Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate? (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Hillary: Too Risky a Candidate?
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, Fenring, why you think that Hillary receiving classified e-mail on her unsecured e-mail account is relevant to any wrong-doing on her part? [Confused]

She had no control over who sent her e-mails or what they contained. They were not marked classified, so there was no way for her to know they were classified unless she sat down and analyzed the classification of the content (something that even the experts are apparently still disputing among themselves). And even the article states, "she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation."

Since her e-mail server was never supposed to be secure, I don't see how this is her fault in any way, shape or form. The security breach would have been exactly the same if she had been using an official government server at the time.

So exactly how does this relate to this latest scandal?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
And a month after trumpeting the the deletion of Clinton emails, the NYT just ran an article that eviscerates that element of the "scandal"
quote:
The Justice Department said in a court filing this week that Hillary Rodham Clinton had the authority to delete emails that she did not believe were government records from the personal account that she exclusively used while secretary of state.
link
Did someone dispute that it's a federal officer's duty to archive records appropriately? The intention of the policy you site is to separate out the records that are public records from those that are not, it's intended to be a blanket shield wielded by any official that allows them to permanently remove from view any records they choose on a discretionary basis. And in fact, this highlights why a private server is so inappropriate, there are no archives or back-ups of those records available at all, as there would be for any records on government servers.

I really don't believe you accept this standard as applicable to every government official. Are you going to be comfortable if every investigation of an official begins with them deleting all "personal" records before investigators can look at them?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
the FBI claim you are refering to is from August 11th and those are disputed as to their classification status.

It's not a legitimate dispute, the State Department doesn't have the authority to dispute the classification of another agencies data. And you do realize it's a completely self serving statement on their part as many of them risk losing their jobs or potential sanctions if the issue of this server gets much bigger. Lots of people in the State Department were either yes men or asleep at the wheel.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you going to be comfortable if every investigation of an official begins with them deleting all "personal" records before investigators can look at them?
To be fair, the Obama Administration has changed the rules to make this much harder; the deletion that was legally done at the time would not be permitted now.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I'm curious, Fenring, why you think that Hillary receiving classified e-mail on her unsecured e-mail account is relevant to any wrong-doing on her part? [Confused]

She had no control over who sent her e-mails or what they contained. They were not marked classified, so there was no way for her to know they were classified unless she sat down and analyzed the classification of the content (something that even the experts are apparently still disputing among themselves). And even the article states, "she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation."

Since her e-mail server was never supposed to be secure, I don't see how this is her fault in any way, shape or form. The security breach would have been exactly the same if she had been using an official government server at the time.

So exactly how does this relate to this latest scandal?

WS, every single question and point in this post has been addressed in full previously in the thread. I can only suggest (without intending sarcasm) that you re-read the thread. You'll find both my intention in starting the thread as well as what Hillary's responsibilities were. But I'll repeat again: if she had, for certain, received e-mails on her personal server that were marked as top secret at the time then she would be guilty of a felony, period.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I'll repeat again: if she had, for certain, received e-mails on her personal server that were marked as top secret at the time then she would be guilty of a felony, period.
I don't think that's accurate. If someone sent her top secret documents, they might be liable, but how can she be acting unlawfully if they just arrived on her server?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
But I'll repeat again: if she had, for certain, received e-mails on her personal server that were marked as top secret at the time then she would be guilty of a felony, period.
I don't think that's accurate. If someone sent her top secret documents, they might be liable, but how can she be acting unlawfully if they just arrived on her server?
That's the whole point. Having classified information on a non-government server is illegal. How it got there is irrelevant. By using a personal server she was not protecting herself against receiving information that should not have been there. Had she personally sent emails containing top-secret information from a private server that would be more irresponsible, but I'm not sure it would be 'more illegal.' I will be curious to see how this progresses, but from what I've read I don't think anyone sending classified information to her e-mail address would be liable, since she was the secretary of state and it was expected that she had clearance and needed to be sent certain communications. It's not their fault if she wanted to use a private server; were they supposed to anticipate her refusing to do what everyone was supposed to do? If they need to send her an email then that's what they need to do. How can they be liable for things being unsecured at her end?

I can imagine the foolish scenario that would exist based on your idea:

Govt official A: I'm about to send Hillary an email.
Govt official B: Stop! Didn't someone tell you Hillary's e-mail is compromised? You have to go see her in person or send a messenger.
A: That makes no sense...if she knows it's compromised why doesn't she fix it?
B: She insists on keeping it like this. Something about not having two devices. I know a good courier you can send.
A: But I can't trust a courier with classified information!
B: Nah it's cool we all use him.
A: Also I can't get an appointment to see Hillary, and my boss told me I have to have this e-mail out in within the hour. How can I get someone to Hillary that fast?
B: Hey man just send the e-mail then, I'm sure no one will ever find out.

[ September 14, 2015, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Having classified information on a non-government server is illegal. How it got there is irrelevant. By using a personal server she was not protecting herself against receiving information that should not have been there.
No, I don't believe that is true, either.

From what I understand, whether it was a personal server or the government server she was supposed to use, neither would have been secure for top secret information. Both e-mail accounts were not authorized for secret correspondence. So it wouldn't have mattered if she had used the government server; it would have still been illegal to send secret information to it.

If this is true (correct me if I'm wrong), then it was clear that secret information could not legally be sent to her via her e-mail account, and the responsibility for sending some to her would rest with the sender, and not her.

Which would explain why she is not being investigated for receiving the top secret information, but someone else is being investigated for sendin it.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it turns out you're right I'll submit the point for sure. But tell me, if classified information is never allowed to be send by e-mail then how do government people communicate on a regular basis with foreign dignitaries or governments? Every single exchange done on the (unsecured) telephone? Telegraph? If your claim is correct then government e-mail would only be usable for inter-office memos and other trivial things.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati's last series of posts reveal to me how much of this is being just made up

First, the government record keeping rules at the time were not like those of a criminal suboena, and if you think that government IT departments keep a record of everything for all time on their unclass systems, you probably over-estimate the scope of work assigned to the contractor who works the job.

Second, you have this whole imaginary world of an entire organization worried about this faux scandal by covering things up. I can tell you know it and see it - you just don't have any evidence for it.

Finally, secret or top secret information cannot be shared over unclassified email. But inadvertant spillage does occur, and there are procedures for handling that.

Here's a CRS document from 2013 that outlines some of the rules, including what might be relevant here:

quote:
In the event of a knowing,willful, or negligent unauthorized disclosure (or any such action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure), the agency head or senior agency official is required to notify ISOO and to “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.” Officers and employees of the United States (including contractors, licensees, etc.) who commit a violation are subject to sanctions that can range from reprimand to termination.
link

In real life, the most common sanction is a reprimand (yes, it does go into an employee's permanent record). If a person puts classified information into an unclassiofied email, the sanctions are not imposed on everyone who receives such an email, they are imposed on the person who generated the offending email.

If Hillary Clinton just received emails containing classified information or associations, she is not a candidate for any sanctions.

And the private server is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion, you get no "extra credit" because your classified spillage was on a government unclassified computer, unclassified = unclassified.

[ September 14, 2015, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If Hillary Clinton just received emails containing classified information or associations, she is not a candidate for any sanctions.

If the sole reason that such emails were received on an unclassified server, ie Hillary's personal server, is that work- arounds had to be created to allow any communication to that server, then you are incorrect. Her personal "convenience" was allowed to compromise security procedures.

I'm still waiting, by the way, for any of you to proffer a rationale reason why a government employee should have been allowed to create a private server in this manner. Or for an explanation of how this is consistent with FOIA requirements, and not a direct frustration of open records and sunshine laws and principals.

Hillary's a very good tactician, and you're all hanging your hats on a technical argument that she complied with the letter of the law (which honestly is disputable but may be in her favor), is that really the limit of your ability to process a situation?
quote:
unclassified = unclassified.
And what of the emails that contained classified information? Hanging your hat on the disputable technical argument that they weren't marked classified?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm still waiting, by the way, for any of you to proffer a rationale reason why a government employee should have been allowed to create a private server in this manner.
That's how the law and Executive policy worked at the time.
quote:
And what of the emails that contained classified information? Hanging your hat on the disputable technical argument that they weren't marked classified?
That's how the law and Executive policy worked at the time.

If you agree that she operated within the law and as allowed by policy, why not just say you think (and she now agrees) that she made a mistake and move on.

If some criminal activity is uncovered by further investigation, then there would be something more to talk about. But given everything that has been discovered so far, this is a purely political issue at this point. The more you or anyone continues to harp on it only speaks to your political loyalties.

If you want to deprecate her judgment in order to diminish her standing as a candidate for President, you should instead focus on her opinions, decisions and actions while serving in office in an elected or appointed role. As far as I can tell, not a single attack on her that isn't tied to a faux scandal has done that.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm still waiting, by the way, for any of you to proffer a rationale reason why a government employee should have been allowed to create a private server in this manner. Or for an explanation of how this is consistent with FOIA requirements, and not a direct frustration of open records and sunshine laws and principals.
It isn't? I'd bet this email thing is why Sanders seems to actually have traction in the early primaries. One shouldn't mistake reluctance to jump on the crucify Clinton train for not having concerns about her conduct in this matter.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still waiting for Seriati to show an equivalent level of outrage for a similar thing done by Republicans (such as Rice and Powell) or the White House under Bush (although they not only used a private server, but they deleted all 22 million emails on it)


Oh, and Seriati, your claim that "Her personal 'convenience' was allowed to compromise security procedures" is not valid because there is no extra-credit you get for using a government unclass system as opposed to a private unclass system

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, if your standard for 'what works for them works for us' is the Bush admin then you're hitting the bottom of the barrel. The idea that "they did it so why judge us for the same?" is fine in pointing out hypocrisy, but not fine in explaining an action in itself. If you were to claim that all these administrations are the same, and hey, why bother picking on Hillary about it then I'd agree with you fully. She didn't do anything special as far as it goes. But if the Obama admin is supposed to have been something special or at least better then the standard must raise as well. While I know you think it has, it seems to be a dark mark on that claim for Hillary to behave like her predecessors did.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
She didn't do anything special as far as it goes. But if the Obama admin is supposed to have been something special or at least better then the standard must raise as well.
Can you name any Presidential candidate in your lifetime who didn't claim that they would be that?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I'm still waiting for Seriati to show an equivalent level of outrage for a similar thing done by Republicans (such as Rice and Powell) or the White House under Bush (although they not only used a private server, but they deleted all 22 million emails on it)

You mean the scandal that was investigated in 2007 (prior to Clinton creating her server) and deemed to have been a possible violation of record keeping rules at the time? It was a violation then too. Hard to see how you could be of the view that AFTER those events (including findings by Congressional hearings that such use may have violated existing record retention laws) that this server was still okay and these actions are still okay.

More importantly, why would anyone interested in open records and responsibility in government not want the same thing?

On the Powell issue, I didn't find it terribly equivalent. From his interviews he made it sound like he was bringing state out of the stone age, not doing it to circumvent existing rules and that he in fact had separate systems for transmission of confidential information.

It's kind of absurd that you keep pointing backwards on a tech related topic. 8 years in the world of technology is a lifetime in difference. Would it be okay if the current admin was still running unupdated anti-virus software from the Bush Admin too? I'm going to expect the next admin to be held to a higher standard than this one (but only because it's become clear in this scandal and the IRS scandal that the government is incompetent either by intention or otherwise with respect to technology).
quote:
Oh, and Seriati, your claim that "Her personal 'convenience' was allowed to compromise security procedures" is not valid because there is no extra-credit you get for using a government unclass system as opposed to a private unclass system
Maybe don't get the context on what I said. I read earlier there are tech controls specifically designed to limit emails to .gov addresses and to specifically exclude certain emails to .gov addresses. Any work arounds that had to be put in place to allow emails to go to Clinton's servers would have introduced extra risk on that control point, and she would be completely responsible for the consequences thereof.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
quote:
And what of the emails that contained classified information? Hanging your hat on the disputable technical argument that they weren't marked classified?
That's how the law and Executive policy worked at the time.
That's not true. Anything you read on this, other than the self serving statements from the State Department, make clear only the originating agency can waive the classification level, and that some data is classified regardless of whether it's so marked. So that's not how the law worked.
quote:
If you agree that she operated within the law and as allowed by policy, why not just say you think (and she now agrees) that she made a mistake and move on.
She did make a mistake, in my view she did it for self serving purposes and not to further any legitimate government purpose. And this reveals her unfitness to hold the office of President. So if you mean move on to a different candidate, I'm fine with that, if you mean drop the issue and pretend like she's still qualified, not so much.

Is Hilary really the best the Democrats can put forward?
quote:
If some criminal activity is uncovered by further investigation, then there would be something more to talk about. But given everything that has been discovered so far, this is a purely political issue at this point. The more you or anyone continues to harp on it only speaks to your political loyalties.
If criminal activity is established or more uncovered there is less to talk about, because she'll no longer be a legitimate candidate. If you can provide a reason for this that actual demonstrates an non-self interested purpose why would you still support her?

Is it really just "not a Republican" and all else doesn't matter, in which case who is being purely political?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

quote:
It's not a legitimate dispute, the State Department doesn't have the authority to dispute the classification of another agencies data.
The dispute is whether the origination of the data was from a classified source (the multiple sources problem - the State Department and CIA often get the same information through different channels) and the timing of the classification (if it wasn't classified when it was sent, then nothing illegal occurred).

quote:
And you do realize it's a completely self serving statement on their part as many of them risk losing their jobs or potential sanctions if the issue of this server gets much bigger. Lots of people in the State Department were either yes men or asleep at the wheel.
It is certainly somewhat self serving, doesn't mean it is wrong.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is Hilary really the best the Democrats can put forward?
Depends what you mean by best but probably. Though don't forget there's a lot more to putting a candidate forward than just getting the support of primary voters. She's been working on this bid for awhile, which probably included pruning out rivals so she doesn't run into another dark horse.

As to why keep supporting her? The only other Democratic candidate with traction is an actual socialist and have you seen the other guys? Half of them would blow up the global economy because they don't see a problem if the US fails to pay its debts. The other half aren't polling so well.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Is Hilary really the best the Democrats can put forward?
Depends what you mean by best but probably. Though don't forget there's a lot more to putting a candidate forward than just getting the support of primary voters. She's been working on this bid for awhile, which probably included pruning out rivals so she doesn't run into another dark horse.

As to why keep supporting her? The only other Democratic candidate with traction is an actual socialist and have you seen the other guys? Half of them would blow up the global economy because they don't see a problem if the US fails to pay its debts. The other half aren't polling so well.

What is an un-actual socialist? Also please see the other threads about what is meant by Sanders calling himself a 'socialist.'
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Un-actual socialist? Obama. [Razz]
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If criminal activity is established or more uncovered there is less to talk about, because she'll no longer be a legitimate candidate. If you can provide a reason for this that actual demonstrates an non-self interested purpose why would you still support her?
Hmmm. I think you're saying that as long as she's a candidate, it's open season on anything about her. Are you going to attack her looks, too? Here's a California GOP sticker about her: “KFC Hillary Special: 2 Fat Thighs 2 small breasts…left wing,”
quote:
That's not true. Anything you read on this, other than the self serving statements from the State Department, make clear only the originating agency can waive the classification level, and that some data is classified regardless of whether it's so marked. So that's not how the law worked.
So, if someone sends me a message and I forward it to you, can either of us be arrested if it turns out that it was classified, but unmarked?

[ September 15, 2015, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Un-actual socialist? Obama. [Razz]

I spent a minute or so trying to figure out if you intended a truth to be couched in the joke.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Hmmm. I think you're saying that as long as she's a candidate, it's open season on anything about her. Are you going to attack her looks, too? Here's a California GOP sticker about her: “KFC Hillary Special: 2 Fat Thighs 2 small breasts…left wing,”

No, why would I do that? Are you implying that her looks somehow go to her fitness to be President?

This specific issue goes directly to her putting her self interest over that of the government or the people, unless there's a good reason to do it I'm missing. That's directly and legitimately related to fitness for this particular office. And less you complain about it being a high standard, we're talking about a single person in a country of almost 300 million, I think we can find someone who does see it as their duty to put the needs of the country first to serve as President.
quote:
So, if someone sends me a message and I forward it to you, can either of us be arrested if it turns out that it was classified, but unmarked?
Do you work for the government? Because yes, if you did, you could be arrested for sending me that email. Do you recall Secretary Clinton asserting that she was familiar with the standards for handling confidential information? Do you understand that she her knew they were binding on her? How do you think her affirmative acceptance of such an obligation squares with a random exchange between two civilians?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you do agree, Serati, that if you received that e-mail with the classified information, that you could not be arrested for simply receiving it? Nor could you be held accountable if you were unaware that it contained classified information (if, for instance, it was not labelled as such, but had a line or two that would be considered classified because it was part of a classified document)?

Or do you think you should be arrested for simply receiving such information? And do you think Mrs. Clinton should be likewise arrested?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's kind of absurd that you keep pointing backwards on a tech related topic. 8 years in the world of technology is a lifetime in difference. Would it be okay if the current admin was still running unupdated anti-virus software from the Bush Admin too? I'm going to expect the next admin to be held to a higher standard than this one (but only because it's become clear in this scandal and the IRS scandal that the government is incompetent either by intention or otherwise with respect to technology).
And yet you keep trying to judge a tech decision from almost 8 years ago by today's standards. What was required at the time to consolidate multiple accounts on one device only looks like a poor decision now that multiple accounts on a device is a standard feature.

AT that point in time, to be able to use the blackberry that the media loved to feature her use of, across accounts and systems, she pretty much had the choice of trusting her service provider to store the messages or manage her own server and security for it.

quote:
. From his interviews he made it sound like he was bringing state out of the stone age, not doing it to circumvent existing rules and that he in fact had separate systems for transmission of confidential information.
Indeed, and as has been pointed out, that's why this wasn't as big an issue as it's being made out to be and why it was acceptable practice at the time to reroute email. Confidential information can't go over email to begin, since email is straight up insecure and basically unsecurable, with and needs to through other systems. That's also why the blame for sending classified information over email falls on the sender, regardless of where the server that it's being sent to lives.

(It's possible that there may be an isolated internal network that uses the same SMTP protocol as public email, but that wouldn't have been her .gov address, which is the one in question, and she'd have had to use a computer on that network to access it. But even at that point there are better and more secure file sharing protocols that would probably be preferred)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
But you do agree, Serati, that if you received that e-mail with the classified information, that you could not be arrested for simply receiving it? Nor could you be held accountable if you were unaware that it contained classified information (if, for instance, it was not labelled as such, but had a line or two that would be considered classified because it was part of a classified document)?

Presuming I was government employee, with knowledge of the confidentiality restrictions and a duty to comply with them, wouldn't the proper question be what I did after I received it? If you come into possession of classified information what is your obligation? Isn't it to report it? Is there an obligation to do more, to delete it for instance?

Is there any evidence that this was done?

But I do agree, getting unsolicited emails sent to you, say on your home account is not a violation. That's not what happened though, here she deliberated designated these accounts as for her work, she solicited work related emails be sent to them. That takes it out of the realm of what you're implying.
quote:
Or do you think you should be arrested for simply receiving such information? And do you think Mrs. Clinton should be likewise arrested?
Seriously doubt she should be arrested, but then I've surprised by some of the arrests that have occurred in this area. My objections come from the lack of respect for the public record and the obligation to disclose records (which is why I was also appalled by the government standard that lets every employee self select records for retention), not from the lack of secrecy. Though I agree government has to be able to keep some secrets, I think its clear they abuse the power to classify egregiously.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I do agree, getting unsolicited emails sent to you, say on your home account is not a violation. That's not what happened though, here she deliberated designated these accounts as for her work, she solicited work related emails be sent to them.
"Work-related' doesn't mean "classified" even if her email account was being hosted with the government it would have been a violation of protocol to send it in the first place, because it's the act of sending it that exposes it to the world, not the place where it's ultimately received. (not getting into the fact that the way email routing works, every message going to her .gov address would have needed to pass through the DoS .gov routing servers, where it could easily have been archived, before being forwarded to her private account. Unless the claim is that the entire Department of state was using her private server?)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Presuming I was government employee, with knowledge of the confidentiality restrictions and a duty to comply with them, wouldn't the proper question be what I did after I received it? If you come into possession of classified information what is your obligation? Isn't it to report it? Is there an obligation to do more, to delete it for instance?

Is there any evidence that this was done?

The problem is that classified information may not be obvious in any given e-mail.

Sure, there are some things, like "The CIA personel in Benghazi who are covertly sending arms to the Syrians would like an ice-cream," which are quite obvious. [Smile] But other things are not so clear.

Classified documents consist of sensitive material and unsensitive material, including information that is widely know (and even on the internet). But the wording in a classified document, even if it unsensitive material or on the internet, can be considered "classified." So quoting something that everyone knows can be considered sending "classified material."

And even what is considered "sensitive" depends on who is looking at it. One government agency will think it is nothing; another may find it sensitive and slap a "classified" label on it.

And it even depends on who is reviewing the information. One person may decide it is classified while the next person won't, in the same agency! [Roll Eyes]

So how is anyone supposed to detect classified information from all of their e-mails if it isn't labelled as such?

Answer: you can't.

So not reporting or deleting classified information that was sent unlabeled is not necessarily someone anyone can criticize Hillary for. Literally, she may not have noticed it, and may not have been able to notice it.

quote:
But I do agree, getting unsolicited emails sent to you, say on your home account is not a violation. That's not what happened though, here she deliberated designated these accounts as for her work, she solicited work related emails be sent to them. That takes it out of the realm of what you're implying.
Except, as I've stated before, as far as I know the e-mail account was never designated as being secure for classified e-mails, even if she had used a government server. So sending classified e-mails to the account would be wrong anyway, just like sending it to a home e-mail address. Neither were authorized.

The e-mail account should never have gotten classified information regardless. So receiving it was not her fault.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is another matter, which I mentioned earlier, which is where her private server was physically located. It's one thing to have one's email hacked when it's sent, but it's another thing to have hard copies on the drive. Since her private server was presumably at home that would mean she had classified info in a physical unit at home. That in itself is a problem even if she was the receiver, since all sensitive material is supposed to stay in designated secure areas. The emails may not have been safe anyhow, but 'taking home' sensitive information has been prosecuted before, even if no harm was meant.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
"Work-related' doesn't mean "classified" even if her email account was being hosted with the government it would have been a violation of protocol to send it in the first place, because it's the act of sending it that exposes it to the world, not the place where it's ultimately received. (not getting into the fact that the way email routing works, every message going to her .gov address would have needed to pass through the DoS .gov routing servers, where it could easily have been archived, before being forwarded to her private account. Unless the claim is that the entire Department of state was using her private server?)

Not sure what you're talking about on the second point. Your first point dodges the question, I never said that all work related email is classified, only that she invited work-related email to be sent to her private server, which carries with it the inherent, known and predictable risk that classified information would be distributed to that email. Even the routine acknowledgement that she has made that some emails were classified after the fact is not unexpected or unpredictable and there's no excuse for taking them outside the government systems.

Face it, she deliberately moved outside the safeguards and that implies a higher duty on her. And even now, NOT ONE OF YOU has even expressed a rationale reason to do so, other than the very soft explanation that it was the only way to get things on a single device. The response to that is so what? Virtually everyone else in the business world carries two devices. Your argument boils down to convenience justifies the security risk.

How many other government employees maintain private servers for their government communications?
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
The problem is that classified information may not be obvious in any given e-mail.

And it also may be obvious. But even still that just highlights how inappropriate it was to deliberately circumvent the safeguards built into official government systems. Deliberately avoiding them imputes a duty to be AT LEAST as safe with the data.
quote:
And even what is considered "sensitive" depends on who is looking at it. One government agency will think it is nothing; another may find it sensitive and slap a "classified" label on it.
Over classification exists and is a different issue. Having information that arises from another agency and was classified by that agency is pretty much open and shut.
quote:
So how is anyone supposed to detect classified information from all of their e-mails if it isn't labelled as such?

Answer: you can't.

Then the appropriate answer is to NOT put them on your private server. If you acknowledge you may not be aware of whether info is classified, and it may be classified after the fact, which are elements of your excuse explanation, it undercuts the reasoning behind having the server in the first place does it not?
quote:
So not reporting or deleting classified information that was sent unlabeled is not necessarily someone anyone can criticize Hillary for. Literally, she may not have noticed it, and may not have been able to notice it.
Has Secretary Clinton asserted that she was unable to recognize classified information? First I've heard of it. To plead ignorance, she actually has to plead ignorance - which for completely related reasons (ie fitness to office) I seriously doubt she's willing to do.
quote:
Except, as I've stated before, as far as I know the e-mail account was never designated as being secure for classified e-mails, even if she had used a government server. So sending classified e-mails to the account would be wrong anyway, just like sending it to a home e-mail address. Neither were authorized.

The e-mail account should never have gotten classified information regardless. So receiving it was not her fault.

You're only part right, classified information should never have been sent to this account - or IMPORTANTLY any other account that was enabled by the server. But you're wrong that it was not her fault, since if she hadn't set up the server it never could have occurred. I guaranty without the server we're not having this conversation, because it really would have been a fake issue if the info was all on .gov addresses, where it would have been no more at risk than any other government email.

And how would that account for any information sent or forwarded from an account on the server?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I keep repeating, the private server issue is irrelevant to any discussion of classified information. Classified information should not be on an unclass system; once it is, you don't get any bonus points because it is a government system vs. a private system.

The physical security of a private system is not a particular concern, as any government employee with a laptop in their home probably has a huge volume of unclassified material on their hard drive, and all of those hard drives have a physical security risk.

Finally, Seriati, two indications that your argument is not on a firm foundation:

quote:
Greg: I'm still waiting for Seriati to show an equivalent level of outrage for a similar thing done by Republicans (such as Rice and Powell) or the White House under Bush (although they not only used a private server, but they deleted all 22 million emails on it)
Seriati: You mean the scandal that was investigated in 2007 (prior to Clinton creating her server) and deemed to have been a possible violation of record keeping rules at the time? It was a violation then too.

(1) Bush had a private server in 2007, but the scandal was not the private server, it was deletion of 22 million emails, including all the emails that focused on a legitimate (substantiated) scandal where the White House fired Republican-appointed US Attorneys who refused to fabricate voter fraud cases

quote:
It's kind of absurd that you keep pointing backwards on a tech related topic. 8 years in the world of technology is a lifetime in difference.
(2) Clinton set up her server as Secretary of State in 2009 and left that position in 2012, what 8 year gap are you referring to?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Face it, she deliberately moved outside the safeguards and that implies a higher duty on her.
An irrelevant point with respect to classified information. Can you specify what safeguards were eliminated by her moving outside the government system and what additional risks it poses?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

Still waiting on your "firm foundation" of a legitimate reason that government email should be run through a private server. Seriously, pot meet kettle.

I agree with you that laptops are a security risk, and I have no idea what steps the government takes to secure them. In private industry, they ones I used were fully encrypted, couldn't be accessed without using one of those constantly changing keys, wouldn't connect through a public server and came with strict guidance as to acceptable usage. The idea of their convenience was overwhelming, but the idea that they required a higher level of security was not forgotten.

On your specific points, I agreed on the Bush problem, not sure why you're still complaining. Government records need to be maintained regardless of who is in office, they work for us, the people.

On the eight year gap, I was looking from the beginning of the Bush admin (if I understand correctly, they actually started with those email addresses before that, but they were only White House records after they took office), until the start of the Obama Admin. Is that not the correct period? Did you just want from 2007 - which is clearly AFTER the practice was at it's end, to 2009? Cause that just makes it clear it should've been absolutely fresh in her mind.

We have open records laws in this country for a reason. This defense of yours completely disregards the intent behind those laws. Is this really where liberalism has gone? Government secrecy is okay so long as it's Democrats doing it?

It's not an irrelevant point. It's a specific point that goes to an obvious security risk that any competent official would have addressed, not to mention every IT professional working for them. That in fact thousands, if not tens of thousands of companies have already seen and addressed. There's really no reasonable way to construct this that doesn't reflect horrid judgment.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I personally disapprove of government employees using a private server. That said, there is no finding yet that open records laws have been violated.

If anyone had a good rationale for using a private, it was Hillary Clinton. This is consistent with my main point here, that Republicans were very likely to use a false pretense (ie; Benghazi) to misuse governmental investigatory powers in search of political dirt. Which is exactly what happened.

I just also don't think it is a big deal, given the rules that were in place at the time, and I question the integrioty of every single critic I have heard because there is an incredibly high correlation between criticing Hillary on this issue and criticizing her on others, and an incredibly low correlation (zero?) with critics ever being concerned about this very same issue when it happened to other people.

The primary point I have been bringing up is that this is not an indication of Hillary Clinton's lack of fitness, because every Democratic candidate will be attacked by similarly. See: Swift boat, Obama Muslim, etc.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey! I've criticized her on this issue and not on any smears.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Hey! I've criticized her on this issue and not on any smears.

Me too, I think, although I wasn't here years ago when some of the others occurred.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, you make it sound like Hillary's e-mails were much less secure because she stored them on her own personal server. That, supposedly, someone could have broken into the location of the server and stolen the information, some of which inevitably would have been classified. And this was a significant security breach.

I just have one question about that security scenario: Why bother?

Why take the risk of breaking into a building to get to the information? Why not just copy the information from one of the other servers the e-mails went through before it made it to Hillary's server? Much, much less chance of being caught that way, and much, much easier.

Remember how e-mails work. The message is passed from your computer, to another servers, which passes it to another server, which passes it to another server, which continues until it finally gets passed to the recipient's computer.

How secure are those plus or minus half-dozen other servers, compared to Hillary's? [Wink]

And that is why classified information was never supposed to be sent in unsecured e-mails. Because every step along the way is not secure and could be stolen.

So the security concern is not that Hillary received the classified e-mail on her private server, the security concern is that the e-mail was sent in the first place.

The amount of insecurity added by Hillary's private server is insignificant compared to the inherent insecurity of the entire system. It's like complaining that someone made a hole in a boat and is causing the boat to sink, when the boat already had a half-dozen holes in it when you set sail. No, you don't want to put more holes in the boat, but that hole ain't the reason the boat's sinking. [Smile]

You keep focusing on the security of her personal server, but first look at the big picture of security of e-mails in general. Look at the forest, not a single tree. Then you'll see that sending classified material is the problem, not that it was ultimately received on a private server.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not sure what you're talking about on the second point. Your first point dodges the question, I never said that all work related email is classified, only that she invited work-related email to be sent to her private server, which carries with it the inherent, known and predictable risk that classified information would be distributed to that email.
Why would it carry the inherent risk of something that's not legal to do happening?

That's like saying that she shouldn't own a car because there's a risk that someone might try to steal it, and thus holding her culpable for any attempts to do so. THe risk that classified email might have been sent to her if she had a government account also existed, and would have been just as illegal and represented exactly the same security risk, because the primary exposure is in the transmission from the sender not in the receipt and storage of the information. The nature of email, especially at their level of prominence, means that the proper assumption is that anything sent, regardless of which server it was sent to, should be assumed to be exposed to the eyes of anyone with sufficient desire to see it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
[QB] I personally disapprove of government employees using a private server. That said, there is no finding yet that open records laws have been violated.

If anyone had a good rationale for using a private, it was Hillary Clinton. This is consistent with my main point here, that Republicans were very likely to use a false pretense (ie; Benghazi) to misuse governmental investigatory powers in search of political dirt. Which is exactly what happened.

Wow, so because Hillary's paranoid that her own words would be used against her she had a need for this set up. I want to be specific here, her obligation to preserve and provide those words to her adversaries is identical if she uses a home set up versus the government one, which means there is no legitimate benefit on the axis just described possible.

We've already discussed Benghazi to death, but I reject flat out that the issues there can be accurately described as based on a false pretense. It's completely obvious to everyone who's not a total partisan that the Administration lied to protect its own interests and not the national interest.
quote:
I just also don't think it is a big deal, given the rules that were in place at the time, and I question the integrioty of every single critic I have heard because there is an incredibly high correlation between criticing Hillary on this issue and criticizing her on others, and an incredibly low correlation (zero?) with critics ever being concerned about this very same issue when it happened to other people.
Or maybe, critics of a person have come to a critical position because of the WEIGHT of evidence they've been presented with. It would actually be a bigger problem if a critic of a person was a "single-issue" critic wouldn't it? Should that be reserved for criticizing the decision and not the person?

I disagree completely that you've demonstrated a low correlation between critics on this point and people who take the issue seriously in other circumstances. That's just wishful thinking (and partisan assertion).
quote:
The primary point I have been bringing up is that this is not an indication of Hillary Clinton's lack of fitness, because every Democratic candidate will be attacked by similarly. See: Swift boat, Obama Muslim, etc.
If you'd said every candidate would be attacked similarly I might have been willing to meet you half way. But it's flat out false to pretend that Democratic candidates have a harder time of it than Republican candidates. The media goes to great lengths to paint every Republican as an arch-conservative extremist, if they don't try to claim they homophobic, racist and down right evil as well. It's not even close.

Hillary's problems have far far less to do with being a democrat than with the choices and decisions and attitude she and her husband have put out into the world for years. If she was a Republican she would have been destroyed as a political force years ago.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1