Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
But, eh... not sure if anything will come out of this.
*shrugs*
Unless... Clinton can't produce emails from a certain time period for the Select Committee... that ends in "azi".
Then... things might get interesting.
I agree that using a private email account to circumvent transparency in governance is wrong, but I think it only really achieves the goal of avoiding transparency if Hillary used her private email account to discuss official govt buisness with another person via that other person's private email account. If say, Hillary wrote an email on her private account to the Secretary of Defense's official govt email account then that email would be saved on the govt server and be available for public record from the Secretary of Defense's govt account.
Govt officials doing the people's business off the record is bad for a whole host of reasons but it's also niave to believe that it hasn't always happened since the dawn of time. Backroom deals happened all the time long before there was email or phones or any media reports beyond a few newpapers and pamphlets.
Personally, the only aspect of this that bothers me is the blatant arrogance of it. If a politician wants to have a private email address to use however they see fit, even to do backroom govt deals then that politician should at least have the decency to keep that email address private. In this instance Hillary used her private email for both official and unofficial emails which basically lets her decide which emails she gets from foreign leaders, other US politicians, donors, special interest groups, whomever, on that account are official and need to be saved and disclosed to the public record and which are personal and can be kept private. She's basically putting herself above the law which casts her in a haughty and unpleasant light.
There's also an aspect many folks are missing.
If I were a foreign operative, I'd be very interested in *if* HRC@yahoo.com is hackable.
It's a huge security risk.
Frankly, the laws need to be updated that ALL high-level government personnel are forbidden to use private emails while in office/employed. Not just to forcibly make the users comply with Archive laws, but to ensure security as well.
They did when they're couldn't get a quorum to actually vote for a bill+prohibition on O's EO.
The GOP won't honestly debate any Democrat Amendments to the DHS bill, despite what McConnell says, because the GOP is more interested in the riders going against Obama's EO than funding DHS.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
As they should have, the argument many of its members promulgated was crap.
Nah... it simply says:
GOP to conservative: Feth You!
Conservative: That's okay, we'll keep on voting for you.
Hacking is a security risk but that risk exists regardless of whether you use a govt email/communication or private. Look at how wikileaks released all the diplomatic cables to the public. Those were offical govt communications and they weren't secure either.
It's about control.
There are different kinds of "security risks" with different ways to combat against.
Wikileak was a direct espionage data retrival (Manning downloaded it and passed it on to wikileak). That's a different kind of breach, than someone from North Korea remotely hacking government email accounts.
So, in a perfect work, imo... you'd have all high-government officials to only use government sponsored email accounts and devices. That way, US IT professionals can set/configure security profiles as needed.
If these officials uses private email accounts... *the government* has no way of ensuring if it's secured.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 18:58:21
Another question would be how the accounts were hosted. One could easily register whatever address you want and host it on any server, including government systems if you wanted. So it would be good to know how the email system was setup for security.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
Are you only against members of Congress exercising their authority when they are Democrats? I mean, you led with an argument amounting to "Democrats won't fund DHS!"
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
Are you only against members of Congress exercising their authority when they are Democrats? I mean, you led with an argument amounting to "Democrats won't fund DHS!"
So, to be clear, it is because the relevant members of Congress are Democrats and not because of the issues at hand or how Congressional procedure was followed?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
So, to be clear, it is because the relevant members of Congress are Democrats and not because of the issues at hand or how Congressional procedure was followed?
No... it's about Congress use the "Power of the Purse" to combat against EO over-reach.
Being a "democrat" isn't important, as Congress is a co-equal branch to both the Executive and Judiciary.
It's part of Congress' fault too, in allowing this and prior President to get this far.
Being a "democrat" isn't important, as Congress is a co-equal branch to both the Executive and Judiciary.
It is important to you, and other people that have picked a side in the partisan battle between the Republicans and Democrats; making it important to members of Congress.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Dennis Haster regularly violated the Hastert Rule, and has said it never existed.
True... it was largely a creation by the press/pundit. But, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill on the floor unless he/she had at least 218 vote.
We're witnessing a modern Political Kubuki Theater here...
Shouldn't we address Boehner as the Democratic Speaker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Getting rid of a rule that promotes party over country in a legislative setting designed to exist without parties in mind can only be a good thing.
I can only hope both parties reciprocate that.
Right now, I don't believe Democrats would give R's anything when they return to power.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 22:50:04
True... it was largely a creation by the press/pundit. But, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill on the floor unless he/she had at least 218 vote.
Well, no, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless it was in the interests of the Speaker, the Speaker's Party, the nation, or some combination of the three. Several Speakers, including Hastert, have articulated this fact.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote:I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
Let me be clear before I begin: I 100% think she should have been using federally provided equipment and email during her entire tenure as SoS.
However, from discussion with people who have worked oversees, apparently federal systems are notoriously unreliable while abroad. Hillary Clinton is not the only person to be using private email in her dealings oversees, just the most prominent. IF, as she has said (and that's a big IF), she has in fact preserved all her emails and provided them to whoever they're supposed to be provided to, I don't see this is a transparency issue.
She still SHOULD have been using government equipment and all that.
whembly wrote:I blame the Democrats and Obama.
The House passed a fully funded DHS budget and it's the Democrats who's filibustering it in the Senate.
I'd make a change to the Filibuster rule... and that is, you'd have to do it in person 24/7 in order to keep it going.
Of course you do...
edited to be less mean sounding.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 16:31:45
WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.
But it turns out that that was not everything.
The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.
It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on her private account.
It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.
In 2013, Nitasha Tiku, then a reporter for Gawker, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking all correspondence on Mrs. Clinton’s private email account between her and Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser and onetime staff member in the Clinton White House. Some of those emails had already spilled into public view and been reported in the news media. But the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides on Tuesday sought to play down the significance of her exclusive use of a personal email account for State Department business. But an examination of records requests sent to the department reveals how the practice protected a significant amount of her correspondence from the eyes of investigators and the public.
Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.
The State Department says it will now search the 50,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided in response to Freedom of Information and congressional requests.
The White House, in its first response to the news, said it frowned on the practice of officials using their personal email accounts.
“What I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said. “However, when there are situations where personal email accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved consistent with the Federal Records Act.”
But political groups and news organizations said requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly gone unanswered.
In December, The Associated Press said its FOIA requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the oldest of which was submitted in March 2010, were not answered. In addition to requesting Mrs. Clinton’s schedules, The A.P. asked for correspondence related to Huma Abedin’s special arrangement to serve as a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton and consult for private clients. “We have not received any documents yet, despite the promised deadlines, and we are evaluating the situation,” said Erin Madigan White, spokeswoman for The A.P.
Conservative groups have filed numerous requests for information about Mrs. Clinton as she prepares for a possible presidential run. Citizens United is expecting a court ruling on Friday about a lawsuit the group filed last year after the State Department would not disclose flight records that would have shown who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on overseas trips. The group had intended to cross reference the agency’s flight manifests with the donors who contributed to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The FOIA request was just one of 16 appeals the group has made to the State Department since May that have gone unfulfilled. Those requests also included specific correspondence from Mrs. Clinton and her closest aides, including Cheryl D. Mills and Ms. Abedin.
America Rising, an anti-Clinton “super PAC,” has submitted a dozen FOIA requests for State Department records beginning last June.
Requests included correspondence between Ms. Mills and Clinton Foundation leadership and Ms. Abedin’s communication with members of Teneo, a private consultancy partly run by Doug Band, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton. Ms. Abedin had a special arrangement that allowed her to work at the State Department and be paid by Teneo, which offers strategic advice to major global corporations. America Rising also requested Mrs. Clinton’s schedule during the annual Clinton Global Initiative gatherings in New York.
In all cases, the State Department acknowledged receipt of the FOIA requests and assigned case numbers but did not produce any of the requested documents. “Unfortunately, Clinton’s own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of personal email accounts while at State, is preventing an open process and full, fair review of her time there,” said Jeff Bechdel, a spokesman for America Rising.
State Department officials have previously said they handle thousands of records requests and try to respond as quickly as possible. On Tuesday, Alec Gerlach, a spokesman for the department, defended the agency, and stressed that it was working diligently to comply with the voluminous requests for information from the Republican-controlled House.
Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group, called the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s using personal email “manufactured controversy.”
In a written statement, the National Archives said it had “reached out to the State Department to ensure that all federal records are properly identified and managed in accordance with the Federal Records Act and that controls and procedures are in place to manage records effectively in the future.”
Mrs. Clinton’s aides have said her use of private email was not out of the ordinary, pointing to the fact that former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account, before the current regulations went into effect. But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that “agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”
The rules are designed to ensure a contemporaneous record of government activity is being kept so it will be available to members of Congress, the news media, historians and ordinary citizens.
Secretary of State John Kerry uses a government email account, and his correspondence is preserved as part of the department’s record-keeping system.
I still think she skates... because, you know everyone does it.
I just don't think Department Heads should be using private emails... purely because of security concerns and FOIA issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 16:47:05
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 16:50:16
whembly wrote:I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
Let me be clear before I begin: I 100% think she should have been using federally provided equipment and email during her entire tenure as SoS.
However, from discussion with people who have worked oversees, apparently federal systems are notoriously unreliable while abroad. Hillary Clinton is not the only person to be using private email in her dealings oversees, just the most prominent. IF, as she has said (and that's a big IF), she has in fact preserved all her emails and provided them to whoever they're supposed to be provided to, I don't see this is a transparency issue.
She still SHOULD have been using government equipment and all that.
Man... if the federal systems abroad are notoriously that bad, makes me wanna peak under the hood even more. Email systems are the easiest to setup and maintain. What's hard, is to making them 100% secure.
The problem about going the private route is that when the FOIA / subpena lands on her desk. It's not the independent agent that's 'acquiring' these emails... it's Clinton's own peeps who's vetting and releasing these emails. If there's an issue about this whole thing, besides the security concerns, it's this right here.
I remember: You work for the FTC? Aren't you obligated to use government only emails when you conduct your business? And so, it's only the elected/appointed positions are the exception to this rule?
whembly wrote:I blame the Democrats and Obama.
The House passed a fully funded DHS budget and it's the Democrats who's filibustering it in the Senate.
I'd make a change to the Filibuster rule... and that is, you'd have to do it in person 24/7 in order to keep it going.
Of course you do...
edited to be less mean sounding.
Actually... I really blame them all. Republicans, Democrats, voters, pundits, journalists, establishments, Justin Beiber, me, you, the whole ball of wax. If we're honest. *shrugs*
My acrimony is largely because I'm ideologically opposite to the Democrats... and more so to Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Meanwhile on the "stupid comments by potential presidential candidates front":
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
Not. A. Serious. Candidate.
Gov'nor... gimmie a Gov'nor any day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 16:57:51
As clearly obsessed as you are about this whole email thing you should have realized by know that there is absolutely zero legal requirement to use government email. The only requirement is that records are kept, now on how and where they are created.
We can talk all we want about the optics of it all, the motivations, the ability to ensure that records are actually maintained. And they are all very good questions to be asked.
But there is no actual legal issue with her using the email account.
d-usa wrote: As clearly obsessed as you are about this whole email thing you should have realized by know that there is absolutely zero legal requirement to use government email. The only requirement is that records are kept, now on how and where they are created.
We can talk all we want about the optics of it all, the motivations, the ability to ensure that records are actually maintained. And they are all very good questions to be asked.
But there is no actual legal issue with her using the email account.
On it's face, you are absolutely right.
I just think it's an asinine policy to allow government officials to use private email systems.
It's also... weird. Her email SYSTEM is/was operated in her own house.
Clinton ran own computer system for her official emails
WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.
The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.
Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.
In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.
Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.
A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.
It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.
The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.
In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.
In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can't already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.
The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn't possess all her emails.
Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.
President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 17:21:12
1) Having it based in a private residence is pretty smart. It means that you know where the physical record is located and have complete control over the security of it. You know nobody can physically access it and compromise confidential records. You also greatly limit electronic access by hackers. You have full control over the security, physical and electronic, and you have an excellent ability to protect it from compromise and hacking. If you are going to use a non-government run system, this is probably the best way to go about it.
2) She is doing all of this to keep everyone away from her emails and to be able to delete emails she doesn't like! By having complete physical control of the system she can be as shady as she wants to be.
Your ideological mindset will usually plant you firmly in one camp or the other. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
d-usa wrote: The interpretation depends on your viewpoints.
1) Having it based in a private residence is pretty smart. It means that you know where the physical record is located and have complete control over the security of it. You know nobody can physically access it and compromise confidential records. You also greatly limit electronic access by hackers. You have full control over the security, physical and electronic, and you have an excellent ability to protect it from compromise and hacking. If you are going to use a non-government run system, this is probably the best way to go about it.
2) She is doing all of this to keep everyone away from her emails and to be able to delete emails she doesn't like! By having complete physical control of the system she can be as shady as she wants to be.
Your ideological mindset will usually plant you firmly in one camp or the other. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Yea... I think I'm in agreement.
It's still.. odd. And you know she's not the only one who would do this.
I simply don't think the voters would care about this... thus, it'd be "old news" during the heat of the elections.
*shrugs*
I'll still stand by my prediction that Hillary "Teflon" Clinton as the 46th President.
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
Amazingly stupid.
How future President Bob "Il Duce" Frazzled handles that.
"Do you think homosexuality is a choice?"
"I thought this was an interview for a candidate for the President of the United States, not the local jamboree. Please put down the pipe and ask appropriate questions."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
Within the instant classic "ClintonEmail.com" domain, it appears there are three separate servers. The domain's blank landing page is hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands, known for monetizing expired domain names and spam.
But the real worry comes from two other public-facing ClintonEmail.com subdomains, which can allow anyone with the right URL to try to sign in.
One is sslvpn.clintonemail.com, which provides a login page that apparently uses an SSL VPN—a protocol that allows your web browser to create an encrypted connection to a local network from any internet connection—to users to access their email. That sounds secure, and under the right circumstances, for regular users, it can be. But there are two huge problems with using it for the Secretary of State's communications with her staff and others.
First: Anyone in the world with that URL can attempt to log in. It's unclear what exactly lies on the other side of this login page, but the fact that you could log into anything tied to the Secretary of State's email is, simply, bad. If the page above is directly connected to Clinton's email server, a login there could be disastrous, according to Robert Hansen, VP of security firm WhiteHat Labs:
It might be the administrative console interface to the Windows machine or a backup. In that case, all mail could have been copied.
What's more troubling is the fact that, at least as of yesterday, the server at sslvpn has an invalid SSL certificate. Digital certificates are used to "sign" the encryption keys that servers and browsers use to establish encrypted communications. (The reason that hackers can't just vacuum the internet traffic between your browser and Google's Gmail servers and read your email is that your browser is encrypting the data to a public encryption key. The reason that you know that you are encrypting to Google's key and not to, say, the People's Liberation Army's, is that the Gmail servers have a digital certificate from a trusted third-party confirming that the key is theirs.)
When you attempt to access sslvpn.clintonemail.com using Google's Chrome browser, this is what you see:
The apparent reason for that message is that the certificate used by Clinton's server is self-signed—verified by the authority that issued it, but not by a trusted third party—and therefore regarded by Google's Chrome browser as prima facie invalid. The government typically uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes for its internal communications that designed with spying from foreign intelligence agencies in mind. But the ClintonEmail.com setup? "If you're buying jam online," says Hansen, "you're fine." But for anything beyond consumer-grade browsing, it's a shoddy arrangement.
Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military. Or, if someone were able to copy the security certificate Clinton used, they could execute what's called a "man in the middle" attack, invisible eavesdropping on data. "It's highly likely that another person could simply extract the certificate and man in the middle any user of the system without any warnings whatsoever," Hansen said.
The invalid certificate would have also likely left Clinton vulnerable to widespread internet bugs like "Heartbleed," which was only discovered last spring, and may have let hackers copy the entire contents of the Clinton servers' memory. Inside that memory? Who knows: "It could very well have been a bunch of garbage," said Hansen, or "it could have been her full emails, passwords, and cookies." Heartbleed existed unnoticed for years. A little social engineering, Hansen said, could give attackers access to Clinton's DNS information, letting them route and reroute data to their own computers without anyone realizing. "It's a fairly small group of people who know how to do that," Hansen noted, but "it's not hard—it's just a lot of steps."
We don't know, of course, if the current state of Clinton's servers is representative of the security precautions that were in place while she was using it as Secretary of State. The system could have previously been hardened against attack, and left to get weedy and vulnerable after she left government. We don't know. But that's part of the problem—at the Department of State, there is accountability for the security of email systems. If we learned that State's email servers had been hacked or left needlessly vulnerable, there would be investigations and consequences. With Clinton's off-the-books scheme, there are only questions.
The final address behind ClintonEmail is a mail host, mail.clintonemail.com, which will kick back an error message when visited directly:
But if you plug in a different URL with the same mail server, you're presented with a user-friendly, familiar Outlook webmail login:
This is basically no more secure than the way you'd log into AOL, Facebook, or any other website. There's no evidence that Clinton (or her staffers) used this web interface to check their emails, as opposed to logging in through a smartphone or other email software. But its mere existence is troubling enough: there have been five separate security vulnerabilities identified with Outlook Web Access since ClintonEmail.com was registered in 2009. These security bugs include doozies like "a flaw that may lead to an unauthorized information disclosure" (2010) and "a remote attacker can gain access to arbitrary files" (2014).
But even without exploiting software bugs, Hansen says leaving a public login page for something that's meant to be private is "pretty much the worst thing you can do." Clinton's Outlook form could've been susceptible to a brute force attack—where random combinations of words and characters are tried until one of them works—or an old fashioned denial of service assault. "Even if she had a particularly strong password," Hansen said, a brute force attack will "either work eventually—foreign militaries are very good at trying a lot—or it'll fail and block her from accessing her own email."
If Clinton had been using a government account, Hansen explained, her messages with colleagues would all be held within one relatively tidy system, monitored by the federal government. It's the difference between doing your laundry at home and dropping it off. But with a private account, you're introducing many separate points of failure; every single company in this custom system is a place to pry and attack. "Any joe hacker" could get inside with enough knowledge and time, according to Hansen.
"Pretty much the worst thing you can do."
Cubrilovic echoed Hansen's concern: "When you are a staffer in a government department, internal email never leaves the network that the department has physical control over," he told me. But "with externally hosted email every one of those messages would go out onto the internet," where they're subject to snooping.
Security researcher Kenn White agrees that private internet access stirs up too many dangerous variables while emails bounced from person to person:
I think the bigger security concern here is the complete lack of visibility into who has been administering, backing up, maintaining, and accessing the Secretary's email. If classified documents were exchanged, who viewed them? Were they forwarded? Where multiple devices (ie, mobile phones and tablets) configured to access the account? Was encryption required or optional for remote access?
Cubrilovic agreed that opting out of the government's system is an awful idea for someone with a hacker bullseye on her back: "having a high profile target host their own email is a nightmare for information security staff working for the government," he told me, "since it can undo all of the other work they've done to secure their network." The kind of off-the-shelf email service it appears Clinton used comes with a lot of inherent risk, especially since a pillar of her job is overseas travel:
With your own email hosting you're almost certainly going to be vulnerable to Chinese government style spearphishing attacks—which government departments have enough trouble stopping—but the task would be near impossible for an IT naive self-hosted setup.
While some of these hacking scenarios may sound outlandish or far-fetched, keep in mind that Clinton's emails would have been a prime target for some of the globe's most sophisticated state-sponsored cyberwarriors—the Chinese, the Israelis, the Iranians. The very existence of Clinton's private account was revealed by the hacker Guccifer, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver who managed to gain access to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account with relative ease. The Hillary account was reported by Gawker in 2013, and White House spokesman Eric Schultz used that story to argue that the Clinton email story was old news: "This was public years ago," he told Business Insider, linking to the 2013 Gawker story.
Which is another way of saying that foreign intelligence agencies have had two years to work on the target.
Bad, bad idea...
This is shouting: "Clinton was more worried about the American public knowing what she was doing than, anything what hackers can find."
Got to respect the pizza industrial complex. Because the drive for more nutritional information and healthier food in schools is primarily a Democratic thing, pizza companies are piling money in to Republican candidates. It isn't big money, but the money is going 90%+ to Republicans, and has had an interesting impact - "pizza is a vegetable" but there's a bunch of others.
Actually, probably the most interesting thing was 'the summer of cheese', which I had no idea started with agriculture money looking to sell more cheese.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/06 04:14:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Got to respect the pizza industrial complex. Because the drive for more nutritional information and healthier food in schools is primarily a Democratic thing, pizza companies are piling money in to Republican candidates. It isn't big money, but the money is going 90%+ to Republicans, and has had an interesting impact - "pizza is a vegetable" but there's a bunch of others.
Actually, probably the most interesting thing was 'the summer of cheese', which I had no idea started with agriculture money looking to sell more cheese.
I checked back two pages but couldn't see anything above nyetenyahoo (?) Speech and Obama not turning up to it. I thought it was a good and ballsy move on his behalf to show israel they don't get blanket no queztions asked support now
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Sent to diplomatic and consular staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, bearing Clinton's electronic signature, made clear to employees they were expected to "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts." The message also said employees should not "auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”
The 2011 cable, bearing the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts,” told employees to secure personal/home email addresses, given increased targeting of government employees by “online adversaries.” It also emphasized that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cited department procedures which prohibit the practices.
The cited section from the Foreign Affairs Manual states: “It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS [the authorized department information system] which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. … Employees should be aware that transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
I just find it interesting that the traditional media is actually reporting this Clinton ordeal.
It's almost as if, they don't want Clinton to be the nominee and is trying to recruit Warren, or even, gasp... Al Gore!
I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
I don't know. Knowing the voting public, this news will be forgotten LONG before the actual election, or even the primary. If Clinton feels she can still run the news will come back during the election and be assessed as 'We already knew that!' and 'What difference does it make?' and won't really sway anyone. Those that dislike Clinton will continue to do so, and those that like her won't see this as an issue.
Breaking it now helps it not be the headline getting Surprise! during the election and will allow her to frame the Real Issues as she sees fit.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen
I would love to hear this explanation in a world where the Kennedy family exists.
See what I mean?
Dude... there are numerous information you can research yourself... the clintons we're rocked with numerous scandals... everyone appears to only remember the "Lewinski" ordeal and that was the most benign.
Just google "Clinton Scandal". o.O
This is all from memory.
Besides the ongoing issues with the Clinton Foundation, accused of influence peddling to foreign interests for cashola...
TravelGate: Whereas clintons were accused of "siccing" the FBI on folks.
Whitewater. Which was a real estate scam designed to cause investors to fail to meet difficult standards, thus default on any payments made on land.
Fundraising Shenanigans via the Lincoln Room in the White House.
Pay for Play Pardons. Four of the WhiteWater "crooks" got pardoned and convicted terrorist as well.
The Gorlick "wall": It was discovered that President Clinton accepted money from Chinese officials to influence American policy towards China. Determined to avoid accountability for what they'd done, the Clinton administration tried to hamper any investigations. It was decided that to ensure these agencies couldn't share info between each other that might connect the dots and lead to the Clintons. Thus, this policy was known as the "Gorlick Wall" between the agencies. However, this decision made it harder for these agencies to share information with their investigations had other consequences. Namely, the lead up to 9/11. The lack of sharing information between agencies, enforced to cover the Clinton's asses, prevented these agencies to effectively thwart 9/11. Adding insult to injury, the Clintons pulled strings to ensure that Gorlick was ON 9/11 commission!
Lewinski tried to blackmail Clinton. Vernon Jorden, a "fixer", tried to get her a cushy job at Revlon, which didn't happen because Tripp released the tapes later.
And many, many more...
Now... I said "arguably the most corrupt", and the Kennedys are just as bad.
However... ALL OF THIS... is baked in.
So, it doesn't matter.
This current hot issue, with respect to Hillary's email ordeal, will be older than dirt when the next election season is upon us.
