The Clintons left the White House and moved to New York. She was not First Lady when they lived in New York but for a short while. If the server was started in New York it was when she was a civilian.
Perhaps the Former Secretary has not spoken about this because she herself has to understand what exactly happened with this server. I think she did the country a favor by using a server no one knew existed. It probably was more secure by it's absence in government information.
Basically, no one knew it was there. Not bad for a strategy. This is going to be an interesting investigation into an Oops. I think we have stumbled onto something interesting, "Safety and Security by unknown existence."
The Clintons might want to review whom exactly was responsible for this mess?
As of this evening any government employee and their family will need better spyware, virus detection and fire wall. They can forget about "Work from Home," too. I thought once the computers from Los Alamos (click here) were found to be unsecured this was all solved for the federal government. Evidently not.
Quite frankly, employees of the government regardless of position should not be held responsible for the security of their computer system. They don't have the knowledge or the inkling to worry. They aren't thinking about computers, that is the place for government to provide security for the country. Asking a Secretary of State or any other government employee to be an expert to the security of their internet is a bit moronic.
The issue at hand is securing the emails of Former Secretary Clinton, that is not her direct responsibility either, what is she expected to do bring a thumb drive to the archives? Reality dictates government services to carry the responsibility for these issues.
Legally, the communications are the ownership of the people. Securing them in archives is the responsibility of the people in a non-partisan dynamic. Employees of the government serve at the pleasure of the people. The people pay their salaries and expenses. Computer IQ is not a job requirement necessarily.
The country needs to get this straightened out once and for all. I don't see that a private server for someone like the Former Secretary should be an issue. There is no reason why that server can't be covered by government employees that bring documents to the archives.
I know this will not go over well, but, I think the Former Secretary should be given an apology as the USA never took it's responsibility seriously enough to provide the security it needed in regard to her service to our country.
March 4, 2015
By Katie Glueck
If it seems like the GOP (click here) presidential field has been unusually silent this week as scrutiny mounts over Hillary Clinton’s email practices, there’s a logical explanation: Many of them are tormented by their own email demons.
At least a half-dozen 2016 Republican prospects have felt the sting of sustained negative press coverage over their email practices, with the common denominator being an attempt to sidestep public scrutiny attached to official government accounts. While the scope and scale of the controversies range widely — and they’re not comparable to the Clinton circumstances — their histories with electronic communications have left them with their own unique vulnerabilities on the issue....
Perhaps the Former Secretary has not spoken about this because she herself has to understand what exactly happened with this server. I think she did the country a favor by using a server no one knew existed. It probably was more secure by it's absence in government information.
Basically, no one knew it was there. Not bad for a strategy. This is going to be an interesting investigation into an Oops. I think we have stumbled onto something interesting, "Safety and Security by unknown existence."
The Clintons might want to review whom exactly was responsible for this mess?
As of this evening any government employee and their family will need better spyware, virus detection and fire wall. They can forget about "Work from Home," too. I thought once the computers from Los Alamos (click here) were found to be unsecured this was all solved for the federal government. Evidently not.
Quite frankly, employees of the government regardless of position should not be held responsible for the security of their computer system. They don't have the knowledge or the inkling to worry. They aren't thinking about computers, that is the place for government to provide security for the country. Asking a Secretary of State or any other government employee to be an expert to the security of their internet is a bit moronic.
The issue at hand is securing the emails of Former Secretary Clinton, that is not her direct responsibility either, what is she expected to do bring a thumb drive to the archives? Reality dictates government services to carry the responsibility for these issues.
Legally, the communications are the ownership of the people. Securing them in archives is the responsibility of the people in a non-partisan dynamic. Employees of the government serve at the pleasure of the people. The people pay their salaries and expenses. Computer IQ is not a job requirement necessarily.
The country needs to get this straightened out once and for all. I don't see that a private server for someone like the Former Secretary should be an issue. There is no reason why that server can't be covered by government employees that bring documents to the archives.
I know this will not go over well, but, I think the Former Secretary should be given an apology as the USA never took it's responsibility seriously enough to provide the security it needed in regard to her service to our country.
March 4, 2015
By Katie Glueck
If it seems like the GOP (click here) presidential field has been unusually silent this week as scrutiny mounts over Hillary Clinton’s email practices, there’s a logical explanation: Many of them are tormented by their own email demons.
At least a half-dozen 2016 Republican prospects have felt the sting of sustained negative press coverage over their email practices, with the common denominator being an attempt to sidestep public scrutiny attached to official government accounts. While the scope and scale of the controversies range widely — and they’re not comparable to the Clinton circumstances — their histories with electronic communications have left them with their own unique vulnerabilities on the issue....
