This is sort of an amazing exchange.
Here’s the thing. She didn’t just use a non-government email address, like Gmail or Yahoo, or her ISP. She set up her own domain and server (though the server may be shared, that’s still unclear to me). That means that she has total control over what data is preserved, and what can be destroyed. Now, in theory, people received her emails, and people sent her emails, so multiple copies exist, even if she purges the server. But if Huma had an address on the same domain, then her emails could be wiped as well. And there’s no explanation of why she did this. But it sure as hell looks like a way to avoid a FOIA, or subpoena. Which is classic Clinton.
How can we miss her if she won’t go away?
Ah Rand there be a bigger issue if she used G Mail or Yahoo to conduct official US business, she would probably be violating a export rules, not that Email is safe for any type of sensitive information unless it encrypted, Be it ITAR/Classified/Sensitive. But Gmail or yahoo would still potentially store the encrypted information on foreign soil which could still be a no no.
Engineer, that’s an interesting point.
Here’s a report that the e-mail server was set to use google as a backup (therefor has the same issues you cite).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/hillary-clinton-email-server-traced-to-internet-service-registered-to-ny-home/
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.
Hmmm that article suggests that is where this is heading. I wouldn’t be surprised if the gmail backup was a IT person who don’t know the regs and did it with out permission, All that backup was a fall back if emails couldn’t be delivered to her home it be delivered to gmail other wise the sending email server would keep trying to send until a time frame where the emails got deleted. And the november 2012 time frame happens to be Super storm Sandy which knocked out power and communication in the area. Her converting to a cloud/vendor based email service after she resigned as sectary of state supports further that at least her or someone understood the regs for data security.
The excuse that the people she corresponded with had government accounts and thus the government has copies has a bit of a flaw. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, and as such, she might, just possibly, have been exchanging e-mails with foreigners, and those foreigners might, just possibly, not have been using US government e-mail accounts.
“The excuse that the people she corresponded with had government accounts and thus the government has copies has a bit of a flaw.”
Yes, the flaw is that no one in the Obama administration uses government accounts or at least that’s what Richard Windsor tells me.
“And there’s no explanation of why she did this.”
Nor any reason why she would want to do this….at least no innocent reasons.
Hillary tweets:
“Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
MY email????? MY email?
Classic Imperial response. No dear Hillary they are not YOUR emails. They belong to the people.
“No dear Hillary they are not YOUR emails. They belong to the people.”
That’s a pretty specious and petty comment about her diction in this case, IMHO. When I worked in government positions in the past, nobody ever referred to the e-mail within the inbox/outbox of an individual user to be “the people’s e-mail”, it was always referred to as “John’s e-mail” or “Jen’s e-mail”.
Taken to the extreme, your complaint would lead to conversations such as:
“Did you see that e-mail?”
“Which one?”
“The one that the taxpayers sent out.”
“Can you be more specific?”
“It was sent from a taxpayer-funded account to another taxpayer-funded account.”
“Yeah, but who sent it?”
“The taxpayers. It’s their e-mail.”
“To whom was it sent?”
“Other taxpayer e-mail accounts.”
The fact of the matter is that, in general conversation, “Did you get *my* e-mail?” is a much quicker, easier, and culturally accepted question to ask and answer.
While the taxpayers each own one or two transistors within each computer on the desk of a random government employee, and have limited rights to view the contents stored on storage devices of those same computers, that doesn’t eliminate the concept that e-mails sent to and from Hillary!’s e-mail address/account were, in polite and casual conversation, “her” e-mails.
Well, the real issue is that if she really wanted the public to see them, she could release them herself. We have no idea what the State Department even has. She’s just trying to deflect.
I’m guessing that it would violate some rules for her to release emails without giving State a chance to redact sensitive information. Jeb Bush got some flak for releasing emails with constituents’ social security numbers, etc.
Probably a lot of classified information in those emails, which is why her decision to do this was so retarded. Gucifer hacked in so we can assume that most of the governments in the world have read all of her correspondence.
“That’s a pretty specious and petty comment about her diction in this case, IMHO. ”
That might be your humble opinion but I do not share it:
People steeped in an attitude reveal that attitude in the words and phrases they use.
It goes to the government mindset that they are our masters and not servants. It exposes visceral views about who they are and what they are there for. …what they own and what they do not own. In the past, the Clintons used the phrase “I need to get back to the People’s Work” in the past. They used that phrase for a purpose. They didn’t say “my work”. They are careful with phraseology when they want to be.
The White House is “the people’s house”.
Government property is the people’s property.
Words matter and casual, unthinking word use reveals attitudes. It is in casual unthinking phrases that you see what people’s view really are.
She could easily have said: “Those emails are the property of the People and if they want to see them they should because they have a right to see them.”
That would reveal a certain mindset about the position of a governmental employee.
But she didn’t….did she?
Hard for me to be sympathetic to the argument against her. I run my own mail server. I have had root access to every mail server I have used since I left CMU SCS employment in 1989. Further, I make sure that my mail is not able to be accessed without my explicit permission. I am not going to change that stance just because it would be ‘useful’ to bash someone for doing exactly the same as I do. And as I will continue to do. “May the NSA rot in hell and be toasted over spits by demons in need of underarm deoderant.” – Dale Amon
Was it legal for those servers to exist?
I don’t think anyone is complaining that servers can be created and protected from unauthorized access.
The problem here is that she wasn’t supposed to do that.
Fair enough but you are not the Secretary of State and are not share the same responsibilities. There is no law preventing what you are doing while she has obligations under the law.
Not to mention that I’m sure that Dale is much more adept at securing a server than Her Highness is.