It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton and her use of a personal email server…. Let’s talk security issues.

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I am starting this thread because of all the uproar anytime someone brings up Hillary’s use of a personal email server.

This has nothing to do with political affiliation, bias , or just plain ole Hillary bashing.

I will not link to any outside sources, other than when proof is deemed necessary, to keep it from having any kind of spin other than being a issue from a security standpoint.

1. Hillary Clinton chose to use a personal email server to conduct official State Department business while serving as Secretary of State.

2. Classified Information is known to have been stored on that server, up to the Top Secret level.

3. The server is known to have been located in various locations during the time it was in use.

4. Top Secret information must be housed in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility. Of which there is a set of strict guidelines that must be followed. None of the locations the server was stored met these guidelines.

5. At least one person is known to have accessed that server, and shared information they were able to obtain from it. The point here is that an unauthorized person was able to gain access to a server that contained classified information without the need for access to that information.

6. Because of the fact that classified information was known to be housed in an unsecured location, an investigation was launched by the FBI. Anytime classified information is found to outside of strict control, an investigation is warranted.

7. Prior to the investigation, emails were deleted and the server itself was wiped. This may or may not affect the investigation.

8. Classified Information may be marked by classification headers, or it may not be marked. Oral communications may be considered classified based on the information in that discussion.

9. Every one with a security clearance goes through a process in order to be granted that access. They must acknowledge that they are aware of the procedures for handling of classified materials.

10. The laws governing violations concerning classified information are varied. In some cases, proof of intent to disclose classified information is not required in order to break the law. Simply the fact the law was broken would suffice.

That is just the first ten off the top of my head.

As you can see, there are no links to any news services, blogs, etc. None of that is necessary to understand why Hillary’s use of a personal email server has many people upset.

We can make an excellent thread about this with your help. Feel free to add to the list, or question anything that is on the list, but please keep personal feelings out of it and keep it to the security aspect.

Thanks.




edit on R132016-01-10T12:13:02-06:00k131Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R152016-01-10T12:15:06-06:00k151Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R162016-01-10T12:16:51-06:00k161Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
RickinVa

Don't worry mate, her career is going to end after this election...karma will get back to her for all the crap she stirred up in office...she'll get what's coming to her



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You can buy a personal cloud server from any department store. It's about the size of a console system and just needs a power supply and an internet connection. So it's easy enough to put anywhere in a house, like beside a telephone socket in a basemen or up in an attic. It could be plugged into a wifi router/firewall and that's it all set up. Maybe there are optional services to register with a VPN provider.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
You can buy a personal cloud server from any department store. It's about the size of a console system and just needs a power supply and an internet connection. So it's easy enough to put anywhere in a house, like beside a telephone socket in a basemen or up in an attic. It could be plugged into a wifi router/firewall and that's it all set up. Maybe there are optional services to register with a VPN provider.



All government servers must meet a strict standard for use. Transmission between two government servers is encrypted by methods that have been vetted by NSA. Communications Security (COMSEC) is a extremely important aspect of every government agency that deals with classified information. One of my collateral duties at the FBI prior to retirement was being the COMSEC manager for my division.

There are so many steps taken secure classified information, it would boggle the normal person mind. The point is, all of these steps were created to prevent exactly what has happened.

Take a server for example,,,, a server that is authorized for the storage of Top Secret material can not be worked on by a government employee with only a secret clearance.... Steps were taken to bypass government oversight. Those steps have now led to many problems that will have to be addressed.
edit on R342016-01-10T12:34:48-06:00k341Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Top secret should have no connection to the internet,

If anything was marked as top secret, it would have been set on her server, it would not be able to transmit top secret data over the internet, and would get blocked by both hardware and software, (if it was ever accidentally connected to the internet)

I would say, what has happened here, is documents have been over classified, they should have been marked as "Confidential" (or equivalent) but set at "Top Secret"

What is interesting is why would a personal server that has access to the internet have the capacity to set documents or Email at "Top Secret" when the system/server is not set up correctly, either these leaks are false, or the person who setup the server....... is an idiot

that's my thoughts,

Peace!



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I am no fan of the Clinton's at all. And I understand the need for compartmentalized security protocols, and their importance. However, I would like to know the answers to a few questions.

What is the penalty for someone that does break these rules?
Has an actual law been broken, or just a set of rules?
If a law(s) was broken here, is it classified as a felony offense?

If this is a felony offense, and she is brought to court over this instance, is she still eligible to run for and accept an appointment as President of the United States?

Those are the questions I would like asked and answered before the coming presidential election.
This is not a political position, but one of operational and national security. The role of President of the United States is also the role of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces as well. If a candidate for the role of Commander in Chief of the United States cannot follow established security protocols, then, that person should not be allowed to accept that position.

edit on 1/10/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
Top secret should have no connection to the internet,

If anything was marked as top secret, it would have been set on her server, it would not be able to transmit top secret data over the internet, and would get blocked by both hardware and software, (if it was ever accidentally connected to the internet)

I would say, what has happened here, is documents have been over classified, they should have been marked as "Confidential" (or equivalent) but set at "Top Secret"

What is interesting is why would a personal server that has access to the internet have the capacity to set documents or Email at "Top Secret" when the system/server is not set up correctly, either these leaks are false, or the person who setup the server....... is an idiot

that's my thoughts,

Peace!


Her personal server did not have the capability of setting classifications markings. One of the main problems here is that there is no way to "accidentally" transmit Top Secret data over an unclassified network. Top Secret information is on a closed network that has no connection what so ever to the internet.

Someone, somewhere, had to have taken information off of the classified network and purposely put it on a unclassified network. It had to be deliberately done.

I can not address the over marking of material, that may or may not be the case. There is an instance of an email containing satellite imagery that was transmitted across Hillary's server, and if that imagery came from a military satellite, it would have been classified at the Top Secret/Secret Compartmented Information classification.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

This was taken from the comment section of a CBS news article about the server... do not take it at face value, research it... you will find that whoever posted that was pretty much right on the money.


1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years. The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rearequired is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation

generally To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States



edit on R112016-01-10T13:11:40-06:00k111Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes, that makes sense,

interesting how Top secret got on the server,

it would have been copied to removable media,

also the information that she had could have been under-classified to get round the message classification blocking system,

I guess the question we should be asking is, why would she have the need to hold Top Secret information on a personal server?

My answer...... she didn't want eyes pearing at what she had,



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes, that makes sense,

interesting how Top secret got on the server,

it would have been copied to removable media,

also the information that she had could have been under-classified to get round the message classification blocking system,

I guess the question we should be asking is, why would she have the need to hold Top Secret information on a personal server?

My answer...... she didn't want eyes pearing at what she had,


I can only speak from my experiences, but I know for a fact (at least with the FBI) that if you transfer media from a computer designated Top Secret to say a thumb drive, a log is generated that shows the time, the logon and what data was transferred. Those logs are looked at by the security officer for any violations.

As far as State Department, I have no idea but I am beginning to wonder whether they even know what security procedures are.
edit on R202016-01-10T13:20:01-06:00k201Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes,

you are correct, a log would be created, but.......

it is a simple fix to block removable media being plugged in (you can do this will using Windows Group Policy)

i think i know how this was done.........

her phone was also connected to her private server?? so any image she takes, would be on it, and she might have taken photos of "Top Secret" documents,

that is a scary thought



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Interesting



it may appear she doesn't get classification markings???



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My only comment on Hillary's emails

I'd bet if you researched others in Washington, to this extent, you'd find similar email behavior.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

It would appear that she is making a point that a heading may not be a classification marking. That is a valid point, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that the original sender felt that it contained information that they felt warranted transmission via a secure method.

Without ever seeing the document in question, (it has been completely redacted) there is no way to know for sure.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Krakatoa


If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud
. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.



It would appear that the above is referring to Mr. Pagliano...Hillary's personal IT expert:



Hillary’s Computer Tech to Plead the Fifth



In fact, Pagliano — who has said he will take the Fifth when he is called to testify before Congress later this week — maintained the private e-mail server that Hillary used to manage all her e-mails, both work and personal, during her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary’s campaign acknowledged only recently that he was paid out of the Clintons’ private funds for those services.

www.amtvmedia.com...




edit on 10-1-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



1. Hillary Clinton chose to use a personal email server to conduct official State Department business while serving as Secretary of State.


Perfectly legal and that was not changed until after she left office.



2. Classified Information is known to have been stored on that server, up to the Top Secret level.


I'd like to see that proven. Investigators and officials have stated none of the emails contained information that was classified at the time of transmission. That's very important.



3. The server is known to have been located in various locations during the time it was in use.


At her home in NY and the tech company's location where it was secured and maintained, correct. Still not illegal.



4. Top Secret information must be housed in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility. Of which there is a set of strict guidelines that must be followed. None of the locations the server was stored met these guidelines.


No Top Secret info was on the server. Problem solved.



5. At least one person is known to have accessed that server, and shared information they were able to obtain from it. The point here is that an unauthorized person was able to gain access to a server that contained classified information without the need for access to that information.


Incorrect. That point was made up by media idiots. The idea that someone was able to hack the server came from information released by investigators that said they found suspicious files on the server that appeared to be malicious. Come to find out it was phishing malware that was attached to an email she never opened.



6. Because of the fact that classified information was known to be housed in an unsecured location, an investigation was launched by the FBI. Anytime classified information is found to outside of strict control, an investigation is warranted.

7. Prior to the investigation, emails were deleted and the server itself was wiped. This may or may not affect the investigation.

8. Classified Information may be marked by classification headers, or it may not be marked. Oral communications may be considered classified based on the information in that discussion.

9. Every one with a security clearance goes through a process in order to be granted that access. They must acknowledge that they are aware of the procedures for handling of classified materials.

10. The laws governing violations concerning classified information are varied. In some cases, proof of intent to disclose classified information is not required in order to break the law. Simply the fact the law was broken would suffice


No top secret or classified info was on the server at the time of transmission. Again, problem solved.
edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
My only comment on Hillary's emails

I'd bet if you researched others in Washington, to this extent, you'd find similar email behavior.


This thread is about Hillary's use of a private email server and the security issues it has caused.

Like I said in another thread, the only analogy I can give you is what I once heard in traffic court.

A man complained to the judge that his ticket was unfair because other people were speeding and they didn't get a ticket.

The judge's reply was golden.... " When you go fishing, do you catch every fish in the lake? You, sir, got caught... pay the fine."

She got caught up in the freedom of information act requests and now she must deal with it.
edit on R132016-01-10T14:13:05-06:00k131Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I will not reply beyond this. No point because you only believe what you want to believe, which is your right. Case in point, I could point you to numerous reports about the Romanian hacker who posted emails he took off of Blumenthal's server, but you will simply dismiss them all as "media idiots". There are a lot of valid media resources, but I guess some idiots think that they are all invalid, simply because they may be MSM or whatever.

The Blumenthal debacle is a whole different ballgame, but it happens to be very relevant to the conversation at hand. Some of the stuff he sent her would by any reasonable means be considered classified to some extent. The fact that she replied to him with that original attachment could very well be considered illegal and she did that numerous times.

You really have no grasp of what classification is or why it is used. You can't seem to grasp the concept that a person in a position as hers should know very well if something is classified, whether it is marked that way or not.

You haven't addressed any points with a valid response, you like to play word games.

"No classified information was found on the server" No one beyond those currently involved in the investigation can certify that classified information was found.. you are asking people to post classified information to prove that classified information existed on the server. That is not going to happen.

Time will tell the truth my friend, it always does.

I will not waste my time pointing out to you what has already been pointed out time and time again.

Last reply to you on this thread, although I am quite sure you will relentlessly continue to derail the topic.

Good luck to you on that, and again, because I won't waste my time with you doesn't make you a "winner", it just means that I have no point in talking to you anymore.

cheers




edit on R052016-01-10T14:05:36-06:00k051Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102016-01-10T14:10:19-06:00k101Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R192016-01-10T14:19:03-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-01-10T14:20:36-06:00k201Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



No point because you only believe what you want to believe, which is your right.


I don't do "belief" or opinions. I want facts.



You haven't addressed any points with a valid response, you like to play word games.


Yes, I did. Many of the things you listed were not illegal to do at the time. Her activities have caused security measures to be changed after the fact, but we cannot convict her or charge her for that.



No one beyond those currently involved in the investigation can certify that classified information was found.. you are asking people to post classified information to prove that classified information existed on the server. That is not going to happen.


I'm not asking people to post classified information. That's absurd. How the hell did you come up with that? I would simply like to see a press release from the investigators or other officials that states classified or top secret information was transmitted. So far the classifications were applied after the fact.



Time will tell the truth my friend, it always does.


So you can't prove it and hope it does, eventually, come true. Got ya. I hope so too, but I don't deal with fantasy and fairy tales. Show the proof or quit wasting our time.



I will not waste my time pointing out to you what has already been pointed out time and time again.


True. You have posted the same stuff over and over and still can't prove anything of which you claim. That is what happened in the last thread. You posted a bunch of legalese on what laws or regulations she MAY have broken, but can't prove she actually did.



Last reply to you on this thread, although I am quite sure you will relentlessly continue to derail the topic.


I believe I am on topic. Do you wish for me to shut-up because I am not part of the anti-Hillary circle jerk? If you didn't want to talk about the topic and find the truth, why did you start this thread?



Good luck to you on that, and again, because I won't waste my time with you doesn't make you a "winner", it just means that I have no point in talking to you anymore.


You don't like the way the game is being played, so you take your ball and go home.

No worries. I have that effect on people. All I'm asking for is proof of which you claim and it's humorous that you find that an unreasonable point of contention.
edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

For the last time...... the only thing you will accept as proof that a classified document was on her server is for someone to post that classified document as proof. That is not going to happen.

You do not like the media, but you are willing to blindly accept the word of some one that "no classified material existed on the server at the time of transmission." Who was that person? Hillary? Can they testify they went through the 31000 deleted emails and made the determination that none of them were not classified?

I am of the mind set, as are most rational people, that it would impossible to serve as the Secretary of State without using classified information.


I'd like to see that proven. Investigators and officials have stated none of the emails contained information that was classified at the time of transmission. That's very important.


www.nytimes.com...


WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems. Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact. But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.


But that doesn't count because it is from a media source according to you.

Word games and innuendo's.


I can't wait to discuss this with you after the investigation is completed and released... Until then, I will refrain from further discussion with you. Have a nice day.

edit on R322016-01-10T14:32:34-06:00k321Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R392016-01-10T14:39:46-06:00k391Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join