4 ms·

I'm so glad people are finally, hopefully going to shut up about this soon. I'm surprised Clinton didn't just say this herself and end the scandal months ago. I

by joesmo 11y ago

I'm so glad people are finally, hopefully going to shut up about this soon. I'm surprised Clinton didn't just say this herself and end the scandal months ago. It's an extremely lame scandal because we're talking about unencrypted email anyways, email that could have been read by anyone and everyone and almost undoubtedly was. The irony that it was the NSA (as usual) that made things less secure instead of more secure is certainly not lost on me.

moistgorilla 11y ago
why would this in anyway end the scandal? so because the NSA didn't give in to your request you can go break security protocol and put people's lives at risk?
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago
  If anyone put anyone's lives at risk, it was the NSA for refusing to do their jobs. There's no "scandal" here.
  - thrill 11y ago
    The NSA did do its job - it performed a cost/benefit analysis and said _NO_.
    - joesmo 11y ago
      Saying NO is exactly not doing their job when there are numerous alternatives to their provided computer. The secretary of state must be able to communicate with others, period. Since they couldn't figure out a proper solution (and from the article it sounds like they didn't even try/ignored her/insulted her) they left the secretary of state without a means to communicate. I'd say that's criminal, negligent, and certainly not doing their jobs.
- atf104 11y ago
  Trump still poses a larger threat to the country (and the world) by measure. https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866 https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=28...
barney54 11y ago
People are not going to shut up about this. This will be an issue through the election. It's a really big issue that the Secretary of State was so cavalier about how she handled classified information.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Classified yet sent in plain text. Somehow those two just don't go together and it doesn't matter what email server you use with plain text it's still never going to be secure.
- Aloha 11y ago
  I'm going to point out that no one has found a single email sent to Secretary Clinton that was born secret - all of the emails were retroactively reclassified.
  - thrill 11y ago
    No, they are not "retroactively" classified. They were intentionally kept out of the classification process by Clinton via her undisclosed server. When the emails were finally inspected for classification many of them were designated as containing what should have been classified from their creation. This act was fully intentional by Clinton. And inexcusable.
    - Aloha 11y ago
      That would cover emails sent by her - but not emails sent /to/ her - which arguably if they were classified never should have left the email servers hosted by Department of State/General Service Administration.
      - castis 11y ago
        I don't believe I understand the reason for pointing out the distinction. IIRC the overarching issue here is the subterfuge involved in the email server even existing.
mSparks 11y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that having a private email server would not get around being banned from using wireless devices in one particular building.
burkaman 11y ago
I think most people are not really angry about the security risk, they're angry about the double standard. Anybody who wasn't Secretary of State would have been fired and probably prosecuted for this. Obviously people who already don't like Clinton are all over it, but I think there's a legitimate complaint from people saying that she shouldn't be able to get away with something that nobody else could.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  People who bitch about a double standard are childish. Yes, the people at the top make the rules (or change them to suit them). Does that surprise you?
  - burkaman 11y ago
    It doesn't have to be surprising to be wrong. Obviously the people at the top make the rules, that's true by definition. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and we can complain when we don't like the rules they make. That's not childish, it's human, it's the basis of our society.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago
      I just find it absolutely silly that people expect a lowly grunt to follow the same rules and have the same punishment as literally the head of the institution that made the rules. It just seems plainly absurd. If the state dept makes rules about private servers, the head of the state dept can break those rules. That's just common sense. It's like workers complaining that the owner of a company breaks the rules he sets out for employees.
      - burkaman 11y ago
        "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." That argument doesn't always work out. Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, it is sort of like workers complaining that the CEO doesn't follow his own rules. That's a valid complaint. But it's not exactly like that, because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. It's a rule for the whole government, which she is not the head of. And it's not just a lowly grunt that would be punished for this, it's anyone else. A general would not get away with it.
bitwize 11y ago
The NSA didn't make things less secure. Clinton's people did to get around the NSA's restrictions. The restrictions suck, but if I were like "doot dee do, I hate working with this secure PC, I'll migrate the info I need to my cellphone connected to my own private server" I would be looking at a long stint in prison. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to worry about that because she's Hillary fucking Clinton. Some people are more equal than others.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  The NSA didn't make things less secure. The NSA itself knows very well that if the gizmos they provide aren't usable -- and more fundamentally, if they don't respect their customers -- then it doesn't matter how "secure" the technology is, because people won't use it. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to worry about that because she's Hillary fucking Clinton. Look, I'm hardly a fan of the former Secretary. But in the original article, it's pretty clear that she and her secure information technology coordinator (Donald Reid) were feeling stonewalled (it not outright disrespected) by the NSA on their requests. Which doesn't justify her opting to use a less-secure communication means (by any stretch). But it's pretty clear from the basic narrative of the story that there was more going on to this fiasco than simply Hillary Clinton going off on an ego trip.
  - carboncopy 11y ago
    I don't agree with whoever downvoted your post; it contributes to the discussion. > The NSA itself knows very well that if the gizmos they provide aren't usable What isn't usable about a desktop computer? According to the article, she just liked using BBs more. Confusingly, the article seems to conflate a few things. 1. She wanted to use her Unclassified//SBU Blackberry in the SCIF. Because of phone exploits that the NSA employs against other heads of state [1], State Department guidelines require her to leave it outside of her office that has classified computers. Obama's special Blackberry might let him talk to DNC leadership and big donors, but I'm guessing he uses a normal phone for that. Why couldn't she use a desktop phone and her unclassified computer to check her email to donors, campaign managers, and DNC leadership? How does a separate email server solve this problem? 2. She felt the need to have a separate email server. What this solves is never mentioned in the article. All State Department employees have access to the Unclassified network. Most have access to State Department provided Blackberries for that network, and also to 2FA token generators to permit them to VPN in. Traveling all over the world doesn't restrict the usage of either of these. Also, DSS sets up a classified network wherever the Sec State stays. The only plausible reason to set up this outside email server is to evade FOIA and discuss classified topics without the risk of a government employee seeing classified information on an unclassified network. I'm really trying to understand any other reason to do this. [1] I didn't see a Blackberry exploit in the Snowden leaks, but it's probably safe to assume that the risk is significant. Imagine how valuable it would be to get room audio of political or trade discussions before stepping into a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State.
13years 11y ago
Most people, including myself, would be fired if we broke security protocol. Inconvenience is not a justified reason to break protocol. At least she wasn't mandated to use the cone of silence :-P
- mywittyname 11y ago
  The difference is you're a peon while she holds one of the most powerful positions in government. You'd also be fired if you made life difficult for the CTO. They'd find someone more capable.

by joesmo 11y ago

moistgorilla 11y ago

why would this in anyway end the scandal? so because the NSA didn't give in to your request you can go break security protocol and put people's lives at risk?

MisterBastahrd 11y ago
If anyone put anyone's lives at risk, it was the NSA for refusing to do their jobs. There's no "scandal" here.
- thrill 11y ago
  The NSA did do its job - it performed a cost/benefit analysis and said _NO_.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    Saying NO is exactly not doing their job when there are numerous alternatives to their provided computer. The secretary of state must be able to communicate with others, period. Since they couldn't figure out a proper solution (and from the article it sounds like they didn't even try/ignored her/insulted her) they left the secretary of state without a means to communicate. I'd say that's criminal, negligent, and certainly not doing their jobs.
atf104 11y ago
Trump still poses a larger threat to the country (and the world) by measure. https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866 https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=28...

barney54 11y ago

People are not going to shut up about this. This will be an issue through the election. It's a really big issue that the Secretary of State was so cavalier about how she handled classified information.

joesmo 11y ago
Classified yet sent in plain text. Somehow those two just don't go together and it doesn't matter what email server you use with plain text it's still never going to be secure.
Aloha 11y ago
I'm going to point out that no one has found a single email sent to Secretary Clinton that was born secret - all of the emails were retroactively reclassified.
- thrill 11y ago
  No, they are not "retroactively" classified. They were intentionally kept out of the classification process by Clinton via her undisclosed server. When the emails were finally inspected for classification many of them were designated as containing what should have been classified from their creation. This act was fully intentional by Clinton. And inexcusable.
  - Aloha 11y ago
    That would cover emails sent by her - but not emails sent /to/ her - which arguably if they were classified never should have left the email servers hosted by Department of State/General Service Administration.
    - castis 11y ago
      I don't believe I understand the reason for pointing out the distinction. IIRC the overarching issue here is the subterfuge involved in the email server even existing.

mSparks 11y ago

Am I the only one who thinks that having a private email server would not get around being banned from using wireless devices in one particular building.

burkaman 11y ago

I think most people are not really angry about the security risk, they're angry about the double standard. Anybody who wasn't Secretary of State would have been fired and probably prosecuted for this. Obviously people who already don't like Clinton are all over it, but I think there's a legitimate complaint from people saying that she shouldn't be able to get away with something that nobody else could.

hackinthebochs 11y ago
People who bitch about a double standard are childish. Yes, the people at the top make the rules (or change them to suit them). Does that surprise you?
- burkaman 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be surprising to be wrong. Obviously the people at the top make the rules, that's true by definition. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and we can complain when we don't like the rules they make. That's not childish, it's human, it's the basis of our society.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    I just find it absolutely silly that people expect a lowly grunt to follow the same rules and have the same punishment as literally the head of the institution that made the rules. It just seems plainly absurd. If the state dept makes rules about private servers, the head of the state dept can break those rules. That's just common sense. It's like workers complaining that the owner of a company breaks the rules he sets out for employees.
    - burkaman 11y ago
      "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." That argument doesn't always work out. Is it silly when people complain that the NSA is breaking the rules that everyone else has to follow? Yes, it is sort of like workers complaining that the CEO doesn't follow his own rules. That's a valid complaint. But it's not exactly like that, because Clinton wasn't just breaking some internal State Department rule. It's a rule for the whole government, which she is not the head of. And it's not just a lowly grunt that would be punished for this, it's anyone else. A general would not get away with it.

bitwize 11y ago

The NSA didn't make things less secure. Clinton's people did to get around the NSA's restrictions. The restrictions suck, but if I were like "doot dee do, I hate working with this secure PC, I'll migrate the info I need to my cellphone connected to my own private server" I would be looking at a long stint in prison. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to worry about that because she's Hillary fucking Clinton. Some people are more equal than others.

kafkaesq 11y ago
The NSA didn't make things less secure. The NSA itself knows very well that if the gizmos they provide aren't usable -- and more fundamentally, if they don't respect their customers -- then it doesn't matter how "secure" the technology is, because people won't use it. Hillary Clinton doesn't need to worry about that because she's Hillary fucking Clinton. Look, I'm hardly a fan of the former Secretary. But in the original article, it's pretty clear that she and her secure information technology coordinator (Donald Reid) were feeling stonewalled (it not outright disrespected) by the NSA on their requests. Which doesn't justify her opting to use a less-secure communication means (by any stretch). But it's pretty clear from the basic narrative of the story that there was more going on to this fiasco than simply Hillary Clinton going off on an ego trip.
- carboncopy 11y ago
  I don't agree with whoever downvoted your post; it contributes to the discussion. > The NSA itself knows very well that if the gizmos they provide aren't usable What isn't usable about a desktop computer? According to the article, she just liked using BBs more. Confusingly, the article seems to conflate a few things. 1. She wanted to use her Unclassified//SBU Blackberry in the SCIF. Because of phone exploits that the NSA employs against other heads of state [1], State Department guidelines require her to leave it outside of her office that has classified computers. Obama's special Blackberry might let him talk to DNC leadership and big donors, but I'm guessing he uses a normal phone for that. Why couldn't she use a desktop phone and her unclassified computer to check her email to donors, campaign managers, and DNC leadership? How does a separate email server solve this problem? 2. She felt the need to have a separate email server. What this solves is never mentioned in the article. All State Department employees have access to the Unclassified network. Most have access to State Department provided Blackberries for that network, and also to 2FA token generators to permit them to VPN in. Traveling all over the world doesn't restrict the usage of either of these. Also, DSS sets up a classified network wherever the Sec State stays. The only plausible reason to set up this outside email server is to evade FOIA and discuss classified topics without the risk of a government employee seeing classified information on an unclassified network. I'm really trying to understand any other reason to do this. [1] I didn't see a Blackberry exploit in the Snowden leaks, but it's probably safe to assume that the risk is significant. Imagine how valuable it would be to get room audio of political or trade discussions before stepping into a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State.

13years 11y ago

Most people, including myself, would be fired if we broke security protocol. Inconvenience is not a justified reason to break protocol. At least she wasn't mandated to use the cone of silence :-P

mywittyname 11y ago
The difference is you're a peon while she holds one of the most powerful positions in government. You'd also be fired if you made life difficult for the CTO. They'd find someone more capable.