4 ms·

It's the result of Freedom of Information Act requests. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Freedom_of_Information_lawsuits htt

by jml7c5 11y ago

It's the result of Freedom of Information Act requests. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Freedom_of_Information_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...

dheera 11y ago
So I still don't get why we can open private communications to everyone, or what purpose that serves but to (1) humiliate her and (2) expose her to identity theft risk, neither of which are usual forms of punishment. Why not just fine her, ban her from working for the government, or some other similar punishment? Also, what about the fact that I write SO many e-mails using special language, inside jokes that only the other party would know, PGP, foreign languages, self-modified languages, and so on? What if in my communications with a particular friend, red meant blue, blue meant red, building meant banana, and foreign meant domestic? What if she encoded deeper meaning into what is seemingly innocuous English text? If I knew that I was at risk of being victimized by such a system and having my e-mails exposed, you can be sure that I would use language like that. Or simply avoid using English, use a smattering of 20 different obscure tribal languages, and write my e-mails in a form with hidden meanings that I would agree in advance with the receiving party. Just to make it hard for everyone who really shouldn't be reading my e-mails. And then use PGP on top of that, although PGP is probably ineffective against this [0], but the smattering of tribal languages and English language mappings would at least make it deliberately hard and annoying. Why is it that "being secretary of state" all of a sudden means that you have no right to the same level of privacy, identity protection, and security that everyone else has in the country? [0] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

by jml7c5 11y ago

dheera 11y ago

So I still don't get why we can open private communications to everyone, or what purpose that serves but to (1) humiliate her and (2) expose her to identity theft risk, neither of which are usual forms of punishment. Why not just fine her, ban her from working for the government, or some other similar punishment? Also, what about the fact that I write SO many e-mails using special language, inside jokes that only the other party would know, PGP, foreign languages, self-modified languages, and so on? What if in my communications with a particular friend, red meant blue, blue meant red, building meant banana, and foreign meant domestic? What if she encoded deeper meaning into what is seemingly innocuous English text? If I knew that I was at risk of being victimized by such a system and having my e-mails exposed, you can be sure that I would use language like that. Or simply avoid using English, use a smattering of 20 different obscure tribal languages, and write my e-mails in a form with hidden meanings that I would agree in advance with the receiving party. Just to make it hard for everyone who really shouldn't be reading my e-mails. And then use PGP on top of that, although PGP is probably ineffective against this [0], but the smattering of tribal languages and English language mappings would at least make it deliberately hard and annoying. Why is it that "being secretary of state" all of a sudden means that you have no right to the same level of privacy, identity protection, and security that everyone else has in the country? [0] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/