3 ms·

Some of those E-mails contained classified information which is illegal to have on non secured systems. There are many cases of others who have leaked secured i

by dkhenry 10y ago

Some of those E-mails contained classified information which is illegal to have on non secured systems. There are many cases of others who have leaked secured information onto unsecured systems and they ended up in federal prison. After the fact there has been a never ending circus of denials and then cover-ups that have been sequentially dis-proven and uncovered, and this is just another instance of that.

openasocket 10y ago
Serious question: if that is illegal, isn't it the sender of the email that committed the crime, not the receiver? I'm assuming the email address wasn't something official like hillary@state.gov, I'm guessing it was something like hillary@clintonpersonalsite.com. I'm probably wrong, but I'd like a clear explanation why.
- dmix 10y ago
  The question is it reasonable to assume that the person should have known that the email address Hillary was using was hosted on a private email server or on a secure government system. I don't think the vast majority of people would be able to tell. They'd likely trust her people set it up properly. Those who are technically inclined might have noticed the non .gov email but then the question is how much authority they have to question her on the matter. Largely the onus would have been on Hillary to use a government email when engaging in business related to the state. How did that person get the email in the first place? Did Hillary say this should be for personal emails only? etc.
- dkhenry 10y ago
  the short answer is yes, they are both in trouble. The sender has a plausible defense they they didn't know it was a unsecured server as there is the case to be made that the secretary of state should be trustworthy to be operating in a safe fashion, additionally if upon receipt Clinton had raised the alarm and turned over all the hardware she wouldn't have been held accountable for having the information sent to her, but she didn't and then she kept it a secret and then she was hacked and then she lied about it, and then the emails leaked and then she was not prosecuted because she didn't mean to break the law she just wanted a blackberry and didn't like being told no, and then the American people are like WTF man if I did this I would be sent to jail ( in fact two defendants made this exact case in their defense in similar trials ), but no one cares are there are armies of people who just want to see their team win an election so they will defend pretty much anything that was done. America
  - openasocket 10y ago
    Thanks for the reply. Another question: how does this differ from what past secretaries of state have done? I remember reading Colin Powell used an email address provided by his ISP. Not saying that makes it OK, but why shouldn't Powell be charged for the same reason?
    - dkhenry 10y ago
      He did and the same would apply to him. He should be even more culpable as he had a background in the defense department, so he had many many years of handling classified information on a daily basis. There should have been an official inquery into his activity as soon as it came to light that he had a private email server. The only saving grace for him is that the ability to send classified email on something that wasn't physically isolated and under 24 hour armed guard is a recent capability. Previously I can tell you transmitting classified information digitally required a CD burner ( no USB or CD-RW ) and a trusted courier.
- tropo 10y ago
  Both commit crime. The sender obviously put the info where it shouldn't be. The sender and recipient are both required to report this immediately. BTW, after that gets reported, a normal expectation would be that all computers get powered off and then handed over to the security people. This may be why things didn't get reported. The server and Blackberry would have been taken and likely destroyed.

by dkhenry 10y ago

openasocket 10y ago

Serious question: if that is illegal, isn't it the sender of the email that committed the crime, not the receiver? I'm assuming the email address wasn't something official like hillary@state.gov, I'm guessing it was something like hillary@clintonpersonalsite.com. I'm probably wrong, but I'd like a clear explanation why.

dmix 10y ago
The question is it reasonable to assume that the person should have known that the email address Hillary was using was hosted on a private email server or on a secure government system. I don't think the vast majority of people would be able to tell. They'd likely trust her people set it up properly. Those who are technically inclined might have noticed the non .gov email but then the question is how much authority they have to question her on the matter. Largely the onus would have been on Hillary to use a government email when engaging in business related to the state. How did that person get the email in the first place? Did Hillary say this should be for personal emails only? etc.
dkhenry 10y ago
the short answer is yes, they are both in trouble. The sender has a plausible defense they they didn't know it was a unsecured server as there is the case to be made that the secretary of state should be trustworthy to be operating in a safe fashion, additionally if upon receipt Clinton had raised the alarm and turned over all the hardware she wouldn't have been held accountable for having the information sent to her, but she didn't and then she kept it a secret and then she was hacked and then she lied about it, and then the emails leaked and then she was not prosecuted because she didn't mean to break the law she just wanted a blackberry and didn't like being told no, and then the American people are like WTF man if I did this I would be sent to jail ( in fact two defendants made this exact case in their defense in similar trials ), but no one cares are there are armies of people who just want to see their team win an election so they will defend pretty much anything that was done. America
- openasocket 10y ago
  Thanks for the reply. Another question: how does this differ from what past secretaries of state have done? I remember reading Colin Powell used an email address provided by his ISP. Not saying that makes it OK, but why shouldn't Powell be charged for the same reason?
  - dkhenry 10y ago
    He did and the same would apply to him. He should be even more culpable as he had a background in the defense department, so he had many many years of handling classified information on a daily basis. There should have been an official inquery into his activity as soon as it came to light that he had a private email server. The only saving grace for him is that the ability to send classified email on something that wasn't physically isolated and under 24 hour armed guard is a recent capability. Previously I can tell you transmitting classified information digitally required a CD burner ( no USB or CD-RW ) and a trusted courier.
tropo 10y ago
Both commit crime. The sender obviously put the info where it shouldn't be. The sender and recipient are both required to report this immediately. BTW, after that gets reported, a normal expectation would be that all computers get powered off and then handed over to the security people. This may be why things didn't get reported. The server and Blackberry would have been taken and likely destroyed.