Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)
99. despite all the security, there are still breeches. It's ignorant to believe gmail is secure.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:47 PM
Jun 2016

and regardless where is the crime in that?

To the best of my knowledge Meteor Man Jun 2016 #1
Can you find any other case where it was recommended that an official go to prison for using a qdouble Jun 2016 #2
Ask Brian Pagliano Meteor Man Jun 2016 #3
Your link doesn't show that she actually broke the law, but most important, it doesn't state qdouble Jun 2016 #4
We do not "know for a fact" Meteor Man Jun 2016 #6
We do have confirmation that others used it qdouble Jun 2016 #8
did Powell use a private server, or just a private email? There is a BIG difference. I Exilednight Jun 2016 #19
There is no big difference. qdouble Jun 2016 #20
it depends on where the server is housed and if emails were Exilednight Jun 2016 #21
Are all email providers legally required not to delete your emails? And how does qdouble Jun 2016 #23
legally, email providers are required to keep all emails via Exilednight Jun 2016 #70
your arguing that a thrid party being able to access emails is safer puffy socks Jun 2016 #159
stop putting words in my mouth. nowhere did I say they were safer. Exilednight Jun 2016 #184
your implying that a server is bad only because the user can delete emails puffy socks Jun 2016 #187
Again, I am implying nothing. I am staying facts. We do not Exilednight Jun 2016 #196
what personal attck? puffy socks Jun 2016 #205
So? there was a protocal to print emails which they did. Sent emails are saved on the recipient MariaThinks Jun 2016 #98
we don't really know if all emails were printed, we can only take Hillary's Exilednight Jun 2016 #102
Her attorney and staff didn't print them until long after she left the State Dept. and after they 2cannan Jun 2016 #144
You are exhibiting real ignorance of this topic... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #45
I'm a programmer... Gmail doesn't use any top-secret advanced algorithms to authenticate qdouble Jun 2016 #48
Again with the "inherent" weasel wording... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #105
You understand there's a big difference in the degree of difficulty in what it takes qdouble Jun 2016 #111
but you're an expert, and the non experts think they know more than you. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #146
Get back to me when you can probe 100% that Exilednight Jun 2016 #88
Did you mean to reply to me? ljm2002 Jun 2016 #106
despite all the security, there are still breeches. It's ignorant to believe gmail is secure. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #99
Millions of commercial email accounts get hacked every year yet these guys are acting like not using qdouble Jun 2016 #107
agreed. It's a witch hunt. I thought we were better on the left, but these past 3 months have shown MariaThinks Jun 2016 #147
Of course that is true... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #109
How is that different? MariaThinks Jun 2016 #86
see post #21 Exilednight Jun 2016 #97
If the link already existed... KULawHawk Jun 2016 #152
Hillary is different because she's a Clinton. That means everything she does is attacked. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #79
I think the fact that there is no precedent should be all inchhigh Jun 2016 #81
There is precedent of people using private emails... qdouble Jun 2016 #85
Because having a private server gave her total control inchhigh Jun 2016 #110
Assuming that the people she is communicating aren't also all using private email servers, qdouble Jun 2016 #112
But if she refuses to turn over her emails inchhigh Jun 2016 #119
They should be able to dig up a lot of information through the internet service provider qdouble Jun 2016 #121
Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793. leveymg Jun 2016 #127
Well neither case is an exact match to the email situation.... I suppose Deutch would be close as qdouble Jun 2016 #130
The Deutch case is direct precedent. The CIA IG recommended prosecution and specified 18 USC 793(f) leveymg Jun 2016 #145
"did not contain classification markings" scscholar Jun 2016 #169
wrong. classified when it was generated, marked or not Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #215
here is something to look at Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #212
Who else set up a private server? hobbit709 Jun 2016 #5
For practical purposes, what is the difference between using gmail qdouble Jun 2016 #10
If you ask that question, then you know nothing about IT. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #11
I'm a computer programmer. Answer the question. qdouble Jun 2016 #13
For one thing. Downwinder Jun 2016 #16
If the FBI raids your office, it's the same result. qdouble Jun 2016 #17
Think I will avoid your programming. Downwinder Jun 2016 #30
Can't come up with a strong reason why Gmail is superior to a private server qdouble Jun 2016 #31
Who said gmail is superior to a private server? Downwinder Jun 2016 #32
In terms of secure communication, there is nothing inherently more insecure about using a private qdouble Jun 2016 #34
You asked for a difference. Downwinder Jun 2016 #36
Another difference is they are housed in different locations. qdouble Jun 2016 #37
I replied to: Downwinder Jun 2016 #38
So where is Clinton legally required to be prepared for subpoenas? randome Jun 2016 #39
Do you deny the difference I postulated? Downwinder Jun 2016 #42
I don't understand "knowing who is accessing your correspondence". randome Jun 2016 #43
That is why I will avoid your programming. Downwinder Jun 2016 #46
You keep making this statement without showing any breadth of knowledge. qdouble Jun 2016 #52
You keep tying it to a specific situation. Downwinder Jun 2016 #71
Apparently that's not accurate. Her signed oaths or agreements, for one, are suspect. Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #217
Email communication is a two way street. Investigators should be able to draw evidence from those qdouble Jun 2016 #116
I know it won't matter to you but...at least if she had used a Google, Yahoo or MS email account 2cannan Jun 2016 #61
A distinction without a difference since there is no evidence her server was hacked. randome Jun 2016 #73
That statement is not a fact. @2cannan qdouble Jun 2016 #80
Did you read that the server was open, without password, for days? highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #129
Would that be the fault of Clinton or the fault of her IT person? qdouble Jun 2016 #131
Do you believe in management or laissez-faire incompetence? Check out this video. highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #133
A 60+ year old woman who is not an IT expert? qdouble Jun 2016 #136
Nice to see Team Hillary getting ready to throw Pagliano under the bus. Kentonio Jun 2016 #163
Yes, because it would make sense for Hillary to specify that her server not be password protected qdouble Jun 2016 #168
The responsibility for setting up a server was hers. Her decision and no-one else's. Kentonio Jun 2016 #171
this isn't the point -- it's that her server was inaccessible to anyone but her people, many of whom Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #216
Not the same at all... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #47
It's the same because if they raid your office, I'd assume you wouldn't have the chance to wipe all qdouble Jun 2016 #55
Please explain, if you can... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #66
You tell me? It's speculative either way. qdouble Jun 2016 #87
It is not speculative that she tried to hide it... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #101
You asked me to explain why her assistants tried to hide it.... how is that not speculative? qdouble Jun 2016 #115
Sorry, you are simply deflecting now... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #138
I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that you are speculating about their motives and then qdouble Jun 2016 #141
Zing... Nt seabeyond Jun 2016 #18
Wow, gullible much? ljm2002 Jun 2016 #49
You're launching an ad hominem attack on me without displaying that you have any knowledge that I'm qdouble Jun 2016 #59
Wow, ignorant AND arrogant... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #69
You obviously don't know shit about programming. qdouble Jun 2016 #113
Sweetie, if you're writing an email server using node.js... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #137
Ah, you couldn't answer the question. I thought so. qdouble Jun 2016 #139
It just is not a big enough deal to inherently create someone as a liar when I have no proof. seabeyond Jun 2016 #78
So what type of "computer programmer" are you exactly? tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #90
I know multiple languages, but I'm primarily a web programmer, I've been focusing mostly on qdouble Jun 2016 #93
What direct experience do you have with server security? Kentonio Jun 2016 #164
I've run my own private servers, studied some white hat hacking, took IT courses, qdouble Jun 2016 #170
There is no such thing as a totally secure server. Kentonio Jun 2016 #172
Do you understand exactly how a server can be hacked in the first place? qdouble Jun 2016 #174
Why do you keep repeating your very carefully worded line about 'inherently secure'? Kentonio Jun 2016 #177
I'm saying that saying she used a PRIVATE SERVER is a bad argument because it implies that qdouble Jun 2016 #179
Security is the main thing here.. GummyBearz Jun 2016 #182
We are distinguishing between private servers qdouble Jun 2016 #185
Two things GummyBearz Jun 2016 #193
1. If someone once to vote for president based on their use of email address, then that's on them qdouble Jun 2016 #197
very little. Like when bush went after the Dixie Chicks the issue was the freedom of MariaThinks Jun 2016 #82
So you're saying the rules don't specifically cover that situation. That's fine. randome Jun 2016 #12
Some people think legal is OK no matter how unethical, immoral, or stupid. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #14
All I'm saying is that this is much ado about nothing. randome Jun 2016 #40
I HAVE A PRIVATE EMAIL! Atman Jun 2016 #57
Err what? You do know we're talking about a private server, not just email right? Kentonio Jun 2016 #165
Err, urp, duh...yeah, I know what we're talking about. Atman Jun 2016 #173
Neither of them operated their emails from a private server. Kentonio Jun 2016 #175
People that "reply to all" for no reason firebrand80 Jun 2016 #7
your post borderlines on concern trolling wyldwolf Jun 2016 #9
People advocating imprisonment without trial strike me as dangerous. n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #15
I agree. As do people advocating drone assassinations without trial. Kentonio Jun 2016 #166
her sentencing would be for a Judge to decide after due process of the law. I just want to see it Hiraeth Jun 2016 #22
You want to see her sentencing play out? For which crime in particular and what would be a fair qdouble Jun 2016 #24
That is NOT what I wrote. Read the senctence s-l-o-w-e-r. Hiraeth Jun 2016 #25
You said her sentencing will be for a judge to decide... qdouble Jun 2016 #27
Either through... tonedevil Jun 2016 #188
Would/will... Both statement presuppose sentencing qdouble Jun 2016 #190
Looks like my vote was correct... tonedevil Jun 2016 #194
I'm not stupid or a weasel, but insulting the opposition is pretty standard fair for Bernouts. qdouble Jun 2016 #199
You either don't know the difference... tonedevil Jun 2016 #200
If you want to be an asshole, it's fine by me...but don't accuse me of not knowing your intentions qdouble Jun 2016 #202
I quite rightly accused you... tonedevil Jun 2016 #207
All you've done is sling pejoratives while not actually showing that I lied about anything. qdouble Jun 2016 #208
You lied about... tonedevil Jun 2016 #209
I didn't lie. If you took what she said a different way than I took it, that's not tantamount to qdouble Jun 2016 #210
Thanks for the free... tonedevil Jun 2016 #211
Whatever bro... qdouble Jun 2016 #213
You are cute... tonedevil Jun 2016 #214
So you want to skip straight to sentencing? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #58
Sentencing... tonedevil Jun 2016 #195
Anyone hiding emails from FOIA requests or raising illicit cash... Yurovsky Jun 2016 #26
Your post doesn't address the OP at all. You guys are suggesting that she should go to prison, but qdouble Jun 2016 #28
Bernie's guys that jumped into the DNC records database knowing they should not be there. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #29
You mean the guy on Bernie's staff... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #54
I don't think anyone should be locked up for email offenses. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #33
I really don't get the incompetence argument either though.... qdouble Jun 2016 #35
Yes, computers protected by the security expertise of the NSA are indeed inherently more secure. Kentonio Jun 2016 #167
This is an argument from authority from a person who doesn't know how code works. qdouble Jun 2016 #176
I didn't say 'government computers' I said NSA protected which the SOS's communications warrant. Kentonio Jun 2016 #178
I'm not saying that I'm a leading authority, I'm backing up my argument with facts and logic. qdouble Jun 2016 #180
Not even the NSA can make a server totally secure. Kentonio Jun 2016 #181
This is nonsense. The amount of staff qdouble Jun 2016 #183
You have absolutely no idea what other routes there are into the system Kentonio Jun 2016 #189
When you communicate with a simple web server qdouble Jun 2016 #192
"violating email protocol"... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #41
I see you chose to not address the OP at all... I asked specifically for what precedent for a person qdouble Jun 2016 #44
There are a few issues with using a private server... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #64
A and b don't point to any inherent weakness, only that it was against protocol, we've already qdouble Jun 2016 #72
Again... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #96
Commercial servers have redundancies and have to be up to the requirements of protecting millions qdouble Jun 2016 #104
No one ever gives a coherent answer as to why "a PRIVATE SERVER" is so awful. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #60
Exactly, they are all like OMG, PRIVATE SERVER!!!!! qdouble Jun 2016 #63
Perhaps because no one else has access to it besides the people she wanted to have access? 2cannan Jun 2016 #68
The Secretary of State, just like other State Dept. employees... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #74
The Secretary of State answers to POTUS, not to the IT department. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #83
I would be seriously surprised... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #100
would you want scientists developing top secret nuclear weapons jack_krass Jun 2016 #103
another Trump talking point repeated by so called Dems. Yup, another Trump stumper. Sheepshank Jun 2016 #50
"Email protocol"? Marr Jun 2016 #51
Really, how many who are in prison who should be released if Hillary isn't indicted? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #53
Like so many other things you post, that is a lie. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #62
How much time did the last government official that used private emails get? qdouble Jun 2016 #65
I guess that means you believe Hillary more than the IG of the State Department. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #124
The thread isn't about whether or not Hillary clinton violated protocol....it is what is the qdouble Jun 2016 #148
It's not about the email it's about the PRIVATE SERVER. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #198
Other officials did send emails that were retroactively classified. qdouble Jun 2016 #201
I won't be happy until Skinner goes down. nt. NCTraveler Jun 2016 #56
You lost me with your first sentence. B2G Jun 2016 #67
It's a right wing scandal. I see tons of republicans posting the exact same stuff and using the qdouble Jun 2016 #76
Whatever helps you sleep at night. nt B2G Jun 2016 #77
The FBI is not a right-wing think tank. /nt Marr Jun 2016 #160
The FBI hasn't arrested her. No one knows what the results will be, but right-wingers qdouble Jun 2016 #161
I'm sure it *is* hard for you to tell Republicans from Sanders supporters. Marr Jun 2016 #162
Who else had a private server? That's the real difference. Vinca Jun 2016 #75
No it's not. The private server inside a firefall is not a differentiator. MariaThinks Jun 2016 #84
It is if the firewall isn't up to snuff. Vinca Jun 2016 #114
MILLIONS OF COMMERCIAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS ARE HACKED EVERY YEAR qdouble Jun 2016 #89
Powell, Rice and Kerry are not running for POTUS. Vinca Jun 2016 #117
We can all agree she violated protocol qdouble Jun 2016 #120
What if her server was hacked and sensitive information has been made available Vinca Jun 2016 #122
The risk of her server being hacked isn't dramatically higher than the risk of someone's qdouble Jun 2016 #123
I feel the same, but on DU, the email truthers only care about Hillary apnu Jun 2016 #142
I guess it would depend on who let confidential data out of the bag and Vinca Jun 2016 #150
I recently saw that server referenced as an offline server. gordianot Jun 2016 #95
Then how did they learn about it in the first place? Vinca Jun 2016 #118
The way I had it explained to me: gordianot Jun 2016 #135
Vinca, not John Podesta, it was Sidney Blumenthal. nt 2cannan Jun 2016 #140
Oops . . . you're exactly right. I got the cast of characters scrambled. Vinca Jun 2016 #149
Hillary's Scooter Libby will be found then promptly pardoned. gordianot Jun 2016 #91
Yes. GW Bush & Karl Rove n/t napi21 Jun 2016 #92
As I recall, plenty of us here advocated that Republicans be jailed for even lesser email offenses Live and Learn Jun 2016 #94
Bill Clinton they work as a team. She and he put our Country in jeopardy and used bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #108
...!100++++ 840high Jun 2016 #125
And that donco Jun 2016 #126
This is more Benghazi nonsense. The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #128
I've also... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #132
I don't know of a precedent of another SOS using a private server. I'll go with the FBI decision. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #134
I thought Bush should have been Aerows Jun 2016 #143
A large number of the W. white house staff... KULawHawk Jun 2016 #151
Cheryl Mills has a history of covering Clinton Email Scandals... so that would be nice trudyco Jun 2016 #153
It isn't all or nothing. surrealAmerican Jun 2016 #154
This thread is specifically in response to people who make it seem like Hillary should be in prison. qdouble Jun 2016 #156
Op MFM008 Jun 2016 #155
I don't believe she's going to be indicted nor do I think she's going to go to prison qdouble Jun 2016 #157
Hillary will not be locked up for the emails, it is a good possibility Bernie and Jane Sanders Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #158
Number one: It is not about the emails. It is about the jwirr Jun 2016 #186
Unless you are the FBI Agent in charge or the Federal Prosecutor or the Federal Judge who's 99Forever Jun 2016 #191
And this post from you is meaningful to whom? qdouble Jun 2016 #204
Anyone with a functional brain. 99Forever Jun 2016 #218
Every person who has violated company policies intentionally or inadvertently. Hoyt Jun 2016 #203
Rove who actually destroyed the emails larkrake Jun 2016 #206
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Other than Hillary, who d...»Reply #99