New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

It's the difference between doing something illegally and doing something legally. Countries who employ hackers to spy on others aren't going to use legal channels whereas if you want to be able to use something in court, you have to ask permission rather than just breaking in.

Why do I have to explain this? How is this not obvious?

 

erm. Not true at all. NOT true at all. Just like the topic at hand, most of you do not understand the full capability of cyberwarfare

 

BTG already responded to this. I'm wondering if his point sunk in. So, in your mind, logical thinking would be to illegally acquire e-mail evidence to use in a court of law to prosecute someone else for illegal use of e-mail?

The lack of rational thought in this thread by Hillary supporters is astounding.

 

The fact that they would vote someone to be POTUS that has already proven a complete lack of either understanding or concern for our country's secrets during her time as the SOS should say all that needs to be said about Hillary supporters.

They really don't care.

 

Can you specifically said how that statement of mine is incorrect?

 

1. No, in my mind, logical thinking would not be "to illegally acquire e-mail evidence to use in a court of law to prosecute someone else for illegal use of e-mail." I do see your point, however. That the key request cannot be aligned with evidence of a secure system makes sense to me.

2. I meant it was logical to question the idea that some are freely promoting, that a private server automatically just carelessly lost reams of secret documents to whatever malevolent force happened to find their server. I am completely aware of nonstop attempts and attacks and have seen that up close. I am not privy to the security specs that these individuals used. Some in this thread have said that is beside the point. Others have insinuated the opposite by promulgating the loss of classified material.

3. I was typing quickly and sloppily before attending a slew of meetings and teaching my classes. Would have been better served (and better served the BBS) if I had just taken the tylenol I desperately needed at the time and avoided posting a stupid quip.

4. Not a Hillary supporter, but thanks for including that. Should I automatically call you a Hillary "hater"? I personally am suspicious of people convinced either way on this somewhat technical and evolving issue, especially after watching a lifetime of political spin and mostly overblown "controversies," separate from watergate & a few others.
Seems those leaning right are convinced this is serious and bad. Those leaning left seem to think there's nothing criminal or prosecutable here. And there are people on both sides with cyber skills beyond mine. Anyway, there is not a very clear signal from that, unless one falsely believes that one side has cornered the market on objectivity.

Cheers!

 

Well we don't know what security steps were taken, or if they were taken.....and that's the problem. That's also why it's illegal. Even if she had the most secure unsecured private server in the world it is still highly illegal to store or transmit classified information on it or with it.

That's why I say the issue of what security she had on her private server is irrelevant.

 

Here is a compelling reason why those in power should never use their personal equipment to store, write or respond to secure documents. I like to have screen sharing turned on on my MAC, however, when I do, I am continually bombarded by attempts to access my computer, so I tend to keep it off. I turned it on today and in about 5 minutes, was hit with the following attempts to access:

Feb 3 17:14:28 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15169]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 211.24.122.157 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:18:52 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:06 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:06 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:08 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:08 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:08 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:08 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:09 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:09 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:10 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:10 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:11 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:11 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:12 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:12 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:13 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:13 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:16 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:17 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:17 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:17 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:27 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:27 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:31 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:31 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:31 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:32 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:32 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:32 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:33 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:33 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:34 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:34 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:35 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:36 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:36 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:38 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:39 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:39 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:40 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:40 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:40 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:41 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:41 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:42 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:42 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:43 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:44 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:44 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:44 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 74.102.19.124 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:19:46 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:20:16 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:20:46 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:20:51 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 103.19.199.219 :: Type: VNC DES
Feb 3 17:20:52 Bobs-iMac screensharingd[15192]: Authentication: FAILED :: User Name: N/A :: Viewer Address: 50.59.80.100 :: Type: VNC DES

 

Sure.

There is a good reason why everyone is going HTTPS, such as google. Up until recently, every search you made was easily sniffed by the simplest means. In other words, no security. All your traffic is constantly being sniffed by some entity out there.

Clintonemail.com was not a state secret. Even if she used something a little less obvious, it wouldn't take much to figure out her domain....nothing you or I could do, but with a cyber army of tens of thousands of people, its just another task at the office. All it takes is someone forwarding an email chain unencrypted across the net with her name and email address attached to the chain and every country in the world knows what it is.

 

How do you know the server wasn't configured for encryption?

 

Yeah, but Hillary's server was hidden in the bathroom of her home. Who would think to look there?

 

You really are not following. There is a reason why this stuff is a BFD. When everyone is carelessly using private servers and forwarding email chains everywhere, it doesnt take long to figure out domain names as this information will be discovered somehow. Cyber security is not very secure, regardless of encryption. There are simply too many vulnerabilities on all scales. This is why you can't get on SIPRNet and forward an email/data/whatever to "lulIamHillDog22@clintonemail.com. Data coming in and data coming out is strictly regulated. To get around these restrictions, one has to willfully be negligent in getting it out in the open ... for example, printing out information and then rescanning it to get it onto their own personal computer. Since Private Manning, things such a USB drives have been disabled to prevent large data breaches.

 

Hopefully Gladiato thanks you for educating him on the basics of encryption.

 

People are still making assumptions to satisfy their hope that she is charged with some sort of crime. I have yet to read anything earth shattering or anything that corroborates what a few posters are saying about the carelessness of Mrs. Clinton's actions.

 

Sounds like you are the one hoping here. Have you not read that there was classified information on her private server? Hate to break it to you, but that's highly illegal. You can feel free to hope that she doesn't get charged for it, but it's very much a crime.

 

...and it's also really, really dumb.

Regardless of crimes, indictments, charges, etc., the thought process that went into her decision to carry out communications this way as the Sec of State tells me all I need to know if she can handle the decisions needed as the POTUS. I don't care if what she did was illegal or not. What I do care about is if she is smart enough to make decisions for the entire country. She's shown me nothing that leads me to believe she can handle the job.

 

LMAO!
[rQUOTEr]
Former Republican Secretary of State Powell got classified data on personal email account: House Democrat

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and aides to his successor Condoleezza Rice both received classified emails on personal email accounts, the top Democrat on a key congressional oversight panel said on Thursday.

House Oversight Committee ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings said the disclosures about the emails were made by the State Department's Inspector General, who is reviewing email practices of five previous secretaries of state.[/rQUOTEr]

 

If they can prove it, they should be indicted as well. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

 

I didn't do it.
You can't prove I did it.
I didn't knowingly do what I did.
Classification rules are stupid.
Colin Powell did it too.

 

Uh.
Oh.
SpaghettiO.

Earnestly waiting for the new "Colin Powell illegally used private email" thread.

[rQUOTEr]
Rice aides, Powell got classified info on personal email accounts

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and aides to his successor, Condoleezza Rice, both received classified information a handful of times via personal email accounts, the top Democrat on a congressional oversight panel said on Thursday.

The findings come after nearly a year of controversy over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's decision to set up a private email server for her work as secretary of state. Democratic lawmakers and staff on Clinton's presidential campaign seized on the report as vindicating some of their defenses of the controversial arrangement.

Representative Elijah Cummings said the disclosures about Powell's and Rice's aides' emails were made by the State Department's inspector general, who is reviewing the email practices of the last five secretaries of state.

...[/rQUOTEr]