General Discussion

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

34. What's there to explain?

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 06:49 PM

Mar 2015

There is a differnce between...

Wanting a transparent government - a government that clearly records and reports its conduct, makes it available to the public, without obfuscation or "gatekeeping"

and

Using an unsecure network to conduct state business - In this case the government is not being transparent. it is in fact conducting business in a standard non-transparent manner, only it is doing so over a network that is exposed to hackers, or even the notorious "send to address book" hazard. Further, the lack of records available for exchanges over private accounts ends up making things even less transparent.

Do you believe that wanting the government to make an honest accounting of itself is identical to wanting information spilled through the hacking of a hotmail account? Because that's the thesis your OP relies on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

151 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I've noticed a contradiction [View all] BainsBane Mar 2015 OP

This is a strawman argument. Marr Mar 2015 #1

Then what was the argument in favor of the Wikileaks dump? BainsBane Mar 2015 #2

Some of the information Assange made available were things the government Marr Mar 2015 #12

Some, in the case of Wikileaks, is not all. BainsBane Mar 2015 #23

Or even "most." n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #42

Not if it's held privately, no. Marr Mar 2015 #45

According to State BainsBane Mar 2015 #53

Would you trust Condoleeza Rice to produce all materials? Marr Mar 2015 #54

That is in fact Assange's position BainsBane Mar 2015 #60

Not necessarily complete exclusivity-- but near enough. Marr Mar 2015 #63

I appreciate your willngness to seriously engage the question BainsBane Mar 2015 #82

Of course-- same to you. Marr Mar 2015 #96

I hadn't heard Assange believes all govt communications should be public riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #64

I'm looking for it BainsBane Mar 2015 #83

Thanks. I didn't spend a lot of time on it so maybe I missed it riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #91

Choosing what to send to State is exactly what they appear to have done. merrily Mar 2015 #103

+1 merrily Mar 2015 #102

well, i can think of some. one is in a thread spouting off that her truth, is truth. ya.... seabeyond Mar 2015 #110

Noticed that too. The people who are most "worried" about the security of Hillary's email server DanTex Mar 2015 #3

There is no contradiction. Please see Reply 1 and the rest of that subthread. merrily Mar 2015 #104

And the opposite is true. former9thward Mar 2015 #4

Operating your own email server is one way to ensure that your emails don't end up leaked to the DanTex Mar 2015 #8

Except when it is hacked. former9thward Mar 2015 #10

Which it wasn't. If someone who knows what they are doing sets up a private email server, it will DanTex Mar 2015 #14

How do you know it wasn't? former9thward Mar 2015 #16

I don't. But there's no indication that it was. DanTex Mar 2015 #20

She defied the White House. former9thward Mar 2015 #25

OK. This is a big deal because...? DanTex Mar 2015 #32

We don't know yet. former9thward Mar 2015 #37

Dang tootin' But, it's OKIYAH merrily Mar 2015 #109

Hillary in 2016! Technically she didn't break any laws! tularetom Mar 2015 #55

I take your point, but merrily Mar 2015 #107

Because the President was elected the Chief Executive Officer of the United States and merrily Mar 2015 #111

Meh. He didn't seem too upset about it. DanTex Mar 2015 #113

He's not the only one who has an interest in whether she defies him. As I said, he was elected. merrily Mar 2015 #115

If he doesn't care, then it's not "defying" him. DanTex Mar 2015 #117

First, as stated, we don't know if he doesn't care and, yes it is merrily Mar 2015 #121

We know he didn't do anything about it. So he didn't care much. DanTex Mar 2015 #128

Already addressed. Unless he knew all the facts, we don't even know that he forgave her. merrily Mar 2015 #130

He knew she was using a private email. Obviously. Unless she never emailed him or any DanTex Mar 2015 #131

Also already addressed. merrily Mar 2015 #132

Wouldn't that be another way that the people couldn't file a FOIA request? Autumn Mar 2015 #11

No ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #46

Okay. I have seen articles from both Wired and Gawker stating that. Autumn Mar 2015 #62

Both sites are incorrect ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #93

doesn't stop a request, but she has control of the records. merrily Mar 2015 #114

I guess it's all a matter of trust. Autumn Mar 2015 #116

Hillary in particular has a related precedent. merrily Mar 2015 #127

PS Link on that subpoena thing. merrily Mar 2015 #134

I remember that. I spent so long defending them and I'm Autumn Mar 2015 #136

Even if you remember the incident, the wiki write up is interesting. merrily Mar 2015 #137

You are right on that. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out Autumn Mar 2015 #139

I agree with your feeling. merrily Mar 2015 #140

I supported and defended Hillary all the way until she dropped out. Autumn Mar 2015 #144

I made up my mind to support Obama in November 2007. merrily Mar 2015 #147

Hillary's emails weren't classified eom treestar Mar 2015 #15

A SOS does not send out classified emails? former9thward Mar 2015 #17

There's a process for what is classified and what is not treestar Mar 2015 #19

How do you know? former9thward Mar 2015 #26

How does s/he know everything is not classified? BainsBane Mar 2015 #36

You are not serious if you think a SOS does not have classified documents. former9thward Mar 2015 #38

That isn't what I said BainsBane Mar 2015 #58

LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #47

Common sense would indicate treestar Mar 2015 #66

Do you remember what Manning leaked? It was from the system used for this, SIPRNET. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #77

Relevance? Manning was authorized to access what she printed out. merrily Mar 2015 #112

That other poster was asking what Hillary would do if she needed to send out classified info if she stevenleser Mar 2015 #123

I meant the relevance of mentioning Manning and her leak. Her leak had nothing to do with merrily Mar 2015 #125

The Manning incident is the most public recent issue regarding SIPRnet. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #126

Of course not everything she does is classified. An FOIA request is the reason she turned over merrily Mar 2015 #138

Okay, but take me as an example BainsBane Mar 2015 #22

Sure. former9thward Mar 2015 #35

Your position is news clips? BainsBane Mar 2015 #43

Its not great that she surrounds herself with staff that ignore security concerns. former9thward Mar 2015 #68

Most of DU was outraged when Republicans were caught using RNC servers suffragette Mar 2015 #133

Shhhh. merrily Mar 2015 #105

What if some is OK with wikileaks and upset private emails aren't Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #5

The only contradiction here is your misunderstanding. leveymg Mar 2015 #6

Again, no laws were broken. DanTex Mar 2015 #7

We agree to disagree. leveymg Mar 2015 #50

She kept the records after she left State and until an FOIA request and she kept them after that, merrily Mar 2015 #106

Wikileaks didn't go through FOIA BainsBane Mar 2015 #9

Exactly treestar Mar 2015 #13

Please name those of us that believe government has no right to keep secrets AngryAmish Mar 2015 #18

This is a discussion, not an inquisition or call out BainsBane Mar 2015 #24

So your asserted position is held by nobody AngryAmish Mar 2015 #48

Here BainsBane Mar 2015 #76

Oh, I stand corrected. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #79

Sift through the G.A.S. threads ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #57

don't expect logic or consistency on the issue, esp. from Greenwald/Snowden fanboys uhnope Mar 2015 #21

Says the guy who runs like hell when I challenge him re Snowden. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2015 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author uhnope Mar 2015 #44

It's called sticking one's finger in the air and testing the winds. The argument is subject to.... Tarheel_Dem Mar 2015 #27

Yep. Especially a STRONG Democrat who holds her own against Republicans BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #119

Must be something-something-"idle left" don't you think? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #28

Then explain the position to me BainsBane Mar 2015 #30

What's there to explain? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #34

Transparent is not Assange's position in Wikileaks BainsBane Mar 2015 #49

And now your OP is about Julian Assange? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #52

You are free to post an OP about that BainsBane Mar 2015 #59

Secure from foreign governments. jeff47 Mar 2015 #29

I think there are a variety of views BainsBane Mar 2015 #31

People love leaked information... until it is information on them Johonny Mar 2015 #39

I suspect that's because those "Democrats" clinging to this "scandal" ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #40

+1000 ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #94

+2000 eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #120

Which, BTW ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #141

Great minds think alike, 1SBM! We don't need to do the dirty work for the GOP BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #143

I wonder if folks would care that ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #146

They should - IF they really are Democrats and want another Democrat in the White House BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #150

This has to be a joke Doctor_J Mar 2015 #41

It's an effort to explore an issue BainsBane Mar 2015 #61

think of the poor baby elephants Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #51

Some quotes BainsBane Mar 2015 #71

I never said it was straw, but those threads are from over 5 years ago and prove nothing. Rex Mar 2015 #80

That post was in response to another member BainsBane Mar 2015 #86

what makes it a strawman Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #81

LOL BainsBane Mar 2015 #89

What you are missing Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #90

I've never seen anyone say the government has no right to keep secrets, can you show proof of that? Rex Mar 2015 #56

I've never heard that's Assange's position either have you? riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #67

Here BainsBane Mar 2015 #75

What an odd argument. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #65

Look around. A lot of people are making the "how could she compromise security" argument. DanTex Mar 2015 #70

Yes they were from what I saw yesterday. Cha Mar 2015 #73

How would anyone know if we have access to all the information if it is controlled TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #69

And that is the question! But who is going to answer? nt kelliekat44 Mar 2015 #84

I suspect no one as it wouldn't fit the attempted narrative here. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #118

The ever-controversial "some here", now "many here" never do anything correctly. merrily Mar 2015 #124

Thanks for pointing out their Glaring Hypocrisy, BB Cha Mar 2015 #72

I generally do not think that our Government should be allowed to keep secrets from its citizens. Maedhros Mar 2015 #74

Yes, there is no difference between individual right to privacy and govt. agents hiding info. LOL Bonobo Mar 2015 #78

How does individual right to privacy figure into this? BainsBane Mar 2015 #87

I noticed the same thing ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #85

To read this thread BainsBane Mar 2015 #88

Not only that ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #92

Not confusing ... Transparent. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #95

You noticed too? McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #97

I noticed that too. lovemydog Mar 2015 #98

Is she releasing them? BainsBane Mar 2015 #100

Hillary Clinton has requested the State Department to release all her emails to the public. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #148

Don't expect consistency from that bunch... Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #99

Yeah, no contradiction. Whether Hillary violated the law or not was the issue most DUers debated, merrily Mar 2015 #101

There's a lot of contradictions around the subject Fumesucker Mar 2015 #108

+1 KoKo Mar 2015 #122

I think the email "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot. Or maybe not even a pot, maybe a teaspoon. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #129

I agree: no inconsistency. merrily Mar 2015 #142

the issue is not whether the private email is "secure" but that it's an attempt to avoid scrutiny yurbud Mar 2015 #135

Okay BainsBane Mar 2015 #145

I hope you're right. yurbud Mar 2015 #149

JMHO Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2015 #151