Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Dept. IT Staff Told To Keep Quiet About Clinton's Server (computerworld.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

dcblogs writes this report from Computerworld: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server ran afoul of the government's IT security and record retention requirements, according to a report by the department's inspector general released today. This use of a private email server did not go unnoticed within the Department of State's IT department. Two IT staff members who raised concerns about Clinton's use of a private server were told not to speak of it. Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and during that period she used a private email server in her New York home. This report by the Department of State's Inspector General about Clinton's use of a private server makes clear that rules and regulations were not followed. It says that Clinton would not have received approval for this server had she sought it. According to the current CIO, the report said, "Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs." However, the report notes, according to these officials, The Bureau of Diplomatic Security and IRM (Bureau of Information Resource Management) "did not -- and would not -- approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so."

19 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. top security by Moblaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was a clear example of security through obscurity. The server was behind a NAT protected by a Huawei router. What could go wrong?

    1. Re:top security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, we've been assured that there's no evidence the server was hacked by the guy who said he hacked it.

      The fact that we don't have any logs from the server to show that is, of course, completely immaterial.

      After all, it's best practice to simply never log anything, so that there will never be any evidence that you were compromised.

    2. Re:top security by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if I told you that Hillary's thousands of felonies aren't excused by citing examples of other government fuck-ups?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:top security by DRMShill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to say the way the news covers this seems a little odd. They phrase it as though this is a problem because I guess hackers could break into this and steal government secrets. It seems to me that the greater concern is that by hiding and then destroying government records it makes her that much more unaccountable to the people.

    4. Re:top security by khandom08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to say the way the news covers this seems a little odd. They phrase it as though this is a problem because I guess hackers could break into this and steal government secrets. It seems to me that the greater concern is that by hiding and then destroying government records it makes her that much more unaccountable to the people.

      ^^^ A thousand times this. And I was a Hillary supporter until the private server news broke. I am astounded how everyone (even Bernie) discounted its importance. While I agree that there have been many attempts by the republicans to tarnish her image, this is not one of them. This is a major fuckup that should have immediately disqualified her from running.

  2. Litmus test / Logic test by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

    There is no "truth" left in Government. The only option they have is to silence critics. Oh, and more circuses.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Litmus test / Logic test by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

      If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

      You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)

      In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:

      Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices

      It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.

      Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter

      More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. Re:And they knew it was hacked since at least 2011 by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the many things that points to how "Rules-for-thee, Not-for-me" this still is:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."

    They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.

  4. HRC's judgement sucks by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never mind 30 years of scandals, this email server thing shows exactly how she thinks. The law only applies to the little people, not her. What she did may have been marginally legal, but if you or I had done this we'd be sitting in jail.

    1. Re:HRC's judgement sucks by Oloryn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This idea from a Clinton who could not handle having two "high-tech" phones?

      In the midst of all the back-and-forth on the particular brou-ha-ha, this is the thing that's been deciding for me. By her own admission, she prioritized her own convenience over the law and the security of the nation. That's not the kind of person I want in control of the 'football'.

  5. This article has more highlights from the report by Optic7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails

  6. Laws are only for the little people silly! by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The depressing part of all of this is that it is obvious she is guilty, but it really doesn't matter. The politically powerful, whether the Goldman Sachs or the Clintons, will always be able to get away with whatever they want. Meanwhile our prison population is overflowing with "little people" who lack the political connections necessary to be free of the ire of the Federal government. Host an illegal mail server that is easily hacked. No big deal. Actually blow the whistle on Federal crimes and corruption. To prison with you!

    1. Re:Laws are only for the little people silly! by Straif · · Score: 5, Informative

      She violated several statues concerning the handling of classified email as well as the various document retention statues which apply specifically to any work product for high level government officials. Neither of those sets of laws are department specific and apply to all federal agencies.

      The laws and statues concerning handling of classified materials are especially damning because they don't even require intent to be found guilty. Merely having classified material outside of secured authorized channels is enough to be in violation. The mere existence of her server as well as the thumb drive she gave her lawyer were immediate proof of a violation as soon as the first classified piece of email was found.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    2. Re:Laws are only for the little people silly! by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      How much does being an online pro-Clinton shill pay? Or is your ignorance actually real?

      People keep saying that but I've not heard a single person quote a law she appears to be guilty of other than being a bitch.

      Clearly you aren't paying attention, applicable laws have been cited by many, allow me to educate you. To start, look up 18 U.S. Code 793

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

      Given the emails she turned over contained satellite images which should have been labeled as "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", it's pretty clear that would be covered by the above section (as just one example).

      You'll note in the statute above, there is no intent required, only gross negligence, which is a pretty easy bar to meet given her knowingly setting up a server that as SoS would receive classified information from time to time.

      And this aside from the fact the IG says that she didn't turn over all of the emails she was supposed to, not only can she be hit under 793 for the emails being removed from their "proper place of custody", but also for the destruction of them as well, but also for destruction of the emails under FOIA laws.

      she was technically in charge of state and could set whatever policy she wanted.

      No, she can't. She could declassify anything originating from State, but anything coming from another agency she has no authority over.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  7. Re:But everyone else was doing it? by macsimcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a total lefty, but Kerry, Albright, Rice, and Powell weren't running their own insecure servers which were hacked at least once that we know of. And none of those Secretaries of State claimed that they had done everything right in setting up such a server, and that it had been approved by the department, which the department subsequently denied.

    Hillary Clinton either lied about this, or she was lied to by her staff. That the government has granted immunity to the staffer who set up the mail server leads me to believe that they've got her cold if she tries to claim she had no idea. I've been in IT for 25 years, and I've always protected myself by making my recommendations or warnings in writing to prevent just this sort of shifting of blame.

    The Salon article today suggested that she just didn't follow State Department procedure, without ever mentioning that the department never sanctioned her server, or that her server had been hacked as a result of poor security. The article implies that other Secretaries did it too, so that makes it acceptable. Just absurd.

  8. Re:Silly Rabbit.... by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    As i recall Palin did the same thing.

    And yet despite the release of all of Palin's emails, I don't recall a single one being redacted for containing classified information which had been unlawfully stored in an unapproved location.

    Nice try at deflection, best try to find a more relevant example to try to excuse bad behavior with.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  9. Better who? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only do we know Hillary has broken federal laws, Hillary has also started at least one war entirely on her own (Libya), and frankly in what should matter to at least Slashdot people is directly responsible for the death of an IT worker who just happened to be at the U.S. embassy in Libya when it was attacked. But I guess you don't care about him, do you? You just want Hillary to be elected, no matter the costs to the rest of us...

    Meanwhile Trump has broken no federal laws, and has never started a war of any kind, and actually knows how to use things like Twitter. Do you want an imbecile technophobe who cannot even drive as president, or someone who actually knows what computers are and uses them?

    Obviously if Sanders was running he would be the best choice but Queen Hillary is not going to let that happen, now is she? Her ability to block the will of the DNC primary voters is to you I am sure just another sign of how much she should be president, because female!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Ugh.. by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.

    I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.

  11. Re:That confirms there is no case against Hillary by DaHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    God I love left wing projection, it must be nice being able to blame all of your problems on the other side without a moment of self reflection or awareness.

    The usual right wing lies

    A lie requires me to know that what I am saying is false... care to support that claim?

    No? You lament a lack of facts from me (despite me highlighting just one law she can be convicted under)... but offer nothing yourself... this is my shocked face: :|

    no proof of course

    If you bothered to pay attention to the available facts and use your brain (I'm sure you have one, it's just atrophied a bit from lack of use), allow me to educate you:

    1) True or false: Hillary is known to have had at least one spy satellite photo on her server which should have been labeled "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", a image which did not originate with the State Department so the original classification would apply.

    2) True or false: Hillary's private email server was authorized by the State Department or another federal agency to store classified information.

    3) True or false: Hillary is known to have been briefed on her requirements to properly handle classified information and signed a document confirming her acceptance of policies, including criminal penalties for violations.

    Answer Key:
    1) True: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
    2) False: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
    3) True: http://freebeacon.com/politics...

    Given the law I cited above doesn't require 'malice' or 'intent', but simply 'gross negligence', it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it... and given the fact the server was not a 'proper place of custody'... per instance of classified information on her server, she could be looking at a penalty of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    How much does being a Hillary shill pay? I'm looking for a side job, and unlike you morons, I actually have a grasp of facts.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans