Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

You didn't read the part about her having her own private server? That is a big difference.

Why?

So you have no answer. Nobody does.

We pay these idiots, Repub and Dem, to run our country and they are supposed to answer to us, not hide their deeds and information behind personal firewalls. "Transparency" was one of Obama's buzzwords but with his campaign. With every administration, left or right, we are progressively being kept out of the loop.

We really need access to every email sent or received by the Secretary of State? Why? And why don't we need access to every email by every Congressperson?

 

[mgidm86]

Why?








We really need access to every email sent or received by the Secretary of State? Why? And why don't we need access to every email by every Congressperson?

I explained the "why" very clearly.

I don't understand your last question. I never said either of those two things.

 

[mgidm86]

I asked the question, why would she want her own email server?

 

[DavidJames]

My point with the other thread was that the lefties here sure raised a storm about it when it was a conservative. Is there a double standard? Having your own server though brings it to new levels.

I'm a liberal (lefties is so 50's) Personally I'm troubled and disappointed in both cases. As far own her server, actually, I'm not aware of any inherent legal issues with it at all. Admittedly, it does allow some to take the CT craziness to a whole new level.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm a liberal (lefties is so 50's) Personally I'm troubled and disappointed in both cases. As far own her server, actually, I'm not aware of any inherent legal issues with it at all. Admittedly, it does allow some to take the CT craziness to a whole new level.

Sorry about "lefties", I don't know what word to use sometimes. I was typing fast

Again, legally maybe it isn't a problem. As far as I know, having a personal server is a first. It doesn't look good, especially if one expects close scrutinizing while running for president, which I expect she will.

I would like to know why having her own server is something she thought was a good idea or necessary. I've listed my arguments against the reasons offered in this thread several posts above.

 

[DavidJames]

I would like to know why having her own server is something she thought was a good idea or necessary. I've listed my arguments against the reasons offered in this thread several posts above.

My inclination is the same, what's the point? It's asking for scrutiny. Maybe there's a good reason, I'd be interested in knowing it.

But until it's proven one way or another, I might as well call it a "worldclass/highly secure server". It's as accurate as cowboy/homebrew.

But I won't.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Even though conservatives do it too, Hillary must have sinister motives for using personal email?

I personally wouldn't be surprised if any politician did it for sinister motives, liberal or conservative.

 

[wareyin]

I explained the "why" very clearly.

I don't understand your last question. I never said either of those two things.

You have only explained "why" as how you, personally, don't like it. I still don't understand why I should be bothered.

As far as my second, and third, question, you are claiming that access to Hillary's emails are vital, for some reason. I am questioning how vital that access really is. In my third question, I am pointing out that we are not allowed access to Congresspersons emails, and questioning where the outrage for that lack is.

 

[The Big Dog]

We really need access to every email sent or received by the Secretary of State? Why? And why don't we need access to every email by every Congressperson?

Strawman coupled with tu quoque fallacy.

We need emails that are subject to production pursuant to FOIA and pursuant to subpoenas.

That is what governmental transparency means.

 

[LSSBB]

You have only explained "why" as how you, personally, don't like it. I still don't understand why I should be bothered.

As far as my second, and third, question, you are claiming that access to Hillary's emails are vital, for some reason. I am questioning how vital that access really is. In my third question, I am pointing out that we are not allowed access to Congresspersons emails, and questioning where the outrage for that lack is.

Private control of public information is to me a serious concern, no matter who you are speaking of (Bush, Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, George Ryan (two Illinois examples for you)). The whole concept of a privately controlled server to me only spells out an exercise in Cover Your Ass. As the Nixon tapes were very much public information, so are official records of the State Department. Think if Nixon had a private tape server, and direct control over what could be available before release - and a two year lag.

These are only my first impressions, however. I await much lawyerly duking it out for further information (or spin on either side).

 

[The Big Dog]

My inclination is the same, what's the point? It's asking for scrutiny. Maybe there's a good reason, I'd be interested in knowing it.

But until it's proven one way or another, I might as well call it a "worldclass/highly secure server". It's as accurate as cowboy/homebrew.

But I won't.

well, until you post four articles quoting computer experts who have evaluated the homebrew server from the public side and said it was not an insecure "nightmare" (actual quote) then it seems that cowboy/homebrew server nails it.

Got articles?

 

[plague311]

Again, legally maybe it isn't a problem. As far as I know, having a personal server is a first. It doesn't look good, especially if one expects close scrutinizing while running for president, which I expect she will.

Servers aren't exactly expensive or anything. This whole "personal server" is kind of a bit overzealous. There are millions of people that have their own personal servers, email setups and the like. I've pointed out several times that this isn't that complicated to setup.

There are a lot of reasons why having your own server would be a good idea, and I named a few earlier.

1) I am sure Bill uses it for his philanthropy work.
2) If you're running a campaign then having your own email setup would be much easier to handle. As far as I know if you're running for office you don't have to use the government server, nor should you.
3) Servers hold more than just email. You can use it to host documents (i.e. fundraising brochures.)

Those are just a few that come to me off the top of my head. Having a "personal" server isn't a huge deal anymore. Referring to it as homebrew and cowboy is probably meant to give it a poor image.

I would like to know why having her own server is something she thought was a good idea or necessary. I've listed my arguments against the reasons offered in this thread several posts above.

As far as we know it may just have been something they did, completely unrelated to the occupation at all. The previous SoS used personal email as well, maybe it's something they passed on as a good idea. There are many pluses to having a home server, and not many drawbacks.

 

[plague311]

well, until you post four articles quoting computer experts who have evaluated the homebrew server from the public side and said it was not an insecure "nightmare" (actual quote) then it seems that cowboy/homebrew server nails it.

Got articles?

Did they actually state what the system has? I haven't seen that as of yet. As in, what software, physical or software firewall, OS, etc or are you referring to those other articles you posted that gave no system information, just what "experts" thought?

 

[sunmaster14]

Private control of public information is to me a serious concern, no matter who you are speaking of (Bush, Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, George Ryan (two Illinois examples for you)). The whole concept of a privately controlled server to me only spells out an exercise in Cover Your Ass. As the Nixon tapes were very much public information, so are official records of the State Department. Think if Nixon had a private tape server, and direct control over what could be available before release - and a two year lag.

These are only my first impressions, however. I await much lawyerly duking it out for further information (or spin on either side).

Weirdly enough, Nixon did have a private tape server, with direct control, and a two year lag. It was Nixon's idea to install an automatic taping system in various rooms of the White House, and he evidently considered the tapes to be his personal property. He certainly had a good argument that they were protected by executive privilege. To this day, I think the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in ordering him to turn over the tapes. Of course, if he had had enough political support, he could have simply refused. A smarter strategy would have been to widen the 18 minute gap to two years. It was certainly within his power to do that.

 

[DavidJames]

well, until you post four articles quoting computer experts who have evaluated the homebrew server from the public side and said it was not an insecure "nightmare" (actual quote) then it seems that cowboy/homebrew server nails it.

Only in the mind of the hyper partisan who believes anything they read if it fits their bias.

 

[The Big Dog]

Did they actually state what the system has? I haven't seen that as of yet. As in, what software, physical or software firewall, OS, etc or are you referring to those other articles you posted that gave no system information, just what "experts" thought?

1. Hillary has not disclosed what the server is. You know that right? That is a huge part of the problem.

2. The articles I posted showed that, among other things, the certificate security system was grossly inept. The public face of the server was incompetent.

Or that is what the experts say. Hillary isn't saying anything.

 

[plague311]

well, until you post four articles quoting computer experts who have evaluated the homebrew server from the public side and said it was not an insecure "nightmare" (actual quote) then it seems that cowboy/homebrew server nails it.

Got articles?

The private email infrastructure created by Hillary Clinton after she left the State Department employs several techniques to obscure its location as well as some sophisticated security shields to protect it from hackers, cyber security experts have told the Guardian.

Source

Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a “homebrew” internet system was “plainly inaccurate”

Jonathan Mayer, a computer scientist at Stanford University,

So can we put the "homebrew" crap to bed please?

 

[The Big Dog]

Only in the mind of the hyper partisan who believes anything they read if it fits their bias.

LOLZ!

You want to post something from the Clinton camp or computer experts that contradict that analysis? anything?

Ok.

 

[plague311]

1. Hillary has not disclosed what the server is. You know that right? That is a huge part of the problem.

2. The articles I posted showed that, among other things, the certificate security system was grossly inept. The public face of the server was incompetent.

Or that is what the experts say. Hillary isn't saying anything.

I actually just posted experts that say the exact opposite of what you're implying. Care to comment on that? What do you mean by "what the server is"? You mean as far as specs? That was my point. People sure are saying a lot, but without the actual knowledge of what the system is then we're just shooting ****.

According to the experts I found her system was top notch, some of the best security available.

 

[The Big Dog]

Surce

So can we put the "homebrew" crap to bed please?

Jonathan Mayer, a computer scientist at Stanford University, said historical records provided some evidence that the server could have been located in the Clinton home near Chappaqua, New York. Later, either the server was physically moved or the data was rerouted.
Advertisement

Mayer said it was impossible to tell from tests on the historical server whether it was well secured against hacker attack – a critical question given the sensitivity of Clinton’s role and the aggressiveness of the cyber threat from countries such as China

"“It’s possible the server was well secured,” he said. “I’m not in a position to say, short of having access to the server itself.”

Ok. lol