Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Grizzly Bear]

I really have to wonder about comments suggesting the critique over Hillary's use of a personal email account are conspiracies. Granted I can see where people argue about hypocrisy with the critiques, but when you strip politics from the equation it boils down to:

A) The use of personal emails is essentially illegal in the sense that the law dictates record keeping in the event that there are FOIA requests to disclose the emails, which... using the personal email account cripples the capacity to do so. Especially after said person has left office.

and

B) If sensitive intel or state information was transmitted it doesn't live up to the same security measures as required.

How some commentators concluded this was the new Benghazi conspiracy I don't know, must be driven by partisan politics, rather than an assessment of the risks involved with breaking policy...

Didn't an ambassador under Hillary's S.O.S. office have to resign for something similar?

I don't care what happens to Hillary on this per se, but there needs to be a policy enacted and enforced so that matters like this come up less often, particularly if the case is going to be made that she's not the first to do this sort of thing.

 

[logger]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-running-interference-during-benghazi-attack/

 

[logger]

I don't care what happens to Hillary on this per se, but there needs to be a policy enacted and enforced so that matters like this come up less often, particularly if the case is going to be made that she's not the first to do this sort of thing.

Agreed
Does it surprise that Hillary Clinton has taken something like this to a new level?

If she wins the presidency, it will be scandal after scandal.

 

[OmegaWolf]

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.

It's a common term in the industry. It's used in cyber defense whitepapers by the SANS Institute (ever heard of them?), documentation by Microsoft, RedHat, IT security auditors, etc. Microsoft even provided a "Lockdown Tool" for IIS version 6. If you're unfamiliar with the term, why did you comment on whether Clinton's server was locked down or not?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Agreed
Does it surprise that Hillary Clinton has taken something like this to a new level?

If she wins the presidency, it will be scandal after scandal.

This is why I've been saying for 8 years she's unelectable. Her very existence offends (R)s enough to get out the vote in opposition. In an era of abysmally low voter turnout this can make a big difference. Just look at Obama - he excited the (D) voters enough to bring out the low-frequency voters. Clinton would have had a much harder time against McCain, even saddled with Palin.

Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is why I've been saying for 8 years she's unelectable. Her very existence offends (R)s enough to get out the vote in opposition. In an era of abysmally low voter turnout this can make a big difference. Just look at Obama - he excited the (D) voters enough to bring out the low-frequency voters. Clinton would have had a much harder time against McCain, even saddled with Palin.

Clinton doesn't need to do anything actually wrong for the low-information (R) to decide she most be guilty of some damn thing or another, mostly informed by echo chamber noise of dubious accuracy.

Plus the low information D voters are going to be offended that she embarrassed Obama by holding on to all her own emails on her cowboy/homebrew server, and the high information voters too!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is characterizing her server as "cowboy/homebrew" accurate or useful in any degree? I haven't see the hardware and software specs for the system.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is characterizing her server as "cowboy/homebrew" accurate or useful in any degree? I haven't see the hardware and software specs for the system.

I've posted at least three detailed articles discussing the specs, take a look.

 

[Sherkeu]

I just had to chime in here. The above statement is false and smacks of inexperience with email servers. Microsoft Exchange server, just as an example, can be configured (and most often is in enterprise settings) to retain and backup deleted messages, even hard-deleted messages that bypass the "deleted messages" folder. This is how administrators are able to restore messages for users that inadvertently hard-delete messages. Our system retains these for 90 days.

Just to clarify this further (and correctly), let's say your account receives an email at 11:00 p.m., the server runs it backup at midnight. The backup is archived, and the next morning you delete the message. Do you think it magically disappears from the off-site, archived backup, too? In this example, the deleted message is archived even if the server is NOT configured to retain deleted messages because it was backed up before it was ever deleted.

I'm confident that .gov servers do retain and archive all deleted items -- that's part of the importance of using them. Obviously the concern with Clinton managing her own server is that she has complete control over what is retained and what is and is not backed up and archived. And if her staffers were also issued accounts on the same server, then both sides of the email conversation are controlled and no record of it will exist elsewhere.

Thanks for this. I'm in software sales and I know most of my enterprise customers do their back-ups between 12-3am nightly. That info is almost never changed. The end-user certainly could not do it. (New entries are used to reconcile mistakes or changes.) But I really didn't know much about specific email servers...and nothing about .gov, except that it should be pretty robust. But...the government. You know?

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks for this. I'm in software sales and I know most of my enterprise customers do their back-ups between 12-3am nightly. That info is almost never changed. The end-user certainly could not do it. (New entries are used to reconcile mistakes or changes.) But I really didn't know much about specific email servers...and nothing about .gov, except that it should be pretty robust. But...the government. You know?

Equally as absurd was the suggestion from plague that Hilary could have deleted emails from the .gov server at any time. Hell she would not have gone roque with her cowboy/home brew server if that was true.

Given that she could delete emails, I think the burden is on her to show they were not deleted.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I've posted at least three detailed articles discussing the specs, take a look.

We have 250 posts in the thread. Throw me a clue which page? I haven't had my knickers in a twist on this so I let the thread get longer than my attention span. Sorry. I'll try harder to stay OCD about every damn post on the forum next week.

 

[wareyin]

Equally as absurd was the suggestion from plague that Hilary could have deleted emails from the .gov server at any time. Hell she would not have gone roque with her cowboy/home brew server if that was true.

Given that she could delete emails, I think the burden is on her to show they were not deleted.

Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?

And that's why the government requires the emails to be on their own servers, as their systems actually meet the record collection rules that document actions.

 

[wareyin]

And that's why the government requires the emails to be on their own servers, as their systems actually meet the record collection rules that document actions.

Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

We have 250 posts in the thread. Throw me a clue which page? I haven't had my knickers in a twist on this so I let the thread get longer than my attention span. Sorry. I'll try harder to stay OCD about every damn post on the forum next week.

Sure thing buddy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Given that you could have murdered a homeless person, I think the burden is on you to show that you never murdered a homeless person. Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way, does it? Do you have any evidence that anything was deleted?

Yes, actually it does work that way, friendo.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, actually it does work that way, friendo.

No, not in America.

 

[The Big Dog]

Did the government have that requirement at the time in question? Seems from reading this thread that it did not.

Yes the state department had that requirement, I posted Hilary's cable above.

Take a gander.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, not in America.

Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.

 

[wareyin]

Sigh. Yes actually, American courts change the burden where there is evidence of misconduct in connection with the retention and production of documents.

Do you have evidence of misconduct?