Slashdot Mirror
Clinton's Private Email System Gets a Security "F" Rating
Penguinisto writes According to a scan by Qualys, Hillary Clinton's personal e-mail server, which has lately generated more than a little controversy in US political circles, has earned an "F" rating for security from the security vendor. Problems include SSL2 support, a weak signature, and only having support for older TLS protocols, among numerous other problems. Note that there are allegations that the email server was possibly already hacked in 2013. (Note: Mrs. Clinton plans on Giving a press conference to the public today on the issue.)
I mean, the only security they seemed to be interested in was keeping the emails out of the hands of people with subpoenas, FOIA requests and such.
Do you have ESP?
Before Obama I thought anyone who didn't have the name of Bush or Clinton would be a good choice (dynasty issues). Apparently it is not enough to elect someone with a different last name than Bush or Clinton. The only sensible choice is to elect someone without a last name. Which one of these would you vote for? President Gaga. President Madonna. President the Artist formerly known as Prince. President Xzibit. President [Your Choice].
Funny - I clicked on the link and the rating is a B. No ambiguity about it and not the result of a hasty recent security update (the site was assessed on Sat Mar 07 22:39:37 PST 2015). Where does this headline and summary come from?
It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing.
Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.
It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?
Not the idiot who set up a private, hopelessly unsecure email server illegally used to conduct official State Department business while skirting public disclosure laws.
I will be very disappointed if Clinton opponents don't use some version of an ad that highlights this.
I click on the https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mail.clintonemail.com link and I see the overall rating is a "B" not a "F".
Once again Slashdot can't get headings right.
Did not violate any rules regarding email retention - rules were created after. Did what every other Secretary of State did in regards to email. Bush was president - so no, Hillary is not a bad choice.
Bad H! She should have used them gov't servers, which are D-
Table-ized A.I.
I have been in the IT field for 30 years and I specialize in information security. Penetration testing and forensic investigations is what I do.
I do not agree with the assessment. Many argue that homes are more vulnerable, but even if it's the average home, it's far easier to find a disgruntled employee in some "cloud" service company and if you look at headlines in recent years like DRM, Target, SONY, and a number of others, you can see they are very vulnerable and for a lot of reasons.
It only takes one person on the inside, to screw things up. Edward Snowden did it with the NSA and Bradley Manning with the CIA.
Most homes are very vulnerable becuase they are all WIFI and not setup correctly. For those that do, they can be more secure. Add secret service to the mix and you have physical security.
Do you really think Clinton set up her own email server? No. She knows a lot of people in the industry and can be very selective. He data also remains under HER control, HER ownership, and if any of you idiots think your "cloud" data is safe, it just proves how inept you are.
I have to give her security grade a 'C', only because I don't have enough information to do a complete assessment.
I don't know whether to moderate you as Flamebait or Insightful, so I'll just leave this here.
No sig? Sigh...
People's memory is remarkably short. There is an (IIRC) official annual survey of the web (and other) servers in the USG's estate. That survey has regularly comes up with many, many poor security ratings. This is just one more example.
The Qualys tester only runs against port 443.
What about the ports used by SMTP transport (using STARTTLS)?
In my view assuming there was a need for security the entire fault should lie with state dept allowing emails to be sent and received to and from any domains outside of their administrative influence when conducting "official business".
SMTP Email always get an "F" security rating no matter what. Checking whether webmail interface has a secure cert is like making sure the front gate of your castle is locked and secured while east and west gates remain open to the creepers at the gates.
If you treat federal law the way the secretary of state does, you go to prison.
If you treat IRS rules the way the IRS treats IRS rules, you go to prison
If you treat immigration controls the way our immigration authorities do, you go to prison.
If you’re as careless in your handling of firearms as the ATF is, you go to prison.
If you cook your business’s books the way the federal government cooks its books, you go to prison.
Clinton opponents
Have you seen the people running 'against' her? They are actually out there to make her look good!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Obama wasn't a good choice either. I do not expect the President to be an IT professional, but being the "leader of the free world" he should be at least looking at the "From:" line of emails he receives. We know he uses email, as much was made of integrating his Blackberry with the executive branch email systems when he came into office. Secretary Clinton must have sent emails to the President at some time. How can he claim he didn't realize she wasn't using the executive branch email systems? Security is everyone's responsibility. He should have told her she was out of compliance and refused to correspond with her in that manner.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
http://screencast.com/t/usfMoC...
What is the deal here?
(stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
Yet cited email as a tertiary reason for firing the African ambassador.
If email truly wasn't that big a deal why was that listed as a reason for his dismissal. I realize you tack on as much as you can to make it stick, but still reflects bad on her now.
Also it's not what every other Secretary of State did, there's a massive difference in setting up a server you own and are the only one to have 24/7 unfettered access vs using a free email provider.
I'm sure that doesn't fit your narrative.
So you are aware there was a memo put out by Pres O. 24 August 2012 concerning use of private email for state business. While I'll agree not illegal and a no-no it does show a disregard for following procedures set out by your superior.
Next up those emails in your inbox purporting member growth work.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Yes, she did. It may not have been against the law just yet, but it was certainly against the State Department's own rules already.
The stupid arrangement left communications of the top American diplomat vulnerable — something Russia and other enemies would be happy to exploit on any day, but fine, a President is not supposed to be proficient in communication security.
But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy — and that's exactly, what's on display here. And here...
Citations needed.
Lovers gonna love.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Mrs. Clinton broke no laws at all. The laws requiring saving of emails by officials were passed after Mr. Clinton left office.
Nice attempt at obfuscation there. This has nothing to do with when Bill Clinton was President. This is about how Hillary Clinton handled her email while she was Secretary of State under President Obama.
#DeleteChrome
It isn't the voting public, it is the very wealthy and well connected power brokers that have anointed these two. The voting public are sheeple, easily manipulated with FUD.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I will be very disappointed if Clinton opponents don't use some version of an ad that highlights this.
And following that, the Democrats will put up the exact same ad, but featuring Jeb Bush.
There have been a bunch of Republicans who have admitted to using their own (non-governmental) email systems, two of which were also former secretaries of state:
Condoleezza Rice
Colin Powell
Jeb Bush
Bobby Jindal
Rick Perry
Sarah Palin
And that' most likely not all of them. But don't take this as GOP bashing, I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is rampant on both sides of the aisle. But once one side lifts the veil on it, the other side will respond in kind.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Just like the NSA surveillance programs, this isn't about "legal" vs "not legal". The NSA surveillance programs are "legal", but almost everyone outside of certain parts of the government understand that they shouldn't be. This is about choosing to circumvent systems that are in place to preserve access and security, in ways that possibly damaged national security. Should a person who would do that be elected President? Ms. Clinton is not her husband. Perhaps her best defense right now is that this was common practice. She may have been the last Secretary of State to use personal e-mail, but she was far from the first.
She did however break clear and unambiguous State Department Rules.
The fact that she is a Hypocrite is a bonus.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
To be fair ... Obama just found out about it via the news media (really!!!)
“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” Obama told CBS News.
Next up? "I will get to the bottom of this"
Followed by .. "Not a smidgen of evidence"
And lastly ... "Phony Scandal"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well, if you are on Slashdot I assume you can google something.
Or that you can infer that they do Network Security from the summary or the title.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Nonsense. LBJ, despite getting mired in the Vietnam War, had many effective strengths as a politician. I believe here, Jeb Bush is referring to LBJ's ability to get bipartisan support for his legislation. While I don't have a problem with politicians who can "work across the aisle", I find this suspiciously like George W. Bush, who said much the same thing and then abandoned bipartisanship for a significant part of his tenure.
In comparison, I find Hillary Clinton's casual and persistent corruption and selective rule breaking to be a worse thing than Jeb Bush's choice of role models. Still I wouldn't be broken up, if neither ever was ever elected president.
Why not? Current POTUS wasn't tested nor ready to lead.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
These are just politicians. They probably just forward porn and memes to eachother all day long, and occasionally mail some billionaire to ask for a donation..
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I bet if it was Palin, their cries would be a whole lot different (and they were). So much for "any appearance of impropriety" charge made by the Liberals on Conservatives.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now there's no excuse. The NSA should definitely have backups of those emails. Crisis averted everyone.
Why do you think clouds and BYD are so popular?
Because those annoying cost centers keep getting in the way with their change controls and tickets
We don't have time for that! The big boss needs this done now and will get his way in the end. We can focus on change management later etc.
Why is Hillary no different than any other boss who can't afford to wait on IT?
Right now I am in a dilemma? Our policy is to leave our computers on. No one follows it. We have a big update tonight and this app will throw an exception if it is matched with the server update. So I come and stay til 1am turning on computer every DAM time!
So I am tempted to give them hell and not do it tonight because SOP are to be ignored unless it is ITs fault. Point being people do not respect IT
http://saveie6.com/
The first thing I did when I saw the discrepancies is look for a test date listed on the page, and here it was: ue Mar 10 09:50:02 PDT 2015 .
So this "B" score was earned literally minutes ago. People who are seeing an "F" are probably seeing cached data.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Did not violate any rules regarding email retention
I'm curious. What is your agenda that you think lying about the situation will improve it? I mean, we know that's the historically Clintonian way of handling things when they get busted, but do you really think it helps when other people do it too, when the lies are so obviously debunked?
The 2009 National Archives regulation requires federal officials to use each agency's established communication archiving systems to retain secured copies of all communication. This federal requirement was very much in effect when she was Secretary of State. She never made arrangements to have her official communications mirrored onto State's servers, and when she left, SHE DID NOT PROVIDE COPIES. She only provided a pile of hardcopies of cherry-picked email printouts once congress discovered that she'd been holding out in violation of the Archives requirement. She got busted, and so she put employees of her family business to the task of pawing through records kept on an unsecure server in her house to decide, with her review, what to pass along. And what a shocker, there are gaps of weeks and months in the records they turned over. This is plain violation of the letter and spirit of the 2009 regulation.
She went out of her way to avoid keeping public records available while being the second person in line to the presidency, and while roaming the world accomplishing almost nothing as SoS, except for soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars for her family's enterprise from people who are the antithesis of what she weakly proclaims are her main ideological grounds for wanting now to be the president. So even if you still think that makes her a good choice, that doesn't change her deliberate violating of federal regulations - and that doesn't even get into whether or not even ONE email on that system included the receipt or transmission of even one classified item - what do you think are the odds that the Secretary of State, in exchanging email with her counterparts overseas, and with senior officials in the White House (including the president) never addressed even one classified issue?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Don't forget to vote November 9th!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Did not violate any rules regarding email retention - rules were created after. Did what every other Secretary of State did in regards to email. Bush was president - so no, Hillary is not a bad choice.
Clearly this logic explains how Obama got elected. Twice.
Obviously we only measure our leaders on their ability to circumvent laws, not enforce them. She got an A rating.
I'd say leaving office apparently broke and then making shitloads-times-fuckloads of money later, is a sign of a successful president.
Well, then President Clinton neatly skirts any accusation of being successful by that metric: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
They left office not just with millions, but also with the White House dinnerware: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
What about those with a last name and no first? Teller? First president who won't utter a lie?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
President Elvis, at least he can't screw things up any worse than they are now.
Yet cited email as a tertiary reason for firing the African ambassador.
Installing a private Internet connection in your Dept. Of State office bathroom, in order to bypass the government link is a far cry from running a mail server out of your home.
There's a massive difference in setting up a server you own and are the only one to have 24/7 unfettered access vs using a free email provider.
That's for sure! We've all seen how secure Yahoo, AOL and Google email accounts are. That is not to say running a private email server is a walk in the park. Just because someone uses a free email provider doesn't mean they'll have a more secure server.
So you are aware there was a memo put out by Pres O. 24 August 2012 concerning use of private email for state business.
You do realize she'd set this server up in 2009 and left in Feb 2013? So she continued to use her own server her last five months, rather than do a disruptive move to the State server, when she already knew she was leaving in a few months. Your point?
Remember that your vote counts just as much as the vote of the average youtube/facebook/twitter comment writer.
Depends on which State you live in......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
For 36 years, except for the period 2013-2017, there will have been either a Clinton or a Bush, in or next to the Big Chair.
Let's try something else for a while, OK.
Perhaps you could use a non-partisan source to support that claim? So far, everything I've seen says she didn't break any rules.
He's too smart to take the job though.
Here's two things you don't do when you want to run for president. First, have the NSA revelations then digital threats from foreign countries and then run a secret, rule-breaking email system with pathetic security. Second, be a Democrat in a country with over 10 trillion in debt and run a failed political campaign that ends multiple millions in debt. Seriously you lunatic, if you can't run your own campaign's budget, why the hell would we let you be in charge of the country's budget?
Here's a bonus one. Don't point at people in the audience and pretend to know them when they're not actually there and you're doing it to look more folksy.
Take it by "another Bush" you mean Obama.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Looks like news came out today that the White House knew of the private domain issue.
"Press Secretary Josh Earnest corrected the statement, saying that the president must have known about Clinton’s private account because he [POTUS] had emailed that account for four years while Clinton served as his Secretary of State."
So, now we have another agency that knows that did nothing as well.
The Social Security website gets and "F", too. And it has been that way for quite some time.
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltes...
So damned if you do, damned if you don't.
For the love of God, WHY do I NOT have Mod points today?!
But you're dead on. The Clintons, and MOST other politicians, have always tried to skirt around all kinds of things and it's getting old.
Do you really think that just because you constantly lie, that others are going to believe it?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I had someone who did SECRET-grade e-mails setup in the military write the following to me:
Not sure there are biometrics installed in the Clinton home in Chappaqua. ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Still I wouldn't be broken up, if neither ever was ever elected president.
Could not agree more. Both leave so much to be desired.
The problem is, that 3rd parties are pretty much banned due to the actions of rover/neo-cons/dems back in 1993.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Still I wouldn't be broken up, if neither ever was ever elected president.
It only takes a majority of votes to make it happen. Simple math. Just get the non voters to unite on somebody, and voila! All I am hearing here is just more blame passing for ones' own failures.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
wow.
You neo-cons are just as bad as ever. Lies from both sides continue over and over and over.
She was NEVER in-line for being president.
Here is a factual explanation of the situation, without your own set of lies mixed in.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
not really. One agency will assume that the other is doing their job.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The previous one was tested and ready to lead?
I guess Govenerner of Texas is not a good test.
Ah, the old vote-against appeal: dependable go-to for the American political pundit.
hilary isnt the second in line. the vice president is. :/
The VP is first in line. :/
But then it goes to the speaker of the house, president pro tempore and then secretary of state.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
All I am hearing here is just more blame passing for ones' own failures.
And there will be a lot more failure where that came from.
She was NEVER in-line for being president.
Ah, I typo-ed. She was fourth in line, not second. You know, because of that pesky US Constitution, which says so in plain language as it establishes the presidential line of succession. Your idea of "never" is pretty strange, but it sure does make you sound righteous enraged and all! You're probably so furious that your hands were shaking too badly to use Google. Here, I'll help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
As for "factual explanation," you're really going to cite a quote that refers to a blogger at Media Matters, the proudly partisan organization that exists specifically to boost the Clintons' political endeavors? Every one of Clinton's usual proxies are of course out spinning like crazy to say the situation is "muddy." Of course that's what they want to say. The NARA is clear: you don't get to be Secretary of State and hide your emails from your agency's archiving system. That's a federal regulation that she deliberately went out of her way to avoid. And her response when busted on it? Printed-out emails, deliberately avoiding all of the forensic details that come with email headers and date/time stamps, and forcing State to spend untold man hours scanning and transcribing, when she could simply be transparent about it and provide them electronically. Typical Clinton stonewalling at its finest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sarah Palin
I don't know about anyone else on the list; I'd never heard it, but in this instance, a hacker broke into her personal email looking for dirt and found absolutely nothing. If anything, the hack as completely exculpatory. So this makes me doubt the rest of your list, as well.
One funny thing about the Obama White House is that past Republican behavior has become the new bar by which Democrats are judged - even by Democrats.
"But - but - Dick Cheney did the same thing!"
Democrats have already lost.
I wish Perot had won. Not because he would have been good for the country- he was as nutty on fiscal policy as modern teabaggers. But that would have been a key moment to break the two party system.
You're not supposed to leave the office with a lot of tangible assets. Anyone who did that would be immediately nailed for blatant corruption. You're supposed to network and accrue impossible-to-prove favors that turn into money later. I'd say leaving office apparently broke and then making shitloads-times-fuckloads of money later, is a sign of a successful president.
Bullshit.
That's a sign of a successful marketing campaign, nothing more.
It's not like the Clintons are snagging paychecks based on their morals or ethics. Due to this, I still struggle to understand what value either of them have today in public speaking.
Easy! All we need to do is match the combined $890B that the Koch network is dumping in to the GOP, and the $200M that Soros is dumping in to the Democrats, along with whatever funding the parties themselves have fenangled. Then we have to get the networks owned and controlled by interested barties to both run our ads AND present our candidate fairly in their "news" coverage.
This is such an easy task that the blame clearly lies with the person that went out and voted third party instead of performing this trivial task.
But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy
So all of them?
But he has a last name.
Except Obama sent emails to her private email address.
The snail mail analogy would be
"Really I didn't know my letters were being sent to another country."
It is — if all of your correspondents use secure servers connected by properly-encrypted links and maintained by professionals.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So far, everything I've seen says she didn't break any rules.
She deliberately broke not only her boss's rules, but violated the rules she forced her own staffers to follow. But beyond that, she violated a plainly worded federal regulation: According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”
.. and she had her own family business employees print out, on paper, a culled/filtered collection of messages that have weeks-long and months-long gaps in the records - and no independent entity can say what criteria she used to decide what was, or was not official. And if even a single email exchanged between her and some other party in the course of her entire tenure as the country's chief diplomat involved any classified information, there's another whole area of federal law that comes into play.
She made no provision to make that happen while she was Secretary of State, and nor did she pass along any of those records as she left office. She set up a private server in her house to avoid complying with both the administration's own rules and that very specific federal regulation. And once a congressional investigation had their fill of her stonewalling and realized why State wasn't sending them any of her correspondence, they told her to cough them up
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
he was as nutty on fiscal policy as modern teabaggers
What makes fiscal responsibility "nutty"? I find the real nuts to be the crowd who thinks we can borrow as much as we like, while completely ignoring inflation.
It was actually an "F.U." rating. Did you want those public records... well, [see rating].
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I will be very disappointed if Clinton opponents don't use some version of an ad that highlights this.
And following that, the Democrats will put up the exact same ad, but featuring Jeb Bush.
There have been a bunch of Republicans who have admitted to using their own (non-governmental) email systems, two of which were also former secretaries of state:
Condoleezza Rice
Apparently not: http://www.politico.com/story/...
I'm assuming you haven't worked for .gov.....
"Normal" practice is:
- Inside: Complete chaos, no one follows the rules and everyone but contractors can just about get away with murder.
- Outside: "We follow all rules. A contractor reconfigured something and the issue has been resolved. We've put additional controls in place to ensure this doesn't happen again." (While the "contractor" could have been an admin logging into a server to do Windows Updates instead of the idiot that configured the firewall incorrectly to get their stupid app working. Pure example here.)
Signed: A guy that was both a Full Time Employee as well as a contractor for several entities.
They were broke, but when Bill left office, there was a budget surplus, for the third year in a row. Aside from that, the budget hadn't had three consecutive years of surplus (or even three years under one administration) since Harry Truman was president.
www.wavefront-av.com
You forgot to include some hard drive corruption and accidental deletions.
They are in the same agency/branch. Which assumption would be made here, when every person emailing her notices it is in an entirely different domain? The fact that no one acted implies, there is no openness and they are all hosting their own emails to break the law, or that they are afraid to bring to light the fact that she alone was breaking her oath to office and the law.
Because no one else within either party is allowed to run in their primaries right? Seriously people, there are other folks in these parties. I was quite a fan of Huntsman back in the '12 Republican primaries, but everytime I brought him up, the liberals said he wasn't liberal enough and the conservatives said he wasn't conservative enough. It's so laughable.
Go vote in primaries people!!! SERIOUSLY! Open primary states are the easiest. But if you're closed primary, register as Dem or Rep and go vote. I'm tired of all of your lazy asses whining about lack of choices when you won't engage in minimal effort.
When people like you don't demand accountability on things like this you get what you deserve. She should be brought to trial, and made accountable for taking affairs of state off the grid, and off the record. This intentional effort to take government activity off record is despicable. So now we know that she is willing to hide all of her efforts from the appropriate scrutiny. It is unforgivable, especially when considering her as a potential candidate.
...only $200m from Soros? May want to count MoveOn.org, DU, Being Liberal, and a whole host of other endeavors he and his buddies have been dumping way more money into... not even counting MSNBC, a goodly chunk of CNN, Verio, et al. Also, check in with Warren Buffett; he's good for (probably) at least a few hundred million or more (probably way, way more.)
Fact is, the system is soaked with money on both sides, so your original point (shitloads of money corrupting/clouding the election process) is valid, but honestly, they *both* suck.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They were broke, but when Bill left office, there was a budget surplus, for the third year in a row.
Given that the budget was (and has always been) controlled by Congress (where the opposition party held sway), I'm not so sure he should get much credit for that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Of the four Sec. of States that were around for email usage in the White House (Clinton and earlier). Two did not use email, Albright and Rice. The only other Secretary of State that used email was Colin Powell. He's admitted that he used a personal account for at least some of his official business. His emails are lost he says. Remember though, he was Sec. of State between 2001 and 2005. The means all of his emails are at least 10 years old by now.
More importantly, what previous holders of the office did does not matter here. Why? For at least a couple reasons. First, the push in recent years is for transparency. If previous holders did actions that are considered bad under the need for transparency and record keeping then continuing what they're doing is not right. Arguing that the previous guy did it and saying that absolves you of responsibility is wrong. Second, And pay attention here, Clinton in '07 in a speech railed against "secret emails" of the Bush administration, calling it cronyism and corruption; and then saying more transparency is needed. It's incredibly hypocritical to talk about that and then do what Clinton did.
Which theoretically would be the official State Department email servers. Anyway around it, the official email servers were more secure than Hillary's.
Just for context here. Clinton called himself the Black Sheep of the Bush family. And W. Bush called Hillary his step-sister when asked to talk about the possibility of Jeb facing Hillary.
Just so we're all clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
1 Vice President of the United States
2 Speaker of the House
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
— Secretary of the Interior
8 Secretary of Agriculture
9 Secretary of Commerce
10 Secretary of Labor
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
13 Secretary of Transportation
14 Secretary of Energy
15 Secretary of Education
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
17 Secretary of Homeland Security
We also have a President who lied (again depending on who you believe) and said he found out about it from the news.
Just get the non voters to unite on somebody,
The trick is getting a 'somebody' who would be better....I strongly dislike both those candidates, but there are people who would be much worse as president (Newt, for example). Both of them are at least semi-competent.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Cynicism aside, show me a Democrat who will not vote for a Republican if she gets the nomination. Oh, and show me a Democrat who can gain enough support among Democratic Party primary voters to beat her. As long as voter turn out is as low as it is, "bringing out the vote" will be the way elections are won.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If you need something to be specifically illegal to prevent you from doing things that are stupid, a danger to the National Security and contray to the President's publicaly stated policy of "Being the most transperant administation", you certainly don't deserve to be President.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I am not an Obama supporter. I did not vote for him, donate to him, or otherwise assist his campaign. And yet, I'd give him a pass if this is the only reason he'd have for knowing that she had a private server. When I email someone, I typically don't have the foggiest idea whether that address is served by Google, Yahoo, the CIA, or a Pentium in their basement. While her email address wasn't @state.gov, I wouldn't put it past a government official to think, "oh, wonder how she got State to set that up for her?" and then never thinking about it again.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Obama wasn't a good choice either.
Well, the first time I voted for him it seemed like the choice was between nieve new guy vs. untrustworthy guy. The second time I voted for him it was hamstrung guy vs. out of touch rich guy. While unsatisfied with the results I don't see that voting the other way would have been an improvement and I'm not even a Democrat. Sadly, it's looking like the choices this time are going to be even worse.
You do realize she'd set this server up in 2009 and left in Feb 2013? So she continued to use her own server her last five months, rather than do a disruptive move to the State server, when she already knew she was leaving in a few months.
So how disruptive would it have been to just set up the MX record to point to a professionally managed government owned mail server?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
$890B? Please I need a link for that. If the Kochs has that kind of money to throw around, maybe they should be paying off the national debt.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I had someone who did SECRET-grade e-mails setup in the military write the following to me:
Not sure there are biometrics installed in the Clinton home in Chappaqua. ..bruce..
Precisely. You or I (I am assuming that you are not at the SoS level; I am not) could never do this for a job that involved secret discussions, as we could never get SIPRNet at our house, the servers secured, etc. Now, I am sure either the SoS or a former President can get SIPRNET at their house - they may need to take a call at 3:00 AM, after all, and that call may be secret in nature. (The current POTUS may well want to call a former POTUS in a crisis to ask about something mission critical, send him pictures etc. as part of the call, and I am sure they would not want to have to use an unsecured network to do this.) So, to me, the real question is, was this done properly, by properly vetted personnel with security clearances, training, etc.? It might have been (she certainly had access to these resources, and so did Bill), but if it wasn't, she IMO isn't fit to be President (and some network security guys need to be fired).
In my humble opinion, this is the real "nut" here - the rest is just a false crisis (turning over records is fixed once the records are turned over*), but if Vladimir Putin (or Rupert Murdoch) was reading all of her emails, that is a real issue. (Note that she could fix this today by simply saying "I just took advantage of the security structure set up for my husband after he left the White House," if something like that were true, this goes away.)
* Her opponents can of course use this against her, but, really, it's not going to go anywhere without evidence of other malfeasance.
I consider Bill Clinton a successful president by virtue of spending more time getting his pool cue chalked by Lewinsky, than he did screwing up shit that actually mattered.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Of those you listed only Rice and Powell were subject to federal records keeping laws that Clinton is accused of violating.
Rice didn't use email (and on those rare occasions she did, reportedly used a .gov account) and Powell claims to have not retained his personal emails but claims to have cc'd someone at State when his emails involved official work (at the time that was an accepted records retention practice). All others you mentioned are only covered under state laws, if they even exist, and in at least 2 cases (Bush and Palin) their private emails have all been made public and nothing secretive or really of much interest found (in Jeb's case a bit too public for some peoples liking).
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Here's a heads up for you, state politicians are subject to state records retention laws NOT the Federal retention laws that Clinton is accused of violating; their use of private emails is irrelevant. Only Powell and Rice were subject to similar laws and at the time Powell's reported practice of cc'ing someone at State was considered acceptable retention policy and Rice didn't use email.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I believe here, Jeb Bush is referring to LBJ's ability to get bipartisan support for his legislation.
LBJ would have been as effective as a president as Carter was, except for the "do it for the Dead Kennedy" subtext to everything he did.
Learn to love Alaska
I find the real nuts to be the crowd who thinks we can borrow as much as we like, while completely ignoring inflation.
That's called "conservative fiscal policy".
The "nutters" on fiscal policy were the ones that wanted to eliminate funding to hundreds or thousands of programs that would have left millions in such bad shape that an armed revolt would be a reasonable response for many.
The nutters are the ones that say they want something, the do the opposite. That's why I think most pro-life people are nutters. They say they want fewer abortions, then campaign against condoms and sex ed (two things proven to reduce abortion rates).
Learn to love Alaska
Dont forget about Thomas Steyer $73,725,000.00 last year to the democrats
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
dont blame me, i voted Kodos
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The laws requiring the retention of all work records from federal agencies has been in place a very long time (1950's or so). There have been modifications to those laws over the years but they still stand in basically the same format as original.
The change made under Obama basically set a 20 day time limit on how long a person had to ensure any official record (external emails for example) was properly stored in the national archives for later retrieval and FOIA requests. These changes did not create the requirement for those documents to be retained, they merely set a time limit for their retention.
Under retention laws it was perfectly legal for a federal employee to use personal email for official use, but regardless of the server being used those emails were ALWAYS required to be retained and transmitted to the archives.
Each agency had the ability to dictate their own policies on external email usage and most, including State while Clinton was Secretary, had policies in place to discourage any outside email usage for official business. The rules in State were so strict that people were removed from office during Clinton's time there for using personal emails for work.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
and lets not forget powel is in trouble over some of of those emails.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So, now we have another agency that knows that did nothing as well.
But that cant be obama JUST said he found out about it in the news like the rest of us!!!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
plain and simple, he knew he wasnt sending it to a .gov email address. thats ALL he needed to know
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
How many primaries are closed? I remember when I first voted in Texas, the primaries were open, then the Republicans closed theirs. I left before the Democrats closed theirs, and don't know if the Republicans ever un-closed theirs. And they weren't "closed". They were closed to registered democrats, but not closed to undeclared/undecided.
In Alaska, you can pick either ballot equally after you sign in. Regardless of who you are registered with. In Texas, many liberal people registered Republican because many races were unopposed, so if you didn't vote Republican in the primary, you didn't get a vote.
Learn to love Alaska
LBJ would have been as effective as a president as Carter was, except for the "do it for the Dead Kennedy" subtext to everything he did.
No, he demonstrated considerable politic competence and leadership well before a dead Kennedy issued him a blank check.
The "nutters" on fiscal policy were the ones that wanted to eliminate funding to hundreds or thousands of programs that would have left millions in such bad shape that an armed revolt would be a reasonable response for many.
You know we could keep a few programs around, say the two or three programs that really help, and get rid of the hundreds or thousands of programs that don't help.
Instead we kept all those programs, and shuffled those millions of the "employable rolls" to keep the unemployment rate dropping. Record use of food stamps, record social spending, and a stagnant economy. What did we gain? Nothing - except another $8 trillion in debt... And millions still in bad shape.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
At $18 trillion, that $890 billion wouldn't do much... Heck, it wouldn't even cover last year's added debt.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Supposedly, this wasn't illegal when she did it though apparently it is now. And who will prosecute her even if there was wrongdoing?
Title 36 Chapter XII Subchapter B Part 1236 Subpart C 1236.22 - rules governing electronic records keeping. In effect on January 1st, 2009. Ms. Clinton set her private server up AFTER this date, clearly in violation of this regulation.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
She was NEVER in-line for being president.
Ah, I typo-ed. She was fourth in line, not second. You know, because of that pesky US Constitution, which says so in plain language as it establishes the presidential line of succession. Your idea of "never" is pretty strange, but it sure does make you sound righteous enraged and all!
He's a liberal. The Constitution is irrelevant, and can be ignored - or misquoted - at will.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please see Debt to the Penny - a Government (Treasury Department) site. Please find the last year that we had a year-over-year reduction in debt (meaning - a real, not paper, surplus). HINT: you'll have to go back about 60 years... After that, we added debt - meaning ran an actual deficit - every single year.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not really.
About half the country has open primaries I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
And if you cut them all tomorrow with no other plan, you'd spend that or more quelling the rebellion.
Learn to love Alaska
Thank you. And in addition, computer systems that store and process US government are (and were when she was SoS) required to be certified according to the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. My understanding is that complying with that is not a trivial undertaking. So who did that for her? Who were her server admins? I guess they'll be getting some Congressional subpoenas, once we know who they are.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
I believe this counts as a law. Was her server certified to FIPS 199 and NIST standards? Who did the certification? Were the results sent to the OMB?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
It is a mixture. What I found quite hilarious is that the Democrats were suing the Republicans in one State for having closed their primary while the Democrats were closing their primaries in other States.
By itself, fiscal responsibility is certainly not "nutty". However, those who oppose any tax increase are. Any sane person running a business would realize that both decreasing expenditure and increasing income are essential for financial health, and using only one method would only lead to ruin. Nevertheless, there are merits to the view that the tax rate is already high enough, but the problem is that the multinational corporations and the wealthy, with the help of politicians, devised various nefarious schemes to decrease the tax they paid, thereby shifting the burden of taxation to the working class.
How many primaries are closed? I remember when I first voted in Texas, the primaries were open, then the Republicans closed theirs. I left before the Democrats closed theirs, and don't know if the Republicans ever un-closed theirs. And they weren't "closed". They were closed to registered democrats, but not closed to undeclared/undecided.
Texas has never had closed primaries, at least not as long as I've been voting (which is over 20 years)--and neoritter's wikipedia link lists Texas as an open primary state. There's also no official party registration in Texas. Sure, you can send some money to the Republicans or the Democrats and they'll send you a card so you can be a card-carrying [whatever], but at voting time, the state doesn't know or care. There is a restriction during the primaries: if you've voted in one party's primary during the election cycle, you may not also vote in the other party's primary during that same election cycle. But during the next election cycle, you're again free to choose which primary you want to vote in.
I've found that the local parties are amusingly not well aligned. The Republicans were first to try to close primaries in Texas and Alaska (while I lived in each), but the Democrats should do the same in more Democratic leaning states. For insane definitions of "should". The one with the most unopposed candidates in the fall wants to close the primaries.
Learn to love Alaska
It's a closed primary with same-day registration. Most call that open, but you have to "declare" a party (and go on the rolls for that party) to vote in the primary, and you are officially a member of that party until the next election cycle.
The truly open primaries allow you to vote for one candidate for seat 1, and a different candidate for seat 2, your choices could be among the Repubicans for seat 1, and among the Democrats for seat 2.
But primaries of any kind are a bad thing. They are state-sponsored petitions for the parties. The result is a lower barrier for the Democrats and Republicans than the 3rd parties. It's undemocratic and unfair.
Learn to love Alaska
Any sane person running a business would realize that both decreasing expenditure and increasing income are essential for financial health, and using only one method would only lead to ruin.
Wealth doesn't vanish, if you don't tax it. It's spent, reinvested, and eventually taxed again. A more serious issue are the people who want to cut spending, but not their Social Security, Medicare, and defense - that's more than half the budget right there folks.
Nevertheless, there are merits to the view that the tax rate is already high enough, but the problem is that the multinational corporations and the wealthy, with the help of politicians, devised various nefarious schemes to decrease the tax they paid, thereby shifting the burden of taxation to the working class.
I'll agree that there is merit to that view, but I think that problem exists in the first place because of high spending. It's easy to obscure tax avoidance in the sea of noise that the federal government creates. And spending also creates bribes for the electorate.
How about cutting a mere 99% of them then? I'm sure we could keep the handful or less than actually quells rebellions.
Email -- it's not for security.
Have you been paying attention or have you just not thought things through.
The NSA has been spying on everybody for decades. That means they have a file on every politician. At this point money is just a reward that people can get out of politics. It can't buy anybody. They are all OWNED by the threat of decades in federal prison.
It's all about power. Money is for the small minded. Those that have power will always be able to put their hands on all the money they need.
It doesn't matter who wins elections. They are all dirty and all open books to the NSA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Fair enough. We're still waiting for the spending cut part of Grahm-Rudman. Until that's done no more 'taxes today, spending cuts tomorrow deals.'
We're now in 'Spending cut now, taxes tomorrow' territory.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
For definitions of political competence equal to 'stuffing ballot boxes and enriching himself'.
He started politics flat broke, retired a multimillionaire without ever holding an honest job.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bill had one projected budget surplus* that went 'pop' when .com did.
* at the time the SS trust fund was running a surplus that was being transferred into the general fund. So even the projected surplus was an accounting trick.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the Koch brothers contribute $890B every couple years to the elections, I cannot imagine what their fortune must look like. You focused on the wrong part of my comment. If the Koch brothers can afford to push that much money at elections, they must be more rich than Gates: https://www.google.com/search?... who is apparently worth around $80B, and is either the top or second place richest in the world.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Hyper inflation will occur when we finally have to call home all those dollars they been printing to keep the country afloat. (Every dollar is a 'share' of the countries worth.)
Yeah, so do Cher, Madonna, Prince and everyone else on the list. But no one says "Elivs who?" or "Madonna who?"
Cut the plans, give back the money, and I bet you won't see the rebellions...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Give back what money? The taxes that the conservatives say are over-paid by the rich, that the poor don't pay anyway? How will giving Donald Trump another $5M stop a revolt by the tens (to hundreds) of millions of poor the US has?
Learn to love Alaska
I think budget cutting will happen just because most people want a functioning society. And it'll be across the board with funding backed by few constituents being particularly hard hit.
Competence and corruption aren't mutually exclusive.
You do realize she'd set this server up in 2009 and left in Feb 2013? So she continued to use her own server her last five months, rather than do a disruptive move to the State server, when she already knew she was leaving in a few months. Your point?
I think you're fooling yourself. I remember e-mails being in the news way back when Ronny was President. Remember Iran Contra? Remember Billy Boy's dealing and e-mails, which Hilary was a part of by the way? GW and e-mail?
She knew what she was doing. She just didn't have someone competent set it up, clearly.
Of course all of this is really beside the point. It was a carefully timed leak (IMHO by the White House, a certain woman there) to the NY Times to take her out of the running early. Make way for the people they really want to finish destroying the country. Not that it matters, nobody in Washington seems to care about the country anymore with very few exceptions.
True, but you are better off with incompetent corrupt people vs competent corrupt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I don't buy that at all. While the cat is away the mice will play. Just because your highly visible, elected official is incompetent, doesn't mean that the bureaucrats are. At least a competence official can keep the bureaucrats in line.
Elected officials and bureaucrats are not natural allies. They have some things in common, sure, but they also are at odds in motivation and goals.
And in a democratic state, the power should be concentrated in the elected officials. So yes, it is better to have a competent but corrupt elected official than the incompetent version, because then the power is concentrated more in the elected official and their motivations (such as appeasing voters enough to get reelected) than in the bureaucracy.
So your solution is to make the government servers open relays!? Brilliant! That'll keep the bad guys out!