Clinton ran own computer system for her official emails

[B2G]

Uh...the server was at her house??

****************************************************************************

Clinton ran own computer system for her official emails
By JACK GILLUM and TED BRIDIS
Published: Today

WASHINGTON (AP) - The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails - on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Fwk8oDHY

[William769]

1. Thank's EarlG

[B2G]

4. You don't see the problem here?

This goes way beyond using a personal email account.

She owned the servers. They were in her home.

[William769]

5. See post #1.

[msanthrope]

17. And? Name the law that breaks. nt

[cascadiance]

89. Hmm... Perhaps Kitzhaber would still be our governor if he and Cylvia Hayes had done this!

There's a reason why email that touches on any official business is done through government IT infrastructure. If it isn't, government doesn't have the ability to both control access to that mail effectively from outside intruders, and also to provide the public guarantees that public officials aren't engaged in corrupt practices.

As someone who was very close to seeing what went on behind the scenes in one of these outside email companies when government officials were caught using them, I can tell you that there is no minimizing the risk for either of these reasons when government officials use private email accounts for their email. Business has different priorities on how they manage the security and effectiveness of their IT infrastructure, and one cannot always guarantee that they will be any better than government IT infrastructure.

[Man from Pickens]

2. so much for the lack of email sophistication excuse

"technically didn't break the law" is still hanging out there, for the moment anyway - though I expect that to change once people start looking at the top-secret/classified/national security nature that some part of the communications must necessarily have.

[leveymg]

8. The "technically didn't break the law" meme is also bogus. She did break the letter of the '50 Act

as modified by the '76 amendment which specified "machine readable" documents as a form of record that had to be preserved and transmitted to the National Archives. HRC apparently did neither until two months ago, and still has not turned over all emails.

We have yet to find out whether the original server she had set up and used is still in existence. That's a very important point, because if it was not maintained intact or the files erased or tampered with, she has entirely violated the letter and spirit of the Act - although the '50 law as amended does not impose direct penalties on agency heads, she could be charged with Conspiracy and the felony of Obstruction of Justice for intentionally evading the law and destroying evidence.

While there was no specific penalty associated with failure to preserve and transmit the email records, if this was done to obstruct or impede any potential investigation, it would possibly amount to felony Obstruction of Justice, as we see in the statutes below:

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
• US Code
• Notes
prev | next
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
• US Code
• Notes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
prev | next
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Hi

[leveymg]

14. We'll see Ken, or someone like him, again if she's the nominee

I'm only reporting the facts, not wishing this on anyone. Hillary's supporters need to understand the likely consequences of proceeding with her candidacy, regardless, as do all Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I'm ready to take the bad with the good./NT

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Jury Results.

On Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6310547

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an attack calling another poster Karl Rove. The post responded to was nothing more than a post talking about a rule,a rule that exists. I like Hillary and this scandal is nothing but we don't need to treat other DUers like that because we disagree with what they post

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:51 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I interpret this post as expressing the opinion that leveymg's post reminds the poster of the actions of Ken Starr (not Karl Rove). I think it's a legitimate opinion, even if I don't agree.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, please get a life. Next time clutch your pearls instead.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First of all, that's Ken Starr, not Karl Rove. The poster's point is that right or wrong, the Republicans will use this as an issue against Mrs. Clinton that she didn't need to hand them. The poster wasn't calling another poster Ken Starr.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Although Ken Starr's fat, fascist mug is offensive to human decency itself, it was being used to make a point - and a good point at that.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *is* that turdblossom? Did something happen to his head?
I'm going to leave this because I cannot ascertain who the hell that photo is, to any degree of accuracy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. WoW

i want to thank from the bottom of my heart all the DUers who supported me during my trial.

May your today be better than your yesterday and may your tomorrow be better than today and may that pattern hold for the rest of your lives.

I love you all.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I'm the one who didn't recognize Ken Starr.

I was reasonably certain that wasn't Karl Rove's misshapen melon, so I went with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. That was Inspector Javert

This is somewhat of a problem for the presumptive nominee of our party but I take umbrage, not at the fact that some are pointing it out, but with the relish with which they are doing so.

I am trying to learn what really happened...

It has been reported that Secretary Colin Powell used a private e-mail as well...

[William769]

30. Was the prosecutor Ken Starr?

[Bobbie Jo]

32. Ok

That was funny.

Kudos to the jury.

[William769]

26. Post of the fucking year!

Well done.

[leveymg]

52. I didn't and wouldn't have alerted on that. eom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. I don't believe you are Ken Starr and I do believe you are well intentioned.

This are my thoughts from another post:


This is somewhat of a problem for the presumptive nominee of our party but I take umbrage, not at the fact that some are pointing it out, but with the relish with which they are doing so.

I am trying to learn what really happened...

It has been reported that Secretary Colin Powell used a private e-mail as well...

[msanthrope]

18. Oh please...Conspiracy? To do what, precisely? nt

[leveymg]

57. The Conspiracy statute is inconsequential in this case (no penalty in Record Act). But,

if it can be shown that there was an actual intent to evade the '50 Act, and email was erased or tampered with in anticipation of a federal investigation, then Obstruction of Justice would come into play, and the potential penalties for that felony are steep.

[msanthrope]

85. And there's no evidence any of that occurred. Just your speculation. nt

[Sancho]

35. She archived everything with commercial services as she left office in case her server crashed....

reported in the Times:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/hillary-clinton-used-a-homebrew-computer-system-for-official-state/2219960

so nothing should be lost.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. The hanging is almost about to commence, sir...

You are slowing it down.

[Sancho]

62. I only posted a link to a newspaper report...like a lot of other times people don't read it.

I take no credit or responsibility for what the Tampa Times reports.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I was crediting you. You would be Henry Fonda's character in "Twelve Angry Men".

[Sancho]

80. I know...I didn't take your post as an attack.

Some others have jumped in without even reading. I suppose no one has been watching TV, etc. either.

I don't mind taking a stand, but I would prefer to see what happened. I can easily see why and how Hillary could run her own email server. Of course, it's just speculation.

Chances are she was as afraid of GOP moles as much as foreign spies! The Clintons certainly had the means and contacts to set up a private, secure server. Probably some "Scandal" super-operative.

Without debating all the technical details, it may have been a smart move for someone who may want to run for President in the future even if you are not a Hillary supporter. Jeb's email dump has already gotten him in trouble.

[hopemountain]

136. she took her job as secretary of state quite seriously

it is a highly sensitive position requiring the utmost diplomacy in negotiating, discussion and negotiation skills with our nation's security at stake at every level. completely understand her hesitancy to "trust" government servers considering all of the efforts to undermine the president and our government. in fact, having her own server was likely supported by those who value the safety of americans as much as she.

my suspicion & reasoning for how this so called breach of protocol occurred: those very people who do not want another democratic president or who simply hate hillary - or both - attempted to access those communications to find something with which to bring her down and hit a brick wall. boo-hoo. now they are having a tantrum and accusing her of doing the very thing they would likely do under the same circumstances.

sometimes, people have to do what they have to do to protect others - in this case, america and sensitive negotiations with other governments. and those who get so high and mighty about what is the higher road - need to get off the high horse and walk the rough patches and navigate the treacherous ridges themselves. either that, or look in the mirror.

thanks, sancho.

[B2G]

48. She archived what was left on her server as she left office?

Well that's MUCH better. Lol.

[Sancho]

54. Please read the report instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions...

"In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company."

There is no reason to think that anything was missing or lost as far as reported.

[pnwmom]

43. Your themes are bogus. There is no evidence that she broke either of the laws you cite.

There is no evidence that she failed to preserve or that she altered any records. And the old law, even with modifications, contained no time limit as to when the records were supposed to be transmitted.

[leveymg]

66. We don't know that yet.

Every delete is going to be suspect. She should have realized that consequence.

She's clearly outside of what might be considered a reasonable time to notify and turn over the original records.

[pnwmom]

90. "We don't know that yet." Maybe you should let that sink in, instead of throwing around

accusations you can't back up.

[karynnj]

103. Unfortunately, the fact that she and her people selected what went to the SD will be questioned

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Note the OP says that this account was used EXCLUSIVELY for her work -- but the NYT and other accounts say that there were personal emails that were not forwarded. These two statements can not simultaneously be true.

The problem with her having had exclusive control is that it could make anything suspect. The most obvious accusation from the Republicans, who have been in witch hunting mode on Benghazi since it happened, will be that ANYTHING damaging could have been removed. The ONLY emails that the SD itself could 100% stand behind will be those sent to SD accounts where they have them from the other side. Note that even emails to other departments and the WH itself could have been eliminated from the emails she gave the SD.

I am not speaking of legal issues or even REAL questions of the timeline, but the damage this could do to the perception - that I think was actually reached that everything that can be known about Benghazi - is known and there is NO SMOKING GUN. Now - they can claim that by there demands, they made it clear that HRC from day one was working against transparency.

Not to mention, there is the issue of the historical record. Years from now, when classification issues are not a concern, if a scholar looked through the primary sources to investigate some actions of HRC as SoS, there will almost be an asterisk on any information sourced from emails provided directly from HRC. Consider that it is now a minimum of two years after the email was written --- I assume that it would be pretty tempting to edit something written - say 4 years before - which you see as embarrassing as things played out - if you are the only source.

[pnwmom]

123. The NYTimes didn't say any emails were "deleted." It says her personal emails weren't forwarded.

And all of the emails she sent to and from other government offices would have been preserved at the other end, in government servers.

I agree that this could damage her reputation. I disagree with those who are jumping to legal conclusions.

[ND-Dem]

59. +100

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. It's OVAH!!!!!!

Where's the SARCASM emoticon?

[Capt. Obvious]

6. LOL LOOK AT YOUR HEAD SPLODE

[arcane1]

7. This isn't something a "Luddite" would do.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'll wait and see.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Even if it's all perfectly innocent, why give the Rethugs "fuel for fire"? Hillary's lack of judgment here is extraordinary.

[Man from Pickens]

12. it's the arrogance that's most extraordinary

Even the President himself doesn't have that kind of personal control over his own communications! She has absconded with the public record. The record of what she did in our name belongs to us - it isn't her personal possession to decide what to give us access to and what to withhold.

I have no doubt that she would run the office of the President the same way, if given the chance.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. Not sure I would go that far, but I'm certain Elizabeth would exercise far better judgment & provide stronger leadership.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Sometimes it is exactly as it appears--this is clearly to

guard and control all of her communications for four years and beyond. Why the WH agreed to it, I have no idea. If we found out that Condi had her own server traced to her house for all of her official SoS communications, what would we have said? Aww, she just isn't good with technology? LOL.

[leveymg]

15. Shows intent to evade the law

[DanTex]

19. Not unless she deleted emails that should have been preserved.

[TwilightGardener]

21. How would we ever know? She owns the server.

[DanTex]

24. I don't know. Possibly by checking the records of people who she sent emails to.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Unless it's people using their own private accounts to communicate

through Hillary's private server. I don't know that her staff had .gov accounts.

[ND-Dem]

65. how would we know who she sent emails to?

[DanTex]

68. We don't. But the people that received them do.

[B2G]

73. Well that's incredibly helpful nt

[DesMoinesDem]

88. Are you doing a comedy bit?

That is a serious question. I found your posts funny, but I can't tell if they are meant to be a joke or if you are being serious.

Abbott: It shows her intent to evade the law.
Costello: Only if she deleted emails.
Abbott: How do we know if she deleted emails?
Costello: Check the records of the people she emailed.
Abbott: How do we know who she emailed?
Costello: We don't. But the people that received them do.

[DanTex]

108. I'm being serious.

We don't know if she's deleted emails. If she did, it's possible that she could be caught, but the only way I can think of is if there are records on the other end of the transmission, and only the people on the other end have those records.

So that's the situation.

[DesMoinesDem]

115. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously, those posts are funny. It's a great bit, but a laughable defense. And that's a good plan you got there. Just put an announcement in the paper for anyone that has received an email from or sent an email to Hillary Clinton to forward it to the State Department. That should take care of that. LOL.

[DanTex]

117. It's not really a defense, just a statement of facts. Am I wrong about anything?

So far, there's no evidence that she broke any laws. Maybe there will be evidence forthcoming.

[leveymg]

83. If files have been deleted or modified, a forensic analysis of the hard drive would show

that. Assuming the original hard drive exists. As we haven't heard a word about this, we might assume that there is no clear answer as yet.

It seems possible what was released in the 55,000 emails are based on copies of copies in backup servers to which she later transferred the data after leaving office. If the original hard drive(s) are no longer in existence, she's up shit creek and shouldn't be nominated.

[B2G]

22. And how would anyone know that she didn't?

That's the whole problem here. She had complete control over the servers, how and when they were backed up, how the backups were stored, and what could be made to permanently disappear from existence.

When I first heard of her using a personal email account, I was like 'so what'? It's been done before. But there is a huge difference between using a personal account like Hotmail, Yahoo or Google and setting up your own email system in your home that you have total control over.

It really astounds me that some here don't see this as being an issue.

[DanTex]

29. A big difference between using gmail and your own server is that your own server, if done correctly

can be much more secure. I'm assuming that's why she did it. Organizational email accounts get hacked all the time. If you set up your own encrypted email server, that does nothing but host your own email, that's a lot harder to hack.

The question I have is why she hosted it at home rather than renting some rack space in a server farm, where things like internet and power are much more reliable.

How would anyone know? Well, one way is by checking the records of people who got emails from her. Every email leaves two records (at least).

[leveymg]

34. Romanian hacker hacked into Blumenthal's account and RT published the takeaway of his

communications with HRC.

I would imagine the Russian and Chinese intelligence services are able to hack any private server.

Other obvious advantages of federal systems are that they are constantly monitored for hack attacks and can rely upon NSA and DIA systems for backup, surveillance and counter-measures - same can't be said for a home system, no matter how sophisticated.

[DanTex]

60. Yeah, Blumenthal's AOL account. It wouldn't have mattered what email she used.

I would imagine the Russian and Chinese intelligence services are able to hack any private server.

That's actually not true. Hacking isn't black magic. A lot of hacking doesn't actually involve "hacking a server", it involves things like social engineering, phishing, etc. The weak part of security systems isn't the encryption, it's the people in the organization.

It depends on how well the server is set up. If it was unencryped, no firewall, and her password was "chelsea123" then, yes, she could have been hacked easily. But not it was set up by a professional with security in mind.

Other obvious advantages of federal systems are that they are constantly monitored for hack attacks and can rely upon NSA and DIA systems for backup, surveillance and counter-measures - same can't be said for a home system, no matter how sophisticated.

They're monitored for certain kinds of hacks, but not others. The NSA, one of the most computer-savvy organizations in the world, suffered a major leak. The problem is, when you have a big organization with a lot of people and a lot of computers, it's hard to keep that secure.

[leveymg]

92. Highly motived and skilled attackers can get into any commercial email system that has outside

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

connections and is transmitted through commercial networks and hubs, if not at the origin, at the other end or anywhere in between.

De-encryption is a matter of software and crunching capacity. It would be unsafe to assume that the quality and quantity of both held by major states intelligence services is inadequate to this task. This was evasive and reckless of HRC on several levels, and I don't like what it says about her judgement. Nor should you or any Democrat faced with choosing the party's nominee for President be comfortable with this.

[DanTex]

102. That depends on a lot of things.

You're right about the other end. If you send email to someone with an AOL account that uses their cat's name as a password, then those emails you sent are not going to be secure, no matter what. In transition depends on whether you are sending your emails encrypted, which requires both ends of the communication to have encryption enabled. If not, then emails can be sniffed by people tapping into the intermediary servers.

But the big thing you don't want is someone hacking into your email database and having access to every single email that you've ever sent or received. This is something that you can do something about. And for this, if you know what you are doing, having your own encrypted server that does nothing but email is better than trusting a large organization with a lot of people that need to be trusted both to be honest and also not to do anything dumb.

As far as decryption, yes, it's a matter of crunching capacity, but if you use an adequate strong encryption system, then all the computers in the world would take millions of years to crack it.

And the thing is, even if there's no such thing as 100.0000000% safe, there is definitely more secure and less secure. And a well-configured primate email server is definitely more secure than a large organizations's email system.

[leveymg]

128. If that were true, we could do away with NSA and save many billions of dollars. eom

[DanTex]

132. It is true. Read up a little on computer security.

Not sure what the NSA has to do with the security of a private email server versus a large organization.

[leveymg]

133. Are you claiming that NSA has nothing to do with securing the .gov domain?

Please. You're the one who claimed that a private email system is more secure than federal government systems.

[DanTex]

134. No idea who sets it up, I would think each department has their own IT group.

It doesn't really matter, it's not the domain that needs to be secured, it's the servers that hold the emails on them.

And the answer is yes, a properly set up private email server will be more secure than the state department's. It's not very complicated. There are a lot less points of entry, a lot less people who have access to it. The NSA had a huge leak, so did the DoD, along with a lot of other big organizations. It's not the computer, it's the people.

Which you would know if you took the time to read up on computer security, rather than just take whatever side of the argument you think makes Hillary look worse.

[B2G]

36. I would disagree with that

"But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines."

[DanTex]

47. Well, that's passage is a little misleading.

First of all, it's talking about "commercial data centers", not commercial email services like gmail and hotmail, or organizational email services like the state department. I agree that instead of hosting it at home, she should have rented some space in a commercial data center and put her server there. But that's not because of hacking risk, it's because of uptime -- her ISP could go down, her power at home could go out, there could be a flood, etc. Those aren't security risks, they are reliability risks.

In terms of protection from hackers, if someone who knows what they are doing sets up a private email server, that's going to be a lot more secure than gmail or any big organization's email. For the simple reason that there's only one user, there aren't a bunch of administrators who have access to the data, and the computer running it doesn't do anything except run an email server. Ed Snowden, for example, got a hold of a bunch of NSA secrets, but he wouldn't be able to have hacked a properly set up private email server. Same goes for every other time you read about some big organization getting hacked.

[B2G]

55. If increased security was her motivation

Why just her? If she was so concerned, the whole State Department should have been at risk. You keep citing commercial email accounts...what about the .gov accounts that she had full access to?

If those servers are so bad that the head of the department refuses to use them, that's a major story in itself.

[DanTex]

67. .gov accounts aren't going to be as secure as a properly set-up private server.

A lot of people have access to .gov accounts -- sysadmins, etc. It's a much bigger system with a lot more vulnerabilities and points of entry.

It's not really a big story that large organizations with big computer systems are vulnerable to hacking and leaks. Look at what happened to the NSA with Snowden. Or before that with Manning. When there are a lot of people that need to be trusted, that's a problem.

As far as why just her, I can only speculate. Forcing every state employee to host their own email server wouldn't have worked. Maybe she felt that as secretary of state, she wanted to be extra-secure from potentially damaging hacks.

[leveymg]

96. No. Her private system only compounds the human risk of .gov systems

She introduced another set of risks atop unauthorized release we've seen at NSA and DoD.

[DanTex]

112. How is that? What other risks?

She's avoided the risks that led to the NSA and DoD leaks by not having her emails in a big system that a lot of people have access to. The biggest risks are always the people, not the protocols.

The only real risk left is that the person she hired to set it up is either incompetent or dishonest. But that's just one person, not thousands, and I'm assuming she picked someone she really trusted.

What are you basing your opinions on? Do you know much about computer security?

[HappyMe]

42. Your post answered my question about how secure

the emails were. SoS emails probably have a ton of info in them that you don't want hacked.

[ND-Dem]

69. how would you know who got emails from her unless they admitted to it?

[leveymg]

25. Even if no deletions, intentional withholding and long delay may be construed as intent to evade

Same way if one long delays any other legally required reporting requirement. If it turns out the server can't be validated as intact, the long delay in reporting would exacerbate the penalty for evasion.

I think it curious that the question of whether the server(s) have been validated hasn't been expressly raised or answered in the MSM so far. This article is the most complete so far, however. With this additional information dripping out, it doesn't look good.

[DanTex]

38. Could be, or also could not be. If she was obstructing an investigation, that's a crime.

If she took a little longer than average to submit things to the National Archive for historical preservation, nobody is going to care.

I don't see how this article "doesn't look good". A properly set up private email server is more secure than hotmail or gmail or the state department. And I'm assuming that she hired someone who knew what they were doing to set it up. The only thing I'd take issue with is hosting it off of a residential ISP. She should have rented some rack space in a colocation center.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Can you please answer this for me, sir?

I heard that Secretary of State Colin Powell used his personal e-mail in his official capacity as well?

[HappyMe]

50. That's just as foolish as Clinton doing this.

[DanTex]

70. I heard that too. I'm not sure what you want me to answer.

[TwilightGardener]

86. They weren't forbidden from using personal email. But I don't know that

Powell used it exclusively to get around the government system, and he was pretty open about it at any rate. And I don't think he set up a server in his house, either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. So if Powell did it we look for reasons to exculpate him.

But if Clinton did it we look for reasons to inculpate her.


Got ya.

[TwilightGardener]

91. Probably all cabinet members have used personal email at some point.

The question is: Did they set up their own mail servers IN THEIR HOUSES in a bid to restrict access and/or completely evade federal records and oversight for as long as possible?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Do you have evidence ?

Do you have evidence that Hillary Clinton set up a server in HER HOUSE in a bid to restrict access and/or completely evade federal records and oversight for as long as possible?

[leveymg]

99. It doesn't really matter if it was at her house or at a commercial site.

The intent to evade is the same, regardless, and the risks are only slightly reduced. The vulnerability to interception is downstream on the network. Let's not get sucked into another rabbit hole on this point. It's not essential to the case.

[TwilightGardener]

101. Why else? What other cabinet members were operating their own email

systems, accessible by only a select few, and not automatically accessible to FOIA's and investigations? Are you comfortable with that practice?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Maybe President Obama should name a special prosecutor?

I know one who hunted the Clintons for nearly a decade who would be interested.

[TwilightGardener]

110. Actually, he does have some explaining to do. Why did he allow this?

For more than four years, there were no records of Hillary's SoS communications, except where she emailed someone in the .gov or other federal system.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. His press secretary addressed it and he said HRC violated no rules...

Please feel free to follow this line of inquiry though. There is nothing a random internet poster can do to discourage you.

[TwilightGardener]

119. "Violated no rules" is not an explanation, it's a defense.

I'd like an explanation from the Obama admin. and Hillary Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. I suspect you will get an explanation soon and then it will be on to the next Clinton kerfuffle

My observation is based on over two decades of observations.

[Sancho]

71. Not really...

maybe Hillary and Obama both knew that GOP operatives (like the CIA who were reading Senate staffers' materials) were as big of a problem as foreign governments!!

I can't imagine a former President wouldn't have a contact who could run a secure server. Hillary may have anticipated attacks like Benghazi, Benghazi. She may have simply want to avoid giving the repugs something to use against her.

[cascadiance]

94. So Governor Kitzhaber and his fiancee should have put their email on private servers...

... so that now he could still be governor instead of trying to have them deleted on government servers...

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32896-hillary_clinton_under_fire_for_using_personal_email_account_for_public_business.html

[DanTex]

13. This is interesting. Running your own email server is a pretty hard-core geek thing to do.

Not that it's super-difficult (although I'm sure Hillary Clinton didn't set it up herself), but just the idea of doing it is not something many people who aren't computer geeks would think of. On the other hand, if you know what you are doing, it can also be a lot safer than using any organization's email, including the State department's. But the key phrase here is "if you know what you are doing".

However, one big flaw is that this server was apparently running out of her home, which means that it relied on an ordinary ISP for connectivity. Anyone capable of setting this up with the requisite levels of security should have advised her instead to rent some rack space and have the email server hosted somewhere with a reliable internet connection. If she used this frequently, it is likely that at some point emails sent to her bounced because her home internet connection was down. Or because the server crashed. That doesn't look good if you're secretary of state.

[DURHAM D]

125. I read somewhere this morning that

this was setup not just for use by Hillary but also for Bill (he is a former President after all) and their Secret Service details. Seems like they knew what they were doing as regards the technical side of it as well as understanding the necessity of security.

The issue makes we wonder about email service for the other past Presidents, V-Ps, their families and their Secret Service/Security teams.

[riqster]

33. It. Was. Legal.

[leveymg]

37. Want to explain the theory of that defense?

The only way I can imagine it might have been legal would be if her system were connected with the NSA, and this is really part of some sort of elaborate counter-intelligence game. Otherwise, on the face of it, she recklessly evaded federal law exposing sensitive materials to hackers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. No controlling legal authority./NT

[leveymg]

45. The controlling legal authority is the 1950 Federal Records Act, along

with Sec. 1519 Obstruction of Justice if it is shown this evasion was intentional.

[riqster]

53. Wrong.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

[ND-Dem]

74. ...

[leveymg]

106. It's been illegal to evade the Records Act requirements from day one in 1950.

The Act predates the regulation, and is controlling. The 1976 Amendment references "machine readable" records. The previous definition was records of "of any form." Either way, that means computer records, of which email is a form.

[riqster]

113. Crap. The new rules were written for a reason.

Had the old rules covered the new technology), the new rules would not have been written.

The HDS is strong today....

[leveymg]

122. The new rules were written, coincidentally, right after HRC was found to be breaking the old rules

just to make sure nobody ever did that again. Like barring the doors after the horses have bolted while the barn burned down. It's not exculpatory.

[riqster]

129. Bollocks. Had she broken the existing rules new ones would not have been needed.

[Capt. Obvious]

130. This sounds like the making of a new blog post

[riqster]

137. I'll add it to my list.

[leveymg]

131. They weren't needed.

But, they did provide a thin layer of political cover when this came out.

[Man from Pickens]

61. I'd say it's even more basic than that

Those records are the property of the Department of State. Hard to explain why State doesn't have them and Clinton does without using words like "theft" or "misappropriation". She took complete and sole possession of our property, breaking the chain of custody and forever placing the integrity of that data in question.

Manning and Snowden merely made copies of data, they didn't take possession of the only copy, and one's in prison for ages and the other is an exile facing severe punishment should he ever return. And then there's Aaron Schwarz, who merely copied already-public data and was hounded to suicide by prosecutors seeking decades of prison time.

[ND-Dem]

75. [phone]

[leveymg]

109. You get it. eom

[riqster]

51. Look at the facts, instead of merely recycling Repub hit pieces on DU

It isn't a fucking theory. It is a fact. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

[tularetom]

41. "Vote for Hillary - technically she didn't break any laws"

Seriously, is that the best her "rapid rebuttal crew" can come up with?

She'd better start decorating her office at the Clinton foundation, because that kind of Nixonian non denial denial won't get it done anymore.

[Capt. Obvious]

49. It poll tested well

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. 'Let me check my Gmail'

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Welcome to DU/NT

[ND-Dem]

58. ms. clinton isn't tech-savvy. she put it there by accident.

[ReallyNotSureAnymore]

72. Don't even consider trying to excuse this woman

Hillary is savvy in many ways including how to conduct official government email accounts. She has personal assistants who inform her of all that she needs to know. She's a slick one.

[ND-Dem]

77. sure are a lot of new posters checking in on this issue...i wonder why

fyi, I wasn't excusing her. but you as a new poster who apparently signed up just to attack ms Clinton wouldn't know that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Rely on Lord Occam./NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Welcome to DU./NT

[joeybee12]

82. Anyone remember the debacle that was the ACA rollout?

The Feds are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy behind the times in technology...makes sense that Clinton would do this and she's probably not the only one, but let's get outraged because she's evil and we have nothing better to do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. Why not? When I ran my own mailserver, it was at my house.

I only paid an extra $10 a month or so for a static IP address, and the 20 or 30 bucks a year for domain name registration.

Here's the thing - it's actually not that difficult to set up your own mailserver, and a lot of generic IT guys can do it. She was probably able to simply get somebody in to set it up for her pretty cheaply, and once it's running, it generally stays running. What's a lot more difficult is making it as secure as those run by companies or departments with dedicated IT security guys.

My problem with it, though, is that when faced with the Department of State having substandard email systems, Hillary's response was to 'fix' it for herself, and leave everybody else in the department stuck using antiquated and slipshod systems. That's not the kind of 'fix' I would hope for out of a 'good' executive. It's the same 'government sucks, whatcha gonna do about it' attitude I expect out of Republican SoS's like Condaleeza Rice. Not the 'Government should be efficient and actually WORK!' attitude I expect out of Democrats.

[DanTex]

93. Actually, a private email server that is properly set up will be more secure than those

run by companies or big organizations. It's just one computer that does nothing but host email. Encrypt the hard drive, choose good passwords, and shut off all the other ports. It's gonna be secure. The problem with having departments of dedicated IT guys is that every one of those IT guys is a security risk. Either they could go Snowden, or else they could somehow get hacked or socially engineered.

The only thing I would say is that if you are SoS, you should have your server in a colocation center so that you don't get bounced emails when the ISP goes down or the power goes out.

As far as improving the State Department's email systems, there's only so far you can go in making a large organization secure. The problem is not the computer systems, it's the people, and there's not too much you can do about that. Look at what happened to the NSA, which surely had top-of-the-line everything.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

95. 'that is properly set up'. Yup, that's the key.

And I've seen enough small emailservers that weren't. There are a lot of half-assed sets of instructions online for setting up mailservers that get you so far, then leave you hanging as far as security goes. It's why I think you want to make sure that if you get somebody in to set one up for you, they're trained in security as well as mailservers, and not just 'an IT guy'.

(Oh, and edit - From what I've heard security wasn't even Clinton's reason for setting up her own, it was simply that half the time the servers weren't working properly. )

[Man from Pickens]

100. you can't actually secure anything that's online

Thanks to the NSA, there are backdoors everywhere, including the actual hardware. Encrypted protocols are also compromised by design.

It's time to get used to the fact that there is no true digital security, all you can do is raise the threshold of how much knowledge a person needs to get in.

[DanTex]

104. Maybe, maybe not.

There do exist sound encryption protocols based on mathematics. And we don't know the extent of the NSA's putting back doors in hardware.

In any case, there is such a thing as more secure and less secure. And a well-configured and encrypted private email server is more secure than a big organization's email system.

[One_Life_To_Give]

97. Good way to help control the message

Appears to me this was about both E-Mail capability (or lack of .gov capability) as well as benefits in potential control in the future. Considering this also came about shortly after her primary defeat in which controlling the message to the public was cited as a reason in her loss. Doesn't appear surprising.

From a practical matter I am sure the archive capability is the same except that her people will personally review any e-mail before it is sent out in response to any request. Which seems to also be a consistent pattern with her aids.

[dilby]

105. Good for her, when you are that high up in Government you probably get a little scared

about what the NSA is doing with all the emails it is collecting through ISPs. Although running your own mail server is not 100% it does offer a level of security that you will not get with using a gmail, yahoo or ISP supplied private account.

[2naSalit]

111. Interestingly...

a lot of .gov addresses are handled by Google/Gmail. That's the way it is with the huge agency I work for during portions of the year. I also have to complete a training session with a grade in order to comply with the organizational rules of use for internet accounts. I don't think there's any there there and this is merely another "Whitewater" type witch hunt that has plagued Ms. Clinton since she was first lady of AR.

Haters are gonna hate, and when they have a title of distinction, they use it to destroy those they disagree with. That's how our government works when the aristocratic crowd gets into power.

[wyldwolf]

116. Great! Because yesterday some here were real concerned she used something like 'hotmail.'

This way was much more secure.

[leveymg]

124. Not more secure enough. Email is no more secure than the networks it's connected to.

Intercepts occur routinely at commercial network hubs and connections. That's why government systems have their own routers, switches, and channels. Not saying these "secure" communication systems can't be penetrated, but the chances of that being detected, countered and breaches fixed quickly are far higher.

[LittleBlue]

121. "She didn't technically break the law"

Paid for by Hillary 2016

[leveymg]

126. The work on that meme is largely amateur.

Not a lasting structure.

[CreekDog]

135. I'm sure you've made up your mind on all of this

In probably a similar way as you did with Benghazi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=475924