It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection.
It is easier to believe the documented condition of the sun going quiet for a few hundred years was the major factor behind the cooling than it is to believe one or more volcanoes were going off constantly for a few hundred years creating an ash blanket over the Earth for the whole period and caused it.
I can't wait until this happens. CNN will spin off a whole channel for nonstop coverage.
Los Angeles had a minor earthquake some years ago. I think it was like a 4.0 or so, a truck rumble at best. CNN kept running a black-and-white surveillance video of a grocery story where absolutely nothing moved in the background. Nothing falling, nothing breaking, nothing anything. But CNN made it sound like the BIG ONE already happened and California was sliding into the Pacific Ocean.
I was in the San Francisco Bay Area for the World Series in 1989 during the earthquake that was about 7.0. While the shaking was scary, when you watched CNN, all you saw was a picture of one of the deck plates on the bay bridge that fell onto the one below, and some close up shots of some houses in San Francisco that had partially collapsed (they were build on fill in an area that used to be part of the bay so the ground liquefied). Based on what they showed and what they said, you would think that all of the major roads were impassable, the bridge itself had actually collapsed, and the area was like a war zone. The reality is I had to drive far out of my way to find any visible damage or effect beyond a few items that had fallen off shelves (and the baseball game being cancelled). What I saw on the news and what I saw out my hotel room window were two vastly different things.
What sells news is scary stuff, so they look for things that look scary and then push that like there is no tomorrow, or if necessary, they invent the scary stuff for the same reasons.
They don't publish every public record and have no intention of doing so.
Because doing so isn't free. It takes time and resources, which means money. If a full release plan were implemented, after the first release of something big that shouldn't have been released (opps, all those private tax returns were buried in some miscellaneous filings), a major double-check system would be put in place raising the costs even more. Taxpayers don't want to pay for things they don't feel directly benefit them, and this would be seen as spending a lot of money so that info only desired rarely is available, namely seen as a big waste. It would also open a major can of worms when people start processing all the info to find and monetize what may be in there, just like the websites today that get arrest records and mug shots and charge people to remove them.
There is a certain amount of anonymity that happens due to being lost in the crowd. Sure you could be identified if someone looked, but they have to look. Imagine if the government put cameras everywhere (some say you don't have to imagine) with public feeds (in this scenario the cameras are public so their feeds are too), don't be surprised when people start taking all of it, running various algorithms like facial recognition, then selling their results or promise to destroy undesirable results. If all government documents were directly accessible, I think we would see some major abuses happen, and then people would be scurrying to fix those problem they created, and pointing fingers to find whom to blame.
As the others say, this is a very pointed attack on FOIA requests.
I think it probably occurred to the powers that be that it could have the effect of reducing the number of FOIA requests since it reduces the way their use can be monetized, but I don't think it is a "very pointed attack on FOIA requests." I think as many others have already said, the data belongs to the public but most of the data the government has isn't released for cost reasons, since it hasn't been reviewed to determine if it is allowed to be released. Once the review has occurred and it is now confirmed the data is releasable (the main impediment to its release before), the public's data should be made available to the public. Do you disagree with that last sentence?
Think of it like a legal case where the public is being denied access to a section of a public forest for no good reason (in the opinion of one member of the public), and he sues to gain recreational access to the area. If he wins, does he get exclusive use of the area, and the rest of the public is still barred entry unless they bring their own lawsuits? No, the one legal victory would give access to everyone since it was just that no one had yet forced the issue to examine the reasons for access to be withheld.
One other interesting note - all the judges on the FISC are solely appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, without any confirmation or oversight by Congress required.
While Congress does not get any oversight of the appointing process itself, the Chief Justice can only appoint the judges from the pool of US District Court Judges. This means the judges on the FISA Court were first nominated by the President to become District Court Judges, and then confimed by the Senate, so there was some congressional oversight in terms of who could be appointed.
I don't know if all of the current judges were picked by John Roberts or not,...
The FISA judges serve for seven years, and Roberts has been the Chief Justice since 2005, so yes, he picked all of the current judges.
As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?
Basically, no, since the laws deal with the intent of possessing the domain, so unless intent demonstrably changed from when it was first registered, this is just an attempt to shove a wedge into where the plaintiff thinks there may be a crack.
I haven't read it, but it appears the act lays out some guidelines, and among some defenses are "Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services" which should apply here. The act also lists actions that would indicate bad faith by the domain holder, like "Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location" and "Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site", but those don't appear to apply here. The fact the domain was renewed is not relevant to this law.
The other important "law" is by appealing to ICANN under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which unfortunately has historically been more fruitful to trademark owners when going after people legitimately using a domain that contains a trademarked name since it allows a person to complain that "a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights".
And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.
Not sure when the last time I saw barratry successfully claimed, but a counter claim for damages and legal fees based on the case being frivolous, yes, that is quite possible. I feel it is clear the plaintiff is pursuing this case, knowing it lacks legal standing, to coerce the domain holder into transferring it since they failed to acquire it through negotiation. The case shouldn't even reach the discovery phase; it should probably die from the first or second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (I'll say two since the judge will often reject aspects in the first on procedural grounds, but say why [like "motion didn't identify..."], so the motion can be redrafted to meet the judge's requirements).
They are intentionally weakening the protections we use to keep ourselves safe.
No, the weaknesses were created by the AV vendors, not the NSA and GCHQ. Do you also object to other security researchers looking though code for weaknesses, and when they find something say they are weakening the software's security? (Unfortunately there are some companies that have tried that). The difference here is mainly in what is done with the knowledge once found, and what these organizations are doing with it is consistent with their missions. In the industry it is called equities, namely deciding what is in the nation's best interest, whether to reveal a flaw so it can be fixed, or keep it secret so it can be used against an adversary.
So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]
I highly doubt I know more than she about Swedish law, and never said I did, but then nothing I have said conflicts with what she has said either. She wants Assange to be interviewed before the pending expiration of the statute of limitations for some of the crimes of which he is suspected (note, only some of the statue of limitations expire soon) to better determine if he should be charged. She can have him charged even without an interview, but wants to get as many facts in hand as possible first. My statements regarding tolling are also still valid and correct.
blah blah fap fap
Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?
Privacy only matters when it's the privacy of people with power. So to get privacy for ourselves, we need to violate the privacy of people in power.
I think well publicized eavesdropping on important people's calls was a major reason why they made it illegal to listen to cordless phones and cell phones.
That was essentially my thought. These organizations' charters include being able to attack adversaries if necessary, and they were looking into methods of attack. Where is the surprise? The technical arm of every other country's spy agencies are doing the exact same thing, though perhaps with less ability, so explain to me what about this is news?
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.
Personally, I think your ego needs a check. I responded to the person about how statute of limitations stops when a person flees the jurisdiction by citing the term ("tolling") to help explain what he said. Since you obviously haven't looked it up, Swedish law also tolls the statute of limitations, just like US law, but with a few differences. The issue here is that since Assange hasn't yet been charged, he technically hasn't fled the jurisdiction under Swedish law (this is a difference with US law which says it tolls for a potential crime if you leave and they can show that was a reason you left, not just after being charged). That is why the article mentions the statute of limitations issue. If Sweden were to charge him, which they still have the option of doing, then the statute would toll.
legal illiteracy... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
I have formally studied law. Where did you get your legal training?
The readers will be cheap..... it's only a matter of time before there are 3rd party agents who roam around operating the readers and catch the data for sale to insurance companies, PIs, and reporters as a subscription service.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Obviously those are fakes. You can tell by the fact that they show a lander on the moon.:-D
Sadly, that is how a conspiracy theorist actually thinks. In this case, NASA publishing photos from a probe orbiting the moon to prove NASA went to the moon 40 years ago will be labeled as the complicit organization just putting out more lies. These people will only believe something when it is put directly in front of them (sometimes not even then), and since they can't go to the moon to see these artifacts for themselves, you can't prove it to them, and any second-party proof you present will be dismissed as fake or lies. It is one of the tenets of how they make claims that within their requirements for "proof", the claim becomes non-falsifiable.
Now he's Asking a Secret Court to allow the Government to Break a Lawful Ruling that basically Affirmed that the Program was Unconstitutional.
WTF?
Not really break since the ruling is only binding on actions performed within the jurisdiction of that court's circuit, so legally the FISA court doesn't have to follow it, but each court tries to follow rulings by other courts unless they disagree with it. Obama is trying to convince them to disagree with it.
"Infosec professionals do not generally wish to install secondary offers."
WTF? Nobody with a clue wants to install "secondary offers".
That's the point. Infosec professionals normally have a clue, and the general population in general does not. Desire isn't the problem, understanding the situation is.
Western intelligence has always overestimated foreign military capabilities and resources, particularly that of the Russian military.
One analyst presents a report that overestimates the foreign military capability, and one presents a report that underestimates it. A conflict occurs and one of the two is fired for not warning about technology that the adversary used that caused a lot of harm. Which of the two do you think got fired, and how do you think that will affect future reports by other analysts? The same problem exists in the Russian, Chinese, Indian, Israeli,... intelligence systems - the system promotes overestimating in the carrot/stick system. For some reason, people would prefer not to get fired.
It's what justifies their huge budgets.
No, it's what justifies their ability to keep their jobs.
If you have any more questions you can ask Darrell Issa who chairs the House Oversight Committee whose committee was investigating said fraud and reported the numbers given.
Seriously though: whether in Russia or in the USA, such an important agency, in charge of a large budget, is bound to generate fraud and shady dealings.
Sadly, the rule of thumb in the US government is they assume about 5-10% of a project's budget is lost to corruption/abuse/theft/fraud/etc., with it averaging about 7%. When you think about that the total US government annual budget is almost $4 trillion, that means they are estimated to loose around $300 billion each year (it was estimated to be $261 billion in 2012).
The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating...
That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.
In any criminal endeavor or breaking of the rules, there is always a risk of bing exposed which is part of the playing field, so the existence of such risk doesn't mean much. That is why people take steps to avoid being exposed, like destroying evidence such as hard disks.
If you were communicating with someone else for the purpose of coordinating the concealment of your involvement in a fiasco, or at least extent of it, then both parties have a great interest in making sure the communications never come to light. Clinton made sure to use a mail server she owned and controlled, so there was little risk of exposure on her end. Who she may have communicated with is now open to speculation, because of her decision to control the selection of which emails were released and then erase the disks so there was no possibility of a second review. Those are the actions of someone acting guilty, not a person with nothing to hide, and that is why this will haunt her. Elections are an exercise in public perception, and while finding incriminating emails would be very bad, what she has done appears to many to be almost as bad.
I agree that she would have an incentive to disclose any communication she had with someone she believed could have their emails discovered, but then she would have known that at the time such a cover-up may have occurred and emails sent so she would only have sent such emails to destinations she believed safe.
Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.
You would think that, but then Nixon knew he was being recorded yet participated in conversations in the Oval Office to conduct the Watergate cover-up. Sometimes people don't think. They get used to communicating in a certain way and don't think about the consequences. Unfortunately because she erased the disks we will probably never know.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection.
It is easier to believe the documented condition of the sun going quiet for a few hundred years was the major factor behind the cooling than it is to believe one or more volcanoes were going off constantly for a few hundred years creating an ash blanket over the Earth for the whole period and caused it.
I can't wait until this happens. CNN will spin off a whole channel for nonstop coverage.
Los Angeles had a minor earthquake some years ago. I think it was like a 4.0 or so, a truck rumble at best. CNN kept running a black-and-white surveillance video of a grocery story where absolutely nothing moved in the background. Nothing falling, nothing breaking, nothing anything. But CNN made it sound like the BIG ONE already happened and California was sliding into the Pacific Ocean.
I was in the San Francisco Bay Area for the World Series in 1989 during the earthquake that was about 7.0. While the shaking was scary, when you watched CNN, all you saw was a picture of one of the deck plates on the bay bridge that fell onto the one below, and some close up shots of some houses in San Francisco that had partially collapsed (they were build on fill in an area that used to be part of the bay so the ground liquefied). Based on what they showed and what they said, you would think that all of the major roads were impassable, the bridge itself had actually collapsed, and the area was like a war zone. The reality is I had to drive far out of my way to find any visible damage or effect beyond a few items that had fallen off shelves (and the baseball game being cancelled). What I saw on the news and what I saw out my hotel room window were two vastly different things.
What sells news is scary stuff, so they look for things that look scary and then push that like there is no tomorrow, or if necessary, they invent the scary stuff for the same reasons.
"Release recording with a Creative Commons license" and "Send postcards to every restaurant in the country", then "Profit"?
Not sure where the profit will come from. You just gave away the song, and spent a boat load of money sending all those postcards.
They don't publish every public record and have no intention of doing so.
Because doing so isn't free. It takes time and resources, which means money. If a full release plan were implemented, after the first release of something big that shouldn't have been released (opps, all those private tax returns were buried in some miscellaneous filings), a major double-check system would be put in place raising the costs even more. Taxpayers don't want to pay for things they don't feel directly benefit them, and this would be seen as spending a lot of money so that info only desired rarely is available, namely seen as a big waste. It would also open a major can of worms when people start processing all the info to find and monetize what may be in there, just like the websites today that get arrest records and mug shots and charge people to remove them.
There is a certain amount of anonymity that happens due to being lost in the crowd. Sure you could be identified if someone looked, but they have to look. Imagine if the government put cameras everywhere (some say you don't have to imagine) with public feeds (in this scenario the cameras are public so their feeds are too), don't be surprised when people start taking all of it, running various algorithms like facial recognition, then selling their results or promise to destroy undesirable results. If all government documents were directly accessible, I think we would see some major abuses happen, and then people would be scurrying to fix those problem they created, and pointing fingers to find whom to blame.
As the others say, this is a very pointed attack on FOIA requests.
I think it probably occurred to the powers that be that it could have the effect of reducing the number of FOIA requests since it reduces the way their use can be monetized, but I don't think it is a "very pointed attack on FOIA requests." I think as many others have already said, the data belongs to the public but most of the data the government has isn't released for cost reasons, since it hasn't been reviewed to determine if it is allowed to be released. Once the review has occurred and it is now confirmed the data is releasable (the main impediment to its release before), the public's data should be made available to the public. Do you disagree with that last sentence?
Think of it like a legal case where the public is being denied access to a section of a public forest for no good reason (in the opinion of one member of the public), and he sues to gain recreational access to the area. If he wins, does he get exclusive use of the area, and the rest of the public is still barred entry unless they bring their own lawsuits? No, the one legal victory would give access to everyone since it was just that no one had yet forced the issue to examine the reasons for access to be withheld.
One other interesting note - all the judges on the FISC are solely appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, without any confirmation or oversight by Congress required.
While Congress does not get any oversight of the appointing process itself, the Chief Justice can only appoint the judges from the pool of US District Court Judges. This means the judges on the FISA Court were first nominated by the President to become District Court Judges, and then confimed by the Senate, so there was some congressional oversight in terms of who could be appointed.
I don't know if all of the current judges were picked by John Roberts or not, ...
The FISA judges serve for seven years, and Roberts has been the Chief Justice since 2005, so yes, he picked all of the current judges.
As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?
Basically, no, since the laws deal with the intent of possessing the domain, so unless intent demonstrably changed from when it was first registered, this is just an attempt to shove a wedge into where the plaintiff thinks there may be a crack.
There are a few laws that can get involved, but the most important in the US is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
I haven't read it, but it appears the act lays out some guidelines, and among some defenses are "Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services" which should apply here. The act also lists actions that would indicate bad faith by the domain holder, like "Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location" and "Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site", but those don't appear to apply here. The fact the domain was renewed is not relevant to this law.
The other important "law" is by appealing to ICANN under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which unfortunately has historically been more fruitful to trademark owners when going after people legitimately using a domain that contains a trademarked name since it allows a person to complain that "a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights".
And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.
Not sure when the last time I saw barratry successfully claimed, but a counter claim for damages and legal fees based on the case being frivolous, yes, that is quite possible. I feel it is clear the plaintiff is pursuing this case, knowing it lacks legal standing, to coerce the domain holder into transferring it since they failed to acquire it through negotiation. The case shouldn't even reach the discovery phase; it should probably die from the first or second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (I'll say two since the judge will often reject aspects in the first on procedural grounds, but say why [like "motion didn't identify ..."], so the motion can be redrafted to meet the judge's requirements).
They are intentionally weakening the protections we use to keep ourselves safe.
No, the weaknesses were created by the AV vendors, not the NSA and GCHQ. Do you also object to other security researchers looking though code for weaknesses, and when they find something say they are weakening the software's security? (Unfortunately there are some companies that have tried that). The difference here is mainly in what is done with the knowledge once found, and what these organizations are doing with it is consistent with their missions. In the industry it is called equities, namely deciding what is in the nation's best interest, whether to reveal a flaw so it can be fixed, or keep it secret so it can be used against an adversary.
Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?
Stupid auto-correct. That should be Boalt Hall.
So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]
I highly doubt I know more than she about Swedish law, and never said I did, but then nothing I have said conflicts with what she has said either. She wants Assange to be interviewed before the pending expiration of the statute of limitations for some of the crimes of which he is suspected (note, only some of the statue of limitations expire soon) to better determine if he should be charged. She can have him charged even without an interview, but wants to get as many facts in hand as possible first. My statements regarding tolling are also still valid and correct.
blah blah fap fap
Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?
Privacy only matters when it's the privacy of people with power. So to get privacy for ourselves, we need to violate the privacy of people in power.
I think well publicized eavesdropping on important people's calls was a major reason why they made it illegal to listen to cordless phones and cell phones.
The NSA and GCHQ were doing their jobs!
That was essentially my thought. These organizations' charters include being able to attack adversaries if necessary, and they were looking into methods of attack. Where is the surprise? The technical arm of every other country's spy agencies are doing the exact same thing, though perhaps with less ability, so explain to me what about this is news?
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.
Personally, I think your ego needs a check. I responded to the person about how statute of limitations stops when a person flees the jurisdiction by citing the term ("tolling") to help explain what he said. Since you obviously haven't looked it up, Swedish law also tolls the statute of limitations, just like US law, but with a few differences. The issue here is that since Assange hasn't yet been charged, he technically hasn't fled the jurisdiction under Swedish law (this is a difference with US law which says it tolls for a potential crime if you leave and they can show that was a reason you left, not just after being charged). That is why the article mentions the statute of limitations issue. If Sweden were to charge him, which they still have the option of doing, then the statute would toll.
legal illiteracy ... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
I have formally studied law. Where did you get your legal training?
Honestly, with the speed they develop and certify critical software in the military, I'm surprised some of these systems are up to Windows XP.
The readers will be cheap..... it's only a matter of time before there are 3rd party agents who roam around operating the readers and catch the data for sale to insurance companies, PIs, and reporters as a subscription service.
Already done by at least one group.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Obviously those are fakes. You can tell by the fact that they show a lander on the moon. :-D
Sadly, that is how a conspiracy theorist actually thinks. In this case, NASA publishing photos from a probe orbiting the moon to prove NASA went to the moon 40 years ago will be labeled as the complicit organization just putting out more lies. These people will only believe something when it is put directly in front of them (sometimes not even then), and since they can't go to the moon to see these artifacts for themselves, you can't prove it to them, and any second-party proof you present will be dismissed as fake or lies. It is one of the tenets of how they make claims that within their requirements for "proof", the claim becomes non-falsifiable.
Now he's Asking a Secret Court to allow the Government to Break a Lawful Ruling that basically Affirmed that the Program was Unconstitutional.
WTF?
Not really break since the ruling is only binding on actions performed within the jurisdiction of that court's circuit, so legally the FISA court doesn't have to follow it, but each court tries to follow rulings by other courts unless they disagree with it. Obama is trying to convince them to disagree with it.
"Infosec professionals do not generally wish to install secondary offers."
WTF? Nobody with a clue wants to install "secondary offers".
That's the point. Infosec professionals normally have a clue, and the general population in general does not. Desire isn't the problem, understanding the situation is.
In fact, the article about these trolls, that I read earlier, contained lamentations about how bad their Russian is too...
For a job as an Internet Troll that would probably be counted as a benefit.
Wait, you think a user can give you permission to spam their friends and family?
Someone at Uber has been studying the LinkedIn business plan.
Western intelligence has always overestimated foreign military capabilities and resources, particularly that of the Russian military.
One analyst presents a report that overestimates the foreign military capability, and one presents a report that underestimates it. A conflict occurs and one of the two is fired for not warning about technology that the adversary used that caused a lot of harm. Which of the two do you think got fired, and how do you think that will affect future reports by other analysts? The same problem exists in the Russian, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, ... intelligence systems - the system promotes overestimating in the carrot/stick system. For some reason, people would prefer not to get fired.
It's what justifies their huge budgets.
No, it's what justifies their ability to keep their jobs.
I would love to see your evidence of this as the GAO would be out of a job if they left that much waste.
Have you heard of this thing called a search engine? You should try it.
Here is just one article that came up as the first result on Google: Federal government continues to lose billions to waste, fraud and abuse
If you have any more questions you can ask Darrell Issa who chairs the House Oversight Committee whose committee was investigating said fraud and reported the numbers given.
Seriously though: whether in Russia or in the USA, such an important agency, in charge of a large budget, is bound to generate fraud and shady dealings.
Sadly, the rule of thumb in the US government is they assume about 5-10% of a project's budget is lost to corruption/abuse/theft/fraud/etc., with it averaging about 7%. When you think about that the total US government annual budget is almost $4 trillion, that means they are estimated to loose around $300 billion each year (it was estimated to be $261 billion in 2012).
That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.
In any criminal endeavor or breaking of the rules, there is always a risk of bing exposed which is part of the playing field, so the existence of such risk doesn't mean much. That is why people take steps to avoid being exposed, like destroying evidence such as hard disks.
If you were communicating with someone else for the purpose of coordinating the concealment of your involvement in a fiasco, or at least extent of it, then both parties have a great interest in making sure the communications never come to light. Clinton made sure to use a mail server she owned and controlled, so there was little risk of exposure on her end. Who she may have communicated with is now open to speculation, because of her decision to control the selection of which emails were released and then erase the disks so there was no possibility of a second review. Those are the actions of someone acting guilty, not a person with nothing to hide, and that is why this will haunt her. Elections are an exercise in public perception, and while finding incriminating emails would be very bad, what she has done appears to many to be almost as bad.
I agree that she would have an incentive to disclose any communication she had with someone she believed could have their emails discovered, but then she would have known that at the time such a cover-up may have occurred and emails sent so she would only have sent such emails to destinations she believed safe.
Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.
You would think that, but then Nixon knew he was being recorded yet participated in conversations in the Oval Office to conduct the Watergate cover-up. Sometimes people don't think. They get used to communicating in a certain way and don't think about the consequences. Unfortunately because she erased the disks we will probably never know.