The Hillary Email Kerfluffle

[EricKei]

From PBS via the AP.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...llary-clinton/

Report sez she dun focked up. I really don't find that surprising.

What do you think?

[HYHYBT]

Same as I thought before reading that: not the best move on her part, but far from the scandal or disaster it's portrayed as.

[s_stabeler]

it's also notable that none of her predecessors were any better- indeed, it's more that she hasn't adapted to new guidance on information security. did she screw up? yes. does it mean she is any worse than any other candidate? no. (indeed, I wonder how secure Donald Trump's email is?)

[mjr]

it's also notable that none of her predecessors were any better- indeed, it's more that she hasn't adapted to new guidance on information security. did she screw up? yes. does it mean she is any worse than any other candidate? no. (indeed, I wonder how secure Donald Trump's email is?)

Well, right now Donald Trump isn't employed in a governmental capacity...

[s_stabeler]

irrelevant- business information can need to be kept confidential just as much as government information.

Oh, and it's also notable that politicians are notoriously crap at information security anyway- wasn't it only a couple of years ago that it turned out Angela Merkel wasn't using a secure mobile, and every single major spy agency except possibly her own had a tap on it?

In other words, a politician can't be bothered with information security procedures- tell us something new.

[Greenday]

Who cares what Trump's security is like? Unless he's discussed classified information over unsecured channels, it's not relevant.

She should be banned from ever dealing with classified information again. But because her last name is Clinton, she'll never get punished.

[s_stabeler]

um, Greenday, while I agree that by rights, any politician that breaches information security should be banned from dealing with classified info, it's not that she is a Clinton that she will probably get away with it. it's because she's a politician.

Oh, and my point is that if Trump's security is bad, then he would likely be just as bad at keeping classified information secure.


To be honest, though, my main issue with Trump regarding classified information is I can't be entirely sure that he wouldn't carelessly leak classified information to show off. (there's a reason why I disagree with government secrecy while condemning Wikileaks. Basically, there is some information that governments legitimately need to keep secret. Wikileaks would release the information regardless.

[BlaqueKatt]

um, Greenday, while I agree that by rights, any politician that breaches information security should be banned from dealing with classified info, it's not that she is a Clinton that she will probably get away with it. it's because she's a politician.

erm, her server was MORE SECURE than the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT SERVER.

this article pretty much discusses why it's been an issue, the rules/policies are very vague, and take up SIXTEEN VOLUMES, there's people who's job it is to read and know the rules because READING SIXTEEN VOLUMES is unreasonable for anyone.

"As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. "

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

She should be banned from ever dealing with classified information again. But because her last name is Clinton, she'll never get punished.

This is just a bad point.

I've worked in IT for decades and the fact of the matter is policies, mitigation techniques and attack vectors change hourly, not yearly. Most organizations at most have a referesher on their policies maybe every year? Most organizations policies don't cover every possible contingency. Ask a sufficiently nuanced security question and quite often in a large organization if you don't go to the top and you're going to get one response out of many possible.

Flatly if you're not technical, quite often you don't know jack about the security. Yes, please send your unencrypted SSN over the e-mail, it's totally secure! Because of that most people get a pass on this, not Clinton as special snowflake. The question in the real world would be, what was the exception (its why we call it exception reporting), how egregious was it, and what was the damage.

Interestingly in this case because the State Dept. was hacked and she wasn't, her actions mitigated damage. It's only on the political landscape that we're debating it. Really I'd argue that it's because it's Clinton we're even talking about it. But it's a boring argument. She really ought to start going Trump with it honestly.

Just say, "So?" and be done with it

[EricKei]

it's also notable that none of her predecessors were any better

Very true -- However, "But everyone else is doing it!" doesn't cut it for little kids, and it shouldn't for adults, especially those in security-sensitive positions...though, often, it seems to.

[s_stabeler]

my point was that it's not necessarily fair to criticise Clinton now for actions that at the time, were considered routine.

[TheHuckster]

My issue is not so much the fact of the emails themselves, but her continuous denial and lying about what she did. First it was that she didn't use private emails for official government business. That turned out to be a lie. Then it's that she didn't discuss any classified information in the emails. That also turned out to be a lie.

The more and more we just blindly blow off and forget politicians' lying about stuff like this, the worse and worse our politicians are going to get. And this isn't a Hillary Clinton issue, either. It's just another example of a systemic issue that has eroded all credibility and accountability with our politicians from top to bottom.

[s_stabeler]

that's sort of the point- Clinton is effectively being made a scapegoat for the wider issue of politicians being rubbish at information security procedures.

Should she be criticised for this? Yes.
Should it be acknowledged that she is far from the only politician to do this- meaning that it's an issue with politicians generally, not with her specifically? Also yes.

The issue is that the two situations require a different response. if Clinton was unusual in breaching information security procedures, then the appropriate response would be the end of her career in any form of executive role.However, since most politicians do it, the appropriate response is to tighten up enforcement of information security procedures.

[mjr]

The issue is that the two situations require a different response. if Clinton was unusual in breaching information security procedures, then the appropriate response would be the end of her career in any form of executive role.However, since most politicians do it, the appropriate response is to tighten up enforcement of information security procedures.

While it's true that "others did it", it's been publicized recently that those "others" were literally operating under a different set of rules than Clinton. The rules changed, and security got stricter. She then apparently violated the stricter rules.

It's like the NFL rule about catches. It doesn't matter what constituted a catch 10 years ago. It matters what constitutes a catch now.

[Estil]

Granted I don't support Hilary regardless as far as her political views go and I don't want to feel like joining the piling on regarding the email thing...but I hope she understands how dangerous it can be if she showed similar carelessness as POTUS.