USA Politics

It is amazing to me that anyone can think the reason she set up her email this way was for any reason except to dodge public records acts




Freedom of Information Act expert: Clinton's email system 'laughable'


A top freedom-of-information expert isn’t buying Hillary Clinton’s explanation of why she set up her own email system to conduct official State Department business, calling it “laughable.”

Daniel Metcalfe, who advised White House administrations on interpreting the Freedom of Information Act from 1981 to 2007, told The Canadian Press that the former secretary of state acted “contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law.”

“There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” he said, reviewing a transcript of Clinton’s remarks during her Tuesday news conference. Clinton told reporters she deleted approximately 30,000 personal emails from her private account that she also used as secretary of state.

The FOIA expert said if he had heard of a Cabinet member setting up a personal email system and deciding what gets deleted and what gets kept as government record, “I would’ve said, ‘You’ve gotta be kidding me.’”

“You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA,” he said. “Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”’
Metcalfe said that Clinton knows how the Freedom of Information Act works, based on his work with the Clinton administration in his professional capacity.
According to the Canadian Press report, Metcalfe said Clinton’s statements at the news conference were at places impossible to verify, “deceptive” and “grossly misleading.”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable,” he said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3UAzseTCA
 
bearfan said:
It is amazing to me that anyone can think the reason she set up her email this way was for any reason except to dodge public records acts
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think she set it up that way to dodge public records acts. I think she set it up that way because she's a Clinton, fuck you.
 
People like her are making decisions and laws on internet and digital communications, worldwide. These people do not know basic things about computers, let alone network-of-all-networks. And they even choose to do completely opposite than they were told by IT/security staff. I'm sure that nobody at White House tech staff or wherever told her it's ok to use a non-secure private email service for business communication.

21st century. What she did, in 21st century carries same weight like if she was in 1985 and decided to print a number of confidential gov't documents, to leave them on a park bench.
 
Zare said:
People like her are making decisions and laws on internet and digital communications, worldwide. These people do not know basic things about computers, let alone network-of-all-networks. And they even choose to do completely opposite than they were told by IT/security staff. I'm sure that nobody at White House tech staff or wherever told her it's ok to use a non-secure private email service for business communication.

21st century. What she did, in 21st century carries same weight like if she was in 1985 and decided to print a number of confidential gov't documents, to leave them on a park bench.
Click to expand...

There was the memo with her name on it specifically telling state department employees not to do what she did. The Clinton family has plenty of experience with subpoenas and they know what falls under that umbrella. Part of the reason Bill says he has only sent 2 emails in his entire life.
 
Even worse, then. She probably didn't even read that memo, let alone write it.
I bet she did it for her convenience. I'm sure that remote access (work from home), if there's even one, requires a "lenghty" procedure with security tokens and VPN and such. There's no Whitehouse.gov webmail on internet.
 
It is more convenient to set up an email server in your home than use an address already provided to you ... or even a Gmail type account?
 
No, if you can access already provided address from public internet. I'm pretty much sure that @whitehouse.gov is not accessible from public internet. If it's even possible to access gov't internal network from public internet, it would require tunnelling with encryption where your computer at home gets an intranet address and it's able to access some of all intranet services like you're physically on-site, connected to your workplace network. That procedure requires, at least one additional complex password. Security-aware businesses may use two or three factor authentication with secure tokens, requiring yet more additional passwords, keys or PINs. Who knows what your government uses, and if that kind of access (VPN) to white house "domain" is even possible.

What I'm trying to say - I think that our dear lady figured out that remote access procedure is too much of a hassle and decided to go around it. Use a medium that's easily accessible from anywhere, like her webmail service, to access these documents.
 
Zare said:
No, if you can access already provided address from public internet. I'm pretty much sure that @whitehouse.gov is not accessible from public internet. If it's even possible to access gov't internal network from public internet, it would require tunnelling with encryption where your computer at home gets an intranet address and it's able to access some of all intranet services like you're physically on-site, connected to your workplace network. That procedure requires, at least one additional complex password. Security-aware businesses may use two or three factor authentication with secure tokens, requiring yet more additional passwords, keys or PINs. Who knows what your government uses, and if that kind of access (VPN) to white house "domain" is even possible.

What I'm trying to say - I think that our dear lady figured out that remote access procedure is too much of a hassle and decided to go around it. Use a medium that's easily accessible from anywhere, like her webmail service, to access these documents.
Click to expand...


That is not the case at all. This was state department ... so not whitehouse.gov. this has to do with her tenure as secretary of state ... not first lady


She had the option of doing what it seems like the rest of the leadership did and what her successor did. Namely get a device .. in their case a blackberry ... all set up and ready to roll.

Her options were 1) press the on button. 2) set up a mail server in her house.

Keeping in mind the account was used to conduct official busines for the state department. Which is why things like two factor authentication having safeguards of a mobile device is stolen/lost why the mail server is backed up, why for historical reasons it is archied are all really good things

Her excuse was she did not want to carry two devices, one for personal use and one for business ... setting aside most devices allow 2 mail accounts ... that is a lame excuse to skirt around the freedom of information act, and department policy


Especially when you are head of the department
 
bearfan said:
Her excuse was she did not want to carry two devices, one for personal use and one for business ... setting aside most devices allow 2 mail accounts ...
Click to expand...
Most government entities don't let you mix a personal device and a work device, at least in Canada. My dad, for example, was allowed a government-issued Blackberry on which he could do limited personal connectivity (such as send email from his forces.gc.ca account) but he was not allowed to text, set up a gmail account, visit websites on it, etc. It wasn't allowed to connect to wifi, either.
 
LooseCannon said:
Most government entities don't let you mix a personal device and a work device, at least in Canada. My dad, for example, was allowed a government-issued Blackberry on which he could do limited personal connectivity (such as send email from his forces.gc.ca account) but he was not allowed to text, set up a gmail account, visit websites on it, etc. It wasn't allowed to connect to wifi, either.
Click to expand...
I am guessing they would not let him set up a mail server in his living room and conduct official business on that either using a device that he bought himself

The work around to all that is have 2 phones. I had to do that for a while. Work phone and personal phone. There is software now ... mobile iron as an example m.. that can partition your phone, so now I am down to one device
 
bearfan said:
I am guessing they would not let him set up a mail server in his living room and conduct official business on that either using a device that he bought himself
Click to expand...
Not saying that the way Hillary did it was right, merely saying that it's a reasonable thing to be annoyed with.

When you're ancient.
 
Or when you are having a run up to a campaign and want to control what get to the public, freedom of information act be damned. Do you really think it is right that she (her team really) decides what is "official mail" and what is not, what is deleted and what is not?
 
bearfan said:
Do you really think it is right that she (her team really) decides what is "official mail" and what is not, what is deleted and what is not?
Click to expand...
Right? No. Of course not. I think it's a very Clinton thing to do, however, and that she is using very Clinton excuses to get out of it.
 
@bearfan I generally presumed what she did. I'm not versed in details of USA politics so whitehouse.gov or state.gov is same to me - both are US government infrastructure. But nevertheless, my conclusion is that she bypassed security for convenience and that's what I believe happened here.

She didn't set up a mail server at her house, if we're still talking about domain clintonemail.com , it's hosted by "Network Solutions" , with mail exchanger record pointing to clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogicmx.net , again addressed in Network Solutions allocated IP range. It might be even more secure if she housed it at home, though. Her domain isn't hosted on dedicated server, it's a shared setup (virtual hosts), and the same machine is serving a number of other domains, even porn. So an attack vector through any of other hosted sites could compromise her "server" too.

Blackberry isn't secure and any private-hosted physical infrastructure isn't secure for government use. You need military-grade standards for that. Sorry, security does not come cheap.

But the story isn't technical discussion, she bypassed tight security rules she signed herself and should hang for it.
 
She (and not really she, whoever she hired) did set it up at her house. That is what she said and what was disclosed. The physical machine is/was located in her home. during the time in question. It could have moved at a later date.

"She said the physical server was on her personal property, guarded by the Secret Service"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/qa-hillary-clinton-addresses-email-concerns/

These are her answers, the original article I posted at the top of pg 238 from Daniel Metcalfe, who advised White House administrations on interpreting the Freedom of Information Act from 1981 to 2007, disputes some of her claims.



Rightly or wrongly, many us government uses Blackberry devices, which is what Hillary said she used for doing official business.

But, I think you are missing a key point that part of the purpose of using official email is to have a record of communications in part as a check on government officials,, in part for a historical record, and in part for security. She took all those parts in her hands and unilaterally decided what was to be preserved and what was to be deleted.

That is very troubling and goes completely against the ideal of government openness and the right of the public
 
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-romney-didnt-run-2016

A shame he isn't running. Of all the Republicans, I still think he'd make the best president. Also this gem:

Mittens said:
As for presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Romney called the former Secretary of State’s email controversy “a mess.”

“It’s always something with the Clintons. They have rules which they describe before they get into something and then they decide they don’t have to follow their own rules and that, I think is gonna be a real problem for her,” Romney said.
Click to expand...

This is what's infuriating about the Clintons. What's incredible about them is how the manage to keep getting out of the trouble they get themselves into.
 
There are important things going on in America. I can't stay silent about it. In fact, I am very angry about so much injustice. I just need to voice that anger. I do that by saying something and sharing links with info and sharp commentary. This is a subject that deserves some sharp commentary. Everybody wake up and see what's going on in the United States.

Anger Boils Over in North Charleston After Walter Scott Shooting

Walter Scott death: Bystander who recorded cop shooting speaks out:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...ed-walter-scott-being-shot-speaks-out-n338126

1000.jpg


Walter Scott's shooting wasn't just a coincidence. America was built on racism
My nine year-old, Kofi, told me recently about a conversation he had with a white friend, who said: “I get really nervous talking about race because I don’t want to say anything racist.” To which my son responded: “It’s not that hard if you’re not racist.”

It’s not hard to avoid saying racist things; it’s even less difficult to understand that while my son’s friend worries about saying something racist, my son worries about being shot because someone is racist.
Click to expand...

This is great commentary:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=418823201629005
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top