2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI don't care if what she did was illegal or not.
Setting up a private email server and leaving it unsecured - WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE - is an error so egregious in nature, she should be precluded with prejudice from even thinking of running for president.
I had a little ecommerce business back in the late '90's - had a firewall in front of it cinched down as tight as I could make it- openbsd- for those familiar,
And as soon as it went up- thousands of attacks a day. Thousands.
If I'd had an unsecured server in the open, they would have collected everything.
And that was in 1999.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
One question: Why? What could be the POSSIBLE REASONING behind it? Dotgov have a limit on cat videos she wanted to share?
Business stuff for the foundation?
Beginners mistake. Amateur. Bogus.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,705 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)question. Don't try to conflate by insinuation (if that's what you are doing) my question to indicate anything other that my complete and visceral disdain for his candidacy, all that it represents, nor to indicate anything other than Bernie is the stronger candidate. Again, only if that's why you are asking.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)As you constantly repeat the same tired talking point on other threads.
Jackilope
(819 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)his was not a server , and that makes all the difference
These OPs are posted by people who wouldn't ever vote for Hillary anyway but are trying to make it appear that they were actually seriously considering it, if only it hadn't been for [fill-in-the-blank with choice of BSS talking point] .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)believe she is not the best candidate. An example of her consistently bad judgement.
Personally, I think the e-mail thing is kind of ho hum. I don't think about it one way or the otehr.
But if it were not serious, the FBI wold have looked at it and said "Meh. Nothing there" a long while back. Indictment or no, it's another example of why people should blindly support a nominee who, with her husband, has a history or consistently raising red flags by their behavior.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)All someone has to do is accuse someone of any number of things over and over again and people easily buy into it whether it's true or not.
Joseph Goebbels was correct.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)unsecured servers, perhaps you meant they used unsecured servers. Secretary Clinton still took it up several notches by installing a private server in her home.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)All you had to do was hack a password. Or the company tech people could use the backdoor. Hillarys server was more secure. It was isolated.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the server wasn't isolated it was an email server that means it had to be able to send and receive emails from the Internet. The security of the server at Secretary Clinton's home would be a function of the original configuration and diligent maintenance. Not having any more information than any other person who can read news I can't say how well the server was configured in the first place nor can I speak to the maintenance.
There would be no more security on an email account hosted on a private server vs. a commercial one. It would have a password to access it and if you could guess that you would be in the account same as if you guess the gmail password. From a security standpoint it is almost always going to be easier to get into a server set up and maintained by a single tech and hosted at a private home than to get into the Google servers.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)When you're mad.
annavictorious
(934 posts)The private server was set up when Bill left office in 2000. It was installed under the supervision of the Secret Service for use by a former president and his family.
I'm not sure why you're calling it an unsecured server. Can you define that term?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)where you are getting that information I have heard nothing of that. I am under the impression that Secretary Clinton's email server was setup by Bryan Pagliano expressly for her. If you have other information please share.
frylock
(34,825 posts)This is a good start.
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hillary's emails are known to be stored in the "cloud", which means they were on a server at another location, in this case on a private company's hard drives. That's how the FBI got hold of them.
A server is simply a computer used for storing data. Unsecured means it is easily accessed by anyone on the internet.
.
frylock
(34,825 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)while Secretary Kerry is the first SOS to use a State Department email address Secretary Clinton's predecessors did not have email servers in their homes. It actually is a big difference.
panader0
(25,816 posts)
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)I'm really worried that many Hillary supporters have blindly ignored any of the facts that led to this investigation. What else are they ignoring??? Really really scary
frylock
(34,825 posts)Of course, they have been trying hard to ignore it for a year now.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Bullshit.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)They sent a couple of emails via their commercial email accounts, which is nothing at all like having a separate server.
NOBODY EVER DID THAT BEFORE.
cali
(114,904 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)In fact more so because company people had access. A private server would be more secure.
annavictorious
(934 posts)"the server was first set up in Clinton’s Chappaqua house for use by former President Bill Clinton and the family after he left office, and that server had protections installed and upgraded over time. The former president’s Secret Service security detail was charged with protecting the physical property."
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html
frylock
(34,825 posts)Why would you omit the bolded part?
Per the The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline
Early 2008: Clinton's private email server is set up in her house. Hillary Clinton acquires an email server for her 2008 presidential run and has it installed in her house in Chappaqua, New York. This same server (with a new domain name and email addresses) will hold all her emails during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. (The New York Times, 8/8/2015) The Washington Post will later report, "The server was nothing remarkable, the kind of system often used by small businesses, according to people familiar with its configuration at the end of her tenure. It consisted of two off-the-shelf server computers. Both were equipped with antivirus software. They were linked by cable to a local Internet service provider. A firewall was used as protection against hackers." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)
Response to Gomez163 (Reply #46)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)And those other people are not running for POTUS.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Tell that to China and Russia. I'm sure they would love to know more.
She put the country at risk!
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)and that should worry you. As far as what you say, please provide a link to that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
kpola12
(78 posts)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and I wish people would stop spreading misinformation (disinformation?) about this.
The other SOS's sometimes used their private email ACCOUNTS that were on COMMERCIAL SERVERS that had industrial strength security. Yes there are still potential problems with them doing that, but they DID NOT RUN THEIR OWN PRIVATE SERVERS. Add that to the fact that Clinton's server did not even use encryption for email messages for at least 2 months of her tenure as SOS, and what you have here is something different not just in extent but in kind from what previous SOS's did.
Please stop spreading falsehoods. This particular falsehood has been corrected so many times on this site, there is just no excuse for it.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They had some work-related emails sent to their personal emails on occasion. They did not use personal servers for ALL of their business. They used the dot gov email nearly always.
An email account is NOT a server.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Autumn
(45,066 posts)Whoever is feeding you your lines is on a different page.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The only other group of people that wanted everyone else to look up their premisses were bush supporters during the Iraq War.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)more so when it's your defense for your conduct as a cabinet sec. while you're running for President.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Albright, Powell and Rice NEVER "had unsecured email servers". That absolutely did not happen.
Colin Powell sent a few personal emails from a Gmail account--while he used a government-issued computer. The emails went through a government server.
See the difference?
Clinton sent all of her State emails--for four years--through her private, unsecure homebrew server. No other Secretary of State used a private server.
There is a HUGE difference between Colin Powell sending a few personal emails using his Gmail account; and Hillary Clinton sending 60,0000 emails through a private server.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Dan Metcalfe was the Founding Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy (1981-2007). Metcalfe was essentially “the federal government’s chief information-disclosure ‘guru.'”
…
Such is the case with federal records laws such as the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, which govern the conduct of federal employees and officials, even that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
What’s more, the civil sanctions provided in these laws can be applied only to people who still remain federal employees at the time at which their violation is discovered and acted upon. In other words, if you violate these laws and then leave government service quickly enough, you are beyond the reach of their penalties. Indeed, a common refrain among political appointees during the latter part of the George W. Bush Administration was: “That’s OK, because by the time anyone finds out about it, we’ll be long gone.”
The Federal Records Act (or “FRA”) is a decades-old federal law that governs the creation, maintenance, preservation, and disposition of federal records, regardless of form or format, including electronic records such as e-mail. Simply put, it tells those who work for the federal government that they must document their work and keep such records safe during their tenures. Then, when someone leaves a federal position, the FRA requires that all such records be reviewed in conjunction with an agency records officer so that the agency (i.e., not the employee alone) can make decisions about which records will be preserved.
…
Any failure to meet these legal obligations, from the beginning of an employee’s tenure to the end, is punishable with administrative sanctions up to and including dismissal.
…
So what the public is left with, in the case of these key federal records laws, is a statutory scheme that is effectively toothless in most instances, especially in the cases of law-flouting political employees such as Secretary Clinton who seem to do just whatever they please and can get away with — literally.
And one more conclusion should be obvious: It is long past time for Congress to take a close look at this — regardless of how Secretary Clinton manages to fare on the criminal side of her docket — and update the Federal Records Act to provide meaningful sanctions (not to mention oversight) that effectively disincentivize at least such contumacious violations of it. Anything less, in the face of such sad circumstances would be abnegation of legislative responsibility as well.
Dan Metcalfe is a registered Democrat who has long said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.”
http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clinton-absolutely-violated-the-federal-records-act-heres-why-she-cant-be-punished/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1958677
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1958733
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hillary's emails were stored on a private business' server.
.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)sounds like the people that know the most about this disagree with you.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)When they build a case, they talk to the small fry's first and work their way up the food chain. That's why they started with the guy who set up the server.
They get everyone lower down's story, then use what that uncovered to interrogate the target.
Make not mistake, Hillary is the target of the investigation.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,611 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)To operate outside the restrictions of government. To privatize the State Department's activities, basically.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Her arrogant disregard for his presidency is what burns me most.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I think she was very disrespectful to President Obama.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I don't remember who it was, I posted a comment about it on here shortly after hearing it and perhaps mentioned his name then. Can't really search for it since I refuse to donate to this biased site that favors nasty rw smears to good critical analysis.
.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, cliffordu.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)2cannan
(344 posts)June 9, 2000: Clinton says she doesn't want to use email. Home video footage from a private fundraiser shows Senator Clinton talking about how she has deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail. "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even want... Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?" But apparently necessity will force her to change her mind, and it is known that by 2006 she will start using a BlackBerry for email. (ABC News, 3/6/2015)
ABC News Investigates Fundraising w/Hidden Video by Hillary Clinton On Emails SHOCKER
3:18 minute mark
MerryBlooms
(11,769 posts)
Liberal Jesus Freak
(1,451 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)arrogant, compulsive and greedy. It will catch up with her. The "rigged game" is up and just a matter of time until it unravels.
She and Bill have gotten away with lots since Arkansas.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)coffeeAM
(180 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)beaglelover
(3,469 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)That's her base.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Nice job, there.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I can't find anything...and that's not a slur.
But I realize that any political implications of her imperfections creates instant Haters and are labelled as Slurs.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Bernie would be way ahead. Not right wing smear, just truth. And it's coming. Brace yourself.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)It's a big deal she had an non-government secured or approved server on which she conducted all state secrets email. It's a big deal that she kept it hidden (didn't provide emails for FOIA). It's a big deal that when she was caught she gave printed out emails that had been tampered with (and many emails were not included). It's possibly a big deal that Sid Blumenthal was feeding her intel that looked like it came from a CIA leak and instead of reporting it she encouraged it. Also, all the Blackberries weren't secured either, were they? And Cheryl Mills lost hers.
I hope nobody died because of her actions.
The big question is why would she do this? For convenience? Really?? I think it included pay to play corruption with the Clinton Foundation. It's a pretty shady business, taking in donations from shady characters. Forgetting to report some of those characters donating while she was SOS, ones she had promised Obama she would not seek donations from. Another Oopsie. She also thwarted Obama by hiring Sid Blumenthal behind his back, so to speak, by hiring him through her foundation. Another Mea Culpa.
This Clinton foundation has a secondary foundation in Canada (where you don't have to divulge the donor list) which feeds into the American one. A foundation that only gives 10% as grants, supposedly spends 70 plus % of the rest on homegrown works. Are they for real? I wonder. Charitywatch seems to think its OK, they seem strident about it.
Then there's the Hillary Victory Fund/DNC/State funds shell game. And in 2008 wasn't she involved in Robocall scam with a nonprofit called WVWV or something?
And the exit polls for the Dem primaries don't add up, but they work right within the MOE for the Repubs..... and a lot of disenfranchisement.
Is there ANY repuke tactic the Clintons haven't imitated?
I'd say it's more than Shenanigans. It's corrupt.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Your vile OP was an appeal to low information voters when you tried to link that filthy and disgusting racist pic to Bernie. I can't believe you would even post that pic at all. Such disgusting racist shit you drug up in an attempt to smear a man who had been fighting for racial equality his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.
.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Plus the paranoia. Plus the reckless narcissism of the Clintons.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)Number of posts: 540
Number of posts, last 90 days: 538
I thought it took me a long time to build up my post count, but this one's pretty interesting.
840high
(17,196 posts)I ask - what the hell is wrong with you?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)his own email, yes, server, NO
2cannan
(344 posts)snip
March 3, 2015: A Clinton aide makes misleading comparisons to previous secretaries of state. An unnamed Clinton aide says about Clinton's use of a private email account and server, "Nothing nefarious was at play. She had a BlackBerry, she used it prior to State, and like her predecessors she continued to use it when she got to State." (Politico, 3/3/2015) However, a week later, The Wall Street Journal will report that Condoleezza Rice, Clinton's predecessor as secretary of state, had a government email account and no private email account for work-related matters. Rice only used the account occasionally, but she did use it. (Wall Street Journal, 3/10/2015) Furthermore, Rice did not use a BlackBerry or similar device. (Ars Technica, 3/17/2016) Earlier secretaries of state did not use BlackBerrys and did not use private email accounts for government work. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4
August 2015: Secretary of State Powell received two classified emails, but under very different circumstances than Clinton. Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall writes a letter to the State Department claiming that Clinton's "use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other secretaries of state." Kendall points in particular to Colin Powell, who appears to be the only other secretary of state to use a private email account while in office. But Powell had a government email account in addition to private one. According to The Washington Post, "Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews." He also had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private email account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. The State Department's inspector general did find that Powell's personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained "national security information classified at the 'secret' or 'confidential' levels." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) It will later come out that the two emails were at the lowest 'confidential' level and did not actually contain any intelligence but were classified for other reasons. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)reading and/or comprehension level of most in the HRC Bubble. Good try, though. Many of us have read this...it is a masterful article.
2cannan
(344 posts)It reminds me so much of republicans who can't bear to find out anything that doesn't fit their cherished narrative. I read everything people post (bad or good) about Bernie.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and change opinions, if appropriate.
Conservatives just parrot what they are told (conserving the status quo) while they worship the leader. Thought, optional.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)ABC News detailed a final State Department investigation which concluded that past secretaries of state, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's immediate staff, "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The findings come as the FBI investigates a private email server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state.
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state. On February 4, reports emerged that Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice also used private email accounts when they served under former President George W. Bush, and some of their emails similarly contained information that was retroactively classified.
The March 4 ABC News article reported that "a final memorandum" issued by "[t]he State Department's internal investigation arm" found that former secretaries of state "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The State Department found that emails handled on private email accounts associated with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice contain "information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.'" Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'" seemingly underscoring Secretary Clinton's defense that "the State Department is classifying documents too aggressively" (emphasis added):
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Don't suppose you read the responses to that post?
Not Good Enough, sheshe.
.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)been proven to be not the case. And even though the email situation heating up, it's the tie to The Clinton Foundation Pay to Play that, I believe, will ultimately bring the shady/cheating/clever house of cards down. That's no RWNJ Conspiracy.
You should catch up. Paul Thompson has done some excellent investigative journalism/writing posted here on DU. Much more thorough...I believe he has a short version and a long version. For obvious reasons.
2cannan
(344 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Another Brockovian site.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)thicker skin. Bernie supporters can dish out insults but are the first ones to try and hide threads when they are returned.
if friends like these, who needs republicans.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)um, requesting funds.
I have no idea about hiding threads, so please don't use that one, either. It's really old and tired. I'm clear why I'm a Bernie supporter. I know what he stands for. If it is an insult to disagree, then go for it. It does seem to be the New Talking Point.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)on republican and right wing sites (boy the shit they'll start to make up on Bernie if he gets the nomination will blow your mind away).
ABC News detailed a final State Department investigation which concluded that past secretaries of state, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's immediate staff, "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The findings come as the FBI investigates a private email server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state.
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state. On February 4, reports emerged that Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice also used private email accounts when they served under former President George W. Bush, and some of their emails similarly contained information that was retroactively classified.
The March 4 ABC News article reported that "a final memorandum" issued by "[t]he State Department's internal investigation arm" found that former secretaries of state "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The State Department found that emails handled on private email accounts associated with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice contain "information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.'" Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'" seemingly underscoring Secretary Clinton's defense that "the State Department is classifying documents too aggressively" (emphasis added):
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
2cannan
(344 posts)I used to read MediaMatters all the time but not since I found out that David Brock took over CREW and shut down their investigation into Hillary's emails. They actually were the first group; not Judicial Watch to want to see what was in her emails. Oh and the following is from Bloomberg News in case you don't get that far.
snip
Shortly After March 2, 2015: The main government watchdog trying to get Clinton's emails is silenced by a Clinton ally. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had been pursuing the public release of all of Clinton's emails. CREW has been one of the top political watchdog organizations, targeting unethical and corrupt behavior in both major political parties. But in August 2014, CREW was effectively taken over by David Brock, a close Clinton ally who runs the main Super PAC (political action committee) for her presidential campaign. In December 2012, CREW filed the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking Clinton's emails from when she was secretary of state, and that began a long legal battle over the issue. However, after Clinton's email scandal becomes public following a New York Times story on it on March 2, 2015, the new CREW leadership decides not to pursue the issue. Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel who led the search for the emails, will later comment, "It was made quite clear to me that CREW and I would not be commenting publicly on the issue of Secretary Clinton using a personal email account to conduct agency business. The fact that we said nothing on that subject says volumes." Weismann soon quits CREW as a result. Others also quit. Louis Mayberg, a cofounder of CREW, quits in March 2015, saying, "I have no desire to serve on a board of an organization devoted to partisanship." He also says that CREW's lack of action regarding the email scandal is another key factor in his departure. (Bloomberg News, 4/11/2016)
Clinton Email Scandal Timeline.
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)You might "think" about that and wonder why?
braddy
(3,585 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)me fed so up. Stuff like "precluded with prejudice" reminds me of Bernie regarding Flint, calling for people to resign while doing absolutely nothing to help. I'm sick of how much total cynicism is behind all the faux optimism. There is no real optimism. People who never voted will probably still stay home in November. It is sad.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I googled it and can't find anything.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
0rganism
(23,945 posts)hell, it doesn't matter if she had a secure, rock-solid setup complete with firewalls, multiple DMZ, a honeypot or two, airtight VPNs for access, and a crackerjack admin keeping an eye on the systems 24/7.
there's a really significant problem here in terms of exposing her to campaign attacks on national security grounds, which would nominally be one of her strengths.
this is what i mean.
in a national debate for the GE, she could put forth the most erudite, well-reasoned, well-presented foreign policy idea ever to reach the public's ears, that should outright win her the election.
all Trump has to do to rebut is say, "AND WHO CAN TRUST YOU CROOKED HILLARY WITH YOUR SPECIAL PRIVATE UNSECURED EMAIL SERVERS? WHO KNOWS WHAT CRIMES WENT ON THERE? MAYBE THE FBI BUT NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OH NO YOU'VE SEEN TO THAT HAVEN'T YOU."
blammo, Hillary's excellent idea goes right out the window while the moderators swoon and fixate on Trump's easy-to-parse attacks.
as a candidate, she has a real problem with unforced errors, which will leave her wide open to this kind of bullshit.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Not cool.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Her poor feet must have so many bullet holes by now.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)What does that even mean? Can you define "an unsecured server left out in the open"? Would that include servers guarded by a former president's Secret Service detail?
The server was installed under the supervision of and was protected by the Secret Service for use by a former president and his family. Are you seriously comparing something you gerry-rigged yourself in 1999 to the Clinton's home server?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...during her tenure as SOS. That means that any emails were sent in cleartext and therefore could have been read by any sysadmin of any server where the email landed as it was on its way to its destination. That is at least one known security lapse.
Furthermore, saying that the Secret Service was guarding it, is irrelevant. While physical security is certainly one aspect of computer security, it does nothing to protect the server from hackers.
The Secret Service supervised the installation of the server? You do know, don't you, that their area of expertise is physical protection of persons and their surroundings, not computer security.
annavictorious
(934 posts)other than a blog post in the marketing thread of a company trying to sell its internet services? Thais is where all the links in all the "news" stories seem to lead to.
https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...too funny, you think you can pass it off as some blogger in the basement somewhere. Oh I know you did not say that directly, but trying to dismiss the source is what your post is all about.
I don't need to research Venafi for you, you are perfectly able to do that yourself. I will say, they provide computer security for a number of big companies in several industries, and it is their primary business, that they are paid well to do.
Since they are the ones who did the analysis showing that clintonemail.com did not have a security certificate for 3 months (not 2 as I had stated), it is not surprising that the news reports referred back to them, and to the post in their blog on the topic. None of that negates the substance of their report.
annavictorious
(934 posts)not me.
“This means that during the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term in office, web browser, smartphone and tablet communications would not have been encrypted,” said Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi, in a blog post."
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235493-clinton-email-lacked-encryption-certificate-for-three-months
The blog post first appeared in March 2015. Any news on their claims since then? Any independent confirmation? Were they called to give expert testimony? I wonder why not.
annavictorious
(934 posts)I make no unsupported assumptions about their area of expertise.
I would at least check Wiki first.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)in this instance means the server was not protected from hackers gaining entrance to the information stored on the server via the internet.
annavictorious
(934 posts)Is there any evidence that the server was not protected from hackers or are you assuming that it was "unsecured"?
Are you sure that the Secret Service's role is as limited as you're making it out to be? Are you sure that the Secret Service has neither a mandate for nor expertise in cyber security? Maybe you should check and get back to me.
And please, stop directing me to a year old blog post by a cyber security pitchman who's trying to sell his internet protection product as evidence that the server was "unsecured". Sean Hannity might accept that as "evidence". Reasonable people won't.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)it wasn't the secret service securing it.
annavictorious
(934 posts)"She had an IT guy; therefore there were no additional layers of security even though cyber security has been within the Secret Service's mandate since 2001."
Sorry, but the facts don't support the conspiracy theory assumptions. These assumptions are driven by "news" (like blog posts) gleaned from right wing sources. Some people who used to consider themselves progressive are sounding more and more unhinged.
Welcome to Tea Party 2.0.
bvf
(6,604 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)and yes, after I left IBM, I had mad skills in computer security.
kcr
(15,315 posts)It's an operating system.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)UNIX and UNIX work alikes can be stripped down and used for making firewalls. Really good ones, actually.
Any first year computer science student knows this. Or should.
Openbsd was far and away the best - free- UNIX flavor available at the time for that job.
I can't help but notice she ran her little server on Windows. Mores the pity.
You really shouldn't argue computer operating systems with me, kiddo. You're out of your league.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Le sigh.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)UNIX and its' work alikes are routinely in use as firewalls is telling.
Telling everything, actually.
You googled it and realized it isn't a firewall, didn't you?
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Nice try. Fail.
kcr
(15,315 posts)That doesn't make Chrome the porn, does it? No. Chrome is still a web browser. OpenBSD is an operating system, not a firewall. You can use it as a firewall because it is an operating system. Operating systems can be used for lots of things.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)
Oh, and BSD, too!cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Bill Joy is turning over in his grave.....oh, wait....
kcr
(15,315 posts)Playtime is over. Mine was a clumsy op done on my phone at work....
The firewall was a
Computer
Running
Openbsd
Which then
Talked majic
To my Linux box web store; yet a different computer.
I ran all email through my Internet service provider, not wanting that traffic through the firewall.
Because as we all know, email has always been insecure at best and a Petri dish for spreading viruses and malware.
I had a fourth computer for my own browsing and pre-Chrome porn festivities.
This was in 1999.
I haven't used Windows since 1996 unless it was on a job site.
Well
Why
Didn't you say so
In the
First place?
Instead of digging in
Claiming OpenBSD was a firewall?
Those darn phones.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Routinely configured Openbsd to BE.
A firewall.
for me Openbsd = firewall.
Or a router. Or both.
Linux = ecommerce platform
(Now a mature system for everything not still locked down by M$)
Mac = something to suggest to people who want plug n play, robust support and pretty, pretty boxes.
And phones.
Runs a near UNIX OS based on the NeXt operating system. In fact, if you download the developer kits and computer language packages you can turn your 1900 dollar iMac into a pretty reasonable clone of a 500 dollar Linux box.
Fuck around with the bash prompt, you know, do some shell scripting. Work in perl. Or write a program in C. Compile some shit. Awesome.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You most certainly can build a openbsd box and use it as a firewall http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The damage is done and the court of public opinion has made up its mind.
If there is a recommendation to indict, she is toast, regardless of what Lynch and/or Obama do.
If there is no recommendation to indict, it will be assumed that Lynch or Obama intervened to quash the indictment. And she is toast.
The good news is that Hillary Clinton will never be POTUS.
The bad news is that unless the Democrat Party gets its head out of its ass, and rids itself of the Clinton taint, we can look forward to Pres. Trump.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Some of us, mostly Bernie folks have looked into this and not liked what we saw, but the
overall public is dumb to the facts. (as is evident in this post) She is toast now, in my opinion, and the bulk of the info has yet to
be revealed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the arrogance, sense of entitlement and political malpractice of Clinton; which is really what this is about from beginning to end.
She feels entitled to power, she feels no obligation to oversight. Lie, delay, lie, delay and lie some more until we're running into the GE.
That she is defended by her supporters as the best chance to beat Trump based on political acumen is farcical based on observed behavior and they disqualify themselves as serious commentators when they continue to press such arguments
annavictorious
(934 posts)that the Clintons are murdering, traitorous, criminals. The reason why Tea Party 2.0 members are just finding out is because they're relatively new to the Fox News world.
Did you also know that President Obama is a Muslim socialist who was born in Kenya? The "court of public opinion" has known that since 2008. Try to keep up.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and to me the most plausible explanation is fear that she would be spied on by people in the government. We know, for example, that Diane Feinstein's office computers were spied on by the CIA -- which amusingly angered her, after she had voted to keep allowing government agencies to spy on the rest of us all they wanted to.
Anyway, given the Clinton's history in DC, where they really have battled against the VRWC, I would not be at all surprised to hear that this was the motivation. There are lots and lots of people in government who are plants of one sort or another. We know that GWB seeded the DOJ with lots of attorneys from places like Liberty U; I'm sure that Poppy Bush had lots of his own plants in the 3-letter agencies as well. Not to mention Cheney...
That's the one reason that makes some sense to me.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Now don't you feel silly?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
dwrjr
(24 posts)Excuses, excuses.
It's like Caligula being asked about his crimes, and saying "Well, Nero did it too!".
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)
LeftRant
(524 posts)If it were something more tangible/concrete, maybe, but this issue isn't one most people can understand, let alone care about. If the FBI doesn't directly implicate (and I'm told they have to show knowing deception--a higher bar to meet), this is nothing but smear. Working as intended.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Easier? Nope.
What would she not use her government computer but go out to fetch her private Blackberry from security to check her email?
Convenience? Nope
She's either stupid or a Luddite or both.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Dan Metcalfe was the Founding Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy (1981-2007). Metcalfe was essentially “the federal government’s chief information-disclosure ‘guru.'”
…
Such is the case with federal records laws such as the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, which govern the conduct of federal employees and officials, even that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
What’s more, the civil sanctions provided in these laws can be applied only to people who still remain federal employees at the time at which their violation is discovered and acted upon. In other words, if you violate these laws and then leave government service quickly enough, you are beyond the reach of their penalties. Indeed, a common refrain among political appointees during the latter part of the George W. Bush Administration was: “That’s OK, because by the time anyone finds out about it, we’ll be long gone.”
The Federal Records Act (or “FRA”) is a decades-old federal law that governs the creation, maintenance, preservation, and disposition of federal records, regardless of form or format, including electronic records such as e-mail. Simply put, it tells those who work for the federal government that they must document their work and keep such records safe during their tenures. Then, when someone leaves a federal position, the FRA requires that all such records be reviewed in conjunction with an agency records officer so that the agency (i.e., not the employee alone) can make decisions about which records will be preserved.
…
Any failure to meet these legal obligations, from the beginning of an employee’s tenure to the end, is punishable with administrative sanctions up to and including dismissal.
…
So what the public is left with, in the case of these key federal records laws, is a statutory scheme that is effectively toothless in most instances, especially in the cases of law-flouting political employees such as Secretary Clinton who seem to do just whatever they please and can get away with — literally.
And one more conclusion should be obvious: It is long past time for Congress to take a close look at this — regardless of how Secretary Clinton manages to fare on the criminal side of her docket — and update the Federal Records Act to provide meaningful sanctions (not to mention oversight) that effectively disincentivize at least such contumacious violations of it. Anything less, in the face of such sad circumstances would be abnegation of legislative responsibility as well.
Dan Metcalfe is a registered Democrat who has long said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.”
http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clinton-absolutely-violated-the-federal-records-act-heres-why-she-cant-be-punished/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1958677
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1958733
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)versus a computer that has security hooked up to the unsecure OpenNet @state.gov internet network. Hillarys private server used an enterprise level fortinet security device
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)
MFM008
(19,808 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)she's one of our reptilian overlords.
Come on, Me and David Icke are just Kidding.
I was just tipping the 'scales'
But I do think it was ''unpresidented''
Don't forget she wants a Manhattan project to break encryption if that makes sense for national security or should I talk to her server cleaning cloth?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/
The e mail link between the Clinton Foundation and her State Department is
the reason, in my mind, for her privacy and secrecy she created a separate
avenue against protocols...... The Freedom of Information Act is thus averted.
''unpresidented''
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)I hear they tickle.
I lost port Townsend in the divorce, my ex wife got it, and I had to move back to Portland.
Howyadoing?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and struggling month to month as most of us do but generally OK.
Port Townsend was also the place of my downfall of my Marriage too.
Funny
Glad to see you posting here again my friend.
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #156)
cliffordu This message was self-deleted by its author.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)"I didn't mean to."
(IANAL)
Even if her motives for having a homebrew server were far from nefarious, "mistakes were made" and somebody must be held accountable. There's going to be a fall guy or gal, and today my money's on Cheryl Mills, known as the only person who says 'no' to Hillary.
Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, paid a $50,000 fine, performed 100 hours of community service, lost his security clearance and his law license. For stuffing classified documents down his pants. David Petraeus similarly got his charges reduced to a misdemeanor, with a $100,000 fine and two years of probation for sharing classified info with his mistress/biographer.
Both cases angered investigating agents because of the leniency of punishment.
From what I can tell and from what Bryan Pagliano may or may not be saying as a result of his immunity from prosecution, Hillary Clinton very likely is -- like Berger and Petraeus -- responsible for the "mishandling of classified data". (The conversation about what is, what is not, and/or what should be classified data or not is a word-definition distraction that nobody is indulging in any longer.)
Whether she is eventually indicted or not, whether misdemeanor or felony if so, is to be determined by the conclusions of the FBI's investigation, director Comey, AG Lynch, and I suspect even Obama himself.
(Insert "Law and Order"'s DUNH-DUNH sound effect here.)
If Guccifer is teling the truth -- and can provide evidence that backs his statements up -- the only question I have is: what should Clinton's penalty be?
My final concern about this matter is when we will have the conclusions of the investigation made public: before November... or after.
Kindly note that I draw no conclusions about political consequences, though that will be at the forefront of everyone's reaction. once we know what we do not know today.
Too dramatic? 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hard to believe they would let the internal communications be insecure.
Even the government can be hacked into, and everybody praised Eddie Snowden for doing that.
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
