Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:30 PM Jun 2016

Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax?

Something doesn't quite add up in the story released in the WSJ Thursday about HRC's use of her unsecure Blackberry and email to authorize drone strikes. We are told that her use of private email server was just a work-around of normal information security protocols.

As we have all known for a long time, HRC didn't like using secure computer terminals and refused to use the one installed in her office. So, her aides had to print classified messages off of secure systems and send them to her hard-copy by secure fax.

So, as the WSJ revealed, when the State Department was brought into the CIA decision-making process for authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan, she sometimes had to be contacted at home to co-authorize kill orders, occasionally late at night.

The problem, we have been told, is that she couldn't (or wouldn't) use authorized secure systems. Apparently, for this reason a secure message facility, a "SCIF", with secure terminals wasn't installed in her residence, as they are in the homes of other high government officials.

However, we know that Secretary Clinton had a "secure fax" in her home. And, she knew how to operate it. If she had a secure fax, that means she probably had a secure phone, or could have have plugged one in. She certainly could operate a business desk phone. Tens of thousands of government workers use these desk phones, just like the one shown above, some of which also operate secure faxes and video conferencing. Without a keyboard.


The WSJ reported:


Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Source: Wall Street Journal

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan. The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems. <snip>

Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems. The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

This implies something else. HRC's apparent violation of laws that forbids transmission of classified information over unsecure systems can be chalked up to her unwillingness to comply with normal secure information procedures. In other words, bad judgement was used to accommodate her, but not an intentional violation of law on anyone's part. Her staff, knowing she refused to sit down to a computer terminal, merely did what they could to accommodated her desires.

So, why was she using her private Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for the drone calls if she could have had a secure phone terminal to run the secure fax we know she had?

If we take this into consideration, it become even more difficult to understand why she used her Blackberry when at home for DOS calls.

These government issued secure phone systems can be used anywhere you can plug in a phone jack. Wiki tells us the "Data" version of the Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) phone:

Data - The Data STE provides remote access for voice, fax, data and video-conferencing. This model has two serial EIA-530A/EIA-232 BDI ports and allows for data transfers to multiple destinations.


Yet, she insisted on using her Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for messaging such as the Top Secret joint CIA/DOS Drone targeting communications. Why, when she could have simply used a government-issued secure phone/fax?

And, of course, she could also have used an approved, secure Department issued cell phone, as was offered her at the beginning of her term. But, she refused to use that, too. Something doesn't quite add up here.

104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax? (Original Post) leveymg Jun 2016 OP
implies, apparent, could have, refused. yep something doesnt quite add up. charges with NO proof nt msongs Jun 2016 #1
The Sec. of State CANNOT authorize drone strikes!!! AllTooEasy Jun 2016 #56
Newsflash..... tabasco Jun 2016 #61
Under Sec. Clinton, State became a drone targeting decision-maker. DOS also became a top spy leveymg Jun 2016 #97
To get the real answer... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #2
"4 legs good 2 legs better" NWCorona Jun 2016 #10
Yessss... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #15
Orwell was ahead of his time! NWCorona Jun 2016 #19
That is definitely playing out... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #30
"Some animals are more equal than others." leveymg Jun 2016 #100
I guess you have failed to notice that there is something truly DURHAM D Jun 2016 #3
Maybe the OP can think about more than one thing a day. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #5
Constant repeat of the same drivel isn't thinking. nt DURHAM D Jun 2016 #7
Shouldn't you be focussing all of your attention on the "truly more important going on today?" Gore1FL Jun 2016 #9
This! NWCorona Jun 2016 #16
!!! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #18
Why is she a hypocrite? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #26
No she replied to the thread as being too unimportant to exist and then kept posting in it Gore1FL Jun 2016 #29
If a person is willing to vote for a candidate that has questionable practices..... peace13 Jun 2016 #102
It shows what some folks priorities are... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #25
Some people can think about more than one thing in a day. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #32
Now if she is like my sister the answer would be simple. She jwirr Jun 2016 #4
Even your sister can use a land phone? Yes? We know Hillary uses her fax. leveymg Jun 2016 #23
Yes my sis can and does use a land phone. jwirr Jun 2016 #36
Then, she could send and receive classified information at home over a gov't issued phone. leveymg Jun 2016 #42
Point taken. And I also would like to know why Hillary did jwirr Jun 2016 #54
Jury Results Gore1FL Jun 2016 #6
You squeaked by this time. Have to agree with #7 kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #11
It's more than our team vs theirs. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #13
Please see Post 12. Thank you in advance. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #17
I saw it. You called out a DUer. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #24
Where? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #38
The one you directed me to. Please quit shitting on DU. Shitting on DU makes DU suck. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #40
I'm tired of having this board look like a right wing website. I won't say it looks like Free Repub. kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #37
As I replied in post 13... Gore1FL Jun 2016 #44
So the WSJ is right wing too? panader0 Jun 2016 #28
You mean the Rupert Murdoch- owned newspaper that is known to be ultra conservative? kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #55
That would be the same Murdoch who held a fundraiser for Hillary? 2cannan Jun 2016 #68
Priceless!!! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #21
I really don't care why. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #8
Who is the "she" demanding congratulations??? kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #22
I think Warren is speaking of Trump n/t TexasBushwhacker Jun 2016 #58
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #12
I'm pretty sure there are a few more people excited... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #27
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #33
You are really being uncivil on this thread. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #39
It's hard for some to let go. NWCorona Jun 2016 #43
It's weird that people think the declared presumptive Dem nominee is so fragile Gore1FL Jun 2016 #46
I have a feeling that the purge will be regretted in due time. NWCorona Jun 2016 #49
I've been around since 2001. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #63
This is one that posted yesterday "let bygones be bygones" notadmblnd Jun 2016 #86
I believe this post was on target.... chillfactor Jun 2016 #45
Gee... I go away for a little while and I'm not even missed! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #72
This shit doesn't help one bit Arazi Jun 2016 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Duval Jun 2016 #14
It seems to me that her refusal to use secure systems implies intent. panader0 Jun 2016 #20
Legally, one doesn't have to show more than "gross negligence." That fits the facts here. leveymg Jun 2016 #31
^^^That^^^ onecaliberal Jun 2016 #34
I think it has something to do with the rolling passwords. NWCorona Jun 2016 #35
That's why one hires aides who have a better memory than the boss. leveymg Jun 2016 #51
Sharing a password would be an immediate offense but I do wonder in her case. NWCorona Jun 2016 #53
3 more days... chillfactor Jun 2016 #41
Echo Chambers are AWESOME! nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #47
If you want to post RW garbage feel free to create a Free Republic account. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #71
Demonstrate the Bias. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #73
You need me to demonstrate the bias for you of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? Really? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #92
I was hoping you'd demonstrate the bias of the article in question, actually nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #104
Thanks for the threats. leveymg Jun 2016 #98
Calling it unsecure is a judgement call, and... scscholar Jun 2016 #50
Her "experts" and lawyers apparently weren't expert. leveymg Jun 2016 #52
The OpenNet network that state.gov uses was unsecure for classified information BlueStateLib Jun 2016 #66
These TS/SAP drone kill communications should have been sent over the Joint Intel secure system. leveymg Jun 2016 #99
Blackberry phones have survived so long because of their superior security bhikkhu Jun 2016 #57
Is Clintonemail.com her address or is this an attack brand? RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #59
Her email from the context of the OP and an attempt to go there in a web browser to see. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #60
Ancient Alien theorists believe ... JoePhilly Jun 2016 #62
You have nothing to say. leveymg Jun 2016 #65
It appears she wanted a communications system that was outside of public purview tabasco Jun 2016 #64
How is that done considering that all her emails were sent to or received from a state.gov account BlueStateLib Jun 2016 #67
Actually many of her staff used personal email accounts and some of them even used clintonemail.com 2cannan Jun 2016 #69
When was the last time you sent a fax? ucrdem Jun 2016 #70
About a month ago. leveymg Jun 2016 #74
There's this new gadget called a smartphone ucrdem Jun 2016 #75
I think that whole apple thing was about setting precedent. NWCorona Jun 2016 #76
Indeed but if that was a load of crap it's hard to take the present hoo-ha seriously. nt ucrdem Jun 2016 #77
That angle I have no problem with. NWCorona Jun 2016 #91
During the first week, HRC demanded a half dozen clones of Obama's phone. leveymg Jun 2016 #78
That may be so but she was the US Secretary of State running her department legally. ucrdem Jun 2016 #79
The Dept's communications ceased to be legal within a week leveymg Jun 2016 #83
"ongoing criminal enterprise" is so OTT it shows the whole thing for what it is, a nothing burger. ucrdem Jun 2016 #85
I knew one of the ladies who wrote those letters. leveymg Jun 2016 #87
Hillary didn't blow up the ME, that's foolish. She may have supported some soft power ops ucrdem Jun 2016 #88
Tell us how you were wrong about her before? leveymg Jun 2016 #89
Not Hill, Bill. For years I believed the Nation line that Bill sold Dems down the river ucrdem Jun 2016 #90
Her server was secure and the WSJ article does not say what you claim it says. annavictorious Jun 2016 #80
The server was intruded several times in the first few months after it was taken over leveymg Jun 2016 #81
And 100's of thousands of federal and military personnel private data was compromised off itsrobert Jun 2016 #94
And do you know what the primary cause of successful breaches are? leveymg Jun 2016 #96
Im sorry but WSJ is just another MFM008 Jun 2016 #82
If you actually read the OP, you'd learn that I'm questioning the WSJ piece leveymg Jun 2016 #84
Sometimes, people need an answer right away itsrobert Jun 2016 #93
You haven't read the article, either. It's a remote. You plug in the phone anywhere there's a jack. leveymg Jun 2016 #95
tick tock.. stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #101
"Drip, drip" leveymg Jun 2016 #103

msongs

(67,336 posts)
1. implies, apparent, could have, refused. yep something doesnt quite add up. charges with NO proof nt
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jun 2016

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
56. The Sec. of State CANNOT authorize drone strikes!!!
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM
Jun 2016

Only the military chain of command can authorize or co-authorize any military action. Neither the SOS or any ambassador or diplomat can authorize or co-authorize military action.

How do DUers or any liberal fall for this shit?! The SOS can receive info regarding planned military action. Her input may have been requested as a professional courtesy/heads-up. Obama may have replied "Thank you for your input, now go fuck off!". Hillary may have (illegally) forwarded such information over an insecure link, but the authoization charge is complete bullshit.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
61. Newsflash.....
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:00 PM
Jun 2016

the CIA is not part of the military.

Even if it were, the Commander in Chief can delegate authority to approve military action to anybody he pleases.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
97. Under Sec. Clinton, State became a drone targeting decision-maker. DOS also became a top spy
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jun 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29spy.html

[div class="excerpt"]U.S. Expands Role of Diplomats in Spying

By MARK MAZZETTINOV. 28, 2010
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page


WASHINGTON — The United States has expanded the role of American diplomats in collecting intelligence overseas and at the United Nations, ordering State Department personnel to gather the credit card and frequent-flier numbers, work schedules and other personal information of foreign dignitaries.

Revealed in classified State Department cables, the directives, going back to 2008, appear to blur the traditional boundaries between statesmen and spies.

The cables give a laundry list of instructions for how State Department employees can fulfill the demands of a “National Humint Collection Directive.” (“Humint” is spy-world jargon for human intelligence collection.) One cable asks officers overseas to gather information about “office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cellphones, pagers and faxes,” as well as “internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
100. "Some animals are more equal than others."
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:16 AM
Jun 2016

That line from a pig stands out in my memory as capturing the way society actually works. Have read a lot of Orwell since. His Collected Works is a treasure.

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
9. Shouldn't you be focussing all of your attention on the "truly more important going on today?"
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

Or are you being a hypocrite?

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
29. No she replied to the thread as being too unimportant to exist and then kept posting in it
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM
Jun 2016

It isn't really that hard to follow.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
102. If a person is willing to vote for a candidate that has questionable practices.....
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:30 AM
Jun 2016

.....where peace is concerned it shouldn't bother them what others talk about. This constant war, drone killing and global war does nothing but feed attacks like that in Orlando. Clinton has enemies around the globe and we will all pay if we look the other way and let her be selected. As a wise child once said.....worry about yourself!

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
25. It shows what some folks priorities are...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:51 PM
Jun 2016

Over fifty of our glbtq brothers and sisters were murdered and another fifty were injured and some folks would rather talk about e-mails.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
23. Even your sister can use a land phone? Yes? We know Hillary uses her fax.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:50 PM
Jun 2016

That's the point of this post. Again, the facts undercuts the narrative that it's all a big misunderstanding about a technological inept. That narrative we're being fed doesn't conform with the facts.

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
6. Jury Results
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:40 PM
Jun 2016

On Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512179294

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Quit carrying right wing water for them. DU is not the place for right wing points of view. INappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:39 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Dear Leader" rules do not apply until later this week.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't appear to be regurgitated content and cites a mainstream source. While Hillary's known opposition to the Rule of Law is uncomfortable, that doesn't make it RW by any definition I'm aware of.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: From a right wing source and is opposition research. This is the sort of thing used on Republican websites and designed to harm our Democratic candidate.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
11. You squeaked by this time. Have to agree with #7
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jun 2016

What is the purpose of this thread? To do damage to our Dem. candidate?

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
37. I'm tired of having this board look like a right wing website. I won't say it looks like Free Repub.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM
Jun 2016

because they normally are incapable of writing more than 1 sentence that is grammatically correct......

panader0

(25,816 posts)
28. So the WSJ is right wing too?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM
Jun 2016

I would have thought the Wall Street Journal would be a favorite of the HRC crowd.
I'm having trouble finding sources that will be acceptable to the new DU order.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
55. You mean the Rupert Murdoch- owned newspaper that is known to be ultra conservative?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:27 PM
Jun 2016

I am a New York Times/Boston Globe reading Clinton supporter who has been an ACLU- carrying Liberal for many years. I had always followed and supported Sanders but did not vote for him because I didnt believe he could win nor would he be able to get the support behind him to be effective. I agree with his ideas/issues but NOT his recent actions. As a long-time feminist, I also would like to see a female president instead of another white male.

Don't put all HRC supporters in the same category and stereotype us.

Just as the HRC supporters shouldn't assume that all Sanders supporters are young white males or college kids or insult them or Sanders by saying that he is racist/sexist - which I do not believe.

I doubt there are many Clinton people who read and agree with the WSJ. Apparently there are Sanders supporters who do read the WSJ, however, and are confident enough in it to post articles from it on a message board. Pretty ironic, isn't it???

2cannan

(344 posts)
68. That would be the same Murdoch who held a fundraiser for Hillary?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jun 2016

And note, the source is CBS News.

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/

To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
8. I really don't care why.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:41 PM
Jun 2016

We have this idiotic dangerous asshole Mussolini wannabe demanding congratulations over the slaughter of 50 people in Orlando running against her.

How about we focus on that instead?

Response to leveymg (Original post)

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
27. I'm pretty sure there are a few more people excited...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:52 PM
Jun 2016

They must have higher IQ's than those cheerleaders in the GIF you posted.

Irony! It presents itself!!!

Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #27)

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
39. You are really being uncivil on this thread.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM
Jun 2016

Please behave like an adult. Not behaving like an adult makes DU suck.

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
46. It's weird that people think the declared presumptive Dem nominee is so fragile
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:02 PM
Jun 2016

that criticism is not allowed.

It's also sad that users here are so anxious to divide the community.

I don't understand the thought process in either.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
49. I have a feeling that the purge will be regretted in due time.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:11 PM
Jun 2016

I'll admit that I'm a new member and only join after my motorcycle accident and I had way to much free time on my hands. I did lurk here for years though.

One of the reasons I joined is because it is moderating very good at deleting troll posts and accounts so this move is surprising. Especially considering people are so quick to use the block function.

And yes the poster in question is on a good one right now lol!

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
63. I've been around since 2001.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:06 PM
Jun 2016

I don't intend to break the new rules, but I imagine I'll be at jackpineradicals.org more than here if it gets as stupid here as some predict.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
86. This is one that posted yesterday "let bygones be bygones"
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:00 PM
Jun 2016

I replied that it could not happen because poster could not resist posting their hateful vitriol. Then I called them a hateful person and got a hide.


But, like I said- they can not resist.

Response to leveymg (Original post)

panader0

(25,816 posts)
20. It seems to me that her refusal to use secure systems implies intent.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:49 PM
Jun 2016

If it was purposeful, it was intended.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
31. Legally, one doesn't have to show more than "gross negligence." That fits the facts here.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM
Jun 2016

We're being generous.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
35. I think it has something to do with the rolling passwords.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:55 PM
Jun 2016

They can't be written down, saved, shared and change frequently.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
51. That's why one hires aides who have a better memory than the boss.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:15 PM
Jun 2016

And then give them security clearances and access to systems. Or, like everyone else, chalk your passwords on a stop sign on your route into work.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
53. Sharing a password would be an immediate offense but I do wonder in her case.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:21 PM
Jun 2016

if there is any loopholes in aides knowing passwords. That would be insane tho.

I love the chalk reference

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
71. If you want to post RW garbage feel free to create a Free Republic account.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:53 PM
Jun 2016

This doesn't belong on DU.

Gore1FL

(21,088 posts)
73. Demonstrate the Bias.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:31 PM
Jun 2016

Please don't violate TOS by telling long-time users of this system to go to leave and go to Free Republic. Doing so makes DU suck.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
92. You need me to demonstrate the bias for you of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? Really?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:56 PM
Jun 2016

The WSJ opinion section was always a notorious cesspool of wingnut garbage, but once Murdoch bought the paper the RW bias rapidly spread into the "news" portion and turned it into little more than a print version of Fox News.

 

scscholar

(2,902 posts)
50. Calling it unsecure is a judgement call, and...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:11 PM
Jun 2016

do you have the technical expertise to make that call? I would guess not, and Hillary hired experts to help her come to the decision that that secure device was secure.

BlueStateLib

(937 posts)
66. The OpenNet network that state.gov uses was unsecure for classified information
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:53 PM
Jun 2016

Her server was secure but not to the specifications of a classified workstation. A classified workstation connected to ClassNet secure network is the only authorized way to access and view classified information

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
99. These TS/SAP drone kill communications should have been sent over the Joint Intel secure system.
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:11 AM
Jun 2016

Even the SIPR (State Dept secure system) is rated only up to Secret.

bhikkhu

(10,711 posts)
57. Blackberry phones have survived so long because of their superior security
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

A relative of mine worked for a big corporation in the Bay area, and complained sometimes about having to use an outdated Blackberry; the reason being it had encryption built into the software and it was the only phone system the company could be sure was secure. This was about 2011.

Just saying...I don't know anything more on the issue, as it has always seemed to be nonsense to me.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
64. It appears she wanted a communications system that was outside of public purview
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:16 PM
Jun 2016

Invisible to FOIA laws that deal with all government communications.

For me, this is the most troublesome aspect of the entire email controversy.

2cannan

(344 posts)
69. Actually many of her staff used personal email accounts and some of them even used clintonemail.com
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jun 2016

ones.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
74. About a month ago.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:57 PM
Jun 2016

A lot of govt agencies and banks are afraid of email. Maybe, not without reason.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
75. There's this new gadget called a smartphone
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:05 PM
Jun 2016

that the FBI supposedly couldn't crack until a couple of months ago. Faxes have been around since the last millennium. Intuitively a smartphone is more private and secure and a fax machine is a crappy pain in the ass so there's the answer to your question. Hillary didn't train in IT or the security apparatus so while secure faxes may well be very secure it takes a leap of faith to accept that they're more secure than a smartphone.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
78. During the first week, HRC demanded a half dozen clones of Obama's phone.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:19 PM
Jun 2016

NSA refused to give them to her, and told her to stop using her unsecure Blackberry. She refused the standard issue State Dept smart phone offered. Instead, she talked to her lawyer, Cheryl Mills. Within days she had switched from an AT&T email account on her handheld to Clintonemail.com. That's how this all started. She wasn't special enough to get the President's phone, so she set up her very own private communications network and intelligence service. All her own.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
79. That may be so but she was the US Secretary of State running her department legally.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:23 PM
Jun 2016

Now she isn't. And that's about all there is to it.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
83. The Dept's communications ceased to be legal within a week
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:48 PM
Jun 2016

When she received her first official business email over Clintonemail.com. Again, that was Cheryl Mills about the NSA security officer refusing Obama clone phones. It became criminal when the first classified information was sent over the server and continued to operated as an ongoing criminal enterprise until the last of 2,200 classified items was sent four years later.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
85. "ongoing criminal enterprise" is so OTT it shows the whole thing for what it is, a nothing burger.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:55 PM
Jun 2016

It's like the scandal over whether stamps used to answer letters about Socks the Cat were paid by the Clintons personally. Who the hell cares.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
87. I knew one of the ladies who wrote those letters.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:03 PM
Jun 2016

She said unflattering things about the Clintons that I managed to ignore at the time. I too never took any of this seriously until Hillary and David Petraeus blew up the Mideast. Then, I started paying attention to the details. So has the NSA, CIA and the FBI.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
88. Hillary didn't blow up the ME, that's foolish. She may have supported some soft power ops
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:08 PM
Jun 2016

in Egypt and Syria but those were never our wars anyway. Who has their eye on the Suez canal for example? And who was drooling over all that gas in Libya? And so on. And Iraq sure as heck wasn't Hillary's doing. A lot of nice, smart people say a lot of unflattering things about the Clintons, and I believed some of them for a time, but it turns out they were mostly wrong. It happens.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
90. Not Hill, Bill. For years I believed the Nation line that Bill sold Dems down the river
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:24 PM
Jun 2016

with NAFTA and welfare reform. The NAFTA betrayal was first explained to me by my BIL and it struck me as a revelation especially as I'd never considered BIL who is a great guy a Clinton supporter. Well he isn't. He voted for Cruz in the last primary or so I hear as I haven't actually seen him since Christmas. But politics aside he really is a great guy. Anyway I now think Bill took a lot of shit that wasn't deserved on NAFTA and welfare reform mainly because he did what Obama does namely take inevitable RW legislation and neutralize it, and I also suspect that Nation and the like are largely VRWC-controlled ratfuck operations.

 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
80. Her server was secure and the WSJ article does not say what you claim it says.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:23 PM
Jun 2016

The server was installed in 2002 for use by a former president and his family on the recommendation and under the supervision of the Secret Service following the 9/11 attacks. (Secret Service was given international cyber security oversight following the attack.)

You are very, very mistaken about what the WSJ actually says in its story. Here's one of the money quotes:
"The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You can read the entire WSJ story at this linkif you scroll down to the June 10 post.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
81. The server was intruded several times in the first few months after it was taken over
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM
Jun 2016

for Clintonemail.com. The system had to be shut down temporarily while Bill's old body man tried to figure out how to reset it after it was attacked. Finally, they bought another server, but that was set up uncorrectly without an encryption certificate.

For at least four months it was stark naked to even the most primitive hacks. Layer on, after it was moved through several uncertified IPS providers, someone ran a proper diagnostic that showed it had been running a redirect back to Beijing. And then there was the Romanian hacker and his Russian clients.

Secure? That is funny.

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
94. And 100's of thousands of federal and military personnel private data was compromised off
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jun 2016

federal/DOD servers over the last few years.

How secure do you think the federal servers are? Many operating on Windows 2000 and earlier systems.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
96. And do you know what the primary cause of successful breaches are?
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:50 AM
Jun 2016
http://www.governmentcontractinsider.com/pentagons-dc3i-memo-acknowledges-thousands-of-cyber-breaches-that-compromised-dod-systems-and-commits-to-new-cyber-culture/

What are the causes of all of the cyber attacks on DoD?

The DC3I Memo also reveals the root cause of these attacks. The answer is no surprise. It’s human error. According to DoD: “roughly 80 percent of incidents in the cyber domain can be traced to three factors: poor user practices, poor network and data management practices, and poor implementation of network architecture.” The memo recognizes that “technical upgrades and cyber organizational changes” can only do so much. For DoD, the real challenge comes from “human error by both IT professionals and the great number of everyday DoD users.” Based on DoD’s figures, 80,000 of the daily cyber attacks against DoD are caused by human error.

MFM008

(19,803 posts)
82. Im sorry but WSJ is just another
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:40 PM
Jun 2016

Rupert Murdoch rag
along with everything he owns.
Dont trust a word out of it, it joins Brietbart
and WND .

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
84. If you actually read the OP, you'd learn that I'm questioning the WSJ piece
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:51 PM
Jun 2016

But, you didn't bother, did you?

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
93. Sometimes, people need an answer right away
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:07 PM
Jun 2016

There are some situations where the opportunity exist, but not the time.

Do you know, for a fact, the situation? Hillary was a very busy Secretary of State. She was constantly flying (yes, they have secure means on the Sec State plane). She attended many social state department and White House events all over the country and internationally. Do you expect her to be beside her STU phone 24/7? Part of the duties of Sec State is to meet people, and usually not in an office setting.

For example, she gets a phone call at 8pm at night. She's at a gathering in New York City away from secure means. She excuses herself, gets to a private room. Time is of the essence, the caller needs an answer in a brief window of opportunity. She's most likely on a conference call with her staff, the CIA, and Sec Def. There is no "let me travel 15 minutes to a secure line and get back to you" Chances are the drone is in the air, target is fixed, and ready to fire. Hillary wouldn't be the person making the final decision anyhow, but she would have a recommendation to make. Being on an unsecure line probably would not compromise the mission at all, because of the urgency in the decision.

But neither you are me know the exact details. You go on believing you know better than anyone else.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
95. You haven't read the article, either. It's a remote. You plug in the phone anywhere there's a jack.
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:42 AM
Jun 2016

There is no such thing, as a practical matter, as being away from secure communications. The WSJ article is cover.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why did HRC use her unsec...