If you're upset about the email server, you must despise Snowden and Manning.

[YouDig]

The only rational way to be outraged about the security implications of a private email server is if you are seriously obsessed with national secrets. The risks were tiny, there was no classified information on it, and there's no evidence that it was breached. It's arguable whether information is safer on a private server than on a State server where a lot more people have access to it, but either way, it wasn't an intentional leaking of information.

So only people with an unhealthy obsession with keeping government information secret could possibly care about this. Unless, of course, people are just talking about it in order to score political points for Trump. But otherwise, anyone legitimately concerned about the security implications of the email server must be utterly outraged at the leaks from people like Snowden. Snowden actually did compromise national security, and he did it intentionally.

But given that Glenn Greenwald, who is one of Bernie's big cheerleaders, was a big part of the Snowden leak, somehow I doubt that the Bernie crowd really cares about national secrets. It's just a political game to help Trump become president.

[hrmjustin]

1. This has the making of a really fun thread.

[StarTrombone]

2. Snowden is in exile

Manning is in prison

Not sure what your point is

[YouDig]

4. My point is that cheerleading Snowden like Greenwald and company do, while

criticizing Hillary for something as trivial as an email server is hypocrisy.

[Matariki]

10. Because they wanted to expose illegal activity?

vs. wanting to HIDE illegal activity?

Your post is a joke.

[Ned_Devine]

34. In case you were wondering

Profile information
About YouDig

Statistics and Information

Account status: Active
Member since: Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:35 PM
Number of posts: 362
Number of posts, last 90 days: 362
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 343 posts in the last 90 days (95% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 3 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)

[Matariki]

61. Ah, yeah

I get it. Thanks.

There are so many of them. I guess that's what happens when you stop using pest control. Pretty soon this place is going to be uninhabitable.

[scscholar]

55. 5th amendment still applies to us all

Nothing wrong with hiding information. We don't have to answer questions from the cops or even in court in front of a judge.

[bjo59]

14. How utterly ridiculous. Unfathomably and willfully illogical.

Are you arguing that Hillary was acting as a whistle blower and collecting classified information to pass on to the American people? Come on.

[YouDig]

19. Hillary didn't pass on any classified information. Snowden did.

The actually security risks of what Hillary did are totally inconsequential, which makes it very weird that people are obsessed with it. All the more weird when it comes from people who support Snowden. Those people can't possibly care about the sanctity of government secrets. The only possible reason they could be going after Hillary for it is to score political points to help Trump win.

[brush]

31. They're also still holding out hope that an indictment will get Sanders the nomination

Granted, it's a fantasy but they're sticking with it.

[morningfog]

3. "I build the straw men and then knock them the fuck down!"

[Art_from_Ark]

16. LOL

[HassleCat]

5. Ridiculous comparison.

Snowden and Manning intentionally revealed classified information because they believed the system was used to hide information the people were entitle to know. I will not get into what Clinton did or did not do, but it was nothing like what Snowden or Manning did.

[YouDig]

8. It is. Snowden and Manning committed serious crimes. On purpose.

Hillary used private email, something that many other government officials had done before, and at the very worst put non-classified information at slightly higher risk, with no intention. There's no comparison whatsoever.

As to what Snowden and Manning thought, if thinking that you have a good reason is a justification for committing crimes, then there would be no criminals.

[SwampG8r]

12. How "many others" had a private server?

[YouDig]

23. Condi Rice, Colin Powell used private email accounts, for example.

[SwampG8r]

33. No no dont distract i asked how many had private servers

I can understand why because the answer is none
You want people to treat a private email as if it were a private server

[YouDig]

36. A private server versus gmail or hotmail is not much different.

Not in terms of either the law or security. In terms of trying to help Trump get elected, sure, there's a reason to try and pretend there's some big difference.

[Fawke Em]

49. You really need to come to one of my company's cyber security training classes.

Wrong again.

Her private server was very unsecure. Email clients like Google, Hotmail and Yahoo! have/had teams of security personnel and security measures in place to protect their clients personal information even before it was a legal requirement because the loss of that sort of information would cut into their bottom lines.

Were they 100 percent secure? No. No one is. Were they far and away more secure than Hillary's private, open-to-the-Internet, unencrypted server? Hell yes.

[YouDig]

52. If that's where you're getting your ideas, then I suggest looking for another employer.

Yahoo and gmail accounts get hacked all the time. They have security questions people can guess, and tech support people that can be socially engineered. Notice that the Romanian guy who claimed to have gotten into Hillary's server had no evidence of it, but he was able to get into a lot of other private accounts by social engineering. The more people who have access, the less secure. That's also why Snowden was able to leak all the NSA files. Their encryption is top-notch, but the weakest link is never the encryption, it's humans.

You don't really understand computer security at all.

[Fawke Em]

66. LMAO!

What part of "are they 100 percent safe? No. No one is," did you not understand? Or do you just choose not to read?

But what gmail and yahoo have that Hillary didn't was dedicated security staff and security products installed. Nothing is fool proof, but why don't you read something from the IT industry: https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

Here... read the scan - but you probably don't know how.

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mail.clintonemail.com&latest

[YouDig]

69. I bet you are. It's easier than recognizing the truth.

I guess this is one of those cases where you are determined not to understand the the truth. The humans involved are the weakest link. The NSA had plenty of dedicated security staff but still got breached. Yahoo accounts get hacked all the time. That Romanian guy did it over and over, but couldn't get anything off of Hillary's server.

Fortunately, you don't work in computer security, so the fact that you don't understand this isn't really a big deal. All that will really happen is you'll make some clueless posts on the internet.

[Fawke Em]

78. More shit you don't understand.

National security secrets are kept on closed-loop systems. They are NOT kept on outward-facing servers that are open to communications with the public and you cannot email into our out of them. In order to access them, you have to go into a room called a SCIF, it's a metal-fortified white room dressed as a regular office to log onto these servers. You cannot bring your precious Blackberry in, which Hillary hated. That a few government offices were hacked is concerning, but the hackers were never anywhere near the classified and sensitive national security information like that, that was found on Hillary's server. It had been hand-typed as it read off either SIPRnet or JWICS and copied into an email, which is a violation of protocol.

BTW, the NSA's website was hacked - not their server. Most organizations worth a damn keep their website server separate from their internal server. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-group-hacked-the-nsa-website-to-demonstrate-widespread-bug-freak

That said, again, for the apparently reading impaired, NO ONE IS 100 PERCENT SAFE, but Hillary's server was less safe than most.

Fortunately, I do work in cyber security and I know these things.

And, I think we know who the clueless one is and it's not me.

[SwampG8r]

68. When proven wrong play the trump card

Its a huge difference no matter how you try to diminish it

[YouDig]

72. I wouldn't know about being proven wrong.

But who would have thought so many Trump supporters on a Democratic website.

[SwampG8r]

73. Im more embarrassed.by

People who think saying "trump" over and over is a.valid response
And those saying dems since 1968 ( registered and member) are.rw.trump.supporters
I would never say it but some might say it the apex of political dumbassery
Not me mind you... But some.

[YouDig]

74. People say they are voting Trump or third party, what other explanation is there?

[SwampG8r]

84. People here on du?

If it offends you you should address it with the admins
You might be more successful with that than you will be trying to hide behind calling people here on du rwers instead of intellegently addressing the issues

[TheBlackAdder]

82. Hotmail and Gmail accounts are semi-secure, a private stand-alone server is completely insecure!

[SwampG8r]

86. Unencrypted to boot

[Sunlei]

95. recently, Walker had a second 'fully secret server' & info squashed by layers of Lawyers. Romney

destroyed/ made disappear totally the hard drives containing State records of his Governor years. Not even any records to use FOIA on. That's not a server with emails, that's the entire STATE property computers 'gone' vanished.

[2cannan]

22. Clinton authored and sent classified and top secret emails on her server

From the timeline:
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_1

snip

January 21, 2009 - February 1, 2013: In her time as secretary of state, Clinton uses only her private email account on her private server for all her work and personal emails. There are 62,320 emails sent to or from her [e-mail] address, which is an average of 296 a week, or nearly 1,300 a month. Clinton will later claim that roughly half of these (31,830) were private in nature and she will delete them before investigators can look at them. The Washington Post will later explain, "Most of her emails were routine, including those sent to friends. Some involved the coordination of efforts to bring aid to Haiti by the State Department and her husband's New York-based Clinton Foundation - notes that mixed government and family business, the emails show. Others involved classified matters. State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as 'confidential,' the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) Twenty-two of her emails will later be determined to be classified "top secret" or even higher than top secret in some cases, due to the mention of highly secretive SAP, or secret access programs. (The New York Times, 1/29/2016)

[YouDig]

25. Based on some nutjob blog on the internet? Ha.

They were retroactively classified, same thing happened to Colin Powell. The whole thing is nothing.

[YouDig]

46. No she didn't. That's a nutty conspiracy blog you're citing.

Some of her emails were retroactively classified, same as what happened with Colin Powell. There's a lot of overclassification, and different agencies don't always agree on what should be classified.

The more important point is that Snowden leaked classified and damaging information on purpose. Hillary didn't leak anything.

[Fawke Em]

51. Really. Take a few cyber security classes.

You're looking very very uninformed here.

A. Her server had sensitive data on it. Doesn't matter if it's classified or not. The statute only cares if the information is sensitive regarding national defense/security.
B. The author of that blog is Paul Thompson. He wrote this book: The Terror Timeline. You know who uses that? Richard Clarke. It's on the reading list for the course he teaches at Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline

Conspiracy blog.

[2cannan]

54. The quote is from the NY Times. nt

[YouDig]

56. But the quote doesn't say what the nutcase who wrote the blog claims.

[Fawke Em]

67. Paul wrote no commentary throughout the timeline.

Not sure what you're on about.

Everything directly on the time line is a summation of the stories in the links he provides.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. You won the jury.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon May 9, 2016, 10:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

But the quote doesn't say what the nutcase who wrote the blog claims.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1931493

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The "nutjob" he is discussing is an active duer so this is a callout and a personal attack

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 9, 2016, 10:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the blogger is blogging outside of DU, then his status at DU, active or not, is inconsequential.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The 'nutjob' is NOT named in the post so you're giving me squat to adjudicate.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have been a DU member for 12 years, and I didn't know that the referenced blogger was a DUer, so I don't know how this poster who joined DU this year could be expected to know it. Also, it could be argued that the referenced blogger is a public figure and therefore subject to criticism.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Obvious personal attack is obvious.

[HassleCat]

43. You just said it yourself.

"There is no comparison whatsoever." Yep. That about sums it up. Thanks.

[KPN]

60. So you think Snowden should be prosecuted for whistle-blowing as was Manning?

So if it's classified a crime, it's a crime? And if it's classified legal, it's legal?

[arcane1]

6. So sayeth yet another one who joined in mid-April and is pushing the same meme.

At least shake it up a bit so it isn't so damn obvious. Liberals are supposed to be the creative ones.

[Art_from_Ark]

76. LOL

Leopards can't change their spots.
Trolls can't change their warts.

[hellofromreddit]

7. False equivalency.

It's possible for people to see Clinton's server as simple haphazardness and see Snowden and Manning as determined whistle blowers, which would explain why we see that happening. You're going to have to flesh out your argument a little better if you want to convince anybody.

You also make a load of claims in your first paragraph that can't yet be substantiated--that's the job of the current investigation. Nobody can know in advance how those investigations will play out, even if they've got a confident guess.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Authoritarians don't like whistle-blowers.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[vintx]

11. Why are y'all so desperate?

I thought she had it in the bag?

[RufusTFirefly]

77. Yes. Not very "presidential" of them, is it? n/t

[Agschmid]

13. 2-5 Leave.

[hollysmom]

15. non sequitur - two very different things.

hows them apples and oranges

[hootinholler]

17. ROFLMAO!

[Autumn]

20. Are they running for President? Either of them?

You are trying to deflect. What Snowden and Manning did is not the same as what Hillary did. Their judgment and ethics are not called into question since neither of them are running for office.

[YouDig]

21. What Snowden and Manning did is not the same as what Hillary did.

Correct. They committed serious crimes. Hillary's did basically nothing, the only consequences are political, and the Trump supporters are eagerly jumping on it.

[Autumn]

27. Wanna share your FBI report since you seem to have an advance copy?

Unless your talking out of your...ear. Which I think you qame. But you have a good day.

[pmorlan1]

28. Wow

In your world up is down and down is up.

[Broward]

32. Of course you're against Snowden and Manning.

All authoritarians are.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. This pretty much applies to you as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1931121

[YouDig]

26. The personal attack.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. As opposed to the blanket attack.

[ucrdem]

30. Yes this new-found concern for Teh National Securah-T is touching.

So patriotic. Maybe they'll send roses to the FBI.

[AgingAmerican]

35. Im not upset about the email server

But it is pretty damn stupid to mount a candidate under active FBI investigation.

[Rass]

37. Hillary is incompetent - she should drop out

Hillary ran a private email server that was likely hacked by many different unknown parties. She thought that her I.T. employee(s) could do better than trained government specialists. That is a whole new level of stupid.

Snowden uncovered illegal government surveillance of Americans (illegality was later affirmed by a court of law). That disclosure was in the public interest. Hillary's email server was made to hide likely illegal behavior . Big difference. There is a reason the FBI is pissed and she is not going to be let off the hook easily. Winning the presidency for her is a race against time. She has a few months and FBI investigations to dodge until then. Desperation makes people do crazy things.

[YouDig]

38. Desperation makes people do crazy things.

For example, insisting that the clear choice of the Democratic electorate drop out of the race.

[ucrdem]

39. Or that a legal warrant is illegal.

#BernieLogic. It berns.

[ucrdem]

40. Might want to rethink that illegal legal warrant business.

[Rass]

45. clarification: The illegality of the spying program was affirmed by a court

NSA's phone spying program ruled illegal by appeals court
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507

[Loudestlib]

41. What's the pay difference between posting a topic and posting a reply?

[Thinkingabout]

42. No evidence of her server being hacked, the .Gov Snowden purposely copied

And transported without gov security clearance, Hillary was not transporting the physical materials, just using cyber transportation.

Good points, Snowden is still charged with espionage, has an outstanding warrant and his passport is still revoked.

[Rass]

50. Her email server was hacked

Guccifer the Romanian hacker was interviewed by the FBI and admitted having access to it. No one knows how many other parties broke in.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Oh, that one, not proven yet, I could claim the same also.

[Rass]

63. FBI Interview --------->FBI<------------

Guccifer was extradited by the FBI and interviewed by them. Did I fail to mention the FBI interview?

[Thinkingabout]

75. Yes you did, so he gives a story in exchange for what?

[Rass]

81. Lots of secrecy due to the investigation

Not much detail available.

[Fawke Em]

44. Wrong.

Clinton was not leaking data to show that crimes against citizens were being perpetrated. She wanted her own server for convenience and to avoid FOIA requests - the opposite of transparency. It just so happens that it was unsecure and was probably hacked by every state agent from Russian to China.

You didn't ever go look up whistle-blowing, did you?

[YouDig]

48. All criminals have excuses. Either you care about government secrets or you don't.

If you do, then you would be horrified about what Snowden did. If you don't, then the only reason to go after Clinton for her minor error is to help Trump get elected. And I have a pretty good guess as to which reason it is.

[Fawke Em]

57. I think both Trump and Clinton are equally dangerous but for different reasons.

I couldn't care less about either one of them.

[YouDig]

58. That's insane.

[Fawke Em]

80. I think it's insane to vote for a person under a criminal investigation.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. Not only under a criminal investigation,

but a person who laughs at the horrible death of a nation's leader, and at the potential for war with another country, and who gets "diplomatic advice" from people who have a lot of blood on their hands.

[Rass]

59. The public's right to know

Governments can and do commit crimes. The public has a right to know if the government tortures citizens in secret (Chicago). They also have the right to know if they are being spied upon (NSA). These are unconstitutional crimes. The public doesn't have a right to know every single aspect of governmental affairs. That is why we elect representatives, to make the proper decisions.

[Fast Walker 52]

64. she is indeed a massive hypocrite, since she has pilloried Snowden and Manning, while undermining

data security and secrecy in her own selfish way.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. ^^^RIGHT HERE^^^

I get so very tired of this ... I vote this to be the only way to address this most resent of nonsense OPs

[Dem2]

47. Political opportunism

Of course it is.

It's amazing what otherwise intelligent people can justify in the name of "winning" (while of course hypocritically criticizing Hillary for doing same.)

[Fast Walker 52]

62. Your point is well taken and I don't care about the email server

the ties with the Clinton foundation and State Dept business are another matter entirely.

[JVS]

65. Does the sword cut both ways here?

Are those who have such animosity towards Snowden and Manning obligated to reject Hillary?

[Kip Humphrey]

70. Thanks for confirming that logic is no longer taught.

Nor is critical thinking apparently.

[Vattel]

71. No, Snowden was trying to expose goverment wrongdoing.

[cheapdate]

79. I can dig it!

Yeah, man. I had the same thought arguing with DU email truthers last weekend.

Like, why are suddenly so obsessed with tight control of classified information?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[Ash_F]

89. Manning exposed child sex trafficking by a Virginia based private military contractor

...and the State Department's subsequent cover-up of the story.

That contractor, Dyncorp, has ties to Clinton by the way. Lookup Jack Keane.

I am not sure what crimes Clinton has exposed with the server. Except possibly her own.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

90. That is the stupidest example of conflation and false equivalency in one line

[Warren DeMontague]

91. I wonder why she wanted to keep her own email private but wants a manhattan project

To make sure no one else can encrypt their snapchats.

[PowerToThePeople]

92. More pretzel logic from the "right is the new left" crowd.

[VulgarPoet]

93. Wrong.

The difference between Edward Snowden and Hillary Clinton: More Americans are probably using end-to-end encryption thanks to his leaks and the NSA's spying on the American Public. More Chinese warfighters are probably using American fighter jet designs thanks to Clinton's server; and Clinton's expounded at length about trying to keep Americans from using encryption to the point of needing "a Manhattan project" against it when Snowden proved that the NSA was spying and data mining on us. False equivalence, and don't you fucking dare insinuate that all I care about is political points.

[Sunlei]

94. Wish the Gov. would go after 'who' got Snowden the cushie job with the access to millions of files.

Wish the Gov. would go after Mannings management, who allowed employees to surf the web, watch movies, play around with friends secret files, download and remove devises.

Manning should be pardoned. suffered enough.

[tk2kewl]

96. Recommended!

For stupidest post in DU history.

Comparing whistle blowers who expose official wrongdoing to officials who try to circumvent public record keeping laws is absurd.

[Tarc]

97. There isn't a sigle Bernie suppoerters here who actually cares about gov't e-mail security

or is even terribly knowledgeable about the subject at all...I particularly loved the one guy the other day who kept using "cyber", like it was 1999.

This has been a political card to play for them, nothing more.