Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#241

Post by panglott »

zhte415 wrote: post #215
ldness wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love her values - personal convenience vs national security. This is just the sort of person we need in the White House. It reminds me of a president (I forget which one) who tied up Air Force One on a runway at who knows what cost to the taxpayer just so he could get a haircut.

2 minutes of runway delays, according to the wikipedia source, the FAA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_haircut_controver...

I am constantly surprised at both the vehemence and the triviality of the ire that people direct at the Clintons. There is literally nothing that people will not attack them with.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#242

Post by panglott »

na85 wrote: post #100
zaroth wrote: post #13

The emails themselves sent from Clinton's server were unencrypted for several months, so unencrypted printing is just more of the same. There's no reasonable question anymore that laws on handling classified data were broken, the only question is will charges actually be brought?

There are numerous more egregious cases of senior US political officials breaking the law and/or violating their constitution with no consequences. If charges are pressed in this case it'll be because of her gender.

Does Poe's law apply here?

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#243

Post by pbreit »

spb wrote: post #129
pbreit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the data was classified (HRC has stated that it was not), what laws were broken?

Department of State employees are supposed to treat any material that even could be classified as extremely sensitive, and not to leave the building. On top of the flagrant disregard for security procedure detailed in this commentary, Clinton routinely shared material with private citizens like Sid Blumenthal, who had no security clearance whatsoever. For answers to most of your questions about the Clinton email scan…

Got through most of the short version and didn't see anything about broken laws.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#244

Post by zaroth »

gormo2 wrote: post #82
argonaut wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the article lists various reasons why none of those would likely apply to her. The IG's report only shows incompetence on her part, not criminal intent.

>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…

Does "not marked as classified at the time" mean what I think it does?

Obviously she did not change her automatic email footer to "Top Secret - Do not distribute - Thanks, H ;-)"

So of course none of her emails were marked - that's like saying "I am commiting a crime right here" since of course the server was insecure.

Is the content classified at the time, or even derived from a classified source? My understanding is there are perhaps thousands of emails to which this might apply, and the law needs only one. So it seems to me hopeless for Hillary to think the FBI would not recommend charges.

The bigger question is will the (current) AG decline to prosecute, and what about the next one?

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#245

Post by zaroth »

cm2012 wrote: post #139
zaroth wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "that server was for only unclassified data"? There was no other server. Clinton had a .gov account but entirely refused to use it. Meaning 100% of the email Clinton sent was sent through her insecure personal server. Do you believe 100% of her email was entirely unclassified at the time it was sent? As for innocuous, it's reported that her emails (unsurprisingly) included intelligence from "special…

There was another server for truly classified info + hard copies were used for sensitive stuff. Also, the official non-classified state department server was confirmed hacked during her tenure. Excerpt: How did Clinton receive and consume classified information? The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the Stat…

It appears you are quoting hillaryclinton.com is that correct?

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#246

Post by zaroth »

zhte415 wrote: post #215
ldness wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love her values - personal convenience vs national security. This is just the sort of person we need in the White House. It reminds me of a president (I forget which one) who tied up Air Force One on a runway at who knows what cost to the taxpayer just so he could get a haircut.

2 minutes of runway delays, according to the wikipedia source, the FAA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_haircut_controver...

I have more of a problem with idling the engines while your hair is cut than of the closed runways. Today the complaint would be ecological not economical.

However if idling of the engines is required by security protocols then you can't complain nearly as much.

I do expect to put a ridiculous time value of money on the Presidents time and even higher on security. But it should be done to minimize inconvenience to others.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#247

Post by CRConrad »

untog wrote: post #93
themartorana wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the rationale for not giving everyone secure smartphones? And I mean high-ranking officials, SoS certainly ranks considering how much she/he is in foreign countries with foreign leaders. Can someone in the know explain why the NSA would deny such requests?

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…

Idunno, this might be a little spellOCD of me, but I find it hard to take an article seriously that not once, but at least twice -- judging just from the quote here plus the lede, not even having read the article yet -- misspells the name of a Secretary (albeit a former one) of State.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#248

Post by dang »

glasz wrote: post #113
untog wrote: post #65

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…

much has been said and what comes to mind first is: sheep are sheep.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#249

Post by argonaut »

Natsu wrote: post #187
argonaut wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'll need a citation for that. If you're talking about this exchange: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-c..., it was sent securely in the end, not over email. Also no part of that exchange indicates the material was classified.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#250

Post by argonaut »

burfog wrote: post #167
argonaut wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

"marked as classified" isn't what matters. It's misdirection. The standard is that she had reason to believe that the email contained classified information. Consider something obvious, like full details of an ICBM including plans for the nuclear warhead and decoys. You get a copy without markings. I hope you wouldn't imagine it to be unclassified just because it isn't "marked as classified at the time". Some of her…

My point is, ICBM hyperbole aside, it's going to be very easy for Clinton to claim that she did not know something was classified if indeed it was not officially classified at the time, and only reclassified later. A suspicion that she might be guilty is not going to cut in the courts.

> Some of her email contained information that she got from other government agencies; she knew it was classified and had no authority to declassify it. Some of her email actually was marked classified; we can assume she believed it to be classified. There is even a lovely case where she tells a subordinate to REMOVE THE MARKINGS and then send insecurely.

You'll need citations for these claims. Nothing I've read indicates any of that is true. The last example proves nothing because 1) the subordinate sent the material by secure fax in the end after all, and 2) there is no indication it was classified (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-c...).

Post reply on HN