# Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092 "2015-03-03T14:10:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/141 "2015-03-06T15:31:36Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Your defense of Clinton seems to fall on some razor-thin margin of “it wasn’t illegal and it didn’t violate policy,” even though you readily acknowledge that it was unwise. Classic Bricker. Yes, so? The distinguished counselor has a point. People holding it against her should do so on the basis of it being unwise and reckless on pragmatic grounds, tone-deaf on public perception grounds, and revealing of control issues; but it’s not an example of _“the Clintons think they are above the law”_ if in fact she did not break the law. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/142 "2015-03-06T15:45:30Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Yes, so? The distinguished counselor has a point. People holding it against her should do so on the basis of it being unwise and reckless on pragmatic grounds, tone-deaf on public perception grounds, and revealing of control issues; but it’s not an example of _“the Clintons think they are above the law”_ if in fact she did not break the law. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Did Clinton carefully consider the law and State Dept guidance when setting up her email server and come up with internal policies to comply? Or did she just do what she wanted and just get lucky that she didn’t happen to violate any regulations? Perhaps it was the former, but I have a really hard time believing that someone would carefully consider email retention policies and still come to the conclusion that maintaining your own email server was a good idea. If it ends up that she didn’t violate any laws or policies, I think she just got lucky, and that says nothing about her general attitude towards obeying the law. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/143 "2015-03-06T16:02:00Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > **I don’t know for sure** , but I would imagine that many agencies of the federal government use TLS email, just as many private companies do. > [@Bricker](#): > > If you’re trying to leverage your professional experience **to convince me that inter-agency e-mail in the civil federal government space is TLS-only** , you’re only going to convince me you have virtually no experience in the federal civil space. Bolded for maximum obviousness. And you have convinced me (again) that you don’t read the posts you’re replying to. And if you want to beat the legal stuff to death, knock yourself out. Was her running her own email server legal? I don’t have the awesome intellect required to discuss how many angels can dance on that particular pin. > [@JRDelirious](#): > > Yes, so? The distinguished counselor has a point. People holding it against her should do so on the basis of it being unwise and reckless on pragmatic grounds, tone-deaf on public perception grounds, and revealing of control issues; but it’s not an example of _“the Clintons think they are above the law”_ if in fact she did not break the law. This is my position. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/144 "2015-03-06T16:43:24Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Your defense of Clinton seems to fall on some razor-thin margin of “it wasn’t illegal and it didn’t violate policy,” even though you readily acknowledge that it was unwise. Classic Bricker. Yes. So? I won’t quibble for a moment with anyone who criticizes her practices for being unwise. I dislike the attempt to spin “unwise” into “above the law,” that’s happening. I dislike it when it happens to Republicans AND I dislike it when it happens to Democrats. In each case, I point out the facts. > [@](#): > > eta: I don’t believe you that digital signatures aren’t the default option as of 2015. I don’t have proof, but the digital signature option has been selected by default on DoD servers for at least 5 years in most places. I have a hard time believing that the State Dept is that far behind. You’re simply, factually, wrong. I have personal knowledge of this. Although both agencies have PIV cards and enforce two-factor authentication for logins, neither State nor HHS requires users to publish certs to the GAL or turns on digital signing as the default option in Outlook. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/145 "2015-03-06T16:48:08Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Bolded for maximum obviousness. And you have convinced me (again) that you don’t read the posts you’re replying to. I read them, and precisely parse the words they use. “I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine…” is very clear. You don’t know as a certainty, but you predict. And you buttress your prediction with reference to your professional experience in the private sector. It is, then, as I said: you attempt to convince me that inter-agency e-mail in the civil federal government space is TLS-only, by dint of your analogous experience in the private sector. You readily admit you don’t know, but you predict, and your prediction has value based on your professional experience. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/146 "2015-03-06T17:30:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I read them, and precisely parse the words they use. > > “I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine…” is very clear. You don’t know as a certainty, but you predict. And you buttress your prediction with reference to your professional experience in the private sector. > > It is, then, as I said: you attempt to convince me that inter-agency e-mail in the civil federal government space is TLS-only, by dint of your analogous experience in the private sector. You readily admit you don’t know, but you predict, and your prediction has value based on your professional experience. > > Right? I’m not engaging you on this point. I made a vague guess of what I would image happens in a network I don’t have visibility into, and I have no reason to think anyone else in this thread has visibility into. I make it clear that this is just my guess. You go from there to “You’re attempting to convince me that this is always true.” I have no idea how you made that leap. You pick this minor side point, ignore the larger point of “myriad security issues”, and try to… do what exactly? Prove that I don’t know what I’m talking about? Distract from the issue at hand? Argue for argument’s sake? What? OK, I concede that interagency emails aren’t sent over TLS. You got me there. I’ve been pretending all along that I have some expertise in the area of information security that is valuable here. But, with your keen questioning, you have revealed my ruse. I really don’t know anything about information security. I’m glad, really. Keeping up the charade has been difficult. The strain has been enormous on me, and on my family. At last I can come clean. I am an idiot. Not even my parents know. Thank you. Thank you for relieving me of this burden. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/147 "2015-03-06T17:46:57Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Thank you. Thank you for relieving me of this burden. No thanks necessary. It’s what I do. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/148 "2015-03-06T18:47:10Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > I’m not engaging you on this point…Thank you. Thank you for relieving me of this burden. Do I detect a note of sarcasm? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/149 "2015-03-06T18:51:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s what I do. It certainly is. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/150 "2015-03-07T00:21:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But as a Clinton spokesperson points out: > > Quote: > “For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” he said in an emailed statement. “When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.” > To the extent it’s a violation, it’s one of NARA policy, and purely technical in nature. She used a personal account but sent mail to the [state.gov](http://state.gov) accounts of her staff, where that e-mail was properly retained as a record. > > This is manufactured outrage. What reasoned conjecture are you putting forth for a politician to create an email system over which they hold total control over? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/151 "2015-03-07T16:26:33Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Even if she used it only for inbound and outbound filtering, that raises a couple of questions. The content has to be inspected by the filtering service. So, it has to be present in clear text at some point in the path to enable inspection. What does the service do with that content? Does it retain it somewhere? Who has access to it? Is the service FISMA and ITAR compliant? How does it handle encrypted email, assuming Clinton was even using encryption? Does it not inspect them, or does it somehow decrypt for inspection before passing it on? > > If it has been common practice for Cabinet level officials to have their own email servers, that’s crappy practice. Even without a legal requirement, someone should have said, “You know, I think this practice is a bad idea and I’m going to set a new precedent for security and transparency.” I wish Clinton had been that person. I like to hope that our leaders occasionally raise the bar before being forced to by law. For the most part ALL email crosses the public internet or at least several network segments in plain text. SMTP, the protocol that most email servers use to talk to each other, has poor encryption that is optional and typically not even used. Even if your internal system is partially secure you can not be sure that the the person you are sending it to doesn’t have an auto forwarder which does not. The only way to ensure any security at all with email is to encrypt the contents independently from the email sending process with an application like PGP. This would break the transparency requirement above. To summarize, there can be no assumption of security in email in todays world, if they are sending messages without that assumption, that should be the news story. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2015, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/152 "2015-03-07T16:36:55Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The only way to ensure any security at all with email is to encrypt the contents independently from the email sending process with an application like PGP. This would break the transparency requirement above… “Oh, yes, all the e-mail in and out of the Secretary’s office is captured in the agency’s server” “Excellent! Let me see it” “Good luck, it’s encrypted. Oh, and NSA says they can’t help, because to let you know how quickly they can break the key would reveal their capabilities.” > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To summarize, there can be no assumption of security in email in todays world, if they are sending messages without that assumption, that should be the news story. But hey, that would be regardless of it beng Clinton. You need a story that’s about it being Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/153 "2015-03-08T01:07:57Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To summarize, there can be no assumption of security in email in todays world, if they are sending messages without that assumption, that should be the news story. To summarize, there can be no assumption of transparency when politicians use communications equipment they personally control. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/154 "2015-03-08T13:40:30Z")
My biggest grip is that many politicians forget (or mostly don’t give a rats ass) that not only should there not be any impropriety but ALSO not even the APPEARENCE of impropriety. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/155 "2015-03-08T19:58:11Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > My biggest grip is that many politicians forget (or mostly don’t give a rats ass) that not only should there not be any impropriety but ALSO not even the APPEARENCE of impropriety. This wasn’t a random act. It was done deliberately. There’s only one logical reason for that and that’s to circumvent public scrutiny. But nobody’s perfect. Everybody cheats a little. My biggest gripe is that it’s done like a sports franchise and we’re suppose to chose sides and root for them. Except they work for us. They’re suppose to do it collectively because it’s their JOB to represent us. All of us. It’s not a particularly difficult job the way it’s currently played. The process of getting hired is a popularity contest. No job skills required to earn $174K a year. That comes with a staff to actually do the work so the whole “jobs skill” thing is covered. Nice. The only flaw in that process is that in order to hire competent staff the person elected needs to be able to judge the skills needed. Any fool can spend other people’s money and run up a bill. The same group who hauled bank executives before Congress and wailed about the irresponsible loss of billions have themselves created trillions of dollars of debt. TRILLIONS. Did anyone hold their feet to the fire? No. Each team blamed the other and their fans dutifully yelled at each other over whose quarterback can dunk the most baskets in the 9th inning. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/156 "2015-03-08T20:01:59Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > This wasn’t a random act. It was done deliberately. There’s only one logical reason for that and that’s to circumvent public scrutiny. What about illogical reasons? ---
**Author:** ![EndlessEntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f9ae1b/32.png) [@EndlessEntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EndlessEntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/157 "2015-03-09T00:05:34Z")
This issue will be forgotten in a month. Just more temporary noise brought upon by the Republicans’ insane investigations of Benghazi. Frankly, it’s an issue most voters wouldn’t understand either. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/158 "2015-03-09T02:08:52Z")
> [@EndlessEntropy](#): > > This issue will be forgotten in a month. Just more temporary noise brought upon by the Republicans’ insane investigations of Benghazi. Frankly, it’s an issue most voters wouldn’t understand either. Go Green Bay. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/159 "2015-03-09T08:08:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What reasoned conjecture are you putting forth for a politician to create an email system over which they hold total control over? I am saying: when she did it, it did not violate the law. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/160 "2015-03-09T08:17:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A cynic might take the view that you are defending a Democrat here because it’s not going to go anywhere, and thereby insulating yourself from future accusations of partisanship at no cost to yourself. 😉 It’s been a week and the issue is still generating ink, with the trend still growing. “It’s not going anywhere,” seems increasingly inaccurate as a description, wouldn’t you say? I will admit that even as the criticism grows, the content has begun to shift away from the accusation that laws were broken and towards the more generic “bad judgement,” or “no transparency,” critiques, which are less defensible inasmuch as they rely on subjective opinion and not a defined legal standard. But even that transition is troubling, because the fervor was triggered by initial accusations of lawbreaking, and shifted here only after it emerged that those accusations were not justified. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=9)