No, she didn't, on many levels. Her underlings should have known better, but if a 68-year-old politician knew anything about internet security practices, I'd vote for them!
So, after a bogus real estate fraud investigation lead to the revelation of one of Bill's affairs and his subsequent impeachment, and then congress created committees to pour through her records for dirt, you know "on many levels" that she is accidentally keeping her records private. right.
No nefarious plot. My understanding is that it went roughly like this. Back in 2009 Clinton requested a secure smartphone from the NSA. It's a custom made device (security by obscurity?). Anyway, the president gets one. As the secretary of state she has to travel a lot, and not being able to do email on the road is highly impractical. So she thought she should get one too. The NSA denied her request for a secure smar…
This narrative doesn't address the fact that Clinton was actively opposed to FOIA requests and had sought means to keep her public work private as much as possible. Following common sense here, her decision to ignore State Department regulations (which she lied about) and participate in classified communications (which she also lied about) on a private server immediately after she had made efforts to minimize public…
Forgive me, but I have only casually followed this. Perjury requires she falsify her testimony under oath, has there actually been a formal deposition from Clinton under oath?
I'll admit, I'd love to see nothing more than for her to go to prison (and I am expecting downvotes for this) - but I don't think it's going to be for perjury unless I missed something.
I think the NSA wanted to give her a secure Windows Mobile (or whatever it was called back then) phone, which may have been better supported. They also mention security issues with Blackberry, presumably even if they tried to make it "secure" themselves. If I remember correctly, they didn't want to allow Obama to use a Blackberry either back then, but he was a big fan of Blackberries and said he couldn't use the much…
The Blackberry alternative that was suggested to Obama was the Sectera Edge by General Dynamics, which made the F-16 before it was sold to Lockheed http://www.networkworld.com/article/2234082/what-obama-won-t...
No nefarious plot. My understanding is that it went roughly like this. Back in 2009 Clinton requested a secure smartphone from the NSA. It's a custom made device (security by obscurity?). Anyway, the president gets one. As the secretary of state she has to travel a lot, and not being able to do email on the road is highly impractical. So she thought she should get one too. The NSA denied her request for a secure smar…
I never really understood why the NSA couldn't have provided her with some sort of handheld digital device that wasn't that Windows CE PDA. I also don't understand why Clinton didn't just opt to use it. Having used the WinCE devices before, they're not all that bad to do email on. They're not good, but how much worse would it have been compared to a BB? I used a UT Starcomm PP6700 (or something like that) and I even…
I mean, according to the deposition of one of her aides that was released today she didn't know "how" to use email on anything but her BB and wasn't comfortable with something different - which is a copout of all copouts, I'm not HAPPY that I'm still deploying .Net applications on Windows at work (which isn't going to change unless Laserfiche and IBM start supporting .Net core or my team suddenly decides to switch to Java), but it's my job and I deal with the limitations imposed on me as a result of my employment.
That's a bit of a myth that's come about when compared to Sanders. In reality, her voting record is around the 70th percentile most liberal out of Democrat senators (referring to her last year). http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liber...
This is a strange election. We have a Democrat who is pro-war, anti gay marriage, and backed by Saudis and wall Street.
It's between a republican who used to be a democrat and a democrat who used to be a republican. It's going to be odd.
Isn't one of the main arguments against dragnet surveillance the possibility for the surveiling agency to blackmail the politicians who write the laws limiting its power? The same argument surely applies to targeted surveillance...
sure. i was aiming to poke people citing occam's razor when controversial matter comes up because cognitive dissonance or whatever their problem is. sheep like to chose the easy path of denying things like you suggest ... until snowden gives up his life. and still they go about their useless business.
but after all, it _is_ a conspiracy theory because there would be at least two parties involved conspiring to blackmail. sheep also don't get what the term actually means.
>And the article lists various reasons why none of those would likely apply to her. I guess we have different definitions of "likely" since the only reasons given are: (1) Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time. (2) She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. (3) "If all she was doing was exchang…
1) That's because it's fact that none of her emails were marked as classified at the time. Not an opinion! 2) Her email exchanges are public. You would think they would have found proof of willful communication by now. They have not. 3) Requires intent, which is generally, objectively difficult to prove (see: libel laws).
> That's because it's fact that none of her emails were marked as classified at the time. Not an opinion!
Given her habit of asking staffers to remove the classification markings, that's a bit facile.
This narrative doesn't address the fact that Clinton was actively opposed to FOIA requests and had sought means to keep her public work private as much as possible. Following common sense here, her decision to ignore State Department regulations (which she lied about) and participate in classified communications (which she also lied about) on a private server immediately after she had made efforts to minimize public…
Forgive me, but I have only casually followed this. Perjury requires she falsify her testimony under oath, has there actually been a formal deposition from Clinton under oath? I'll admit, I'd love to see nothing more than for her to go to prison (and I am expecting downvotes for this) - but I don't think it's going to be for perjury unless I missed something.
I'm not sure about exactly where she gave all of her testimony and I won't make any claims of purjury (though I think the evidence shows many lies here), but I feel I should point out that it's also possible to purjure oneself by lying to Congress.
Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…
Re smartphone NSA refused to let her use a specific phone. There were several smartphones and certified solutions available. Hillary only wanted Blackberry. Quite opposite of your statement.
Re nefarious motivations. The server and its location weren't just used for diplomatic stuff. There are nefarious things going on. She worked hard to block any FOIA requests or supeonas that would enlighten us more. The mark of an honest politician or nonprofit. ;)
Difficult to know for sure. Obama had one, Rice previously used one, but: The NSA refused to give Clinton a device similar to the one used by Obama: a modified BlackBerry 8830 World Edition with additional cryptography installed. And while Clinton's predecessor Condaleeza Rice had obtained waivers for herself and her staff to use BlackBerry devices, Clinton's staff was told that "use [of the BlackBerry] expanded to a…
>Clinton's staff was told that "use [of the BlackBerry] expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective if you don't provide a secure way to get shit done, motivated individuals will figure out how to get shit done, security be damned. happens every time. that's what happened here.
They offered her a non-blackberry alternative. That's not what happened here.