3 ms·

It is incredibly commonplace among politicians and even public servants to use private email accounts for work to act as a shield for FOIA-type laws. Even my p

by tedks 11y ago

It is incredibly commonplace among politicians and even public servants to use private email accounts for work to act as a shield for FOIA-type laws. Even my public University's president used a personal account in order to avoid student activist groups getting his email. Sarah Palin used personal email (I think also AOL, actually) in her tenure as governor of Alaska. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, and all the way up and down the hierarchy does it. Absolutely everyone. Probably everyone has at some point in time. Probably even Bernie Sanders. If you want to find out who, start sending FOIA requests and see what comes back empty.

late2part 11y ago
Yes, and also incredibly illegal.
zer0defex 11y ago
"Everyone ... does it." So that excuses it, right? When a bunch of people that don't matter do it, you're right, I don't give a shit. When it's our Secretary of State, one with access to all kinds of Top Secret material, I do however very much give a shit. If national security regulations don't apply to our top leadership, then what the fuck do we have them for? The reason those laws are there is exactly for people like top leadership, because you and I aren't going to run across top secret documents in our day to day... UNLESS some asshat does something stupid like this. Scope of damage is an important concept when it comes to government versus private sector. Scope of damage for private sector is a "Sony" - possibly implosion of the company, but it generally stops there. Government however is the safety of every citizen in the affected country. HUGE differences on the damage scale.
- tedks 11y ago
  >So that excuses it, right? Did I say that, `zer0defex`? >When a bunch of people that don't matter do it, you're right, I don't give a shit. Why not? Do you think that local government and other public servants should be able to hide corruption, suppression of dissent, or other unsavouryness behind personal email accounts? >HUGE differences on the damage scale. The only thing on the scale is that our entire political system is corrupt. That said, the focus on Hillary is a function of right-wing media hacking, and I think it's important to note that EVERYONE DOES THIS, THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS FUCKED, etc..

by tedks 11y ago

late2part 11y ago

Yes, and also incredibly illegal.

zer0defex 11y ago

"Everyone ... does it." So that excuses it, right? When a bunch of people that don't matter do it, you're right, I don't give a shit. When it's our Secretary of State, one with access to all kinds of Top Secret material, I do however very much give a shit. If national security regulations don't apply to our top leadership, then what the fuck do we have them for? The reason those laws are there is exactly for people like top leadership, because you and I aren't going to run across top secret documents in our day to day... UNLESS some asshat does something stupid like this. Scope of damage is an important concept when it comes to government versus private sector. Scope of damage for private sector is a "Sony" - possibly implosion of the company, but it generally stops there. Government however is the safety of every citizen in the affected country. HUGE differences on the damage scale.

tedks 11y ago
>So that excuses it, right? Did I say that, `zer0defex`? >When a bunch of people that don't matter do it, you're right, I don't give a shit. Why not? Do you think that local government and other public servants should be able to hide corruption, suppression of dissent, or other unsavouryness behind personal email accounts? >HUGE differences on the damage scale. The only thing on the scale is that our entire political system is corrupt. That said, the focus on Hillary is a function of right-wing media hacking, and I think it's important to note that EVERYONE DOES THIS, THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS FUCKED, etc..