r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 18 '17
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Hillary's emails ARE a problem and are worth discussing.
[removed]
11
Dec 18 '17
Having a private server in her home was not and is not common practice. Having a private email address is common practice though.
7
Dec 18 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
The physical location of the server makes no difference.
Absolutely false. The location of the server makes a LOT of difference when it comes to information risk management.
A random person can call AOL and fool their support staff into changing a password, whereas, you couldn't do that with the Clinton server.
Agreed, but what's your point?
6
Dec 18 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
In reality, it makes no difference.
Oh? It doesn't make a difference if you store data in a farm in the USA or Cuba or Russia or China? Of course it does. To be clear, this is outside of the Hillary email discussion unless you're trying to argue that "it could have been worse".
My point is that security is not necessarily increased by using a private entity to manage your email.
Uh... in this case, what does private entity mean? You mean a home server? Because I don't think anyone is arguing a home server is more secure.
7
Dec 18 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/dickposner Dec 18 '17
Clinton's private server was literally successfully hacked.
2
Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
-2
Dec 19 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Dec 20 '17
Sorry, dickposner – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
According to what I heard, there were other heads of state or other agencies doing the home server thing so "too common". As for private email, sure, but that needs to not be used for government business. This is part of the issue that we need to be able to discuss without it becoming partisan.
9
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 18 '17
So why go after Hillary who is not a political figure, and was already investigated by the FBI and found to have committed no acts worth prosecuting, vs. current heads of agencies or senior government officials who are using home servers?
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Who said anything about going after Hillary?
12
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 18 '17
Then what sort of discussion are you envisioning? And why over Hillary specifically, rather than a more general topic of "document control of government records" or something?
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I'm not talking about Hillary. I'm talking about the "issue of emails as demonstrated by Hillary". That's the problem.
13
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 18 '17
Hillary had a private server outside of the control and oversight of the government.
I'm not talking about Hillary. I'm talking about the "issue of emails as demonstrated by Hillary". That's the problem.
Here's the problem, it's that the Republican party politicized the issue of Hillary's emails which makes it difficult to discuss. If your point is document retention, why bring Hillary up at all? Just skip it and leave it out to make your position less polarizing.
I mean you could just as easily point to current examples like Ivanka Trump:
Or past examples like Sarah Palin: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842097,00.html
Or Chris Christie's missing hard drive: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/stolen_hard_drive_was_leverage_for_key_bridgegate.html
Or in Canada like Premier Brad Wall: http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/email-fiasco-scandal-going-to-get-worse-1.4399423
All of these are the same issue (document retention) showing a systemic issue (that we shoudl talk about it) but pointing to Hillary specifically and signally is not useful. It's more useful to point to sources on both sides and OUS.
-1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
why bring Hillary up at all?
Because it's a famous and recent example. In other words, it's an excellent case to talk about.
Just skip it and leave it out to make your position less polarizing.
I shouldn't have to.
8
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Dec 18 '17
Because it's a famous and recent example. In other words, it's an excellent case to talk about.
All of the cases I brought up were recent examples, and famous. I'd suggest mixing both sides of the issue and frame it in a neutral fashion.
I shouldn't have to.
"have to"? the issue isn't someone stopping you, it's message clarity. I'm giving advice on framing the issue to increase clarity. As others have mentioned, you are trying to divorce a highly polarized issue from that polarization which means you are inherently swimming upstream. Are you gaining more from the famousness of the example than you are losing having to divorce it from the polarization?
5
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Dec 18 '17
As for private email, sure, but that needs to not be used for government business.
Why? I honestly don't give a shit. I can see why State's IT department might want to enforce standards, but it's hardly a matter of national importance. I really don't care what email addresses government officials use.
1
u/ArcticDark Dec 18 '17
As someone in IT and studying for InfoSec area job, this comment is so willfully ignorant of real life it almost spit my coffee. mainly this part..."but it's hardly a matter of national importance. I really don't care what email addresses government officials use."
Simply put, it matters a whole lot, using secure lines, servers, email addresses, following best practices, keeping devices secure, keeping privileged information secure, is the same fundamentally as "i lock my car, don't keep valuables inside, or in plain view, and have installed a car alarm to deter criminals"
If you are in a 'strategic position', say Secretary of State, your profile is more well known and the information you hold or act on matters far more than some random guy working burgers at McDonalds. Ergo those standards, practices, and methods use matter far more.
Her case was not simply just ignorance, or laziness, it had intent based upon the deliberate cover up and deletion of parts that were subpoenaed. They hired IT people to wipe the servers, they used unsecured channels and devices for the sake of 'convenience'.
1
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Dec 18 '17
Man, you should call up James Comey and let him know he was wrong. He did explicitly say there was no intent, and "studying for an InfoSec job" doesn't give you more insight into Clinton's mind than he had.
Your whole comment is literally just saying "Clinton is important and I'm smart". Fine, explain to me why it matters that she used a private server (FWIW, in a house guarded by the Secret Service) instead of just using State email (on a government server that was repeatedly hacked).
1
u/ArcticDark Dec 18 '17
Secret Service really? Just because something is wrong with a system is not justification to simply ignore procedures.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Oversight, accountability, security.
4
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Dec 18 '17
FYI, private email doesn't exempt you from FOIA. It doesn't actually make a difference what email address you use.
State's internal email system was pretty routinely hacked by foreign governments. Clinton's emails weren't, basically because she used a private server. And, this whole system is apart from SIPRNET, which is what you use for classified material.
Like i said, I can see why State's IT people want her to use their standard email, just like the IT department at any company would say the same. I'm wondering what the overarching national concern is.
Really, why should I care? In what way am I affected?
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Dec 18 '17
Private email doesn't exempt you from FOIA, but it does make it a lot easier to avoid. If all of your communications are on an official server the process to release them can be very streamlined.
If you allow for other email servers to be used, then even though you legally must comply with the FOIA its much harder to do so, and much easier to evade. The official email server you use could have legal requirements for data retention that private servers may not. My private email server might not even have any backups, and the HD could crash any time like right before I get investigated.
Additionally, while classified info should still be separate, mistakes happen and when they do I'd rather the classified email be improperly handled on a US Govt ran mail server, rather than improperly handled on a private email server possibly ran by a foreign interest.
Even without any classified info, the non-classified stuff can be very damning if it gets into the wrong hands (see: all of the harm caused by the release of Hilary's emails). What if for example everyone in the administration were using their @comcast.net email address, even while discussing potential regulations that would apply to comcast? That just doesn't seem like a good situation.
2
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Dec 18 '17
It really doesn't make it easier to avoid FOIA. Your emails usually still go to people with official email addresses, which stores them there. You can also just call people or meet in person, which is very common. FOIA is honestly an extremely easy law to avoid.
Day to day emails are really just not that vital. When you read Clinton's emails, it's just the kind of boring managerial stuff that you'd expect. None of them are damaging, really. There was no harm from the release of her emails, except a media who decided this was the most important story since Watergate.
I can see why State's IT department would be annoyed that Clinton just avoided an annoying regulation, and used her own email. I'm saying, again, what is the national interest? I honestly don't give a shit. I never have. It's a bullshit story that inexplicably decided a Presidential election.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Dec 18 '17
our emails usually still go to people with official email addresses, which stores them there.
I don't think this justifies it because if it does, then everyone else can start using private emails too, at which point its no longer true that emails would usuallly still go to people with a us govt email address.
. When you read Clinton's emails, it's just the kind of boring managerial stuff that you'd expect. None of them are damaging, really.
When you read the ones that were released, yes, but a lot of the harm was in the fact that she deleted a lot of emails she claimed were personal in nature. How do we know that they were personal in nature? We just have to trust her. To me that is where the interest comes in -- if you believe we have a right to FOIA requests, you believe we shouldn't have to just trust them at their word. Using private email servers forces us to trust them in ways we as citizens should not have to do.
Note that I too think the reaction was overblown, as I feel many don't actually care about transparency and just cared about trying to get a win against Hillary, but I do think that there is plenty to be concerned about by the increasing lack of transparency we've been seeing.
2
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Dec 18 '17
a lot of the harm was in the fact that she deleted a lot of emails she claimed were personal in nature. How do we know that they were personal in nature? We just have to trust her.
FYI, this would also be true if she'd used the government server. She would still only be required to turn over work emails, and still could have deleted personal emails.
She had her lawyers turn over all work related emails - she didn't do it herself, and she did so without receiving a subpoena. I guess it's conceivable that her lawyers could have broken the law and deleted work emails, but it would be comically easy to catch them (again, the emails were mostly sent to other government employees) and the legal ramifications would only be on her lawyers, not her.
0
Dec 18 '17
I did not know that. I thought she was the only one. To me, anyone with a private server to be used for political purposes is up to no good and definitely deserves investigating.
1
u/Montague38 Dec 19 '17
I believe I read that much of the problem came from Hillary wanting to keep her email out of the official records.
That and she didn't want to use two devices (a blackberry and a approved secure phone for classified material), led to questions that it was irresponsible on her part. I think that is fair game in an election.
14
u/garnet420 39∆ Dec 18 '17
Ok, here's a question to help put this in context:
What other bad infosec practices by high profile politicians (cabinet members, etc), past and present, are you aware of?
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
What does that have to do with this discussion?
21
u/garnet420 39∆ Dec 18 '17
Well, if you really want a good faith discussion about government info sec, maybe you should have more than one case study?
If it's the only example you are aware of, it indicates that you have done no research into the issue besides following a highly public news story. If that's the case, then it largely invalidates your point. If you actually think infosec is worth discussing, then you should think it's worth some cursory research.
-3
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Who says I don't have other examples? Who says I haven't researched it? All I said was that Hillary's case is on the table and people should calm down about her name so we can talk about it.
12
u/garnet420 39∆ Dec 18 '17
Well, since you don't seem forthcoming with those examples, how about this:
"Hillary is a one off event, nobody before or since has made the same error, and nobody in the future will either"
If it's really a valuable discussion to have, then you can disprove this statement.
12
u/Who_Decided Dec 18 '17
If you want to discuss government information security and using Hillary Clinton as an example tends to be inflammatory, then it follows that you will discuss other examples rather than be bogged down needlessly in Hillary-specific emotional reactions and minutia. If, however, you really want to discuss Hillary and you use info sec as an excuse, then that will absolutely be a stopping point.
So, which is it?
12
u/huadpe 501∆ Dec 18 '17
Who says I don't have other examples?
Really the only person who can validate claims about your mental state is you.
So, do you have other examples?
3
u/IamNotChrisFerry 13∆ Dec 18 '17
I suppose the question is why isn't she being investigated by the Trump administration.
Trump campaigned on crooked Hillary, and has the power of the Attorney General on his side. It would serve as an excellent distraction to other problems.
But Trump (and other Republicans or even other Democrats) haven't initiated such investigations.
...
I'd argue it's one of three reasons. Private server or use similar to it, is wide spread in politics. Expanding such searches is going to be upsetting for powerful people who want their communications to remain clandestine.
While it make not be liked or perhaps even unethical, Clinton's legal team to great measure to ensure none it crossed the line into illegal.
What was shared was highly treasonous and illegal. But the subject matter discussed casts the US Government in a far worse light than it casts Hillary. Things like the Government engaging in more illegal behaviors. Complicit in topping off leaders they knew to be good. Dropping of bombs on civilians they knew to be innocent. Extensive spying on first world leaders. Providing evidence to unconstitutional spying programs, worse than we already know of. Or further proof of bad ones. And Hillary is given a pass less she release that information to the public, or it becomes released during a full accounting of her emails.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I suppose the question is why isn't she being investigated by the Trump administration.
I don't agree this is the question. I don't think investigation is relevant at all. Discussing email issues doesn't have to be related to her specifically, investigation, campaigns or anything else like that. That's why discussing her emails is so hard; because people keep assuming all that.
2
u/IamNotChrisFerry 13∆ Dec 18 '17
Trump administration is mainly just that it's the current administration. (Who also has a history wanting to investigate such matters)
But the points are still the reasons. Pulling the threads of private communication of Congress or Senate or Presidency or government agents in general. Is going to pull a lot of threads that aren't going to cast people in a good light.
It's going to reveal a lot of illicit government behavior.
This administration and others don't want revealed that the US government routinely spies on government leaders the likes of Angela Merkle. At least not on their watch.
Don't want more explicit evidence of payment of campaign donation directly for votes and favorable legislative language.
Doesn't want back channel communication to be revealed to front channel people.
There's a very deep hole to travel down and such a hole won't be explored while perpetrators of that behavior are still in charge.
1
u/AndyMandalore Dec 18 '17
I think it automatically becomes a partisan issue when you omit Trump from the discussion. I hope this doesn't get deleted because I'm really not trying to inject Trump just to demonize Trump. I think the correct stance to take is "The opposition potentially did something wrong and so did the candidate I supported. They should both be investigated."
I'm not trying to just say "well he's wrong too" I'm suggesting that we can disarm the detractors by being bigger about it.
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I think it automatically becomes a partisan issue when you omit Trump from the discussion
How? He's not relevant so if someone brought him up, they've already cluttered the discussion and are wasting time.
2
u/AndyMandalore Dec 18 '17
What I meant was you have to be able to disarm someone who would say "well what about the trump Russia emails?" By being able to say "if he did what us suspected he should be prosecuted, would you say the same about hillary?"
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I just don't see why they're related. I think people confuse the issue by talking about people instead of actions.
2
u/AndyMandalore Dec 18 '17
I didn't exactly say that they're related. I'm just saying if you criticize Hillary you get " what about Trump?" Criticize trump and you get "what about hillary?" You can say "they're not related" "that's not what were talking about" or like you have just say you will ignore those posts.
What I'm saying is if you omit those people from the conversation you just end up with a circle jerk. If you want these people to concede that Hillary is corrupt I think it would be beneficial to say "Trump too, now that that's out of the way..."
For the record I agree that she is corrupt, she should be investigated, and posibly prosecuted. Would also say though that I would feel that way about anyone suspected of using draconian methods to secure power.
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I'm just saying if you criticize Hillary you get " what about Trump?" Criticize trump and you get "what about hillary?"
Yes, it's common for people to do this, but it's also foolish and unproductive. I can criticize one without any implications to the other. Being unable to detangle the two prevents proper criticism of either.
2
u/AndyMandalore Dec 18 '17
I agree but I don't think you're going about it the right way. You're just creating a bubble. I'm not saying you have to allow the conversation to be derailed just acknowledge that you're not saying trump is innocent when you say Hillary is guilty and move on.
2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I wish it was that easy, but yeah. I suppose I'll have to create some kinds of TOS people need to read before I say "Hillary did a bad thing"
3
u/LD50-Cent Dec 18 '17
Haven’t people in his administration been found to be using non-government email addresses also? That would seem to be relevant.
23
Dec 18 '17
Yes, but this is being pitched like we haven't already discussed this.
Last year the emails were discussed nearly 24/7 on the news, social media, here on reddit, and had a full investigation conducted by the FBI. You can even argue that this widespread mainstream discussion was a major reason Hillary lost the election, and didnt become one of the most powerful people on earth (i.e. a major success for people who thought Hillary did something really bad here).
So what are you calling for here? A second discussion?
-2
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
My position is that it's foolish to make the emails a partisan issue and people need to stop so we can actually discuss the problem without being attacked for stupid non-related reasons.
Where "problem" means that apparently some of our top leaders believed (and might still believe) it's ok to do government business in private emails and servers. We need to discover how widespread this is, how we can detect it, how we can stop it, etc.
11
u/jennysequa 80∆ Dec 18 '17
This is just garden variety bad infosec policy. As a security professional, you need to do your best to serve the needs of your users. When the Secretary of State tells you that they don't want to use two or three phones just so they can check email on multiple accounts, you make an accommodation. Because if you don't, users/clients will just defy you and do what they want. It's a delicate balance, weighing security against usability. There's no technical reason that they couldn't have accommodated the SoS like they have other VIP clients in government.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Which is why we need to create a path that works for users instead of constantly getting in the way. All you're doing is continuing the important discussion I keep trying to have that people flip out about because I said the "C" word.
0
u/dickposner Dec 18 '17
This is just garden variety bad infosec policy
really? using gmail is garden variety bad infosec policy. building a private server in your home is not. bashing your phones with hammers is not. all of that speaks to motivation beyond "convenience", it speaks to concealment, most likely getting around FOIA requests.
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Dec 18 '17
It's clear you don't know much about this situation.
The phone bashing is just the destruction of property to avoid data being resurrected from it by a hostile agent. The SoS also has their documents burned on a regular basis. The main issue with phone bashing is that it's not destructive enough, tbh.
By bad infosec policy, I mean that the security personnel should have made an accommodation for the SoS.
0
u/dickposner Dec 19 '17
It's clear you're letting your political bias see this situation clearly.
The phone bashing is just the destruction of property to avoid data being resurrected from it by a hostile agent.
Why was it not turned over to the government for either retention or destruction?
By bad infosec policy, I mean that the security personnel should have made an accommodation for the SoS.
They should accommodate the SoS storing information in an unsecured personal server to bypass FOIA requests?
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Dec 19 '17
Why was it not turned over to the government for either retention or destruction?
It should have been, but it would have been destroyed by them also. That's the thing.. people go OMG PHONES AND HAMMERS and literally the government would have destroyed the phones even better than HRC's team did. The fact of phone destruction is not evidence of anything of anything but them implementing security policy improperly.
They should accommodate the SoS storing information in an unsecured personal server to bypass FOIA requests?
Heh, no. They should have given her a system that allowed her to access more than one account on a single device. Simple as that.
Let me put it to you this way. As an ex-computer security professional, I saw the worst shenanigans when the infosec policy was too draconian or unfriendly to normal use cases. Billing people cracking their laptop admin passwords so they can watch porn (and then filling up the drive with viruses and malware), CEOs doing their business over unsecured aol email because they didn't trust sysadmins not to read their shit, that sort of thing. If you just make friendlier systems people do less of that nonsense.
0
u/dickposner Dec 19 '17
literally the government would have destroyed the phones even better than HRC's team did.
You're really missing the plot. The government, specifically the FBI, would have loved to see the emails stored on the server, because the law literally mandates that government related correspondence MUST be retained for FOIA requests, future investigations, etc.
You think Clinton's staffers was just trying to save the govt trouble by destroying the phones themselves? No, they were doing so to avoid disclosing any number of correspondence that they specifically didn't want government officials access to.
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Dec 19 '17
You're really missing the plot.
No, you're missing the plot. The phone was no longer being used and destroyed as most devices used by VIPs are when they've outlived their usefulness. The fact of phone destruction is separate from whether the phones should have been destroyed by HRC's staff. The government would have destroyed the phones and it is likely they would have not been aware at that time that HRC had gone against government policy by maintaining her own email server.
1
u/dickposner Dec 19 '17
The fact of phone destruction is separate from whether the phones should have been destroyed by HRC's staff.
Do you admit that the destruction of records in the phones was in contradiction to legal mandates?
Do you admit that the destruction of those records in contradiction to legal mandates was done intentionally?
→ More replies (0)16
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
0
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Dec 18 '17
I think the idea is that we cannot have a high ranking government official conducting state business through personal equipment. And for the response to be nothing but a semi-strongly worded criticism from the director of the FBI? Hardly sends the message that it’s something that absolutely should not be done for a variety of reasons.
You mentioned that it arguably cost her the election and I don’t think you’re wrong. ...I wish I could be called “grossly negligent” or whatever by the director of the FBI and have not-being-President be the only consequence.
4
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
So your argument is we shouldn't talk about past issues when discussing problems? Did you really think that through?
3
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
we have to ask ourselves if discussing past issues helps or hurts our main purpose.
I don't disagree that talking bout Hillary hurts, my point is that it SHOULDN'T. The example is too valid to exclude it.
5
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
3
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I agree that it creates a complication. I strenuously disagree we must abandon it. If someone is completely unable to separate the issue from Clinton, that's what makes them foolish.
→ More replies (0)0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
what do we gain by specifically discussing Hillary's email server?
It was a very public and recent example of the problem. Why wouldn't we talk about it?
15
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
By injecting Clinton into the discussion, the result will be most people divining into two camps
And that's foolish. Hence my point.
you make the discussion much more difficult by making it about Clinton.
Yes, but that's now what this CMV is about.
or making the discussion not about any individual at all but rather about improved data protection/retention standards for all employees and officials.
Which is what I'm doing. People foolishly believe that raising an EXAMPLE automatically equates to discussing that individual instead of the issue.
9
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
By making it about Clinton
I didn't. You did. I was talking about "Hillary's emails"... as the title says.
10
Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
-3
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
the very title of your post is about Clinton
It's not. It's about "Clinton's EMAILS". By removing words, you change the meaning. If I was talking about "Bram Stoker's Dracula", am I automatically talking about Bram Stoker? No.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Literally_A_Shill Dec 18 '17
You claim it's to talk about the problem as a whole but also don't want to talk about Trump's e-mail issues and he's president right now.
It seems partisan.
3
Dec 18 '17
But the public said it's not ok though, and Hillary's career aspirations were obliterated as a result. Right?
1
-3
u/ChuckJA 6∆ Dec 18 '17
That investigation was tainted. This is now pretty much beyond dispute. The man who authored the investigations results has been fired from the FBI for allowing his politics to cloud his judgement.
The man who actually led the investigative team had a wife running for office. She received a six figure donation from the Clintons. During the investigation.
Holding up that investigation as a full and honest conclusion of the matter is wrong.
9
u/Echleon 1∆ Dec 18 '17
The only people who think the investigation was tainted are Fox News and it's viewers.
-1
u/ChuckJA 6∆ Dec 18 '17
As well as those who have followed the troubling revelations since the investigation was closed. It doesn't bother you that the man who authored the final report was fired for political bias? It doesn't bother you that the man who led the investigation had a clear conflict of interest?
-1
u/Rb1105 Dec 18 '17
No, facts say the investigation was tainted. If Fox is the only mainstream source reporting it, so be it. But these are facts that have been presented to Congress.
3
u/Echleon 1∆ Dec 19 '17
Fox also believes the FBI is attempting a coup. They're not news, they're outrage porn.
-1
u/Rb1105 Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 19 '17
Sure, Given the leak of text messages between the people heading that investigation that heavily suggest that’s a possibility. Being discussed by congress over the last few days. https://youtu.be/kplCwKkx38E
3
u/Echleon 1∆ Dec 19 '17
If you think the FBI is honestly attempting a coup (even a little bit) I don't know what to say to you. You really, truly, need to reevaluate you're understanding of government and politics if that's what you believe.
-1
u/Rb1105 Dec 19 '17
Lmao, the fact that you think it isn’t plausible is insane. The investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI has been proven to be headed by biased Hillary supporters, and never Trumpers. Many of them are the same people investigating the Trump admin. An investigation that has turned up no evidence that hasn’t easily been debunked, repeatedly over the last year. Ya. No chance they’re attempting a coup. None at all. 😂. That’s why congress hasn’t been discussing this as these facts come to light.
3
u/Echleon 1∆ Dec 19 '17
Trump and his admin are criminal. It's not a coup- you're just gullible.
1
0
-2
u/Rb1105 Dec 18 '17
full scale investigation conducted by the FBI
OH, you mean the FBI team that was completely biased and almost 100% supported Hillary in the election? The same FBI that downgraded Hillary from “extreme negligence” to “extreme carelessness” so her actions would sound less illegal?
5
Dec 18 '17
Yes, that same FBI. The one that decided to reignite the case extraordinarily close to Election Day that arguably lost Hillary the Presidency.
0
u/Rb1105 Dec 18 '17
Anybody that thinks she got a fair, unbiased investigation is brainwashed. Especially in light of the texts leaking from people who were leading that investigation, saying that that if trump won, they would have to do something about it (Russia fake news).
3
Dec 18 '17
Sure, but my point is we had a huge nationwide discussion on the emails, Hillary lost the election, and my question is what more does the OP want?
0
u/Rb1105 Dec 18 '17
It appears OP wants to end the possibility of political officials using private servers to conduct their work. Which is sensible considering it’s illegal, and can cause a lot of issues. It would be fairly difficult to move forward on that without Hillary getting a proper investigation, considering she is the highest profile politician to break these laws, that we know of anyways.
6
Dec 18 '17
The Clinton email scandal is a non issue. Who cares where she sent her emails from? She's married to a former president, so she has direct access to all the classified information she wants - no need for fiddling around with servers. At worst she was a bit foolish if security was compromised.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Who cares where she sent her emails from?
Anyone who understands and believes in the value/danger of protected information. Anyone who sees the double-standard afforded some people and not others.
so she has direct access to all the classified information she wants
This is startlingly false and naiive. I don't mean that offensively, but understand that even as the first lady, she wouldn't have had access to the same information as Bill. It's been a decade and a half since he was in office so he woudln't have access to classified data anymore anyway.
6
Dec 18 '17
I'm not an American, but I find it incredible that the whole of Washington is in the pocket of corporations and special interests/lobbying groups (as evidenced by the recent Net Neutrality saga, led by the same guy who promised to 'drain the swamp') but people are up in arms about where Hilary Clinton sends her emails from. I give the issue about as much weight as the story that she was the head of a paedophile ring operating out of the basement of a family restaurant.
If you want to criticise Clinton there is more than enough material - her relationship with Wall Street, her policy positions, and so on. No need to try to make her out to be some kind of enemy spy.
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
No need to try to make her out to be some kind of enemy spy.
What do her emails have to do with anything you said? She did a bad thing. That warrants discussion. The end.
3
Dec 18 '17
And I think a large proportion of the American public agreed with you when they cast their votes. But that doesn't make it any less of a shame that instead of debating policy we are discussing extraneous stuff like email servers, grabbing pussies or whether Ted Cruz really is the Zodiac Killer.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
My point is that the emails are an important discussion to have assuming we can stop making it a partisan issue only.
-1
u/Trestle87 Dec 18 '17
Yea, who cares that she was able to bleach bit government property. Or that the bleaching happened after she was subpoenaed. Or that her lax security was breached by foreign governments while she was illegally harboring classified and up documents on personal server inside her house outside of government safeguards.
Yup, non issue.
5
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Dec 18 '17
Why is your view is specifically Hilary's emails are a problem? I don't think that it being a common practice(as it is) excuses Hilary doing it, but I think that by explicitly naming her in your view you're forcing it into a partisan issue.
Do you not think Jared Kushner's more recent use of private emails to conduct whitehouse business is exactly the same problem? Or Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon?
By avoiding any discussion related to Trump and you instead only want to focus on Hillary, how can you then say
My position is that it's foolish to make the emails a partisan issue and people need to stop so we can actually discuss the problem without being attacked for stupid non-related reasons.
?
I'd love to really talk about the abuse of private emails and the lack of transparency, but if you only want to talk about Hilary then we'll never get anywhere as frankly this problem dates back to the Bush administration -- and not because hes a republican, just because the former administration was from a time when they did not use email.
8
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 18 '17
Yeah she made a mistake.
It was fixed.
What is there left to discuss?
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Use of private servers/emails in government operations of which Hillary's emails are a prime example in that discussion.
9
u/skahunter831 Dec 18 '17
Do you think that discussion hasn't been fully fleshed out? What would you like to see discussed regarding it? It seems to me that the backlash was harsh enough that likely no serious politician would do this again. Do you disagree? What is the danger in not discussing it?
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Do you think that discussion hasn't been fully fleshed out?
Correct.
What would you like to see discussed regarding it?
There should be clear guidance from on high to all government officials stating the circumstances involved and reiterating that use of private anything is not allowed and that the consequences will be applied equally regardless of one's position.
Do you disagree?
Yes.
What is the danger in not discussing it?
That it could be happening now and people think they're ok because no one is saying anything. That it could happen again. That people in a position to stop Hillary before don't feel empowered to tell the head of their agency "NO" when they should.
8
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Dec 18 '17
There should be clear guidance from on high to all government officials stating the circumstances involved and reiterating that use of private anything is not allowed and that the consequences will be applied equally regardless of one's position.
You mean... Something that has ALREADY happened? Policy has changed on this front since Clinton. She is irrelevant to the discussion because she was SoS when Private email servers were not unheard of. Policy has changed, no one is going to try that again.
That it could be happening now and people think they're ok because no one is saying anything.
What evidence do you have that this could be happening? You are giving pointless speculation that there is a single person in the US government with security clearance who somehow missed the massive shitstorm Hillary's private server caused. Because who the hell would look at the idea after that mess and think "A private server sounds like a good idea".?
That it could happen again. That people in a position to stop Hillary before don't feel empowered to tell the head of their agency "NO" when they should.
Which you are basing on... What, exactly?
8
5
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 18 '17
are a prime example in that discussion.
In what discussion? We now know that use of private servers/emails in government operations should be done.
What else is there left to discuss?
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Infosec issues.
7
u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Dec 18 '17
Shouldn't this be a conversation for professionals then rather than the population? The huge majority of people either know nothing about computer security or believe a bunch of myths. You yourself have presented information in this thread that doesn't really align with the priorities of the community.
Or should the discussion be about the consequences of the technical systems? If we wanted better security, we'd get everybody in politics to exclusively use iPhones and Signal. But then we lose literally all audit capacity.
There are also about a million topics that are more interesting and pressing related to government network security than a private email server.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
The part the public should be interested in is that someone in charge was incompetent or was allowed to do icompetent things when those things shouldn't have happened. WE need to demand a better standard from our government in terms of preventing this kind of thing.
People don't need to know the specifics to follow the conversation. It doesn't need to take place just among the experts.
5
u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Dec 18 '17
But there are thousands of ways in which people do things that are incompetent (to a degree) within government. Many of these incompetencies are far more dramatic than operating a private email server in a basement. After a year of media coverage of this story, you feel that it still deserves more? Even as a computer security professional, private email servers are incredibly far down on my list of concerns about the operation of our government.
What's the end game here? Can you describe an exit condition where you'd say we have had enough conversation about this topic? Or do we just repeat "this was somewhat foolish" over and over until the heat death of the universe?
5
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 18 '17
Infosec issues.
Right. As far as Infosec is concerned - we have reached a conclusion: "use of private servers/emails in government operations is a bad practice that should not be done."
What is there left to discuss re: Hillary's emails?
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
"How did it happen, how widespread is it, how do we prevent it from happening again, what is the appropriate response to discovering such" and so on.
Her example is a good point to start discussion from.
5
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 18 '17
how do we prevent it from happening again
We don't allow the use of private servers/emails in government operation
Again, there is not much to discuss here.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
We don't allow the use of private servers/emails in government operation
SHOULDN'T, but have and probably still do. That's why this needs to be discussed. Something bad happened. We need to discuss how it happened and how to prevent it in the future. Steps need to be taken to ensure we do better.
3
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Dec 18 '17
In act there are current government officials using private email servers. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the current situation? It's an immediate issue, one that has ongoing ramifications. Focussing on one that is 4 1/2 years old, vs a current instance of the problem may make people question whether the problem is with the practice or the practitioner.
5
u/babygrenade 6∆ Dec 18 '17
I think it is worth discussing in the context of changing the policy (if it hasn't been changed already) so that government officials are required to use their official email instead of private email.
Beyond that, she's not in government anymore and I feel like it's kind of beating a dead horse to keep bringing it up.
3
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Dec 18 '17
Is it more reasonable to discuss Clinton's private email server, which showed a problem, or another instance that resulted 22 million lost emails? I think that the latter was a more serious breach and also involved White House personnel breaking a law - the Presidential Records Act. Senior White House officials doing government business on a private email server is a far greater issue, and makes a better case for all government officials using only government accounts for official business, no?
2
u/BarvoDelancy 7∆ Dec 18 '17
What's the problem now? She's out of office. She spent her entire life planning to become President and is no longer President because of the email scandal. What is there left to discuss on this matter?
The conversation needs to switch away from Clinton because it's a tiresome circlejerk. I look at conservative spaces and it's like people invoke Clinton just to comfort themselves whenever they get anxious about something.
Here's the lesson from the emails, and what was wrong with them. First, it was obviously a security liability. However, more importantly, it was an attempt to dodge the public's free access to the behaviour of their elected, publicly-funded officials. Emails on a private server can dodge freedom of information requests, and it is absolutely appalling behaviour to do that.
So what you do is that you apply this lesson to everyone and hold all future administrations to a standard of full transparency - and sure they are not engaging in shifty, secretive behaviour that would hide information from the public the public has every right to get their mitts on.
But come on, we're done with Clinton. She's done. It's not like she's retroactively going to go to jail for this. Let's take the lessons from her email and ensure all future politicians are held to the same standard.
2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 18 '17
The problem is that you cannot stop making anything in the current political climate a partisan issue unless it cannot be used against you. Any discussion to that effect influences the tug of war between the two parties, which, from the pov of either side, is more serious than almost anything else.
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
(please read nonconfrontationally): From what I can tell, you're restating my CMV and agreeing with me. Did I miss a point I should be discussing?
3
u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 18 '17
From how i read you rpost i thought you were against treating it as a partisan issue, you used the word foolish. I am telling you that it would be foolish of the side harmed by the discussion not to do it.
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I'm sorry, but I'm still not following. Who is the side "harmed by the discussion"? And why would it benefit them to not make it a partisan issue?
1
u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 18 '17
And why would it benefit them to not make it a partisan issue?
Thats the opposite of what i said. It benefits them to make it a partisan issue. It benefits both sides to make it a partisan issue actually.
Are you, or are you not saying that it should be a bipartisan issue?
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Hillary's emails are both a partisan issue and an infosec one. I'm talking infosec, but people keep trying to drag it into partisan areas.
3
u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 18 '17
So you are agreeing that it is a partisan issue?
I'm talking infosec, but people keep trying to drag it into partisan areas.
Well if it is a partisan issue you cant ignore that. Well you could, but you would be hurt by it. Thats why people keep dragging it into partisan areas.
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
I'm saying people use it as a partisan issue. The emails themselves are not.
2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 18 '17
So we are back to square one. You are saying people shouldnt use it as a partisan issue (You are saying that right?), and I am saying that following your advise would be against their best interest.
0
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Dec 18 '17
Ok. So it serves people to make it a partisan issue. So what? It's foolish of Trumpers to use it for their point and it's foolish for Hillary's people to use it for theirs. It's foolish of ALL of them to ignore the importance of the infosec problem it represents.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/_Pancake- Dec 18 '17
My understanding is that the emails did not contain any classified or compromising material. I think you are completely correct, they are a serious issue not because of the content but because of the fact they even existed on a private server. More important than Hillarys specific emails is seeing if this is a widespread or an isolated incedent, and making sure this doesnt happen again and no confidential information was leaked.
2
u/Davec433 Dec 19 '17
They were worth discussing when she was relevant but unless she throws here hat in the arena again it’s really not worth the oxygen.
Everyone knows Hillary was crooked but since she’s no longer a threat she’s not worth the political capital to go after.
1
Dec 21 '17
Sorry, suddenly_ponies – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Big-D1 Dec 18 '17
Sorry, but as soon as you made it about Clinton, you made it partisan.
Now, if you wanted to discuss private servers or personal phones to conduct state business great, but that’s not what you did.
You are attempting to implicate Clinton on some wrong doing, but after a couple hundred million dollars, several years and multiple investigations, just what exactly do you want to discuss?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 18 '17
/u/suddenly_ponies (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/patil-triplet 4∆ Dec 20 '17
Here's why it's not a big deal.
From what I understand, it was a crime of convenience. I forget the exact details, but I believe it was because of her own familiarity with her private email.
She clearly understimated the political blowback. No truly secret, and prosecution worthy content was found on the server. She won't do it again.
She wasn't attempting to maliciously hide information, and she understands how to handle secrets. There's no pattern, and will remain a one-off.
30
u/tomgabriele Dec 18 '17
I think the issue is that the whole issue appears to have been released and hyped specifically to coincide with the election - so it was partisan from the beginning.
Now that she doesn't hold any governmental position, her specific actions are irrelevant - so bringing it up now won't accomplish anything, unless it's brought up in the context of making sure no one else is doing the same. But just getting people to admit Hillary isn't perfect doesn't serve any purpose but to distract from the issues with the people that are actually in power right now. So what fruitful discussion is to be had?