Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept.

[Solauren]

So, let me get this straight.....

I'm a grunt-level worker with the Canada Revenue Agency, and I can't access my personal email from work, or absolutely any websites of that nature. If I even attempt to, my computer unlocks until security comes physically and unlocks it.

This is actually the security level for a lot of Canadian Federal Government agencies, depending on the 'secrecy' level of the information that they have.

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State, with access to stuff that can fuck the entire world over, can access her personal email from her work computers?

Let me point at the US and laugh now....

[Elheru Aran]

So, let me get this straight.....

I'm a grunt-level worker with the Canada Revenue Agency, and I can't access my personal email from work, or absolutely any websites of that nature. If I even attempt to, my computer unlocks until security comes physically and unlocks it.

This is actually the security level for a lot of Canadian Federal Government agencies, depending on the 'secrecy' level of the information that they have.

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State, with access to stuff that can fuck the entire world over, can access her personal email from her work computers?

Let me point at the US and laugh now....

Welllll.... yeah, pretty much. The US Government doesn't have much invested in keeping its technology up to date, let alone security (otherwise we wouldn't have Wikileaks). It's a regrettable flaw in its vision.

Mind you, she was probably provided with a computer (laptop, desktop, tablet, whatever she wanted, likely several), which would have in turn been secured itself. And bear in mind that as a former head of state's wife, in a high level government post, it's highly unlikely she was using anything pedestrian and easily hacked. We don't know anything about what may have been made available to her as a personal email, but it's probably pretty reasonably secure in and of itself. It would not do for some script-kiddie to bust it open and plaster her grandmotherly advice to Chelsea over half the world's press.

[Patroklos]

I was under the impression that the vast majority of the WikiLeaks data was not a hack, but rather a person specificially given access stealing and turning over data, right? No technical security measure can defend against that.

As Solauren states about the Canadian government I will go ahead and confirm that at least in the portion of the US government I work in operates similarly. I would already be fired for doing 1% of what HC did, I would be in jail for doing probably anything more than that. I suspect lower ranking state department types would suffer a similar fate. But that's not to say she broke a law (provided every bit of that 55,000 pages is unclassified), just that the higher ups have different rules.

[Welf]

Welllll.... yeah, pretty much. The US Government doesn't have much invested in keeping its technology up to date, let alone security (otherwise we wouldn't have Wikileaks). It's a regrettable flaw in its vision.

Mind you, she was probably provided with a computer (laptop, desktop, tablet, whatever she wanted, likely several), which would have in turn been secured itself. And bear in mind that as a former head of state's wife, in a high level government post, it's highly unlikely she was using anything pedestrian and easily hacked. We don't know anything about what may have been made available to her as a personal email, but it's probably pretty reasonably secure in and of itself. It would not do for some script-kiddie to bust it open and plaster her grandmotherly advice to Chelsea over half the world's press.

Plus Hill has been planing her presidential run for a decade now and has been under media scrutiny for several more. She probably has invested quite a bit in security for her mails.

[Edi]

She ran her own email server from her home.

[Irbis]

Of course WikiLeaks didn't have her emails, because that leak was from a government source. The whole point is that she wasn't using a government source. That doesn't mean Russia, China, or ButtPlay2094 hasn't hacked whatever service she is using.

Ooh! I bet NSA did! How about using that whole government transparency thing to ask them what exactly Hillary had on her account? I am sure they will be more than happy to oblige!

We might be able to know or defend against such attempts as a matter of national security if she were using a .gov account. Now we have to just trust whatever private provider she was using did so, and that if they didn't they would tell us. Would you trust any to do either?

Since apparently no one here bothered to research this before flinging accusations - Hillary used mail server ran by Clinton's foundation, hdr22@clintonemail.com, located in her own home/office complex in Chappaqua, New York. It had Secret Service protection, so you can bet no one broke in on that end. As for software security, running the server was first subcontracted to Google, then to McAfee Inc., both pretty major cybersecurity companies, which so far have been only successfully infiltrated on large scale only by US national agencies. So, it wasn't exactly your off the shelf do-it-yourself server, she might have trusted it more than whatever lowest bidder service the government ran, in fact.

You know, are we even asking right question? Keeping all papers is all well and good, but just look at the volume. At 55.000 pages, it ceases to be valuable record and starts being maculature bin offering little of value except for some dedicated sifter willing to read it all finding some juicy smear bits. Too much data blots out transparency with white noise of little use, shouldn't we first ask ourselves if it really should be kept or if there is better, more succinct way of keeping relevant bits.

We can be reasonably assured that the .gov address would not be manipulated or otherwise redacted and thus in compliance with the records retainment stipulations required by law. Not 100% confident mind you, but pretty close.

And you can be sure of that how? Anyone corrupt enough to make shady dealings from that address would presumably be influential and intelligent enough to try and erase paper trails. It's much easier to erase data than paper - granted, you'd still have access to the 'other' ends of such communications in mailboxes elsewhere, but the same is true in Clinton's case as well.

[Gaidin]

It's not even really a question of smear Irbis as it is a question of legality, legal options, and what she did with it. That's the reason for this. And shockingly, it's a legitimate question.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee investigating the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home.

The subpoenas from the Republican-led Select Committee on Benghazi demanded additional material from Clinton and others related to Libya, spokesman Jamal D. Ware said. The panel also instructed technology companies it did not identify to preserve any relevant documents in their possession.

The development on Capitol Hill came the same day The Associated Press reported the existence of a personal email server traced back to the Chappaqua, New York, home of Clinton. The unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official running her own email server would have given Clinton — who is expected to run for president in the 2016 campaign — significant control over limiting access to her message archives.

The practice also would complicate the State Department's legal responsibilities in finding and turning over official emails in response to any investigations, lawsuits or public records requests. The department would be in the position of accepting Clinton's assurances she was surrendering everything required that was in her control.

Late Wednesday, a message was sent on Clinton's Twitter account that remarked on the growing controversy.

"I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them," according to the tweet from @Hillary Clinton. "They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."

In response, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the department will review for release the emails Clinton provided.

"We will undertake this review as quickly as possible; given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete," Harf said.

Congress said it learned last summer about Clinton's use of a private email account to conduct official State Department business during its investigation of the Benghazi attacks on a U.S. mission in which four Americans died.

"It doesn't matter if the server was in Foggy Bottom, Chappaqua or Bora Bora," House Speaker John Boehner said. "The Benghazi Select Committee needs to see all of these emails, because the American people deserve all of the facts."

The chairman of the Benghazi committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told reporters: "I want the documents. Sooner rather than later."

Democrats called it a fishing expedition.

"Everything I've seen so far has led me to believe that this is an effort to go after Hillary Clinton, period," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

The questions about Clinton's email practices left the Obama administration in an awkward position. At one point, the State Department directed reporters to contact Clinton, who has not publicly commented about her emails. The White House said it was her responsibility to make sure any emails about official business weren't deleted from her private server.

Meanwhile, the AP said it was considering legal action under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act against the State Department for failing to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat after waiting more than one year. The department has never suggested that it doesn't possess all Clinton's emails.

It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton's computer server was run, but a business record for the Internet connection it used was registered under the home address for her residence as early as August 2010. The customer was listed as Eric Hoteham.

An aide to then-first lady Clinton was identified in a 2002 congressional report as Eric Hothem, whose name is spelled differently than in the Internet records. Hothem, a financial adviser in Washington, was not available to take an AP reporter's phone call at his office Wednesday. He was a special assistant to Clinton as far back as 1997 and considered one of the family's information technology experts.

A parody Twitter account for Hoteham appeared Wednesday after the AP cited the records, sending satirical tweets supporting Clinton's campaign. Hoteham's name had not appeared with that spelling in public-record databases, campaign contribution records or online background searches.

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.

Clinton — who emailed so frequently using her BlackBerry as secretary of state that it became an Internet meme — is particularly sensitive about disclosures of personal files based on her experiences in confronting congressional investigations and civil lawsuits during her husband's election and presidency and her own roles as first lady, senator, presidential candidate and Cabinet official.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Clinton as Cabinet secretary never used a government email account on the agency's separate network for sharing classified information, which Clinton would have been prohibited from forwarding to her private email account.

"She had other ways of communicating through classified email through her assistants or her staff, with people, when she needed to use a classified setting," Harf said.

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. Clinton's email practices appear to be far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were found to have been conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Clinton has not described her reasons for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which appears to include a nod to her middle name, Diane. A spokesman for her did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday or Wednesday.

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.

The Hoteham registration is also associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a nonfunctioning 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.

Hothem, the former Clinton aide, surfaced in at least two Clinton administration controversies. A congressional report in 2002 investigating pardons said a Citibank account linked to Hothem wired $15,000 to President Clinton's brother, Roger, in March 2001, while investigators were trying to compel Roger Clinton to testify about his role in several pardon cases. The president's lawyer told investigators the money came from a personal account of the Clintons and was intended for Clinton's brother to hire a lawyer.

In early 2001, Hothem was also named by a former White House chief usher as saying the Clintons were permitted to take furniture when they left the White House that later was determined to belong to the government.

Sue Hothem, his wife, is a well-known fundraiser and political consultant in Washington. Last year, she was named a vice president for the technology lobbying group TechNet. It said she previously headed development efforts for the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Mrs. Clinton's email options included using an official State Department account or even a secret agency email address, which the AP revealed in 2013 as a common practice across the U.S. government and by previous administrations. Many senior U.S. officials use alternate addresses that aren't disclosed to the public for official business so they are not inundated with unwanted messages.

But the State Department's email system might not have been attractive to Clinton because it is frequently targeted by hackers. The AP revealed in 2006 and 2014 that the agency had suffered significant electronic break-ins. In the most recent incident, the department took the unprecedented step of shutting down its entire unclassified email system. While Clinton was secretary of state in 2010, a U.S. soldier, Chelsea Manning, stole 250,000 diplomatic cables and turned them over to WikiLeaks, which published them online.

[Elheru Aran]

Update: She is encouraging the State Department to release her emails to the public. Doesn't sound like she thinks she's got anything to hide in the material she handed over.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/hill ... -my-email/

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday broke her silence over a budding controversy involving her use of personal email for work when she was secretary of state, saying she wanted the U.S. State Department to release them swiftly.

Clinton’s statement was aimed at cooling a political firestorm over allegations that she inappropriately used her personal email for work while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

“I want the public to see my email,” the potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said in a tweet. “I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

The controversy has suddenly put Clinton into trouble just as she is planning to launch a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. It has prompted some Democrats to wonder whether someone else should be their candidate to succeed President Barack Obama.

The State Department said it will review the emails provided by Clinton “using a normal process that guides such releases.”

“We will undertake this review as quickly as possible. Given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete,” spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

Clinton’s tweeted statement came hours after a congressional committee investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, issued subpoenas for her emails.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Benghazi demanded all communications from Clinton related to the incident, in which a U.S. ambassador was killed.

The panel also sent letters to Internet companies telling them to protect any documents relevant to the ongoing investigation, Jamal Ware, communications director for the Benghazi committee, said in a statement.

Representative Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the Benghazi panel, told reporters that within two weeks, he must either have the documents or a “really good explanation” for why not.

Republicans have been scrutinizing Clinton’s actions and communications surrounding the Benghazi attack, when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed during an assault on a U.S. facility. Republican lawmakers believe she did not do enough to ensure the safety of Americans in Libya.

Representative Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi committee, said the Republicans’ actions have led him to believe they simply want to attack Clinton. He noted that Colin Powell, the secretary of state under former President George W. Bush, a Republican, had used personal emails.

The email controversy appears to have caught the Clinton camp off guard when it erupted.

In an appearance in Washington on Tuesday night, Clinton avoided the topic altogether in a 30-minute speech at a gala dinner for the Emily’s List political organization.

The State Department has defended Clinton, saying that at the time there was no prohibition on using a personal email account for official business as long as it was preserved.

But experts have called her use of personal email highly unusual and that her practise possibly left her communications open to hacking.

The State Department said Clinton last year turned over emails from the period after a records request and that 300 of these were sent to the Benghazi committee.

A total of 55,000 pages of material covering the time she was in office were turned over, the agency said.

Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said he believed “the sole use of a private email account by a high-level official to transact government business is plainly inconsistent with the Federal Records Act and longstanding policies of the National Archives.”

Edit to include some further information: it's possible she's actually using an ISP local to her home to host her email.
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/aps-b ... ew-server/

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As I already observed, however you may have problems with the Clintons doing this, the State Department didn't ban the practice until after she left office. The national records people are angry because it was against their legal opinion, but binding administrative rules in the State Department hadn't been established over it until after she left, and a legal opinion is merely someone's position on the records law, without support from the courts yet.

[Simon_Jester]

Right.

In my opinion, Mrs. Clinton cannot be accused of committing a crime here.

Although she can be accused reasonably of doing a stupid thing.

[Pelranius]

It'll probably been forgotten six months from now (certainly wouldn't be very good attack ad material). Its sketchy as hell from my POV (and I'm a partisan Democrat) but no laws were broken.

[Flagg]

Wow, Hillary is in big big BIG trouble now...

The New Yorker

It's looking pretty bad for Hillary. Glad I'm a Nader voter.

[Tsyroc]

Wow, Hillary is in big big BIG trouble now...

The New Yorker

It's looking pretty bad for Hillary. Glad I'm a Nader voter.

Wouldn't that make Hillary an anti-federalist, state's rights, freedom fighter? And the odds would be good that she would be a racist too.

It's freaky how the political landscape changes.

[salm]

So, let me get this straight.....

I'm a grunt-level worker with the Canada Revenue Agency, and I can't access my personal email from work, or absolutely any websites of that nature. If I even attempt to, my computer unlocks until security comes physically and unlocks it.

This is actually the security level for a lot of Canadian Federal Government agencies, depending on the 'secrecy' level of the information that they have.

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State, with access to stuff that can fuck the entire world over, can access her personal email from her work computers?

Let me point at the US and laugh now....

Hmm... I have never heard of anything like that implemented in German government agencies. My gf has been through a whole bunch of them during her education and phd and neither she nor her bosses nor her bosses bosses had any kind of restrictions on their computers concerning external websites, email or any thing of such nature. In fact, if they want to (and I assume some of them do because as civil servants they are unfirable) they can facebook, youtube and email all day long if they want to.
I think the only security consists of telling people to use their work mail for work related stuff.

[Irbis]

It's not even really a question of smear Irbis as it is a question of legality, legal options, and what she did with it. That's the reason for this. And shockingly, it's a legitimate question.

But the thing is, is that even right question to ask? I am really not sure if any other country in the world goes as far as USA in the whole paper-keeping stuff. Granted, it might be caused by US being best practice leader for once, but something tells me it was instituted solely to limit office looting by winning parties as is customary in USA. To make them think twice what they will do before dirty laundry airs.

Recently, we had surveillance scandal in Poland where two minister's discussion was taped and leaked to public. While my respect for one I long thought idiot went up after hearing his suddenly precise and harsh analysis of the government policies I don't think him saying "Poland's alliance with USA is trash paper not worth wiping boots with if USA gets better offer from other side" made us any favours on international scene. Would knowing similar thoughts from Clinton help anyone in anything?

In the end, transparency in politics making might be like transparency in kitchen - thoroughly disgusting and not resembling final product to be really worth it. I think recording every mail and discussion of leaders would quickly lead to them being more concerned about covering their ass and not saying anything politically damaging than actually leading.

As long as politicians do what they promised before election and act in best faith while in office, do we really need to hear their every word in private? I am of opinion well formulated summary of their actions is enough, any more than that and we come into 'digging through thrash cans for smear' territory.

[Gaidin]

It's not even really a question of smear Irbis as it is a question of legality, legal options, and what she did with it. That's the reason for this. And shockingly, it's a legitimate question.

But the thing is, is that even right question to ask?

Yes. Or, you know, we can go back to the era of definitively untraceable back room deals you so love to hate around here.

And yes, I cut the post off on purpose without reading it. I'll read it now and maybe reply to the rest.

[Gaidin]

But the thing is, is that even right question to ask? I am really not sure if any other country in the world goes as far as USA in the whole paper-keeping stuff. Granted, it might be caused by US being best practice leader for once, but something tells me it was instituted solely to limit office looting by winning parties as is customary in USA. To make them think twice what they will do before dirty laundry airs.

Recently, we had surveillance scandal in Poland where two minister's discussion was taped and leaked to public. While my respect for one I long thought idiot went up after hearing his suddenly precise and harsh analysis of the government policies I don't think him saying "Poland's alliance with USA is trash paper not worth wiping boots with if USA gets better offer from other side" made us any favours on international scene. Would knowing similar thoughts from Clinton help anyone in anything?

In the end, transparency in politics making might be like transparency in kitchen - thoroughly disgusting and not resembling final product to be really worth it. I think recording every mail and discussion of leaders would quickly lead to them being more concerned about covering their ass and not saying anything politically damaging than actually leading.

As long as politicians do what they promised before election and act in best faith while in office, do we really need to hear their every word in private? I am of opinion well formulated summary of their actions is enough, any more than that and we come into 'digging through thrash cans for smear' territory.

I may have been harsh but what's posted is posted, sorry.

At her rank, and as much one thing as another, she gives orders. Record of those orders are wanted as much as anything. And when she's working, such things don't theoretically belong to her, they belong to State. Though ones emailed between family(this is allowed), are marked. Hell if I know what this means at her level. Hell if I know what they'll do with her server. This is...new.