those who have such animosity towards Snowden and Manning obligated to reject Hillary?
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Nor is critical thinking apparently.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Yeah, man. I had the same thought arguing with DU email truthers last weekend.
Like, why are suddenly so obsessed with tight control of classified information?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)...and the State Department's subsequent cover-up of the story.
That contractor, Dyncorp, has ties to Clinton by the way. Lookup Jack Keane.
I am not sure what crimes Clinton has exposed with the server. Except possibly her own.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)To make sure no one else can encrypt their snapchats.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)The difference between Edward Snowden and Hillary Clinton: More Americans are probably using end-to-end encryption thanks to his leaks and the NSA's spying on the American Public. More Chinese warfighters are probably using American fighter jet designs thanks to Clinton's server; and Clinton's expounded at length about trying to keep Americans from using encryption to the point of needing "a Manhattan project" against it when Snowden proved that the NSA was spying and data mining on us. False equivalence, and don't you fucking dare insinuate that all I care about is political points.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Wish the Gov. would go after Mannings management, who allowed employees to surf the web, watch movies, play around with friends secret files, download and remove devises.
Manning should be pardoned. suffered enough.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)For stupidest post in DU history.
Comparing whistle blowers who expose official wrongdoing to officials who try to circumvent public record keeping laws is absurd.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)or is even terribly knowledgeable about the subject at all...I particularly loved the one guy the other day who kept using "cyber", like it was 1999.
This has been a political card to play for them, nothing more.