politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Copy and pasting from a similar thread - tldr is that lapses in infosec are fucked because it's a direct attack on YOUR security; and any official info running through other-than-official channels is fucked because that's an attack on your rights as a citizen by circumventing FOIA or accountability. When that happens, you should be pissed off regardless of which side of the aisle the culprit resides on.
Anyway...
I keep seeing Hillary's server brought up to highlight the red team's hypocrisy, but there's some introspection to be had for us as well on that topic.
Hillary's email server was one of many stepping stones on the path of increasingly fucked infosec. Now, the vast majority of neanderthals foaming at the mouth over her emails only gave a damn about it because of the (D) next to her name, but those idiots getting angry at it for the wrong reasons doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal.
My perspective on all that when the story was first breaking: I was fairly new e-nothing junior enlisted medic in the USAF. The closest thing to classified info I ever dealt with was 'confidential' medical shit covered by HIPAA, and like people's social security numbers. That's it. But even with zero-access to military secrets, at the absolute rock-bottom of the chain of command, I still had to take lengthy infosec courses every year (or every quarter? idr) to ensure I knew how to identify and properly handle classified information. Fuckups in infosec are NOT tolerated: like if I took a single page of classified info home without authorization, that'd be a court martial / potential jail time / stripped of rank / dishonorable discharge level offense. Then we have a fucking Secretary of State - someone who handles classified info all the time and should be a subject matter expert on the do's and don'ts of it - running her own shady-ass server away from the prying eyes of FOIA, claiming to not recognize classified indicators?? Then before anything could be done about it, we got the whole bleach-bit and hammer-to-harddrives scene, so some nice destruction of evidence as the cherry on top.
100% we should have crucified her.
Just like we should have crucified the dipshits before her using private email platforms like gmail or some shit to send or receive official / classified communication. Every one of those fuckers knew better.
Then Trump happens and makes everything prior, Hillary and all, look like fucking j-walking compared to the scale and blatancy of his crimes. 'Crucified' doesn't even begin to describe what needs to happen to that fucking traitor.
...but the dismissiveness regarding the email server does kinda strike a nerve for me - she fucked up BAD, and we dropped the ball by not holding her accountable, as that left the door open for dipshits like Trump to continue the trend of worse and worse infosec.
Again, it's peanuts compared to Trump - I hate writing shit like this for even the flicker of a possibility of drawing a false equivalence. There is no equivalence here. But I really wish we'd collectively change our tone about handwaving the 'buttery males!' shit because it is hypocritical to do that and then get pissy about the red team's conceptually-similar-albeit-orders-of-magnitude-more-severe fuckups.
At the end of the day, we should expect our leaders to do their job and do it correctly. If they don't, then get angry - it's your security they're playing with. None of them get the benefit of the doubt, regardless of which color their campaign stickers are.
Here's the thing about that email server: it was standard operating procedure for the White House at the time.
Email starts to be used for official communication under Bill's administration, but everyone is still trying to figure out this Internet thing back then. It was standard for the Secretary of State to run their own email server all through the Bush II administration. Hillary was simply following what was already established. It was only when John Kerry took the office that this was changed to bring their email server under White House IT staff control.
Which is what should have happened within a few years of Bush II's first term. As someone who has managed their own email server before, it's hard to setup an email server that works correctly. It's even harder to set it up in a way that doesn't immediately become a spam gateway and security hazard. As soon as the government was getting a handle on this Internet thing, all staff email servers should have been run by government IT directly.
That isn't on Hillary alone. It's a decision that crossed three different Presidential administrations and both major parties.
FOIA was followed, though. The DOJ got plenty of Hillary's emails by way of FOIA.
Ok but you skipped over the part where her technician deleted emails after getting a subpoena
Edit: also fact check, no it was not standard for any other Secretary of State to use their own server. Hilary was the only one to do that: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/