Indifference and ignorance: Delving deep into the Clinton e-mail saga

Clinton wasn't alone in mishandling communications, classified data.

Read the whole story

 

[Vinceslayer]

...because other people did it too...

This does not lessen the absolute stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, shadiness, and possibly nefariousness of her actions. Anyone who does something like this should have, at a minimum, security clearance revoked for life.

 

[THavoc]

In order to have an intelligent conversation about Clinton’s e-mails, here is a technical analysis of the evidence as it has been presented (think of it like a print version of Congressional hearings, minus screaming, finger-pointing, and grandstanding).

I seriously doubt this is even remotely possible during an election year.

 

[Isahaya]

Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

 

[F22Rapture]

THavoc[/url]":3hcoxr1v]

In order to have an intelligent conversation about Clinton’s e-mails, here is a technical analysis of the evidence as it has been presented (think of it like a print version of Congressional hearings, minus screaming, finger-pointing, and grandstanding).

I seriously doubt this is even remotely possible during an election year.

It's not possible between election years either. That's why the investigations into Benghazi have been longer and more expensive than the investigations into both Watergate and 9/11 (individually).

 

[Acert93]

Vinceslayer[/url]":utrg2j6d]...because other people did it too...

This does not lessen the absolute stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, shadiness, and possibly nefariousness of her actions. Anyone who does something like this should have, at a minimum, security clearance revoked for life.

Come on now, it isn't like she was the boss and the one responsible for the proper operation of her department.

 

[Snark218]

Isahaya[/url]":tnm8uzis]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

 

[calson33]

This sounds a lot like something I have seen in many companies - An inflexible/incompetent IT team that pushes non-IT people to use insecure outside solutions just to get their job done.

 

[mycroftxxx]

it is also very clear from context that keeping her email as far away from FOIA as possible was a major driver in the personal server situation.

 

[brionl]

calson33[/url]":k726jx9n]This sounds a lot like something I have seen in many companies - An inflexible/incompetent IT team that pushes non-IT people to use insecure outside solutions just to get their job done.

More like a cheap-ass solution mandated by the bean counters with the IT schmucks told to make it work for the bosses and leave the peons to suck it up.

 

[Steveha7]

I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

 

[Peldor]

Steveha7[/url]":2hp3zxkb]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is also a terrible way to judge whether the law is being applied correctly. The FBI understands the relevant law far better than the public.

 

[arslongavitabrevis]

Steveha7[/url]":3jccx3s3]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

 

[philipwhiuk]

Ironically, Scott Gration, an ambassador to Kenya, was forced to resign for doing essentially the same thing in 2012, while Clinton was using her own personal server.

What's the irony?

Ironically, at about the same time that the NSA's security organization was denying Clinton a secure device, their colleagues on the signals intelligence side were allegedly spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel's personal cell phone.

Ditto?

This is not irony.

In the first, the ambassador is never mentioned before. It's not irony, it's merely coincidental. In the second, it's not related. Had Clinton not being trying to use it for secure communications it would have been a non-issue.

 

[microlith]

mycroftxxx[/url]":ycwmkkft]it is also very clear from context that keeping her email as far away from FOIA as possible was a major driver in the personal server situation.

Which is an assertion being made, but utterly lacking in support.

 

[Fstchvy]

Steveha7[/url]":23lhhnip]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Or that just because someone else got away with it, you should get away with it too.

 

[bluloo]

Nice article. Lots of detail.

IMO, the takeaway, moving forward, should be the abysmal e-security in our diplomatic service(s).

 

[THavoc]

microlith[/url]":174cmh31]

mycroftxxx[/url]":174cmh31]it is also very clear from context that keeping her email as far away from FOIA as possible was a major driver in the personal server situation.

Which is an assertion being made, but utterly lacking in support.

I don't recall the FBI Director even remotely mentioning FOIA.

 

[Annihilator_X9]

What I take from this article is that the whole friggen' system needs an overhaul to accommodate for today's technology. Being that it's the government though, it'll lag years behind everyone else.

The whole issue as I see it, is that Secretary Clinton ignored the rules for convenience. Everyone does this to an extent so I can't completely blame her, but none-the-less, she shouldn't have done it.

 

[Blitzenn]

Vinceslayer[/url]":3dia6s1l]...because other people did it too...

This does not lessen the absolute stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, shadiness, and possibly nefariousness of her actions. Anyone who does something like this should have, at a minimum, security clearance revoked for life.

Did you read the article? (No). So you drive down a road that has no posted speed limit and everyone else is driving 55 mph. So you drive 55 mph. Later you learn the speed limit is/was 35. Should your driving privileges be revoked for life?

The article clearly states that this 'condition' that caused this to happen was due to a number of factors, including predecessors doing the same (or even worse) things. On top of that, everyone in a position to stop or correct it was afraid to say anything. Nothing was ever done or said until one of the involved parties choose to run for high office. I am glad it came to light so it can be fixed, but to place all of the blame on one person is clearly folly. Especially if you read the article.

 

[Devin]

Acert93[/url]":2hv06gxf]

Vinceslayer[/url]":2hv06gxf]...because other people did it too...

This does not lessen the absolute stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, shadiness, and possibly nefariousness of her actions. Anyone who does something like this should have, at a minimum, security clearance revoked for life.

Come on now, it isn't like she was the boss and the one responsible for the proper operation of her department.

The buck stops (w)here?

 

[JBforum]

Steveha7[/url]":ya5oy9x3]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Point?

It is like running someone over with a car VS running over someone with a car on purpose.

Two different things.

 

[arcite]

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these damn emails! ---said some old guy.

 

[mltdwn]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":2qutadur]

Steveha7[/url]":2qutadur]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

 

[Fstchvy]

JBforum[/url]":31xutc7d]

Steveha7[/url]":31xutc7d]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Point?

It is like running someone over with a car VS running over someone with a car on purpose.

Two different things.

Both end with legal implications. Different charges, but they still have very real legal consequences. But queen Clinton gets to walk free because she is part of the political elite and not subject to the laws of us peasants.

 

[siddrajput]

Very careless Hillary.

 

[danstl]

The crazy thing about all of this is that it appears that at least some (though it may be most or all) the "classified messages" were sent from another individual using a non-secure channel in the first place... SO it would make sense that the someone in Hillary's positiion would assume that it was not classified. AS classified info was sent to through the secured internal communication channels. In retrospect it is easy to see that someone marked something with a this was classified, BUT the email being sent to a non-secure system from another non-secure system was in clear violation of the policies in place in the first place.

This entire thing is a mess, and I would have to imagine the biggest reason for not prosecuting and or digging further into who originally sent some of these messages (as talked about by Comey) is simply the sweater thread effect... If you pull this string the fall-out could be massive. It was not just Clinton that was breaking with policy, but lots of people, and this crosses party lines as well, it most likely is still happening (people using personal accounts to send something that should have been sent only through secure channels). It is simply the downside to having technology at our fingertips.

The only good solution moving forward (IMO) would be to get mobile devices and or other ways for people that are very mobile to be able to access the information they need, when they need it. We live in a age where minutes if not seconds can be determining factors, and being able to only access information of high level from one location is inadequate for someone that is continually traveling outside of the country to our embassies around the world...

 

[Arsification]

Where are the "Here are the launch codes, Comrade" emails?

 

[passive0]

One point that is mentioned, but I feel deserves greater emphasis:

The State Department's e-mail system and network have been repeatedly hacked in the last four years, including intrusions by attackers from Russia, China, and Iran

From everything I've read, these emails were better off on Clinton's server. Not saying that means it was the right way to address the situation, but from an absolute perspective, it seems like there's a demonstrable good to it, while any bad effects are just speculation. As an IT Professional who deals with poorly secured system every day, that's a pretty reasonable outcome.

 

[ryanb]

mltdwn[/url]":2bo0hhzw]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":2bo0hhzw]

Steveha7[/url]":2bo0hhzw]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

You really really want it to be so but even you say "pretty much" which is - to say - not definitely. Definitely is what would be needed as proof.

She had to know the contents were classified - and by the investigators own admission she really had no reason to think at the time they were.

The State Dept apparently has atrocious IT rules and systems - downright medieval by today's standards - and she like many before her went around it to get her job done more efficiently.

Was it the best decision in retrospect? Maybe not?

Honestly it seems to have created more political noise than any actual harm anybody has been able to point to. She may even consider this political noise because nobody can find anything more on her to scream about. And let's be honest in an election the other side needs something to scream about.

No one has screamed about the ones who came before her and the corners they cut. While that doesn't negate her doing it - it does provide some context about the amount of noise we're raising. If nobody else has ever been prosecuted and burned in effigy over the same conduct why is this something we need to take a stand on right now?

Because she's a Clinton or running for president? Both? It sucks. Let's not put any of them in prison, get mad at the NSA and IT people that were basically asleep at the wheel and fix it. I don't see what's to be gained by any more of this...

 

[Ser Dood]

passive0[/url]":1yhwprle]One point that is mentioned, but I feel deserves greater emphasis:

The State Department's e-mail system and network have been repeatedly hacked in the last four years, including intrusions by attackers from Russia, China, and Iran

From everything I've read, these emails were better off on Clinton's server. Not saying that means it was the right way to address the situation, but from an absolute perspective, it seems like there's a demonstrable good to it, while any bad effects are just speculation. As an IT Professional who deals with poorly secured system every day, that's a pretty reasonable outcome.

Do the poorly secured systems you work with daily, ever get better?