Clinton's First Email Server Was a Power Mac Tower (arstechnica.com) 223
An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a domain hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server occurred the same month she exchanged messages with Powell. The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and network switching hardware in the basement of the Clintons' home. But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of selling the equipment off.
Wait... they can't tell the difference? (Score:3)
I could see being confused about the difference between a G3 and G4 tower if you're colorblind, but a G5? I mean, it was either grey plastic or it looked like a cheese grater....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more surprised the PPC Macintosh was bought in 2007.
The PPC Power Macs were superseded by the Intel Mac Pro in Aug 2006 and no longer sold.
Yep. Unless they got an old-stock discount on a Power Mac G5, it was probably a 1st generation Mac Pro.
We easily hosted 5000 highly active e-mail users on what was the equivalent of a Power Mac 7200/90...if a Power Mac G5/Mac Pro couldn't keep up, it was configured wrong...
But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling.. (Score:3)
"But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff..."
Seriously?
Re:But the Power Mac was having difficulty handlin (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Are you saying it couldn't handle Bubba's load? What, did they name the server "Monica"?
monica.clintonmail.com
"I'm sorry about your lack of e-mail communication with Bill, Mrs. Clinton. It seems monica went down again. We're working on it."
Re:But the Power Mac was having difficulty handlin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I find to be the biggest farce - the Big Ebil Russians hacked the DNC email server in a matter of weeks to swing the election to Trump, yet they left Hillary's private email server alone for YEARS. Otherwise, it would mean Hillary was an incompetent fool, and we can't have that...
Re: (Score:2)
The G5's where power hugs and when falling behind X86 badly at the time.
Re:But the Power Mac was having difficulty handlin (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm.... I have been running my own properly configured home based mail server for years and the load is negligible....
Used hardware? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how you _keep_ a couple hundred million in the bank.
Seriously, though. The state of official government hardware would HORRIFY anyone who's worked in the Silicon Valley. Five years out of date is the standard, ten years out of date is common. And in this instance it's not even official government hardware, which means corners cut from corners.
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, News For Nerds (Score:3)
Finally, news nerds actually care about. Now we can have the argument over whether Hillary Clinton should be barred from office for life for using a Mac or instantly sainted for using a Mac.
Here, I'll start the ball rolling. Ban her from office! Unclean!
Re: (Score:3)
She's history's greatest monster, but she hates systemd, so I'm really conflicted.
No surprise... (Score:2)
Gross Negligence and 18 USC 793 (Score:2, Insightful)
"Gross negligence" is defined as "such a gross want of care...as to justify the presumption of willfulness "
--Black's Law Dictionary 1185 (4th ed.1968), the definitive dictionary for the legal profession;
"Whoever, being entrusted with...any document...relating to the national defense...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
--18 U.S.C. 793(f);
"Although we did not find clear ev
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps she has Alzheimer's, that would be consistent with "I don't remember doing shit" and any judge would allow that as a valid defense.
Proves one thing about life vs the movies... (Score:2)
...In real life the bad guys (gal) can use a Mac.
Speculation by a "journalist" (Score:2)
We all know that journalism is a thing of the past, and this is a perfect example. The official report says NOTHING about a Power Mac. In 2007, Apple wasn't even selling Power Macs. Furthermore, the report says that the server was experiencing connectivity issues with BlackBerries, not that it couldn't handle the load. I see no mention of load issues in the official report.
Server software? (Score:2)
What server software was running on the Mac? EIMS? Sendmail?
(I have run EIMS for almost 20 years - too bad the developer decided to go in a different direction.)
Re:Server software? (Score:5, Informative)
OS X has had a Server "version" since the era described (10.3 or 10.4). So most likely cyrus/postfix.
And people think she is qualified to be CIC? (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/... [cnn.com]
Really? Read that, she is either lying or completely incompetent...
Selective memory (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
So Hillary remembers every word of a brief conversation she had with Powell eight years ago, but she can't remember with the "C" in Classified stands for? Sure.
Except... (Score:3)
Source: CNN [cnn.com]
Then again, who are you going to believe, Powell or Clinton?
Due process (Score:2)
I think Hillary was treated fairly by the FBI director. The problem is we should all be treated like this, with due process. Instead the way it works for us normal people is the states attorney charges us will a million trumped up things as a way to get leverage over us to plea bargain.
Re:Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To determine if it was a criminal offense.
The FBI doesn't investigate "crimes", they investigate incidents to see if they maybe were crimes.
It isn't a crime until there is a criminal conviction. If you shoot someone, the police will investigate. If their investigation determines that the evidence points to justifiable homicide, then *no crime has been committed*.
Unfortunately, that example will make more sense if you happen to be black.
Re: (Score:2)
this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
I disagree. They're investigating a possible crime.
Re:Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because at the time she did this is was against State Department internal regulations, but not a criminal offense.
You only put people in jail for criminal offenses that have jail as punishment codified in the law, and even then jail is usually only one of many options available as punishment.
Unless you really don't like somebody.
Then even the smallest transgression is apparently worthy of jail time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If only the paid shills could get their facts straight.
The FBI has said just the opposite, repeatedly, they've simply hidden behind the "we didn't find any intent" smokescreen (intent is not required for several of the statutes she violated).
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
She didn't tell any lies about the server. She didn't know details any more than a major corporation CEO knows what actual physical server their mail runs on.
She has enough plausible deniability and can answer with enough vagueness to not be chargeable.
"That is what the people who run the thing told me."
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "I don't remember getting a briefing" is such colossal bullshit. Those briefings are required by law *annually*, not just once. And she would have gotten a separate briefing when she got her clearance, and any time it was upgraded.
She understands the difference. She thinks she is above all that. Rules, like taxes, are for little people.
I've maintained a clearance for the DOE, (Score:2)
and there is constant compliance crap that *everyone* has to do. Loads of web quizzes and regular, mandatory seminars. Can't imagine DOD doesn't have the same sort of compliance stuff.
Employees != Elected/Appointed Officials (Score:2, Informative)
"there is constant compliance crap that *all employees* have to do" - FTFY
The rules for government employees and contractors are different from the rules for elected officials and appointees. If an employee sexually harasses someone, there are consequences, including being put into a new job, training, and the threat of firing. If an elected official or appointee sexually harasses someone, they can't be fired because they weren't actually hired. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2012/dec/02/
Re: (Score:2)
Appointed Officials are required to comply with FISMA at the very least, which means annual Security & Privacy Awareness Training.
As the person responsible for overseeing this in a Federal Executive Branch Agency, I can tell you first hand that they are required to take the training and, if they don't complete it, will lose access to the Agency IT network.
Been there, pulled the plug myself on a couple. Most know they're required and just take the training without any issues at all.
I can't speak to haras
Re: (Score:2)
I vaguely recall someone talking about how much trouble it was for Bill Clinton to get his clearance. Apparently he had quite the history that would make us mere mortals be denied but this was POTUS and he cannot be denied. What they had to do was document everything, make up excuses on why such things would not be grounds to deny, and then hope no one looks too close later.
When I had to get my clearance I had troubles not because I had any interactions with law enforcement or such but because I moved aro
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm.... That's because she clearly is above the law.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point, what does it matter?
I mean, the whole point of the Benghazi damage control lies was that she did it because the attack HAPPENED THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION and some short term lies were necessary to prevent a severe October Surprise event. Yet nobody, even the opposition, stresses this time sensitive narrative in their analysis of the matter. Nobody discusses that the lies threw the re-election of the president.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really disagree with your overall conclusions, but Benghazi happened on September 11th. US federal elections are the first Tuesday after November 1st - almost two months later.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, she had no real first-hand knowledge of the server setup other than it was in her basement and handled her e-mail. The rest is typical VIP know nothing blather.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data.
The difference is that at a high level the state department is dealing with a crapload of data and it's not obvious whether it's classified or not.
Did that information come from source X? Well then it's classified. But from Y, well then it's not classified. Only parts A-C are classified, but D is fair game. Someone is calling Z classified but it's in a newspaper article, etc, etc.
Maybe you could make a system that makes it easy but that system apparently doesn't exist. And you could treat everything as classified but then nothing would ever get done.
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution. While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
I also served in the military, and afterwards, worked for a defense contractor. The S2 would occasionally conduct sweeps looking for classified info, in files, offices, desks, drawers, etc. They always found violations. The result was usually a verbal or written reprimand. I never saw anyone go to prison, or even lose their job.
Disclaimer: I am planning to vote for Gary Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
That would be a more convincing argument if someone ever had been in jail for something similar.
The government isn't likely to let the public know of incidents of classified data mishandling or their resolutution.
Why not? They're not going to tell the public the classified data, and they may even be vague about the specific exposure, but they're sure as hell going to say
"John Doe left a classified briefing on his dashboard and now he's doing 20 years of hard time!!"
While in the military and while working as a contractor, I was informed that mishandling of classified information can lead to long terms of incarceration.
Lots of things can happen, the question is whether they do happen.
The military has every reason to make you think the slightest screw up will land you in jail, that's the way to make you a lot more careful and avoid screw ups.
But it's a scare speech, no o
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Why don't you try getting a classified job (at a far lower level than HRC), send work information over Facebook, and then try the "aww, shucks, who could have known" line at the DOJ when they're threatening you with twenty years in prison for mishandling classified data. Bonus points if you do it in your best Goofy impression.
Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance [navytimes.com] on the subject [washingtonpost.com] is not [thepoliticalinsider.com] our problem.
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your ignorance [navytimes.com]
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.
So no, not a comparable incident.
subject [washingtonpost.com]
Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.
Not a remotely comparable incident.
not [thepoliticalinsider.com] our problem.
Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".
This should be good for a laugh.
1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”
Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.
2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”
Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.
3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.
So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.
4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”
Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?
I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.
This one was actually hilarious:
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”
Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!
Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
Re: (Score:2)
So, how much is Soros paying you to shill for Hillary?
Not a damn dime.
I just get really pissed off when everyone buys into a bullshit narrative and I refuse to let the bullshit artists dominate the conversation.
Seriously, the paranoia over paid shills to comment on message boards is kinda stupid anyway. The last thing Soros or any political actor would want is some idiot they were paying $10/hr to post on a /. message board to say something outrageous and have it traced back to them.
And even if they did pay a few there's already hundreds of thousands of people
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck's sake, how obtuse do you have to be to deny all of the examples that have popped up over the years? Google it, you lazy prick.
I've heard the same argument for the Bigfoot.
There's so many stories! So much evidence!
Yet weirdly enough no one can ever find a single example that holds up to scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Exact same arguments we get for AGW. So much evidence!
It's actually a cool way to look at it because it doesn't apply to AGW.
"Bigfoot proponent: I have a bigfoot footpint here!
Scientists: Nope, that's a bear print.
Bigfoot proponent: Well then I have a bigfoot hair!
Scientist: Nope, still a bear.
Bigfoot proponent: I have a video of a bigfoot!
Scientist: Nope, we can see it's a guy in a suit.
"
But see how it applies to AGW
"Skeptic: AGW doesn't exist because study A is wrong.
Scientists: Yeah, it does have shortcomings, study B is a much better look at that topic.
Ske
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to do something other than split hairs take a look at the Clinton foundation, Pfizers's dealings with them especially.
Re: (Score:2)
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Separate from what she did, the classification system is broke in many ways. Stuff gets over classified, classified differently in different agencies, and get classified after the fact. I can see someone not realizing something should be classified. Aggregate unclassified data can become classified. Even the First Law of Thermodynamics is Confidential or at least was a while ago in parts of the Navy.
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, you know where the fucking server was don't you, push comes to shove, drop it in the bath to kill it, not by fucking accident (what sane network admin puts a essential government server in a fucking bathroom). Only the criminally corrupt or the insane would claim the server was there for any other reason than to hide those communications from the rest of government, specifically the FBI because the NSA already new exactly what was going on and unlike the bullshit story being put out, have a f
Re: (Score:2)
If only she had an Ollie North to take the fall...
Re: (Score:2)
It would be, but the FBI does not believe she lied to them. Comey said exactly that during his House testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if the entire US government shouldn't be in jail.
That would require changing laws. The people responsible for the current situation are also the beneficiaries and the ones that have the power to change things. There are too many stupid people in this country for enough of them to ever see a problem with this.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
Health comments is Faux News BS
No, he's referring to the FBI's own notes from the interview. I know, you don't want that to have happened, but it did.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like e
Re: (Score:3)
The real fear. (Score:3)
The real fear about Trump isn't that he would *be* president, but that he would abuse the *power* of the presidency.
The real fear is that now that we've allowed unchecked expansion of the powers of the presidency for decades, we're worried about it being abused.
The real answer is to use the system of checks and balances to limit the power of the presidency.
Having the obnoxious, hated, vilified Trump in office would in fact, be the greatest incentive for the judiciary and the legislative branches of the gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it seems like we do.
What politician out there is advocating for limiting executive power? What judiciary or legislative branch is holding the executive to account? What mainstream news organization is investigating and exposing the corruption and deceit of the executive?
Imagine for a moment, King John *wasn't* a prick, and we *didn't* get the Magna Carta, and simply lived under arbitrary executive power?
Re: (Score:2)
We'd all be serfs. Modern society would not have happened.
Russian history is a good place to look for arbitrary executive power. Contemporary Russia is heading that way too.
Just about everything "modern" in Russian history was an import since arbitrary executive power tends to stifle everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been asleep? Obama couldn't even close GITMO without being blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been asleep? Obama just let the terrorists out of gitmo. Who needs to close a prison when you can just let the prisoners go?
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that you're mentioning a trivial block he worked around, and that during his reign he has unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the presidency, and abused those powers, without any consequence from either the legislature, judiciary, or the press.
Checks and balances are important, as you pointed out - otherwise, we'll eventually all be serfs.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the judiciary has declared some things that Obama did to be unconstitutional and shot them down.
Recent ones I remember:
Parts of the "Affordable Care Act" have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Executive Orders to change deportation of illegal immigrants were also overturned as unconstitutional overreach.
I am sure there were more, but that is all I have off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If he were running for Congress, you'd have a point, but this is the POTUS job we're talking about. It has little to do with political science and everything to do with serving as an executive in charge of a colossal staff, coupled with being the head of the military and schmoozing politicians. Fortunately, there are solid people at the top of the military, so the POTUS can get good advice and doesn't need to be a military strategist (most aren't). So that leaves running the executive branch and schmooz
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but then the VP candidate would become president, and we'd almost certainly be no worse off, regardless of which ham sandwich won.
Re: (Score:2)
Over age 35, natural born US citizen, resident of the US for 14+ years? Yup, I think he's qualified... at least according to the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing being 16 may prevent such a person from entering into contracts on behalf of the company... so no.
Except most people have different definitions of what it means to be qualified.
To some, Clinton''s marrying who she did, her time in office becau
Re:It was unequivocally a criminal offense (Score:5, Insightful)
Intent is not necessary to violate 18 U.S. Code 793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Re: (Score:2)
And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:
Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for yea
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damag
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's simply not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
104 is not a handful.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particu
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
Finally, we can talk about process and
Re: (Score:2)
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
How about failing a security audit dramatically?
Re: (Score:2)
"gross negligence" != "extreme carelessness". As the FBI specifically said. One is a legal term, with specific criteria, and the other is colloquial.
Gross negligence requires some aspect of voluntary and conscious disregard, usually, by the way. Which means she has to have known some specific information was classified when she sent it, and known that she should not be doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
See: http://scholarship.law.marquet... [marquette.edu]
And also: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi... [jmls.edu]
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
By
Re: (Score:2)
The act of creating the server was disconnected from any act of sending mail, in time, and in mind. She didn't even create the server, after all. That happened in like, 2007.
Re: (Score:2)
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Rice didn't even use e-mail, and Powell is the reason State has modern email infrastructure; he made it a priority to get State into the information age.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an asshole isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't she in jail???
Because using a Mac, though unwise, is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have to indict her and then prove your charges in front of a jury?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of presidents should have been in jail, why weren't they? Seriously, she's doing nothing worse or better than any of the presidents in my lifetime. If we're going to jail her then we should jail quite a lot of people. The reason people are focusing on her is partisanship otherwise they'd notice how badly behaved their own heros are.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, she isn't actually President, just a candidate for the office...
Re: (Score:2)
Here's [cbsnews.com] a list of Obama's "Top Priorities" from 2010 - just two short years into his Presidency - a current list would be quite longer...
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
Just looking at your comment I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
--
Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing its organizer.
But your sig makes me think it's unintentionally ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been clintonh@state.gov. Because Gov't e-mail addresses are easily guessable, many appointed heads of Agencies have multiple different e-mail addresses. The one that follows Agency guidelines on naming -- which is a giant cesspool of spam and rants from anyone who can guess the e-mail scheme -- and one that is used to get actual work done.
And honestly, most of the people in State were probably using Outlook, which just hid it behind the simple name of "Hillary Clinton" and didn't display the a