Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

well it appears that whether or not .gov services " suck," Hilary's homebrew system was a security and transparency nightmare:

as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."

"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.

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

I understand that she is going to be running for President. I bet some hackers are delighted at the prospect.

here is a good slogan:

Hillary 2016! She might not be blackmailed by Russian Hackers!

Completely incredulous.

as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."

 

[plague311]

Ok, to those that are complaining about record keeping. Do any of you understand that when she says she contacted Government employees on their .gov emails that there are copies of that information? Is that much at least clear? So at best, at the VERY best we're missing the emails that she sent to those outside of our government. Those in other governments that may have been related, and we don't know for sure that those emails weren't turned over in the 55K that she gave to the investigation committee.

We know she didn't break any laws, as that has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. The FOIA requests would have been seen too if there was relevant information BECAUSE servers record both coming and going emails. Not just one or the other. If any of this is confusing or needs to be explained further, please let me know.

 

[johnny karate]

here is a thoughtful editorial regarding Clinton's conduct that I think you will enjoy reading and discussing:

If people aspire to public service, they should behave as stewards of a public trust, and that includes the records — all of them. Ms. Clinton’s use of private e-mail shows poor regard for that public trust.

Why did she not turn over the e-mails promptly upon leaving office? why indeed.

I hope that The Washington Post does not get branded as clumsy hypocrites like others posting in this thread have, but that is of course a risk one has to take.

Since the phrase linked above also applies to Jeb Bush, unless the Washington Post also issues a similar diatribe against him, then yes, I would label them hypocrites.

Although not as clumsy as the ones in this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers will recall that I pointed out that Hilary's cowboy/homebrewed server compromised The State Department's ability to impose its duties imposed by FOIA.

here is yet another great example, in particular the Gawker Blumenthal FOIA:

"The State Department replied to our request by saying that, after an extensive search, it could find no records responsive to our request," Trotter writes. "That is not to say that they found the emails and refused to release them—it is conceivable, after all, that the State Department might have attempted to deny the release of the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence on grounds of national security or Blumenthal’s own privacy. Instead, the State Department confirmed that it didn’t have the emails at all."

here is the conclusion:

Perhaps this will be deemed just more "partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites...."

Ok, to those that are complaining about record keeping. Do any of you understand that when she says she contacted Government employees on their .gov emails that there are copies of that information? Is that much at least clear? So at best, at the VERY best we're missing the emails that she sent to those outside of our government. Those in other governments that may have been related, and we don't know for sure that those emails weren't turned over in the 55K that she gave to the investigation committee.

We know she didn't break any laws, as that has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. The FOIA requests would have been seen too if there was relevant information BECAUSE servers record both coming and going emails. Not just one or the other. If any of this is confusing or needs to be explained further, please let me know.

Thanks for your input. This was explained in the linked article above.

If you find the linked article confusing or need me to explain it further, please let me know.

 

[plague311]

as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."

I'm sorry, and Electric Frontier Foundation staff Attorney Nate Cardozo is...what again? What's his server related knowledge? What computer background does he have? Where did he go to law school?

Well, let's look at Nate, shall we?

Nate has a B.A. in Anthropology and Politics from U.C. Santa Cruz and a J.D. from U.C. Hastings where he has taught first-year legal writing and moot court. He brews his own beer, has been to India four times, and watches too much Bollywood.

It appears that Nate has absolutely 0 computer related degrees, certifications, or real world experience in the field.

Well thanks Nate, I'll file that under my "people that talk about stuff they don't know" bin.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since the phrase linked above also applies to Jeb Bush, unless the Washington Post also issues a similar diatribe against him, then yes, I would label them hypocrites.

Although not as clumsy as the ones in this thread.

So going all in on the tu quoque fallacy? Curious decision.

 

[plague311]

Thanks for your input. This was explained in the linked article above.

If you find the linked article confusing or need me to explain it further, please let me know.

So you're saying the answer is no? That her server hasn't been hacked. Thanks, that's all I needed.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Maybe if the rabid right didn't make a cottage industry out of faux outrage, we'd perk up a bit more when we heard "wolf"!

Well put.

When everything's a crisis, nothing's a crisis.

 

[The Big Dog]

"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.

Nik Cubrilovic (koo-bree-low-vick) is an Australian-born entrepreneur, technologist, software developer and blogger. Nik has been a writer and advisor to Techcrunch since 2005, is a founding editor of TechcrunchIT, and is currently working at Techcrunch and on the Crunchpad project. Nik is the founder and CEO of Omnidrive, a web content and storage platform. Nik was also the founder of Solutionstap, a technology solutions and software development company. Prior to Solutionstap, Nik was a freelance developer, project manager and security specialist in Australia, the UK, South Africa and throughout Europe. Nik has contributed to a large number of open source projects and published a number of security vulnerabilities for various platforms and applications since 1996. In 2007, Nik was named in The Bulletin magazine as one of Australia's "Smart 100."

 

[plague311]

"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.

I hilited the part that is important. Your newest appeal to authority is noted. I would also like to point out that emails being intercepted has nothing to do with her own personal security. Emails get intercepted all the time, no matter who sends them or what government they work for.

Again, no evidence her security was breached, or that her server was in danger of being hacked.

Thanks again.

 

[johnny karate]

So going all in on the tu quoque fallacy? Curious decision.

Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to deflect criticism from Clinton.

She deserves every bit of criticism that the situation warrants.

But if claims are made that she broke the law, those claims need to substantiated. So far, I have yet to see that substantiation.

The only point I'm proving by bringing up Jeb Bush's similar behavior is to demonstrate just how disingenuous the "outrage" over this situation is.

And much like in the Benghazi thread, you keep proving my point over and over again.

 

[DavidJames]

Yawn. Let me know when this goes beyond soiled pants, wet dreams and Justin Beeber teen age girl giddiness and an independent and thorough review has completed.

 

[plague311]

Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to deflect criticism from Clinton.

She deserves every bit of criticism that the situation warrants.

But if claims are made that she broke the law, those claims need to substantiated. So far, I have yet to see that substantiation.

The only point I'm proving by bringing up Jeb Bush's similar behavior is to demonstrate just how disingenuous the "outrage" over this situation is.

And much like in the Benghazi thread, you keep proving my point over and over again.

The sad thing is even Jeb Bush didn't release all of his emails. He states that he took out certain emails pertaining to certain things. It's only as transparent as they want it to be.

 

[The Big Dog]

I hilited the part that is important. Your newest appeal to authority is noted. I would also like to point out that emails being intercepted has nothing to do with her own personal security. Emails get intercepted all the time, no matter who sends them or what government they work for.

Again, no evidence her security was breached, or that her server was in danger of being hacked.

Thanks again.

I am starting to believe that you don't quite understand that concept of appeal to authority.

Let me walk you through it:

Fallacy: Jim thinks that the emails are safe, and he went to medical school!

Not a fallacy: "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."

Let me know if you are confused or have any further questions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yawn. Let me know when this goes beyond soiled pants, wet dreams and Justin Beeber teen age girl giddiness and an independent and thorough review has completed.

BWHAHAHA!!!!!! Will do!

FFS, the "non-story" police are hilarious. Say here is a Washington Post Editorial

Response: Yawn, Justin Bieber.

 

[Sherkeu]

If she was worried about .gov security she could have arranged for a separate server for high level officials, no? or even just for herself? She was head of the department! What is the point of putting it in her private residence?

I suppose she could have had so much distrust of her own department that she wanted control of it herself.
Or she wanted the ability to control and "delete".
In the end, she may not have abused her ability to delete, but it sure looks sketchy that she set it up that way.

It will be interesting to see if she gives a reason (and not just a legalese argument)

 

[johnny karate]

The sad thing is even Jeb Bush didn't release all of his emails. He states that he took out certain emails pertaining to certain things. It's only as transparent as they want it to be.

And he only released the emails that he did in response to this issue being brought up to him to get in front of any potential blowback. Otherwise, it would seem he had no intention of doing so.

"Transparency" is of no genuine concern to people fixated on Clinton.

Just like American lives lost to terrorist attacks are of no genuine concern to people fixated on Benghazi.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to deflect criticism from Clinton.

She deserves every bit of criticism that the situation warrants.

But if claims are made that she broke the law, those claims need to substantiated. So far, I have yet to see that substantiation.

The only point I'm proving by bringing up Jeb Bush's similar behavior is to demonstrate just how disingenuous the "outrage" over this situation is.

And much like in the Benghazi thread, you keep proving my point over and over again.

I get your point, it is a fallacy for the reasons I already discussed, as I keep explaining over and over.

We get it, distraction is a well understood tactic. It happens all the time in threads like this. Most people know it is utterly fallacious.

Hillary Clinton used a cowboy/homebrewed server.

Response: Jeb Bush!

Really? Ok. Investigate Jeb Bush too! Distraction ended.

See?

 

[plague311]

I am starting to believe that you don't quite understand that concept of appeal to authority.

Let me walk you through it:

Fallacy: Jim thinks that the emails are safe, and he went to medical school!

Not a fallacy: "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."

Let me know if you are confused or have any further questions.

I'm not confused, nor do I have any further questions. Just statements. Your repeated comments about how it "could have been" are completely irrelevant as it HASN'T happened. There is absolutely no evidence that the server was hacked before, or has been since this newest faux outrage by the right has been created. Your articles aren't saying what you're implying they are saying. It just goes to show you have limited knowledge and what you're trying to explain. It's fine.

It's an appeal to authority because you're appealing to those who have experience, but you're strawmanning their argument. You're doing everything in your power to make it appear like the security is an issue when it wasn't.

First hilite is unsupported by any evidence. Again, there is nothing to say her setup was hastily put together or that it was not "locked down". Which is an extremely odd phrase for someone in the computer industry to use. I don't know what "locked down" even means.

He states that mediocre encryption would leave her emails open, but never says that her encryption is mediocre. If it were so mediocre, why doesn't he hack it and provide some of her information to prove it? I mean, outside of it being illegal.

You keep on using these words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[plague311]

If she was worried about .gov security she could have arranged for a separate server for high level officials, no? or even just for herself? She was head of the department! What is the point of putting it in her private residence?

I'm sorry, did someone say she was worried about .gov security? I don't remember reading or even seeing someone imply that. The benefits of having a personal email server can be many, but the difficulties of running them securely can come up as well. It appears Clinton had someone to maintain security for her server. Also, servers don't just run one thing. Having an entire server to run emails is almost stupid, you could easily use a pay to host program. She probably stored some of her own information, or Bill's information for his philanthropy. Home servers aren't uncommon anymore.

I suppose she could have had so much distrust of her own department that she wanted control of it herself.

Or none of that is probably the case. Either/or

Or she wanted the ability to control and "delete".

You can delete emails in any account, no matter who hosts it or where it's located. It appears that you're not overly familiar with how email servers work. To clarify on that, when you "delete" an email on your own server it doesn't go to the recycle bin, where you delete it and then it is gone forever. Never to be retrieved or viewed again.

In the end, she may not have abused her ability to delete, but it sure looks sketchy that she set it up that way.

Why? Every Secretary of State (since email was an option) before her has used personal email. If I get trained in by someone I generally mimic their ways of doing things until I figure out a better way. Also, again, having your own email server is fairly common.

It will be interesting to see if she gives a reason (and not just a legalese argument)

It might be interesting, depending on who is concerned and what they're concerned about.