SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:13PM
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:30PM
I'm drawn to this paragraph:
"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
Sure, just ask the NSA.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @01:02PM
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
Clinton For Prez 2016!
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:12PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
I disagree. Yahoo is at fault for
(Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:13PM
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
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
Really?!? Telling someone to do some of their own research is an admission of error? That's a new one to me.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> It's not my theory.
Yeah, sure.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:26PM
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
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
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
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, @07:48PM
Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:07AM
..., which is why a lot of the behind the scenes for the Bush energy policy talks...
Don't try to defame G.W. Bush's energy policy. It was the single most successful policy of his administration. That policy being "line the pockets of the energy companies."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:41PM
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]