General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI've noticed a contradiction
Many here believe the government has no right to keep secrets, or so they argued in the wake of the Wikileaks document dump.
Yet now many of those same people are outraged that Hillary Clinton's email as Secretary of State was not secured entirely on government servers. If no government information or correspondence should be kept from the public, why does it matter whether it was secure?
Marr
(20,317 posts)I don't think I've seen anyone here say the government has no rights to keep *any* secrets, much less "many" people.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Because that the govt has no right to secrets is Assange's position. Snowden had a clear, targeted purpose in releasing specific correspndence revealing illegal government activity. Wikileaks was indiscriminate, on an vast array of subjects. Yet people here defend it and Assange vociferously. I understood that position to be that the people have the right to know everything the government is doing, even classified correspondence. What am I missing?
Marr
(20,317 posts)should not have been allowed to kept secret.
What's more, the objection to Hillary Clinton's private email system is not predominantly about information being available to hackers-- it's about her making information unavailable to the public.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)That was my problem with the dump. If they had said, here are a mass of documents on illegal activity in Iraq, I would view it differently, but all the documents didn't even relate to Iraq. They were undifferentiated.
If you learned Clinton's emails could be made public, were backed up on servers and attainable through FOIA requests, would you still object to her use of private email?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)If these messages are backed up on government servers and the process is otherwise within the rules, fine. But simply being stored somewhere is not in and of itself transparency at all. They can still choose what any review group can and cannot see. The same could be said of the Bush era emails that were so assiduously kept outside the realm of review.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)All SOS's before Kerry used private email. So it is true of Rice, Powell, Albright, and any before them who used email.
It seems the rest is all suppositional. You assume she will not produce all emails. Others assume she was plotting something nefarious while off the government system.
I don't know much at all about tech stuff. I do know that my workplace uses a google system and everything is backed up multiple times a day. If she worked from a government computer or device, it would be backed up everytime she linked up with the govt server. That's the case for us. If she didn't link up often, that would mean data could be lost.
And what about the broader question of whether the public should have access to everything, as Assange claims? Your argument was that some correspondence revealed illegal activities, but that was not all or even most.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I certainly wouldn't-- and so I'm not comfortable with any SoS having their email record under their own private control. It's not a matter of not trusting Hillary Clinton specifically, it's a matter of not trusting anyone in that position with such control.
And yes, of course just about everyone will use private email addresses at times. But as standard procedure? I don't think that's acceptable for a SoS, and I don't care if that SoS is Bernie Sanders or Dick Cheney.
I'm also not someone who believes the government should not be allowed to keep anything secret at all. That seems to me a very extreme position, and one I've never heard anyone espouse.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)at least in regard to the United States, as far as I understand it. And it is the theory behind the Wikileaks dump, which exposed a vast array of government activites and correspondence.
So the issue isn't that she used private email but that she exclusively used it? Is that your contention?
Marr
(20,317 posts)The email record should not be in the hands of a private individual or company, who can pick and choose what to release and what not to release to an investigative body.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)and I agree with you that transparency in government is important and that procedures should be enforced that facilitate the public's right to know.
Marr
(20,317 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)do you have a link for that?
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)It's possible I recall incorrectly, but if I can find it I will provide a link.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I just hadn't heard his position was that extreme. I'd be interested in finding out if that's true.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I guess the rationale would be that some of the things were truly personal.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that would be putting everything out there, that she argues, that backs her truth. there are often threads of people insisting that is where we need to be, today. go on a snowden thread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)are the people who are least concerned about the security consequences of the Snowden leak or the Wiki dump.
Especially ironic is the fact that a private server is one way to ensure that your emails actually don't end up being leaked by an insider.
merrily
(45,251 posts)former9thward
(32,097 posts)Many of the same people who want Snowden hung by the heels are ambivalent about emails on a insecure network.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)public by an insider like Snowden.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)State Department cybersecurity source says Clinton aides ignored concerns
State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that thenSecretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the governments fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the departments cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.
The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clintons emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.
We tried, the employee said. We told people in her office that it wasnt a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/govt-cybersecurity-source-clintons-office-warned-private-email-use.html
DanTex
(20,709 posts)be more secure than an email system of a large organization, simply because it's a simpler, smaller system that less people have access to.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)By that standard, maybe the state department's email service was hacked instead, and she's lucky she didn't have her emails there.
What we do know for a fact is that major government organizations have suffered severe security breaches, so assuming that they are safe places for data at this point is foolish.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)What I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when theyre conducting official government business, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said. However, when there are situations where personal email accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved consistent with the Federal Records Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Did she break any laws? Did she put national security at risk?
former9thward
(32,097 posts)But I do know if it was the other side doing it we would be saying the SOS was running a rogue operation and needed to be fired or worse.
merrily
(45,251 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)And we're pretty sure she didn't put national security at risk!
merrily
(45,251 posts)please see Reply 106.
merrily
(45,251 posts)she was appointed to work for him, not to defy him?
Seriously? You don't understand that she should not defy the President?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Besides, let's be frank: if he were upset with the Democratic anointee for 2016, do you really think anyone but Hillary and maybe a couple of his staff would hear from him?
So we have no idea whether he was upset or not.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like you said, he's the commander in chief, he gets to decide whether this is a big deal or not. If he thought it was, he could have told her to stop, or asked her to resign.
merrily
(45,251 posts)defying him unless he gave her permission before she set up the server or she at least told him before she set up the server.
I defied my parents lots of times, but sometimes they forgave me afterward.
If he thought it was, he could have told her to stop, or asked her to resign.
Did he know she was using a personal server exclusively? Did he know she was not turning over the records to State as she went along, but retained total and exclusive control over them until 2 months ago, when she shared SOME of them with State?
Again, I've never thought the personal email account was the significant issue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which makes sense, because it's not a big deal, from everything we're reading, it's not uncommon, Colin Powell did it, etc.
That's a good analogy. This is like Hillary being late for curfew. Not a big deal. Except for people want to tangle Hillary in a scandal. Obama was very happy with her job as SoS.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Again Colin Powell had a private account. I don't know that that proves it was not a big deal. However, as my prior post said, I never thought the personal account was the important issue.
I'm out.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of his staff from it. As for the rest, she hasn't broken any laws, it's just scandal-mining.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)FOIA Requests (at least, well drafted requests) includes documents and records held on private devices, too.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I'm not familiar with either site.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)FOIA has several exemptions(Exemption (b)(6) - concerning Personal Privacy). In order for information stored on a personal device to be exempt, it must meet two tests: first, the information at issue cannot be is contained in a personnel, medical, or "similar" file; and, if so, it must not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" by balancing the privacy interest that would be compromised by disclosure against any public interest in the requested information. IOWs, the information sought must be of compelling public interest and not be "purely personal" in nature.
In another life, I was responsible for responding to FOIA Requests for a governmental agency. Here is a pretty good primer on FOIA Requests. http://www.foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, she gets to be the only one who knows if she complied fully with the FOIA request or not.
An FOIA request for Powell's records was withdrawn after the response was that he only had a personal email account, so I guess it does discourage some people.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)My trust in the party is at an all time low.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As FLOTUS, She got a document subpoena that she did not comply with for a year.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)just not vested in doing it again. Not when she had to have known this email thing could be a problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-use-of-personal-e-mail-at-state-dept-violated-obama-directive/2015/03/03/454d7938-c1b9-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?postshare=251425487755400
merrily
(45,251 posts)How she stood under the portrait of Lincoln (aka, of course, "Honest Abe" and looked so credible, etc. And the claim that she made about the law firm that the law firm said was not part of their mission.
Your article is interesting too. If that is not a public White House spanking, I am not sure what would be.
However, "the swarm" as "some here" call them, have moved on. If it's Obama against his critics, President Obama wins, as always. If it's Obama vs. Hillary, future Democratic President Hillary trumps Lame Duck President Obama who can't run for President again, ever. But, only as a last resort.
First, as much spaghetti as possible gets thrown up against the wall. It's only if none of it sticks that it will finally come down to support Obama in this or support Hillary in this. This time, you can't do both.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)and where lines are drawn.
merrily
(45,251 posts)When I heard in 2007 that Hillary was running for President, the first thought that hit me was that everything I had gotten so sick of defending was going to be dredged up again. And my stomach sank. As I followed everything, I came to think that the Party had decided that Hillary had too much baggage to be a great candidate and was backing Obama. And I thought, "smart."
Maybe they thought that her stint as SOS changes all that. If so, I disagree.
And indeed, here we are, even on a Democratic board, discussing come on a blue dress, my least favorite subject in the entire mess, because of a lowlife portrait painter, no less.
Luckily for me, I don't associate with Republicans in real life. Not so much by design as that I live in Boston and the people I tend to befriend and who tend to befriend me are Democrats. I do know one Libertarian, but he is the boss of a relative, so I don't argue politics with him. And I do have one relative, who despite being surrounded by Democrats, fell for the "tax and spend" myth, but I love him too much to argue politics with him.
I think fatigue over defending all the old crap makes me draw the line at defending it all again. Especially now that I learned that not all Democrats are the same kind of Democrat.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I;m not going to put myself through all that again. I have learned a lot about Democrats and the Democratic party in the last eight years. I like Hillary, she's a nice person. But I don't want to see her running for the Presidency.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I remember because it was around Thanksgiving, maybe even Thanksgiving Day. I donated within the week, taking the advice from EMILY's List. (Early Money Is Like Yeast.)
OT I once met Malcolm. Quite the character.
treestar
(82,383 posts)former9thward
(32,097 posts)LOl, Ok, got it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is not the case that everything she does is classified. If it were, she wouldn't use email.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)Were you her secretary?
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)And there are procedures for classification? Are you serious?
Well, I have done research with US government documents from the early and mid-20th century, and I can tell you that few of them are marked classified. And yes, the bulk of documents I examined were from State.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)BainsBane
(53,093 posts)The question was about whether ALL documents are classified. The other poster said all were not, that procedures existed. You said, "how do you know?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That she has enough sense not to talk about classified material over email.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)didn't have a state.gov email. One of the tools you use for that is SIPRnet. I don't think you are supposed to use your state.gov email for classified info.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the type of system she used.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)55,000 emails two months ago.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)I think Snowden did a public service in informing the public about unconstitutional government surveillance. I am not supportive of the Wikileaks dump because it was undifferentiated, a mass release of documents. Arguments in defense of it revolve around the view, articulated by Assange, that ALL government activity should be known to the public.
In regard to the Clinton matter, I don't know why it is such an outrage. I have been told I would be upset if it were a Republican. Why should I be upset? The laws compelling govt only use of email came into effect after Clinton left office, and State says Kerry is the first Secretary to exclusively use government email. That means Republicans and Albright did use their private emails for government work. To be upset, I would need to know more. I do not automatically assume nefarious intent as some here do.
My position on the public's right to know is that we should eventually have access to all government correspondence. Not necessarily now, but eventually, and the tricky part comes in figuring out when particular documents should be released. The argument that private emails can't be retrieved would seem to be contradicted by the House Benghazi committee subpoena. Clearly they think the emails must be available.
Now, I have explained my position, which is not as simplistic as described above. Will you explain yours?
former9thward
(32,097 posts)State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that thenSecretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the governments fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the departments cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.
The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clintons emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.
We tried, the employee said. We told people in her office that it wasnt a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/govt-cybersecurity-source-clintons-office-warned-private-email-use.html
Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests
Mrs. Clintons exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agencys record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clintons case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clintons advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.
What I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when theyre conducting official government business, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0
She defied the WH and ran her own email operation. Th purpose of which was to shield what emails would ever be turned over to the public.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Or that she defied the White House? Do you have a position on the issue that goes beyond Hillary Clinton? Your post doesn't explain a contradiction between support of Wikileaks and disapproval for Clinton. Manning and Snowden also defied the White House. I don't believe defying the White House is what you actually care about. If that were true, you would have very different positions on many issues.
Then note the very quote you cite:
We told people in her office that it wasnt a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.
Her staff ignored the concerns of Dept of State tech security people. The article says they don't think Clinton was ever informed. The only thing you have addressed is Clinton, yet your own evidence says she likely did not know.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)But to answer your question I don't compare a senior U.S. official with Snowden. I expect more from her.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Instead of government ones, as were top Democrats in office.
The discovery of Rove and his minions using RNC servers instead of official government ones was a huge issue in the news and on DU, especially since it was tied with the firing of DOJ attorneys and Abramoff's nefarious schemes. Many of these emails were purposefully not archived and deleted and it was clear in that case that the private servers were used on purpose so they could try to hide their illegal acts.
Search back for Rove, DOJ, RNC servers and gwb43.com in DU and you'll find plenty of examples.
Wiki has a page with a fairly concise history about this at
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
So, posters noting that government officials need to use government servers are being consistent.
Note: I am NOT thinking or saying that Hilary did or would do anything similar to Rove. I don't think that.
I'm just addressing your point about people being outraged or upset if it were Republicans. It's already happened and DUers were outraged.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)included in FOIA requests even if the email was official government business?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The unlawful conduct attached to Hillary's private email system is that it wasn't released to the Archives until about 2 months ago, and we have no assurance that records weren't deleted. Furthermore, it wasn't searchable for public release under FOIA.
The point of the 1950 Federal Records Act is transparency, a public purpose which Hill's system defeated. Transparency is compatible with security, unless the system gets mucked up with overly secretive classification and systems, such as the HRC email.
There are also problems with the security of the system -- as demonstrated by the Romanian hack of Sid Blumenthal's Libya reports to Hill -- which is another reason she should have used the Department system. The lawful .gov email would have allowed for FOIA as well as reasonable security.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, the Blumenthal hack was of Blumenthal's AOL account, it wouldn't have mattered where she sent the emails from, and had nothing do to with Hillary's private server.
Since this has already been explained to you, at this point I can only assume you are entirely uninterested in facts, and are only onboard for the Hillary bashing.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)until two months ago. Government records are also government property.
That is a separate issue from use of a personal account and server.
And we don't know that she has turned over all the records to this day.
So, I don't know that no laws at all were broken, though it seems that use of a personal account, in and of itself, did not violate the law as it existed when she left office.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)and wasn't lawful. Your point about public access is consistent with a right to know position as manifested through Wikileaks. The points about security and lawfulness are not.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Since anyone who revealed it all would be revered as a whistleblower, those individuals who support Eddie and Julian should be seeing this as a positive for Hillary, since she has not tried to hide this stuff.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)(Putting aside for the moment that the government has no rights, since rights are a inaliable and attach to a person only).
Links please.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)If it doesn't pertain to you, move on.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Figures.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)For cards on the table, I thought Assange and Manning were wrong, but Snowden right.
But full stop, you were right and I was wrong. Where do we get such nutters?
Well done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there where/are plenty of such assertions that the government has no legitimate reason to hold secrets from the American people ... even if disclosing to the American people means disclosing to the world.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)I once spent a long time asking Greenwald/Snowden fanboys for their reaction to a case where metadata was used to finger hardcore terrorists, and never got an answer. They avoided, hemmed and hawed and then bailed.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Come to me when you're ready to quit talking big and actually defend your beliefs. Until then, this is just more posturing bullshit.
Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #33)
uhnope This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,245 posts)change, depending on their target du jour, especially if it's a Democrat.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and faux-Republicans (Libertarians).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Wanting government transparency" is very removed from "using a google account to conduct state business."
But you know that.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)You've misplaced the quotations. It was idle "left." I do not believe a view of social change that depends on a president bestowing change from above, in which people refuse to organize to bring about change but rather expect it to be handed to them, is leftist.
The point about private email is that it can be more easily hacked, but if the public has a right to know everything, as Assange insists, why should it matter that the correspondence is not fully secure?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There is a differnce between...
Wanting a transparent government - a government that clearly records and reports its conduct, makes it available to the public, without obfuscation or "gatekeeping"
and
Using an unsecure network to conduct state business - In this case the government is not being transparent. it is in fact conducting business in a standard non-transparent manner, only it is doing so over a network that is exposed to hackers, or even the notorious "send to address book" hazard. Further, the lack of records available for exchanges over private accounts ends up making things even less transparent.
Do you believe that wanting the government to make an honest accounting of itself is identical to wanting information spilled through the hacking of a hotmail account? Because that's the thesis your OP relies on.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)it is that government has no right to keep any secrets. Transparent is a vague term that can mean any number of things.
Then your post assumes private email cannot be made available to the public. I don't know that is the case. The House Benghazi committee is in issuing a subpoena for those emails, which indicates they believe there is an evidentary trail. In the historic record, there are reams of private correspondence from government officials that are available to historians and anyone who wants to read them.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I just scrolled up and no, no it's still about "Many here." Which is a vague term that can mean any number of things.
My argument is based on the assumption that a government providing open account of its activities to its citizens, is superior to the idea of hackers or accidents throwing that information out.
You might also want to talk about the "many here" who had a problem with Sarah Palin using a private (and then hacked...) account to engage in state business as governor, and then as a candidate... who are now falling over themselves to defend Clinton on the same act.
Which is funny as "many here" jumped ship for Palin after Clinton lost the primaries.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)I wasn't here at the time and know nothing about it.
The OP is about inconsistency between the position behind support of the Assange leak and the issue with Clinton using a private email. If you did not support the Wikileaks dump, it doens't apply to you. Did you?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)My security concerns in this case are other governments hacking the server. Private companies just aren't up to repelling that kind of attack, just like mall cops are not up to repelling an invasion by a foreign military.
However, I'm not in the "no right to keep secrets" club. Perhaps you're conflating two different groups?
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Not everyone falls entirely on one side or the other.
Johonny
(20,913 posts)then it pisses them off. QED.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are more concerned about a HRC candidacy, than some bothersome consistency of argument.
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is exactly my position on any inconsistencies I exhibit with respect to republicans ... I don't give a damn that a Democrat did something similar to want I am criticizing the gop for. As a Democrat, I don't feel a need to be fair to my opposition ... I suspect this group doesn't, either.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and I'll be damned if I'm going to. I won't be the GOP useful fool.
I know full well what the flaws of our candidates are, but I'm not going to "share" them to the point that it might dissuade a voter from casting their vote for a Democrat. Heck no. Even the most conservative Democrat still votes with Democrats at least 52+% of the time. Republicans vote with Democrats, at most, what? 2%?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the gop monitors DU (and other liberal/Democratic sites) and, no doubt, use it to see, and refine, the hits on Democrats that seem to stick with Democrats/progressives?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)for another eight years.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)right? Maybe it's OK that Patreus gave his concubine classified codes too? Since nothing's allowed to be classified.
Holy shit, what is going on here?
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Clearly Assange didn't believe the US had a right to keep secret information. He said as much, and many here have supported him in one slug match after another.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)could have made a baby elephant's day with all the straw used to construct the post
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)in defense of Manning and the Assange Wikileaks dump:
Discussion of 6/12/2010, names redacted.
That's why we have such secrecy, to protect from public disclosure the evil things our government does in our name.
I don't get them in danger - they were put there on purpose to give us the excuse to do expensive dirty work which goes straight to the bottom line of the right folks.
I agree that there needs to be more honesty and oversight from all parts of our
government and less covering stuff up by them however ya cant just grant people carte blanche to violate agreements to keep stuff secret, that path just leads to sheer anarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top
111. I'm saying that there should be no such agreements from the beginning.
Secrecy is deception, by definition. Deception is fraud. Fraud is crime. Secrecy is crime. Do away with it.
A separate thread, 11/30/10:
This is however, not where Assanges reasoning leads him. He decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make leaks a fundamental part of the conspiracys information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the Collateral Murder video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracys information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire:
(Assange):
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive secrecy tax) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top
(Poster B)
You still don't get it.
There IS no complete, frank and crystal clear communication between diplomats and the governments they serve. There IS no trust other nations have left in the US. The corruption is so complete that the non-existent trust between nations cannot be said to be in danger of being eroded. Wake up, Hillary et al, we're not THAT stupid anymore.
. . .
(Poster B)
8. Your purported personal knowledge flies in the face
of the facts that have become common knowledge long before Wikileaks ever came out with their diplomatic cables.
"...complete, frank and crystal clear communications..." between thieves, professional liars and murderous power-mongers is a myth perpetuated by gullible fools.
That's only part of two threads. Not straw.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nobody is saying the US government does not have the right to keep state secrets. They have every right, people complained that they have no right if it involves illegal activities we should know about (like the CIA and the GOP Congress critters trying to keep the CIA torture documents out of the public domain).
Hillary Clinton ran a private server out of her house, how does that compare to people saying the US government has no right to keep secrets? It doesn't and your 5 year old links don't help you justify that they do. ONE person saying we should dissolve all agencies is still NOT the same as saying the US govt has no right to keep secrets.
Again, you are mixing two issues that do not go together in an attempt to defend HRC over a non-issue imo. HOWEVER the US govt keeping secrets, just because they fear what the voters will do is a BIG issue imo.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)and rather than reproducing the same thing I simply linked to it. Five years ago was when the Wikileaks dump occurred. That was the top of the search I turned up using the bar at the top of the page. Clearly the argument in those threads is that government secrets are by defintion illegitimate and auithoritarian. Assange's quoted argument is that making evidence open will bring about the unravelling of national security agencies and what he sees as authoritarian states, ours chief among them.
These vast proclamations that "no body said" are ridiculous. You nor everyone reads everything, so you can't claim omnicience. Also you see evidence that peple have indeed said it but dismiss it as "five years ago." Five years ago is part of ever. Those are quotes from several different people.
The Wikileaks dump was undifferentiated. Most people don't know or care what is in many of those documents, but they still support the leak, so much so that they insist Julian Assange not be held accountable for allegations of sexual assault. That entire position is based on the idea that the public has the right to see everyting. I don't see how it's possible to support his actions if one believes otherwise. It's not possible to convincingly claim that all of the documents he released were all about keeping things secret becaue they fear what government will do. Some were the very kind of daily correspondence among State Dept Officials and between State and foreign agencies that people think were unsecured by Secretary Clinton.
If one sees the issue as exclusively about Hillary Clinton personally, then no, they don't go together. Then the only point is to condemn or absolve her, and indeed that is what many care about. However, if the concern is secure government communications and transparency, then they are part of the same issue, especially since we are likely talking about some of the same type of documents.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Is that the argument you're attacking isn't a serious argument. Just because some anonymous person said something in years past doesn't mean it accurately characterizes or expresses a position that different people take today, or that it was well-considered at the time.
The range of positions between "zero secrecy" and current levels of secrecy (enough so that over 1 million individuals require clearance to handle it all) are vast. If there is an actual zero-secrecy faction, it is tiny and irrelevant.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)Lots of arguments aren't serious. 90 percent of the arguments made aren't serious. A strawman is an argument that does not exist. You don't get to change the meaning of the term. Clearly the argument does exist. The reason I didn't provide more quotes is that I don't have an infinite amount of time. This thread has already taken way too much of it.
Yes, there is a range of options on the issue of transparency. But support for the Wikileaks dump means that people believe Assange and Manning were right in exposing ALL of those documents on a wide range of issues. People do not know or even care what the majority of documents released were. They decided it was all good because of some of the information and beyond that declared Assange a hero who could not be criticized or subject to the laws of mere mortals for sexual assault. They fucking canonized the guy. How is that kind of position possible if one believes that government communications should be secure, kept from hackers?
Here is what I observe. Too much of what people believe rests in their views on particular individuals. They despise Clinton, therefore this is bad. They adore Assange, therefore he can do no wrong, or vice versa. I seek to explore what I see as an ideological consistency, and I have observed that people really do not like that.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)is that secrecy for national security purposes cannot be lawfully applied to violations of the law, thus saying it is invalid in the context of those who expose lawbreaking by government actors is not the same as saying no secrecy ever.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Who here said the government can't keep state secrets? I think you are trying to make a comparison that is not there. People were saying the government has no right to illegally gain information about John Q Public. Did you get the two issues mixed up?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)i just tried to do a quick search and came up blank but maybe she has a link?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The issue with bypassing government email servers isn't that they'll compromise secrecy. The problem with illegitimate servers is that the communications hosted on them will never be made public.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Cha
(297,812 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)by the person we want to keep an eye on?
The problem is the potential for lack of transparency and cover up.
It is perfectly consistent for the same person to favor the releases and desire for a government actor to not function as their own gatekeeper, preserver, and holder of what are supposed or a least desired to be public records.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Not in the eyes, of "others here" anyway.
You'd think "others here" would finally give up on trying to point that out on a case by case, or issue by issue basis.
Cha
(297,812 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However, the argument you're making doesn't quite add up. There is a difference between transparency for the sake of accountability, and poor security that allows information to be stolen by hackers.
In the first case, the information is released to the public for debate.
In the second, the information is used for criminal purposes and is not made public.
I can imagine a number of instances in which I would approve of information being made public, but would be very concerned if (for example) Chinese or Russian intelligence stole it for their own purposes.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Swing, miss.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)Confusing.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)You'd have thought I made the whole thing up.
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)But logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead--yet again.
I've started trashing the more--incoherent-- threads
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)When I was writing about Hillary hatred in the 2008 election, I noticed that some people think that Being Hillary Clinton is a crime.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)it seems like this email thing is the topic of the day or week. To me, if she's releasing all this stuff, hey that's transparency.
BainsBane
(53,093 posts)I haven't yet read any updates.
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Here is a link.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/hillary-clinton-tells-state-department-to-release-her-person#.qcGVoZGQzD
I find the security issue absurd. Email is not secure, whether on a government owned server or a private server. The assumption that the State Department would pass around vital security information through email is silly. Lawrence O'Donnell has been beating this dead horse. It is a ridiculous argument.
Great post. Thanks.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)at least as far as I saw.
Part of the reason that law exists is Freedom of Information Act requests. That was the reason all this came to light. A news organization made an FOIA request about a year ago. Hillary not only used a private email account and a private server, but she also retained control of those records until two months ago.
I also don't recall seeing posts saying that the government has no right to keep any secrets at all. But, that's just an aside.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The thread about Petraeus' sentencing to a little probation and a fine for breaking secrecy on some high level for lust and personal aggrandizement revealed another contradiction.
The Democratic party officially and publicly chastised MoveOn for pointing out the obvious about Petraeus. It was obvious years ago, MoveOn didn't come up with that play on his name, it was his own troops that gave Petraeus that unflattering moniker thanks to his remarkable talent for self promotion.
All this stuff ties together into a huge confusing mish-mash of tightly inter-wound issues that is not amenable to unraveling. The whole class privilege thing involved with Petraeus' trivial level of punishment is one of the most blatant examples of un-blindfolded justice I've seen in some time.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That said, ostensibly the reason for requiring the emails be retained on gov't servers is something called the "Federal Open Records Act"
Now, as Media matters notes here, the act wasn't updated to include the relevant material until 2014, so it doesn't apply to this situation. Even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily apply to a personal email account.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726
But suggesting there is some underlying philosophical inconsistency or hypocrisy here, is wrong. There isn't.
At least one of the major reasons that gov't officials are supposed to keep their emails in a secure location is to preserve the ability of the public to have access to them, not to prevent it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's still not clear to me that Hillary broke no law at all, though. In part, that's because everyone seems stuck on the personal account business. To me, that bit is irrelevant.
Forget personal server and personal account. Pretend for a second, she did use a federal server. The Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended, does require archiving of federal documents. The definition of federal documents is so broad that it included emails before emails existed. Something like "regardless of form" is the language. Additionally, in 1978, machine readable materials were added to the specific examples of federal documents included in the definition. So emails were not only covered before 2014, they were clearly covered.
Hillary retained exclusive control over all her emails until two months ago, when she turned over 55,000 to State in response to an FOIA request made about a year ago by a news organization. And only Hillary knows if she turned over all of them.
Additionally, government business emails are government property, regardless of who controls them at any given moment. I am not sure you are legally entitled to retain exclusive control of government property after you cease working for the government.
Either way, is anything likely to come of it? No.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Hopefully that is dealt with by her instruction for State to release her emails.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,794 posts)Government has the right and the responsibility to keep secrets. For example, I don't want the specs for a nuclear weapon, or the current locations of our ballistic missile submarines, published. It would be unfortunate if the locations of protected witnesses were released to members of organized crime.
The Archivist of the US (who, in a corporation, would be the documents retention policy guru) says that the e-mail account is fine on the condition that she turns over all of the documents. However, administration policy says they don't want employees to be doing this.
My perspective:
1) She broke no laws, but did something that wasn't particularly smart.
2) This not-smart practice isn't uncommon
3) By doing this, Hillary has essentially invited the congress to beat the dead Benghazi horse some more. It's hard to argue that they are not perfectly within their rights.
4) This probably does not sink her candidacy (in fact, her campaign might have opted to leak the story now to keep it from being leaked at a less opportune time)