Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:07PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.