91–100 of 259 posts
This story just keeps getting better. There is either a grand nefarious plot, or worse, horrific incompetence. I just can't find a third possibility.
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…
> It's all very depressing.
Not at all.
Because of this fiasco, every clown with political aspirations will be using an approved and encrypted system instead of rolling their own garbage.
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…
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?
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 an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective, so those waivers were phased out and BlackBerry use was not allowed in her Suite,"[1]
This being Clinton there are probably conspiracy theories (the NSA is out to get her!) but I suspect they simply didn't want to have to deal with it, and had the ability to say no. So they did.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Judicial Watch didn't get her emails about Libya with Sid Blumenthal until after the Guccifer hack made the email address public knowledge.
If it weren't for the Guccifer hack (of Sid Blumenthal's email), we wouldn't even know about the server, and she would have ignored that subpoena forever.
Am I the only one who dislikes the domain name itself? Every time I see it, I read it as "Clint One Mail", not "Clinton Email".
Yeah, as important and fascinating as the whole story is, every time I see "ClintonEmail.com," all I can think is that surely the Clintons of all people should have the influence and power to get a hold of just "Clinton.com." I mean the current owner of clinton.com is some investment firm that could probably do just as well something like ClintonGroup.com or ClintonInvestments.com. If I was her, I would fight for the…
How does one "fight for an email address"?
Once you own a domain, you own it. It doesn't matter that it just so happens to be someone else's last name.
She would have had to pay most likely a large sum to the investment firm that already owns clinton.com... and perhaps they aren't interested in selling, or they value the domain too high.
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?
Probably because they know how to pwn all of them, and are certain they are insecure or an absolute nightmare to secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are the two obvious one, and another one that's well. . . more in the vein of the Clinton's being the Clinton's IMHO. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillar... - Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. - Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requir…
Nothing that links to the daily caller is a serious news source. Plus the article is a pile of stupid innuendo that conflates what Hillary did with Petraeus providing contemporaneously classified documents to his journalist fuckbuddy. Further, clearly nobody in government had a contemporaneous problem with it since they saw the email address every time they communicated with Hillary Clinton. Whenever they sent her an…
IT staff reported issues with clintonemail going to SPAM folders and insisted Clinton use her .gov account, and she refused. IT staff further complained of security issues with her email server and were ignored.
It is simply not the case that no one had a problem with it. Many people did, and they were told to pound sand.
Here's some more details about the state of security of her private server [0]: > Outlook Web Access, or OWA, was running on port 80 without SSL (unencrypted) > Remote Desktop Protocol, port 3389, was exposed through the DMZ (open to anyone on the internet.) This, at the time it was being used, was open to critical vulnerabilities that would allow for remote execution of code. > VNC Remote Desktop, port 5900, was als…
the government should have a bug bounty program instead of the current hacker pogrom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the whole security clearance process is instruction on detecting misclassification, so the :%s/SECRET/SUCRETS/g defense doesn't work. At least 22 emails where later classified as top secret, there is no way to mistake top secret material for uncontrolled information. There were at least 22 chances to take a step back and wonder about the wisdom of the thing.
Lets not forget the handful (I don't recall the exact number) of emails that Colin Powell sent from his personal account and had clearance adjustments later on. Or the number of Rice's staff who received emails to their personal accounts that were deemed classified after the fact. Lots of chances for many individuals in the IC to step back and develop better procedures. Lets not put ALL the blame on Hillary.
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?
If charges are pressed in this case it'll be because of her gender.