A technologist's view of the whole Hillary Clinton "E-Mail Server" thing

So this has been bugging me ever since we first started hearing about Hillary Clinton having used her own e-mail server for official government business. I've been in the technology business in one form or another for roughy 28 years now.

There are way to many arguments against having any such stand-alone system, but being a federal government body security and accountability are supposed to be at the top of the list of things any system should feature.

The only reason for somebody (other than technical people) wanting to have their own e-mail server is this: To hide something.

The THREE questions to be answered really are:

• WHAT are you trying to hide?
  
• WHO are you trying to hide that from?
  
• WHY are you trying to hide it?
  

My personal suspicions in this matter are less outlandish than people might think:

• WHAT?: Candid communication among Hillary Clinton and her staff.
  
• WHO?: Hide it from the rest of the Obama administration.
  
• WHY?: Clinton and Obama had a heated primary battle. While they did eventually make friends, it would not be entirely unnatural for there to still be misgivings about how well they were going to work together. While she was kicking around and discussing things that come-up within her own little world, she was probably just afraid other parts of the administration might be spying on her - or might inadvertently come-across some candid remarks that perhaps were not congruent with official administration policies. I suspect, that the relationship between Clinton and Obama to grow in a generally more mutually trusting way - but that might not have been right at the outset.
  

I must also say, this was not the only or first government official to have this type of setup (reportedly, so did Colin Powell).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I do not think this is any grand conspiracy to cover-up anything other than the some internal political paranoia - which probably faded-out over her tenure in the administration anyway. Now that I have said this ...

• My Republican friends will be unhappy because: I do not support their conspiracy theories.
  
• My Democrat friends will be unhappy because: This does tend to paint Hillary Clinton as a little bit politically paranoid. Not Nixon-level stuff mind-you, but not flattering.
  

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

Bypassing FOIA

Bypassing Government oversight and accountability.

Completely Illegal, Felonies, anyone else would be in prison.

That pretty much sums it up.

Right or wrong, it is certainly a reasonable analysis.

However, I would argue that after getting comfortable with the set-up, eventually it may have turned to other things that they could get away with. Sometimes, you start off with one intention...then realize you can do other things due to the situation. I think you should consider that and perhaps tie it into your analysis.

a reply to: infolurker

Well said, but again NOT the first to do it. And, I find most policies have loopholes in them, where "exceptions" can always be made with "approval", and guess who get's to "approve" that stuff? The same people asking for it (i.e. in this case the Secretary of State for anything having to do with the State Department). There's probably lots of justifications/excuses to use, but yeah ... in the end none of that should have been allowed (for her or Powell, or anybody else).

Happens more of course in corporate environment. Security and IT people put together a solid information security policy, and the people that want to be exempt from everything are the VP's, CEO, etc. Who in turn of course, are the #1 targets for all hacking.

If anything "good" comes out of this, it should be nobody ever does this again!

Being a Federal employee I'm still not sure how she even pulled it off. A lot of people ignored their duty and sworn oath (yes you make a sworn oath working for a Federal Agency) to follow laws and procedures to protect citizens. End of the day you work for them. It seemed like people were concerned but did nothing out of fear for their own personal well being.

An IG would have likely snuffed it out but it took Obama over 5 years to appoint one, longest for any Federal Agency so most of the blame goes on him IMO. He either knew what she was doing or put way too much faith in her to do the right thing. I honestly believe he knew exactly what she was doing. Almost impossible not to know what was going on with her foundation. I think after losing both houses he saw it as a way to bulk up DNC finances to make up the ground that was lost. Nobody wanted anything to do with Obama after mid-terms after the DNC got routed.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

Considering much of the recent enlightenment concerning Hillary's criminal activities, I believe your "what, who and why" are way off.

What: private communications using the state department for her pay to play scam. Money transfers between the state department and foreign governments and/or corporations and persons, followed by payments to the Clinton foundation as payment from said governments and/or corporations and persons. Payments would obviously be obfuscated, but with the emails, trackable. There's probably more dealing in arms sales, coup's and general manipulation of foreign goverments to the benefit Clinton. It would not surprise me if she had her grubby claws in the cia's opium trade out if Afghanistan.

Who: hide from everyone, especially law enforcement.

Why: duh, to avoid jail time or worse.

She should ne charged with crimes against humanity, high perjury and high treason, it needs to be in prison, IMHO.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: SomethingLingual
Well, don't think satisfying her own political paranoia was necessarily a "good use" either. And it's backfiring on her, in a very Nixonian way (ala Nixon recording stuff in the White House). It leaves one scratching their head going ... "WTF would you do that to yourself?"

I'm sorry for goin off topic here, I don't want to Bring the ire of the mighty mods but...

edit on 2016-8-11 by EnhancedInterrogator because: Grammah, spellen, formatten, the voices inside my head that keep repeating "kill them all"

Now to say something on topic, ummm errr, pantsuits?

originally posted by: Indigent
I'm sorry for goin off topic here, I don't want to Bring the ire of the mighty mods but...

edit on 2016-8-11 by EnhancedInterrogator because: Grammah, spellen, formatten, the voices inside my head that keep repeating "kill them all"

Now to say something on topic, ummm errr, pantsuits?

wow, somebody actually READS that stuff?

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

Haha, well, I didn't say it was a good use. I mean it has some definite similarities with the Darwin awards for criminals. Sometimes the convenience of an ability or situation leads to a lapse in judgement. I'm not really arguing either way on the issue. I only mean to say, assuming your premise, the likelihood that she realized the benefit of private, secretive things later on should not be treated as an impossibility.

We see again the "well, it was being done before, so that makes it less shady" argument. Such a terrible stance to take. If Colin did it, he should face indictment also.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator


Regardless of your attempted even-handed view on the situation, you never got into one your early on chief point that more or less said that what she did was illegal in multiple ways.

Basically, you took her way of dealing with the problem by say, "Well, yes, her bad, but it wasn't THAT bad."

As has been stated here multiple times, she severely broke several laws, rules and regulations and so far has gotten away with it for the sole reason her party is the one in charge. And you support the corruption of that party from the President, AJ down to and including the FBI. It is really a pretty simple and proven pattern of corruption that anybody can see.

a reply to: Aliensun

Lol if she broke laws they would have arrested her.
Guys why yet another banging your head against the wall thread?
It's OVER.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Thanks for bringing the Clinton Foundation into the picture.
The OP totally missed it.

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah, I really think it was as simple as that. She was trying to skirt ALL of it and EVERYONE.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Aliensun

Lol if she broke laws they would have arrested her.
Guys why yet another banging your head against the wall thread?
It's OVER.

Wrong.

The FBI Director sat in front of Congress and explained that Hillary did break the law.
He didn't arrest her.

Your statement is pure BS.

a reply to: butcherguy

No he didn't. He said no prosecutor would even attempt to bring charges based on what they found.
That's what he said.
Let it go it's over.
All of you. Let it go. It's O V E R.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

No he didn't. He said no prosecutor would even attempt to bring charges based on what they found.
That's what he said.
Let it go it's over.
All of you. Let it go. It's O V E R.

FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference on Tuesday, July 5th, discussing in surprising detail the three main aspects of the investigation:
What they did (a lot). What they found (she broke the law and jeopardized national security).
What they recommend (nothing).

Huffington Post

The Hillary Email thing just goes to show the problems we all face with email. Where is the line between business, private and public life? How many email accounts and contacts do we have? As for a politician who has more contacts than most bla, bla, bla, headbanger city...

It has been something the Trump camps has surly capitalized on, what would happen if the echelon or some other top of the pyramid machine released most of Trumps emails? In today's accelerating information age I am sure there are a lot of ghosts and unresolved issues that can be dug up for those that know how to dig.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

I think you have a good analysis of the situation. I'm guessing she made the decision based on what would give her the most privacy and autonomy, and yes, it might help her avoid "transparency" of awkward political issues.

I am not distressed by your analysis. I think it is very realistic. (I'm center-liberal and independent but tend to vote Dem).

The thing about the State Department, about Ambassadors and Diplomacy -- all these require secrecy to be effective in the world. If she was following Colin Powell's MO, then I would say she did it for rational reasons. The fact that she was not savvy (nor, apparently, were her staff) to the capacity for hacking and security issues from a technical standpoint is unfortunate and was most certainly, in this day and age, a mistake.

I prefer a leader who can own up to a mistake and work to correct it in the future than one who is unable to take responsibility.

Thank you for your observations!!