Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

I don't know about you but when i have a problem, the first person I talk to when i have a problem who knows more than I is an expert. Even if he isn't. I think she's done much the same thing.
Its like that Seth Rogen quote when asked what happened to a file of porn. "I don't know. Its in the Cloud. No one understands the Cloud!"
She took the advice of one consultan

I can't figure out whether you are serious. She was the Secretary of State ... she has armies of people who report to her and a mega-million dollar budget. It's not like she has to call geek squad.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

I don't know about you but when i have a problem, the first person I talk to when i have a problem who knows more than I is an expert. Even if he isn't. I think she's done much the same thing.
Its like that Seth Rogen quote when asked what happened to a file of porn. "I don't know. Its in the Cloud. No one understands the Cloud!"
She took the advice of one consultan

I can't figure out whether you are serious. She was the Secretary of State ... she has armies of people who report to her and a mega-million dollar budget. It's not like she has to call geek squad.

Hah! After I posted, I saw you had posted. "geek squad" for the win!

He is serious. He wants to blame government agencies for failing to tell Secretary Clinton she should not do this.

Logically, if one was going to be Secretary of State and deal with State secrets, then one would want to make sure one's communications were secure, right? What was Bryan's expertise in cyber security? Why not hire the best?

She was Secretary of State. If she WANTED the input of the NSA, HS, CIA, or anyone else, she could have gotten it with a phone call. What made her think that Bryan Flunky was qualified to do anything more than set up a home network--like one you or I might have at our homes? What was his cyber-security expertise. HILLARY is the one responsible for hiring him.

The good thing about Ricky posting his convoluted theories

rickyp wrote:fate

Logically, if one was going to be Secretary of State and deal with State secrets, then one would want to make sure one's communications were secure, right? What was Bryan's expertise in cyber security? Why not hire the best?

Logically if the NSA is responsible for cyber-security they would be proactive and actually ensure that all cabinet level computer systems were secure.

Fate

She was Secretary of State. If she WANTED the input of the NSA, HS, CIA, or anyone else, she could have gotten it with a phone call. What made her think that Bryan Flunky was qualified to do anything more than set up a home network--like one you or I might have at our homes? What was his cyber-security expertise. HILLARY is the one responsible for hiring him.

Yes.
But she should never have had this option. The NSA should not have allowed this.
They are the experts on cyber security. Not the Secretary of State.
If the NSA decided to let an independent consultant make a decision that affected national security, in their area of authority and responsibility, thats on them.

Please explain how the NSA was not involved in this?

Ray

The good thing about Ricky posting his convoluted theories

Its not a theory. And its not convoluted.
If the NSA has responsible for cyber security with the government why were they not involved in setting up the Computer security for the secretary of state?
I submit they should have been. Do you agree or not?
Does this mean Hillary would have been saved from her misguided decision? Yes.
Now, that would be a government agency doing its job. Effectively and efficiently.

rickyp wrote:Its not a theory. And its not convoluted.
If the NSA has responsible for cyber security with the government why were they not involved in setting up the Computer security for the secretary of state?

FOR A SECRETARY of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.

On Monday, the New York Times revealed that former secretary of state and future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used a private email account rather than her official State.gov email address while serving in the State Department. And this was no Gmail or Yahoo! Mail account: On Wednesday the AP reported that Clinton actually ran a private mail server in her home during her entire tenure leading the State Department, hosting her email at the domain Clintonemail.com.

Much of the criticism of that in-house email strategy has centered on its violation of the federal government’s record-keeping and transparency rules. But as the controversy continues to swirl, the security community is focused on a different issue: the possibility that an unofficial, unprotected server held the communications of America’s top foreign affairs official for four years, leaving all of it potentially vulnerable to state-sponsored hackers.

“Although the American people didn’t know about this, it’s almost certain that foreign intelligence agencies did, just as the NSA knows which Indian and Spanish officials use Gmail and Yahoo accounts,” says Chris Soghoian, the lead technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. “She’s not the first official to use private email and not the last. But there are serious security issue associated with these kinds of services…When you build your house outside the security fence, you’re on your own, and that’s what seems to have happened here.”

The most obvious security issue with Clinton running her own email server, says Soghoian, is the lack of manpower overseeing it compared with the State Department’s official email system. The federal agency’s own IT security team monitors State Department servers for possible vulnerabilities and breaches, and those computers fall under the NSA’s protection, too. Since 2008, for instance, the so-called Einstein project has functioned as an umbrella intrusion-detection system for more than a dozen federal agencies; Though it’s run by the Department of Homeland Security, it uses NSA data and vulnerability-detection methods.

Clinton’s email wouldn’t have the benefit of any of that expensive government security. If she had hosted her email with Google or even Yahoo! or Microsoft, there might be an argument that those private companies’ security teams are just as competent as the those of the feds. But instead, according to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her server from her own home. Any protection it had there—aside from the physical protection of the Secret Service—would have been limited to the Clintons’ own personal resources.

So, she refused the State Department system. She hired a "geek" and rolled the bones.

1. You've never established the NSA has final approval over cabinet-level officers' home email set-ups.

The federal agency’s own IT security team monitors State Department servers for possible vulnerabilities and breaches, and those computers fall under the NSA’s protection, too. Since 2008, for instance, the so-called Einstein project has functioned as an umbrella intrusion-detection system for more than a dozen federal agencies; Though it’s run by the Department of Homeland Security, it uses NSA data and vulnerability-detection methods.

2. Does it strike you as patronizing at all that you depict Hillary as a hapless victim? I mean, seriously, why not just say it? "Well, what do you expect from a girl?" Everything you write is from the perspective of the Secretary of State being some hapless fool.

So, instead, she did her own thing and . . . national security be damned.

rickyp wrote:Fate

So, she refused the State Department system. She hired a "geek" and rolled the bones.

The point is: She was allowed to.

Fate

1. You've never established the NSA has final approval over cabinet-level officers' home email set-ups.

If not. Why not? Again. This is a failure of the system that would allow this... As your quote says...

The federal agency’s own IT security team monitors State Department servers for possible vulnerabilities and breaches, and those computers fall under the NSA’s protection, too. Since 2008, for instance, the so-called Einstein project has functioned as an umbrella intrusion-detection system for more than a dozen federal agencies; Though it’s run by the Department of Homeland Security, it uses NSA data and vulnerability-detection methods.

Fate

2. Does it strike you as patronizing at all that you depict Hillary as a hapless victim? I mean, seriously, why not just say it? "Well, what do you expect from a girl?" Everything you write is from the perspective of the Secretary of State being some hapless fool.

I don't say she's a hapless victim. She made a mistake.

I've agreed that she wanted to do this to avoid scrutiny from political foes... And that she took bad advice.

My complaint is that this is being pursued only for the political points to be scored against her.

The larger picture is that, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on security, that a situation like this should occur. And that no commentator is asking how a law could exist that allowed this or how the people who are both responsible for and expert on national security should have allowed her to make this mistake.

Fate

So, instead, she did her own thing and . . . national security be damned.

National security is not the responsibility of just one person.

There are countless agencies and redundancies built into the systems of security to ensure that one person can't make a mistake and potentially do harm.
except in this case... according to her political opponents.

In this case, all of those systems and experts and agencies hold no responsibility for letting a mistake happen. That's BS.

An intelligent media would have asked these kinds of questions, perhaps of members of the House or Senate Committees? "Say Senator, its clear that the law allows the use of private servers. Should this law exist? What are you doing about it?"
Or to the Head of the NSA, "AS part of your responsibilities for cyber security in the government, do you vet the use of, and security of, private servers used by high level government personnel or members?" If not, why not?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:DF, my point is that what Powell and Rice did isn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things either. Yes, any breach of the rules is significant and ought not to happen, but ultimately it's just a minor infringement. There's nothing to suggest that any of these SoS or their staff deliberately set out to endanger state secrets.

But, "deliberately" is not part of the law.

She's a horrible politician.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:DF, my point is that what Powell and Rice did isn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things either. Yes, any breach of the rules is significant and ought not to happen, but ultimately it's just a minor infringement. There's nothing to suggest that any of these SoS or their staff deliberately set out to endanger state secrets.

But, "deliberately" is not part of the law.

Umm, yes it is. The difference between manslaughter and murder is whether it was deliberate or not. Very often, a crime is dependent upon there being intent in order to successfully prosecute, and a lack of intent or deliberation is taken into account.

Ray Jay wrote:The good thing about Ricky posting his convoluted theories is that all the moderates on these pages will realize the weakness of Hillary's position.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:DF, my point is that what Powell and Rice did isn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things either. Yes, any breach of the rules is significant and ought not to happen, but ultimately it's just a minor infringement. There's nothing to suggest that any of these SoS or their staff deliberately set out to endanger state secrets.

But, "deliberately" is not part of the law.

Umm, yes it is. The difference between manslaughter and murder is whether it was deliberate or not. Very often, a crime is dependent upon there being intent in order to successfully prosecute, and a lack of intent or deliberation is taken into account.

If she was "negligent," that's it.

Using an unsecured server for Secretary of State level emails is de facto "negligence." Throw in failing to notify anyone when she received obviously classified material and there you have it.

Btw, she is responsible not only to notify of security violations, but also to know that some material is classified, whether it's marked or not.

Look, if she had no legal liability, the FBI would not be investigating it.

rickyp wrote:Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.

Here are the facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -clinton-/

Earlier this month, Fox News reported that the FBI was broadening its investigation to look into whether any connection between the State Department under Clinton and the nonprofit Clinton Foundation violated public corruption laws. Clinton denied that FBI was pursuing this line of inquiry.

However, Fox bases its report on unnamed sources, so we cannot independently verify it, nor have any major media outlets.

Bush’s campaign and the FBI did not respond to our requests for comment in time for publication.

Our ruling

Bush said Clinton is "under investigation with the FBI right now."

danivon wrote:And if they don't file charges you will let this drop?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And if they don't file charges you will let this drop?

As long as the FBI director doesn't resign in protest, yes.