*Sigh*. That's not what I was talking about. There is a difference between using private email, and using a private email *server*.

Also your own quote shows that actual issue here, there wasn't adequate record keeping by Clinton. Why are there emails missing from the ones she handed over, some are missing from the start of of her tenure as SoS, some she claims were "personal". Also, why did it take Clinton until 2013 to turn over her email, she should have done it before she left the position.

Er, if the email is private, then it would suggest that it isn't on a government server.


Would you prefer that Clinton had used Gmail or Yahoo instead?

Yes I would actually for the simple reason have dedicated security teams to prevent and mitigate hackers. What was Clinton's setup? Something knocked up by Kev the intern on his lunch hour.

There were attempts to hack Clinton's email server, but they don't know if a) it was sucessful and b) what if anything was accessed. As someone how knows a little about computer security, that's a fcking joke.

I know Steerpike knows quite a bit about this, maybe he'll comment.

That's comical. Those things get hacked all of the time. I doubt that there is anyone who is reading this who hasn't had some experience with hacked email from accounts hosted by a major email provider.


At this point, it's clear that you're just performing your pro-Sanders routine, and any excuse will suffice.

What's actually clear is that you don't have a fcking clue about computer security. But you go right ahead and dismiss what I'm saying as just an example of me supporting Sanders if it makes you feel better.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clinto...er-vulnerable/

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467ff...risked-hacking

I notice you didn't address the record keeping issue.

Yes, those emails that I have received as a result of hacking were just in my imagination.



My comment about this being a pissing contest over departmental policy covered that.

Bit of an extreme statement. Your doubt is misplaced. I have had no experience with hacked email accounts hosted by a major provider.

I find it difficult to believe that you haven't received email from a friend's or acquaintance's account that was generated by a hacker/spammer.


Hundreds of millions of hacked user names and passwords for email accounts and other websites are being traded in Russia's criminal underworld, a security expert told Reuters.

The discovery of 272.3 million stolen accounts included a majority of users of Mail.ru <MAILRq.L>, Russia's most popular email service, and smaller fractions of Google <GOOGL.O>, Yahoo <YHOO.O> and Microsoft <MSFT.O> email users, said Alex Holden, founder and chief information security officer of Hold Security.

Exclusive: Big data breaches found at major email services - expert | Reuters


And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

This is a nice strawman you're building here. Your AOL account has been hacked, therefore it's better that Clinton uses an email server knocked together by Kev.

No computer system that is not completely air-gapped will ever be secure (and even not completely then when you look at the Tempest standards). But the point is there are measures you can take to minimise the risk. Based on the details of Clinton's server setup that have been made available it was not done well and was vulnerable to attack. The IG report says quite clearly it was a security risk.

If you think Clinton's failure to adhere to federal record keeping requirements is a "pissing contest", then there's not much point in saying any more as it's obvious that the facts don't matter to you.

You have difficulty separating your opinions about what the law should allow from what the law does allow.

The server was not illegal; clearly, the CFR allows there to be private email servers even today. You may not like it, but your tastes aren't relevant here.

Clinton didn't follow the very CFR you're hanging your argument on. You know the bit about adequate record keeping. But according to you that's just a pissing contest.

You really are trying to have your cake and eat it.

You were making false statements about the legality of the server, and I corrected you. If you didn't want to talk about it, then you shouldn't have brought it up.


Much of the argument is over interpretation of the policy, which can be set by each agency. It should be noted that Clinton didn't just work for the agency, but she ran the agency.


One of her contentions is that emails sent to government email addresses were documented on the recipient's end, which would have covered her disclosure requirements. Although I personally wouldn't do things that way, she has a point.

I thought Powell used AOL?

You are correct, but such emails have, to my knowledge, been possible because of client-side events. That is, malware on the PC (generally a problem caused by the contents of the chair in front of the PC) rather than a server hack. There is a difference in terms of the discussion in progress.

I'm not saying you are wrong on the underlying facts, but disagree that everyone reading will have had experience of server-side shenanigans. Cause and effect differences.

He did, but the differences are:

1) He didn't use AOL exclusively.
2) He didn't set up an actual email server.
3) He accessed his email from a personal laptop.

Now neither of them are good practice. But Clinton's argument about Powell doing the same thing doesn't hold much water.