Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:07PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the one-rule-for-them dept.

The NY Times reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, according to State Department officials. She may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record.

Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business," said attorney Jason R. Baron. A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:13PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:13PM (#152982) Journal

    This appears to be a real breach of the law, not a petty scandal.

    And emails are the hip new 2016 campaign issue [theregister.co.uk].

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:15PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:15PM (#152984) Journal
      Maybe they crafted a set of rules with 1 letter only and ethanol for the rest?
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:30PM

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:30PM (#152987) Journal

        I'm drawn to this paragraph:

        Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.

        "Every expectation they would be retained". It sounds somewhat reasonable, but what about the intent of Fmr. Sec. of State Clinton and the people emailing her? If it's expected that emails to employee@state.gov would be retained, what's stopping dozens of people from around the agency also using personal email accounts and exchanging shady correspondence with Clinton's personal email account? Is it OK if it wasn't official business? If official business was sent from personal-to-personal account, would there be anyway of knowing about it short of subpoenaing the whole email account?

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 5, Funny) by Geezer on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:57PM

          by Geezer (511) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:57PM (#152991)

          Sure, just ask the NSA.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:02PM

            by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:02PM (#152995) Journal

            If you thought the NSA scraping everybody's traffic was bad, just wait til you see what they don't store!

            #1. clintonemail.com

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:57PM

            by arslan (3462) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:57PM (#153260)

            Heh, its moderated +5 Funny... but that may actually be a plausible get out of jail card for her...

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:21PM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:21PM (#153220) Journal

          "Every expectation they would be retained".

          Really?

          This from the same administration which claimed in testimony before congress that there were no backups of Lois Lerner's email [dailycaller.com] after her desk computer crashed.

          That server needs to be seized by swat team immediately. Because that is what would happen to you or me.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:06PM

      by marcello_dl (2685) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:06PM (#153019)

      Is the legality of the behavior really relevant?
      Let's see how things should have worked out.
      A top ranked public officer should not use personal email, or if done, should produce in a matter of hours all public correspondence in the name of transparency. Failure to do so is a bigger failure than breaching the law because it shows incompetence and/or malice.

      It reminds me of a guy called Berlusconi who defended himself from the accusation of bribing tax officers with: "I didn't know about it, my employees did everything". Oh well, so he admit having employees happily breaching the law and still thinks he can lead a country?

      Don't mistake this for political propaganda: the status quo changes the politician, not the other way round, so what party they belong to is scarcely relevant.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:31PM

      by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:31PM (#153068)

      This really sent red flags up with me. Not only did she use personal email but she used a personal server run from her residence protected from physical access, by default, by the secret service.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-server-homebrew-115745.html [politico.com]

      These are extraordinary measures by a politician, even Palin used a public service for her "personal/professional" grey area. When anyone, especially a public servant, goes to extraordinary measures then extraordinary scrutiny should be applied.

      I try to be reserved with hot topics and political maneuvering but this one has me losing my "reserve." I'm inclined to say throw the book at her for obstruction of justice. Just because there may be no crime, obstructing justice is something that obstructs the justice process. That seems to be what's happening now! Send a signal to all politicians, don't hide your public service!

      I'm going to stop now before I start getting cynical!

      --
      Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:50PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:50PM (#153086) Journal

        Setting up a home based email server is not trivial. It would take a real understanding of the implications of how email is stored and a real effort to set up. This isn't something you just accidentally end up with but is something you actively pursue with data protection specifically in mind.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:54PM

          by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:54PM (#153093)

          Bingo! Extraordinary efforts made to give much greater control over the public record.

          I'm also thinking, how did everyone in the government not notice it was a personal email? Did she just not email anybody in the US government? This has me dumbfounded that it's not being asked more.

          The more you critically think about this, the more it sticks all on its own. Even if Bengazi is a smoke and mirrors this is extremely arrogant and should have every conspiracy theorist foaming at the mouth. It just STINKS of nefarious intentions.

          --
          Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
          • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:29PM

            by pnkwarhall (4558) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:29PM (#153187)

            Clinton For Prez 2016!

            --
            Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:12PM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:12PM (#153215) Journal

          Setting up a home based email server is not trivial.

          Actually, it is trivial. Virtually any Linux distro does it out of the box. So it shouldn't have been a problem for "The smartest woman on earth".
          But it was probably set up by Bill Clinton's campaign lakkies and had been there fror some time.

          The real question is was it maintained, and if so, by who. Because whoever maintains it has to have root access. Which means access to all the mail.
          Were security patches installed? Were Government workers involved?
          Why don't federal data retention laws apply to top administration officials?

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:33PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:33PM (#153486) Journal

            It's not quite that trivial. I'm doing the same right now. The real issue is that if it was in her home she would have had to purchase a business class connection, as outgoing mail from a residential network is almost certainly going to be flagged as spam. Then she needs a skilled sysadmin to set the thing up, and probably some on-call support too since we all know there's no way Clinton is even rebooting the server on her own. And someone like that isn't going to go ten minutes without working email.

            Sure, she probably just paid someone a huge stack of cash and got it done, but that still means she put some effort into figuring out that she needed this, and she spent a huge stack of cash, all to avoid something which she was *legally required* to have provided by her employer. That *is* a lot of effort if she didn't expect some serious gain from doing so. So what is she doing *at work* that's so important to keep secret *from her employers*?

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:47PM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:47PM (#153669) Journal

              Oh, come on, you don't need a business class connection, (and if she did, that's like $50/month)
              You don't even need a static ip.
              And outbound routing of mail just needs to go through some gateway somewhere.

              You can buy these deivces from companies that will come in and set them up.
              http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/secure-email-gateway.aspx [sophos.com]
              There are like 10 or 20 companies providing these, like Barracuda, Intel, Sendio, Dell SonicWALL FortiMail , etc. Most of these come with remote management capabilities, and provide their own outbound relay.

              Which one of those companies wouldn't trip all over themselves to get an install for a Former President?
              The quiet bragging rights alone would be worth gold.
              My bet she paid nothing. She is alleged to have used the server of Bil Clinton's organization, which was located in their residence.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 06 2015, @06:41AM

                by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2015, @06:41AM (#153739) Journal

                Whoa, accidentally called that one.....

                There are like 10 or 20 companies providing these, like Barracuda, Intel, Sendio, Dell SonicWALL FortiMail , etc. Most of these come with remote management capabilities, and provide their own outbound relay.

                And there it is... [post-gazette.com]

                To ensure that Ms. Clinton’s emails were private, her system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet — a good step, Mr. McGeorge said.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:51PM (#153088)

        Not only did she use personal email but she used a personal server run from her residence protected from physical access, by default, by the secret service.
        ...
        These are extraordinary measures by a politician, even Palin used a public service for her "personal/professional" grey area.

        Before anyone accuses me of partisanship, I want to state up front that this whole personal email thing is completely unacceptable because, whatever arguments there are for doing it, it reduces oversight and accountability which is our only tool to prevent corruption. No one ever thinks of themselves as a villain so her own judgement of her good intentions is not sufficient.

        That said, if you are secretary of state, your email will contain very sensitive messages. I wouldn't trust it to a commercial service. You have no practical expectation of confidentiality. Palin's email was hacked, that's the only reason we know she was using it to talk to other governors. Using a physically secured server managed by presumably competent people directly responsible to her is a reduction in the risk.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:02PM

          by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:02PM (#153099)

          I would trust my email with google before I would trust it with a personal server when you are responsible for every tiny security detail. Unless it was managed by someone extremely competent this would be a dangerous and reckless procedure. Being in the position she is in her server would be the targets of everything up to the national level. So I do not buy your line of reasoning.

          And why would she NEED to use a personal email address to conduct government business? The legal implications of running her own server give her quite a bit of power over controlling the public record. Not to mention the fact that nobody in the US government noticed she wasn't using a government email address until now!

          --
          Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:15PM (#153105)

            > I would trust my email with google before I would trust it with a personal server when you are responsible for every tiny security detail.

            That's you. I submit that your perspective is not the only reasonable one. Your belief that it is leads to circular reasoning.

            • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:37PM

              by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:37PM (#153115)

              How many personal servers are compromised? How often is google compromised? I leave the conclusions up to the reader to research and educate themselves.

              As to the facts...
              Palin was hacked because someone GUESSED her challenge/response by using publicly available information

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack [wikipedia.org]

              You implied the security of the system. The security of Yahoo wasn't at fault. The lack of choosing proper challenge/response for Palin was! The real issue is a government official conducting official government business outside of proper government channels.

              I do not submit that my perspective is the only reasonable one. I am open to reasonable debate/discussion. The implication that the security of yahoo infrastructure was compromised leading to Palin's account to be breached is false! It is also a distraction from the issues at hand, which I have posted a few comments about.

              Please provide meaningful discussion rather than guessing at what my perspective really is and deflecting from the core issue. I happen to be involved in IT security and my statement is well informed.

              --
              Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
              • (Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:58PM

                by Fnord666 (652) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:58PM (#153132) Homepage

                You implied the security of the system. The security of Yahoo wasn't at fault. The lack of choosing proper challenge/response for Palin was! The real issue is a government official conducting official government business outside of proper government channels.

                I disagree. Yahoo is at fault for

                1. Providing secret security questions that can be answered via commonly known information
                2. Not providing a viable two factor authentication to its users. Something that you know and something else that you know does not count.
                • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:13PM

                  by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:13PM (#153142)

                  I agree Yahoo is at fault for those points, and more! However the AC implied yahoo was vulnerable to an exploit that allowed someone unauthorized access to many accounts, Palin's being one. I should have been more clear to begin with.

                  Yahoo may have been vulnerable, and someone may have gained access. However if this someone did, it was not made public. The one who made the emails public used publicly available information to compromise one account.

                  --
                  Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:04PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:04PM (#153136)

                I leave the conclusions up to the reader to research and educate themselves.

                "Go google it!" is the most common admission of error on the net.

                Palin was hacked because someone GUESSED her challenge/response by using publicly available information

                Yes, the system as designed was vulnerable. That's not the only vulnerability in systems like that, that one was just low-hanging fruit. There other examples [wired.com] of more sophisticated compromises, not to mention the ones that go undetected or at least not publicly reported.

                I do not submit that my perspective is the only reasonable one.

                No, you are making a circular argument and I pointed that out. See your "go google it!" justification as further proof that you are just stating the conclusion as the premise. The thing about people who make circular arguments - they generally have a very tough time recognizing that fact. Otherwise they wouldn't have done it to start with.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:15PM (#153246)

                  "Go google it!" is the most common admission of error on the net.

                  Really?!? Telling someone to do some of their own research is an admission of error? That's a new one to me.

                  Palin was hacked because someone GUESSED her challenge/response by using publicly available information

                  Yes, the system as designed was vulnerable.

                  No, not necessarily. The challenge/response is commonly used because it is assumed that the user (or only close family or friends) would know the answer to those questions. Palin apparently did not consider that, as a public person, the answers to her challenge/response questions might be easy for a hacker to find. This is an important lesson for her (and other people in the public eye) that they have an extra burden when it comes to ensuring the security of their personal computer accounts. Hint: just because your cat is named 'Kibbles' doesn't mean you have to answer the question truthfully.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:35PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:35PM (#153254)

                    Telling someone to do some of their own research is an admission of error? That's a new one to me.

                    Telling someone to go prove your argument for you is indeed an admission of error.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:00AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:00AM (#153325)

                      Telling someone to go prove your argument for you is indeed an admission of error.

                      So I guess it's a good thing that infodragon did not say that then. Look, infodragon has a point of view contrary to yours. Perhaps even contrary to many others. Perhaps even contrary to the facts. Suggesting that you are ill-informed is not any sort of admission to error. Presumptuous, perhaps. But not an admission of error. Also, being ignorant is one thing. Being stubbornly, wilfully ignorant to the point of refusing to do your own investigative research is quite another. Why is it that you refuse to take the time to educate yourself? If the facts are on your side wouldn't it be quite easy to give infodragon a few links to prove your point? Frankly, right now you appear to me to be merely posturing.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:05PM (#153168)

            I would trust my email with google before I would trust it with a personal server when you are responsible for every tiny security detail.

            Frankly the idea that someone with sensitive email should use an email service providers whose entire business model is based on snooping your email is ridiculous.

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:36PM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:36PM (#153487) Journal

              Frankly the idea that someone with sensitive email should use an email service providers whose entire business model is based on snooping your email is ridiculous.

              I guess that explains why she wasn't using the government provided email address then....

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:38PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:38PM (#153152) Journal

          I'm guessing she wouldn't have to rely on a commercial service being that she is part of the high level executive branch. I worked for the state I live in a dozen years ago as a low level functionary -- the state provided me with an email address. I'm sure there are people people working around the clock to maintain the Whitehouse's email service's integrity and security -- HRC would certainly not have been left with having to decide between MSN or Yahoo to conduct business. Palin using Yahoo and getting caught probably enlightened people like HRC enough to talk to some tech people who explained that if you host your own server, you have personal control over the stored messages.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:37PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:37PM (#153489) Journal

            I'm guessing she wouldn't have to rely on a commercial service being that she is part of the high level executive branch. I worked for the state I live in a dozen years ago as a low level functionary -- the state provided me with an email address. I'm sure there are people people working around the clock to maintain the Whitehouse's email service's integrity and security -- HRC would certainly not have been left with having to decide between MSN or Yahoo to conduct business. Palin using Yahoo and getting caught probably enlightened people like HRC enough to talk to some tech people who explained that if you host your own server, you have personal control over the stored messages.

            Yeah, that's exactly the point. Not only do they provide email server for her; she is *legally required* to use that email service so we have a record of her correspondence.

        • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:38PM

          by pnkwarhall (4558) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:38PM (#153191)

          The thread started by AC and contributed to by infodragon is a long argument where no one brings up the whole "government email" thing. It's not a question of GMail vs Personal Server. It's a question of government supplied/maintained/secured email vs personal server. (I would hope that they have some security professionals securing the 'state.gov' email service.) In fact, the fact that this is left out entirely makes me believe that a) neither of them knows what they're talking about, b) they're just really easily led down rabbit-holes, or c) they're actively trying to de-rail sensible conversation.

          --
          Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:10PM (#153201)

            No, the .gov thing is orthogonal to infodragon's point.
            Its a given she already went without a .gov address. His theory is that going with a personal server over a commercial service proves mailicious intent.

            As for why she went without the .gov in the first place? The argument made is that the .gov system is a PITA to use for all the reasons government tools are typical far from state of the art. I'm sure there is some truth to that, nothing is ever black and white. The question is how many other truths are there behind the motivation to use a personal account.

            • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM

              by infodragon (3509) on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM (#153304)

              It's not my theory. I'm trying to state that there are theoretical scenarios that can be malicious. When a pubic servant goes to such extraordinary efforts that allow circumvention (doesn't mean she did) then extraordinary scrutiny should be applied.

              However after the media hubub and all the back and forth it will be business as usual.

              --
              Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36AM (#153385)

                > It's not my theory.

                Yeah, sure.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:26PM

        by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:26PM (#153109)

        Replying to myself here...

        The more I think of this the more intrigued and suspicious I get...

        What does running her OWN server give her...

        1. Legal protection.
        2. Notice if the NSA/CIA/.../ subpoena her records. If it's uber secret subponea then she KNOWS!
        3. Control (most politicians love to control everything)
        3a. control who gets what
        3b. control a data loss accident. "Ooops we didn't get a chance to back that up, we missed a few days"
        3c. control/power over others. I control who sees this so we can talk more openly...
        3d. control over managing the email process... I did send you that email at this time... it got stuck in the interwebs... sorry for that...
        3e. plausible deniability. This is a politicians favorite thing, other than votes. "I don't recall"
        3f. ability to modify the record. If there is a very sensitive discussion in which the counter-party is exposed then the record can be altered and the counter-party would be in a worse position.
        3g. ability to alter headers showing false trails. Either to hide or implicate....

        If the record is altered and the counter-party does try to prove it, then it becomes he-said-she-said which is a political dream. More attention on me and I'm looking better because I put on "digital makeup"

        I'm not accusing anyone of doing any of these things. However not having this level of control over the public record is the reason why there are government email servers! When someone goes to the extraordinary effort to avoid centralized and "transparent" operations then without other compelling information we the population must consider that these are possibilities and DIG to ensure they did not happen. The secretary of state can cause immeasurable harm and must be held to measurable standards!

        --
        Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
      • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:44PM

        by Nobuddy (1626) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:44PM (#153208)

        She learned from the best. I would be fine with her getting the exact same punishment Bush and his administration did.

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

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:48PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:48PM (#153082)

      This appears to be a real breach of the law, not a petty scandal.

      Citation needed. Exactly WHICH law exactly are you asserting was violated?

      Most news criticism is focused on the Presidential Records Act [wikipedia.org], which was passed in 1978. However, the act as originally passed did not (because it was known at the time) make any provisions for e-mail.

      The Presidential Records Act was AMENDED [wikipedia.org] to include specifications around e-mail, and contains language forbidding the use of non-governmental e-mails for government business.

      However, this amendment was not passed until 2014. Secretary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State in 2013. During the entire time Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, the law did NOT have such provision. As ex post facto [wikipedia.org] laws are unconstitutional in the US, I'm not seeing how any of these actions can reasonably described as unlawful. Unless there's another law that's NOT the Presidential Records Act that you believe was violated. In which case, again, citation needed.

      That doesn't mean that this isn't a dumb thing to do, or was OK. It's been over a decade since most corporations have had clear policies prohibiting their employees from conducting corporate business on personal accounts. It's astounding to me that the Federal Government didn't have similar guidelines and requirements. So I'm not OK with her actions.

      But "clearly unlawful" isn't obvious to me.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:28PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:28PM (#153206) Journal

      Uhhhh...isn't that the exact. same. thing. that Cheney done in 06 that nobody said or did squat about? I always thought it sad how bad of a bunch of hypocrites BOTH SIDES are in US politics, how the flag wavers will bend over backwards to excuse any behavior when THEIR guy does it but scream bloody murder when the other side does the exact same thing. See this with Clinton, Obama and Bush when it came to wiretaps, it just goes on and on.

      But I seem to remember a rather large amount of White House emails being routed through servers ran by the RNC, which is also illegal, which is why a lot of the behind the scenes for the Bush energy policy talks and the run up to the Iraq war never ended up in the records like they were supposed to. Not saying either one was right, but there really does need to be one standard upheld for all or its nothing more than political bullshit.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:41PM

      by Nobuddy (1626) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:41PM (#153207)

      She learned from the best. I would be fine with her getting the exact same punishment Bush and his administration did.

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

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:40PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:40PM (#152988)

    she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."

    "the rules apply to the little people, not to me".

    --
    Why can't I age like a fine wine, instead of last week's milk?
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:43PM (#152990)

      It hardly matters, NSA probably has a copy of everything...as well as a backdoor into her computer(s).

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:06PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:06PM (#152998) Journal

    They let Karl Rove get away with it under Bush, so why not let Hillary get away with it now? Laws are just damn pieces of paper, after all. Unless you're not in the 1%. Then they must be followed to the letter.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM (#153077)

      At this point, the US has approximately a 5-tiered "justice" system:

      - Poor non-white people: Can be summarily executed for any reason or no reason.

      - Poor white people: Will be jailed if they do anything that hurts anyone.

      - Middle class people: Will get in trouble if they do anything that really causes a problem, but immune to many laws such as petty traffic offenses.

      - Politicians, popular entertainers, lower-level business folks: Immune to most laws, unless they piss off somebody more powerful than themselves.

      - Upper-class business folks: Immune to practically all laws. Yes, including murder - there's a case where a business owner ran somebody over in their car and the local authorities refused to prosecute on the grounds that jailing him would cause too many people to lose their jobs.

      --
      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:57PM (#153095)

        The most practical definition of power is immunity from consequences.
        The more powerful you are, the more severe the consequences you can make go away by applying that power.

        Rule of law is supposed to prevent that, but it is a human institution and thus is subject to the application of power itself. The stronger the rule of law, the more power that must be applied to escape it. That's the best we can realistically hope for.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM (#153096) Journal

        there's a case where a business owner ran somebody over in their car and the local authorities refused to prosecute on the grounds that jailing him would cause too many people to lose their jobs

        Sounds like quite a story. Who is this?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM (#153103)

      Let's see when congress demands to see those emails, if they'll end up in the same bit bucket that Rove's did (by the way, they're laying right on top of spool of eighteen and a half minutes of blank tape):

      From 2007:

      A lawyer for the Republican National Committee told congressional staff members yesterday that the RNC is missing at least four years' worth of e-mail from White House senior adviser Karl Rove that is being sought as part of investigations into the Bush administration, according to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

      GOP officials took issue with Rep. Henry Waxman's account of the briefing and said they still hope to find the e-mail as they conduct forensic work on their computer equipment. But they acknowledged that they took action to prevent Rove -- and Rove alone among the two dozen or so White House officials with RNC accounts -- from deleting his e-mails from the RNC server. Waxman (D-Calif.) said he was told the RNC made that move in 2005.

    • (Score: 1) by tranquilidad on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:25AM

      by tranquilidad (1478) on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:25AM (#153345)

      The reason the law was recently changed was because of a conflict members of the White House face. It is a violation of federal law (the Hatch Act) to use governmental resources for campaigning. Once governmental email fell under the umbrella of "resources" then employees had to, for their own legal protection, be sure that any correspondence that related to campaigning in any way didn't touch a governmental server.

      Karl Rove had a number of roles including being Bush's chief campaign advisor. I would expect that he would be sending a lot of emails from his personal account in order to avoid the Hatch act. The emails that Ms. Clinton railed against in 2007 were campaign-related emails.

      The law was clarified in 2013 to help remove some of the difficulty with adhering to both the Hatch Act and the Federal Records Act.

      Ms. Clinton has much deeper issues with the content of her email and she faces the same issues that caused Petraeus to recently plead guilty - it is a violation of federal law to remove classified information from government control. It's hard to imagine that in her 55,000 emails she had no classified information.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:16AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:16AM (#153360)

        Now consider that they now claim she had no official email account and classified info is certain to be on that server somewhere. Evidence now indicates Dubai is involved in the chain of fronts she hid the service behind. If thee or me builds a private email server it is likely to be safer (by far) than using gmail. But HRC isn't thee or me, she was the Secretary of State and Heir Apparent to the throne. Do you trust the campaign lackey who was tasked with building and maintaining her private mail server to be able to build a system that can withstand intrusion attempts by nation state actors?

        Whether the servers at the State Department are any safer (Microsoft Exchange? Really?) is of course a different topic, but at least professional information tech and security people are putting in a serious effort.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:06PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:06PM (#153497) Journal

          Yes it's highly doubtful her email server is properly secured. I led her husband's digital for two years while she was Secretary of State and can tell you the IT dept was not top-tier; but I don't recognize the name of the person the press reports associated with her email server; that means it's one of their "Friends of Bill." "Friends of Bill" include everyone from Chris Ruddy, the extreme right-wing owner of NewsMax, to Rupert Murdoch, to quasi-totalitarian leaders from around the world. Keep that in mind when wondering how secure an email server set up by such a "friend" could be.

          I can also tell you for a fact that Hillary was an avid fan of tech, vastly more so than Bill, because after Obama used it to beat her for the nomination last time she woke up to its power as a tool. She did everything online and with social media, so she definitely conducted all her State Department business through that email account. And, being a lawyer, of course she did that to hide her record as Secretary of State in preparation for another run for the White House.

          That, though, is not her sole doing. It's part of a growing trend within government to over-classify and hide the people's business from the people. Take the TPP trade treaty being negotiated in secret right now. Even Congress (as if they represented anyone but their corporate, Wall-Street buddies, but still...) has not been allowed to see what they are being asked to vote on. Consider that--they're being asked to vote on a vast trade agreement sight unseen. But it's become a pandemic among politicians individually as well. Bush and Cheney successfully hid much of their records after leaving office.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by goody on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:11PM

    by goody (2135) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:11PM (#152999)

    It's bigger than Watergate! And Benghazi. Combined!

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:05PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:05PM (#153047) Journal

      Fruit of Benghazi?

      The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

      Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:20PM (#153005)

    Maybe we could cross-reference the NSA database to make sure that emails were not deleted. I am pretty sure Clinton has had contact with someone who has had contact with "terrorists".

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:51PM (#153013)

    Scraping the bottom of barrel, eh? :)

    It's cool, though. An insipid post, but not a bad one.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:57PM (#153015)

      "barrel" == submission queue.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:38PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:38PM (#153031) Journal
        Hey, AC! If you feel that you have to explain your jokes, then perhaps you are not very good at telling them?
        --
        It's always my fault...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:21PM (#153024)

      Barrel = Dingly cubicle in Itsucksistan populated by out-sourced sock puppets slinging ganda for $0.25/hr.

      I'd like to see some back push on mainstream stories. Like any post that uses the name of a current aristocrat, or well known propagandist having the ASN of the originators network inserted into the post title. Yes I know you can just mangle the spelling, but that mangled spelling will keep SN off the data scrapers used by the unholy trilogy of network news. EEE isn't just for software anymore.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:33PM (#153028)

      >NYT
      >bottom of the barrel

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:05PM

    by mmcmonster (401) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:05PM (#153018)

    Is she the first secretary of state to do this? From what I heard on the radio, it was pretty common for Secretarys of State to use private email addresses and then just make sure all the pertinent emails were submitted to the government archive after they left their post.

    If this is true, I'm not seeing this as a big scandal, but more along the lines of: Let's just make sure they're not allowed to use personal email addresses in the future. Kind of like when the Alaskan governor did it a few years ago.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:23PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:23PM (#153025) Journal

      I don't know if this is actually a politicized scandal. Or whether precedent matters. Apparently this Jason R. Baron is just an attorney whose expertise is discovery against the federal government, and he doesn't have a long history of being involved in partisan scandals, per se.

      My guess is that no one cared, and since no one cared, important rules were ignored. It's a bad thing that requires redress, but not necessarily a sign of corruption. An investigation wouldn't be unwarranted.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:47PM

        by VLM (445) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:47PM (#153034)

        I don't know if this is actually a politicized scandal.

        If it were not, it wouldn't be reported in America.

        I like the idea of it being an "anti NSA" hack. So either the neocons are full of BS because the NSA has a full record of everything, or the neocons are full of BS because they support the NSA having a full record of everything every human being on the planet has ever and will ever do. Either way, her opponents lose, which is too bad, because I personally feel she's a total sociopathic psychopath of a leader, just like her husband and exactly who we don't need in charge, but I can recognize a "won" battle when I see it. Her strategy is sound and it'll be effective.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:54PM

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:54PM (#153039) Journal

          I think you require a better term [nytimes.com] to describe people who are not Hillary [firstlook.org] Clinton [firstlook.org]

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM (#153097) Journal

            There is no question that HRC is neo-con warmonger. Just look at her prior to war in Iraq, frothing at the mouth to kill for no reason:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]

            • 1:40 HRC enters room
            • ~ Code pink intro: war in Iraq will harm American and Iraqi families and cost a lot.
            • 6:30 HRC parrots the WMD arguments, blames the danger to Iraqis on Hussein, ignores harm to Americans, financial costs, and the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US nor involved in 9/11.
            • 8:52 HRC lies about careful review of WMD info. HRC never even read the National Intelligence Estimate which while suggesting WMDs existed, also contained significant disagreements with that conclusion that a reader not interested in a particular outcome would have agreed called the whole thing into question.
            • 10:00 Audience member: not up to the US to disarm Hussein, up to the world community, Iraq has no connection to terrorism, not only are Iraqi people in danger, so are US people, and will harm the economy. It's reckless.
            • 11:14 HRC: The world community would not take on difficult problems without US forcing the issue. Goes on and on about Bosnia. Segues into how GWB tax cuts are a bad idea.
            • 13:29 Interesting note on the negative effect of the tax cuts: "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund ..."
            • -- IOW, HRC would have preferred GWB raise taxes for more war and domestic surveillance. --
            • 14:12 HRC is given a pink slip
            • 14:20 HRC goes off: "I am the Senator from NY I will never put my people at risk ..."
            • -- Yeah, like Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:37PM

        by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:37PM (#153075)

        Check my comment

        http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6376&cid=153068 [soylentnews.org]

        She also used a personal server at her residence physically protected by the secret service. This gave her a tremendous amount of legal leeway in dealing with control of email access.

        I think it's cool from a geeks perspective that a politician ran their own server. As a citizen being served by a politician going to extraordinary means to control the public record I become extraordinarily suspicious and expect extraordinary scrutiny.

        http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-server-homebrew-115745.html [politico.com]

        --
        Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM

          by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM (#153076) Journal

          That's an important confounding factor, yeah.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:45PM (#153231)

          > I think it's cool from a geeks perspective that a politician ran their own server.

          You know she didn't run it right? It was handled by her staff, hell she may not even have been actively part of the decision to do it. It isn't like the secstate cares about or even really is aware of the mechanics of these things.

          For all we know she might have had a bad experience with the .gov servers when she was in congress, like excessive downtime, slow delivery, non-delivery, too much spam, arbitrary limits on the size of attachments, limited device compatibility, whatever and just told an aide "as secstate make sure I never have to deal with that bullshit."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM (#153102)

      Is she the first secretary of state to do this?

      Email use by secstate is relatively new and precedent is spotty at best.

      However, the one thing that does seem clear is it that her use of email was in contradiction to official whitehouse policy. [washingtonpost.com] That's not legally binding, but at best it creates the appearance of corruption and when it comes to politics the mere appearance is bad enough because it undermines the public's trust.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by goodie on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:55PM

    by goodie (1877) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:55PM (#153040) Journal

    cigarlovinbabe@hotmail.com?:D
    (ok that was too easy and potentially somewhat mean... but it made me laugh)

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:02PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:02PM (#153046) Journal

      It was hdr22@clintonemail.com [gawker.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:16PM (#153060)

      It was monica lewinsky who liked cigars in her cooter. Not hilary.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:47PM (#153156)

        I didn't know HRC had a cooter.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:38PM

    by Freeman (732) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:38PM (#153116) Journal

    "Of course, Clinton probably wasn't dashing off too many Emoji-filled missives to other world leaders via her Gmail. In fact, it's more likely than not that most of her work was actually done over the ultra-secure (and top secret) JWICS system. That point is being supported by former Department of Defense official Adam Blickstein, who tweeted in support of the former official." http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/03/hillary-clinton-used-personal-email/ [engadget.com]

    --
    Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:00PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @09:00PM (#153238)

    "Possibly Breaking Rules"

    I would single out this joint's obvious bias but everybody else is taking the same Party Line stand.

    Apparently she was never even assigned an official State Dept email account. That means everybody at State who had any official dealings with her knew she was breaking the law. Every journalist who interacted with her knew she was breaking the law. And every single one kept the secret. clintonmail.com? Really? She wasn't even trying to be clever or hide, yet she KNEW everyone would keep her secret. Just like every reporter knew about FDR being a cripple and kept the secret from the rest of the country, every reporter knew JFK was a pervert with severe medical issues and kept the secret. Every reporter knew about Bubba Clinton's antics and kept the secret until Matt Drudge broke the rules. Do we want to know how many secrets they are keeping for Obama?

    This case is not about "possibly breaking rules", it is committing a felony. No wiggle room, no grey area, no debate. But to say that means her run for President is stillborn so that isn't said.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:41AM (#153388)

      > This case is not about "possibly breaking rules", it is committing a felony.

      Just for shits and giggles, can you point me at the specific law in question?
      You know she committed a felony so you must know the law that was broken, right?
      I mean, you wouldn't have based your entire tirade on hyperbole now, would you?

  • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:53AM

    by el_oscuro (1711) on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:53AM (#153338)

    I work at DoS and have had to go though the annual security briefings and test, which everyone else has to take as well. One of the most basic things they harp on is "don't include SBU, nor anything else DoS related in personal emails, facebook, twitter, etc." I would have liked to assume that that included the Secretary but apparently not.

    --
    SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
  • (Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:30AM

    by PapayaSF (1183) on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:30AM (#153364)

    It should noted that Hillary is no stranger to "controversies" regarding records. There was the case of the Rose law firm billing records [pbs.org], which were under subpoena but "missing" for two years, only to be found in her residence, with her fingerprints on them (literally). There was also the White House FBI files controversy [wikipedia.org], involving improper access of hundreds of FBI files, including those of many Republicans, by an under-qualified White House employee hired by... well, nobody could recall who hired him.