3 ms·

Admit It. The Clinton Email Controversy Bothers You

6 points by msh 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pyrophane 10y ago
I was more bothered by Clinton's response to the email server controversy than I was by the facts of what she'd done, once they became clear. The way she has changed her story over time and deflected many of the questions she was asked about it by being dismissive of them or avoiding answering them altogether confirmed some of my fears about how she would behave as president. This will not be a transparent for forthcoming administration. Of course, for the next couple of weeks I'll have a hard time being critical of Hillary Clinton when her opponent is Donald Trump. Even if you set aside his racism, vulgarity, and sexual assault (not that they should be set aside), you're still left with someone who has a remarkable lack of understanding of what it would mean to govern the United States. Remarkable, anyway, for a presidential candidate representing one of our two major political parties.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > I was more bothered by Clinton's response to the email server controversy than I was by the facts of what she'd done, once they became clear. Aren't they two particular aspects of the same underlying problem?
dllthomas 10y ago
Admit it. You don't have much of an understanding of the technology you're writing about.
informatimago 10y ago
I generally agree with that article. Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers (be they personal or organizational, centralized or close to their users). But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency (cf. Lavabit). There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. For certain definitions of "should", I entirely agree. > There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home. Tragically, I don't think that's really the case. The most important feature for email is that you can expect the messages you send to be received by other parties. Approaches many have taken to fighting spam make that difficult or impossible if you are not a large entity. > When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. A "single point of subpoenaing" is precisely the point, for the relevant transparency laws. > However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers I whole-heartedly agree with this. > But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency Any email service will do this, if people send you mail already encrypted. Of course you'll still leak some meta-information.

6 points by msh 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

I was more bothered by Clinton's response to the email server controversy than I was by the facts of what she'd done, once they became clear. The way she has changed her story over time and deflected many of the questions she was asked about it by being dismissive of them or avoiding answering them altogether confirmed some of my fears about how she would behave as president. This will not be a transparent for forthcoming administration. Of course, for the next couple of weeks I'll have a hard time being critical of Hillary Clinton when her opponent is Donald Trump. Even if you set aside his racism, vulgarity, and sexual assault (not that they should be set aside), you're still left with someone who has a remarkable lack of understanding of what it would mean to govern the United States. Remarkable, anyway, for a presidential candidate representing one of our two major political parties.

geezerjay 10y ago
> I was more bothered by Clinton's response to the email server controversy than I was by the facts of what she'd done, once they became clear. Aren't they two particular aspects of the same underlying problem?

dllthomas 10y ago

Admit it. You don't have much of an understanding of the technology you're writing about.

informatimago 10y ago

I generally agree with that article. Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers (be they personal or organizational, centralized or close to their users). But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency (cf. Lavabit). There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home.

dllthomas 10y ago
> Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. For certain definitions of "should", I entirely agree. > There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home. Tragically, I don't think that's really the case. The most important feature for email is that you can expect the messages you send to be received by other parties. Approaches many have taken to fighting spam make that difficult or impossible if you are not a large entity. > When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. A "single point of subpoenaing" is precisely the point, for the relevant transparency laws. > However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers I whole-heartedly agree with this. > But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency Any email service will do this, if people send you mail already encrypted. Of course you'll still leak some meta-information.