4 ms·

Do tell. What do you think about paying the salary of FBI agents who interfere in presidential elections?

by setpatchaddress 10y ago

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
It depends, will they use private email servers?
- newjersey 10y ago
  I don't have any credibility or knowledge to talk about the exact current issue at hand but don't we at hn pine over the beautiful past where email was distributed instead of going between Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and Google? A private email server isn't bad by definition, is it? Perhaps we should try to help the "ordinary" person keep their servers secure?
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    It's bad when its purpose is the evasion of lawful public oversight, e.g. by FOIA requests.
  - notdonspaulding 10y ago
    > "Perhaps we should try to help the "ordinary" person keep their servers secure?" Security wasn't the goal, evasion of oversight was. Even if it was granted that security was the goal, you would expect the private server to be at least as secure as the @state.gov mail servers, otherwise you're wasting your time. Furthermore, James Comey's statement in July made clear that the private server wasn't as secure as GMail, the kind of email server an "ordinary person" might use. GMail may be centralized, but it's supported SSL from its public release in 2004. The server Hillary Clinton used didn't support SSL until the spring of 2009, months into her tenure as Secretary of State.[0] The truth is we actually know very little about the operational security of the server because all but one of the IT folks in charge of running it plead the 5th before congress and only spoke privately with the FBI under conditions of immunity. Justin Cooper was the only one to actually testify regarding the specifics of the server, but his role was more administrative than technical.[1] There's no credible defense for the SoS running a private server to provide email accounts which are less secure than the standard accounts used by the rest of the State Department. The diplomatic role of the SoS inherently requires a high level of OPSEC to carry out its most basic function of communicating with international leaders. Hillary Clinton avoided using the security available to her in order to thwart federal regulations regarding the preservation of public records. That action is no example that any member of the public should be holding in high regard as something worthy of emulation. [0]: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/191/2009/03/29/for-the-first-two-months-clinton-uses-her-private-server-for-all-her-emails-it-operates-without-the-standard-encryption-generally-used-to-protect-internet-communication/ http://www.thompsontimeline.com/191/2009/03/29/for-the-first... [1]: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/justin-cooper/ http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/justin-cooper/

Do tell. What do you think about paying the salary of FBI agents who interfere in presidential elections?

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

It depends, will they use private email servers?

newjersey 10y ago
I don't have any credibility or knowledge to talk about the exact current issue at hand but don't we at hn pine over the beautiful past where email was distributed instead of going between Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and Google? A private email server isn't bad by definition, is it? Perhaps we should try to help the "ordinary" person keep their servers secure?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  It's bad when its purpose is the evasion of lawful public oversight, e.g. by FOIA requests.
- notdonspaulding 10y ago
  > "Perhaps we should try to help the "ordinary" person keep their servers secure?" Security wasn't the goal, evasion of oversight was. Even if it was granted that security was the goal, you would expect the private server to be at least as secure as the @state.gov mail servers, otherwise you're wasting your time. Furthermore, James Comey's statement in July made clear that the private server wasn't as secure as GMail, the kind of email server an "ordinary person" might use. GMail may be centralized, but it's supported SSL from its public release in 2004. The server Hillary Clinton used didn't support SSL until the spring of 2009, months into her tenure as Secretary of State.[0] The truth is we actually know very little about the operational security of the server because all but one of the IT folks in charge of running it plead the 5th before congress and only spoke privately with the FBI under conditions of immunity. Justin Cooper was the only one to actually testify regarding the specifics of the server, but his role was more administrative than technical.[1] There's no credible defense for the SoS running a private server to provide email accounts which are less secure than the standard accounts used by the rest of the State Department. The diplomatic role of the SoS inherently requires a high level of OPSEC to carry out its most basic function of communicating with international leaders. Hillary Clinton avoided using the security available to her in order to thwart federal regulations regarding the preservation of public records. That action is no example that any member of the public should be holding in high regard as something worthy of emulation. [0]: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/191/2009/03/29/for-the-first-two-months-clinton-uses-her-private-server-for-all-her-emails-it-operates-without-the-standard-encryption-generally-used-to-protect-internet-communication/ http://www.thompsontimeline.com/191/2009/03/29/for-the-first... [1]: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/justin-cooper/ http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/justin-cooper/