Posted on Sep 24, 2015
Was Hillary Clinton's server a national security risk?
6.18K
32
24
1
1
0
Espionage
Hillary Clinton
Server
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
SFC Kevin Childers
I HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHAT WAS/IS THE STATUS OF THE PERSONNEL WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE GUARDING OF SAID DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE HOMES AND OFFICES OF OUR CIVILIAN LEADERS? SHOULDN'T THEY BE FACING PUNITIVE ACTIONS AS WELL?
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
There are inherent risks involved in using private AND government servers. Government servers are attacked daily. However the real question is "How much of a risk?" as opposed to "Was it a risk?" because it's obviously a risk.
If we're talking about communiques which are classified just for the sake of being classified, the risk is low. If we're talking about actual information that has "value" the risk increases dramatically.
What this really boils down to is bad practice which "could result in"... as opposed to "did result in." Neither is acceptable, but there are worlds of difference between the two.
One is like leaving a safe open at night, and coming in the following morning and finding nothing gone. The other is finding an open empty safe. Unfortunately with information, especially electronic information there is no smoking gun of the empty safe.
But ignore the server for a moment. That is actually a secondary issue. That was a bad practice. Everything AFTER that is the real concern. Using our hypothetical safe from above. When you cover up that things are missing... that's worse than the initial security violation, because now we cannot prepare for it or assess the actual damage. If you walk into your office and find that the safe is empty, pop the flare and start accountability of both the items and procedures. Fix the issue at the root. Because any attempt to cover it up just makes it harder to counteract the damage if it appears later.
If we're talking about communiques which are classified just for the sake of being classified, the risk is low. If we're talking about actual information that has "value" the risk increases dramatically.
What this really boils down to is bad practice which "could result in"... as opposed to "did result in." Neither is acceptable, but there are worlds of difference between the two.
One is like leaving a safe open at night, and coming in the following morning and finding nothing gone. The other is finding an open empty safe. Unfortunately with information, especially electronic information there is no smoking gun of the empty safe.
But ignore the server for a moment. That is actually a secondary issue. That was a bad practice. Everything AFTER that is the real concern. Using our hypothetical safe from above. When you cover up that things are missing... that's worse than the initial security violation, because now we cannot prepare for it or assess the actual damage. If you walk into your office and find that the safe is empty, pop the flare and start accountability of both the items and procedures. Fix the issue at the root. Because any attempt to cover it up just makes it harder to counteract the damage if it appears later.
(2)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
The fact that Sec Clinton is involved is paramount to the issue. Not only has she as the Sec of State and a former Senator and First Lady failed to live up to her oath and her responsibilities, she's running for President. Like her or not, this should be unacceptable and it also highlights a "I told you so" moment for people who have been implicating her for issues in the past.
I am a huge fan of Gen Patraeus and yet I still agreed that he had to step down for mishandling classified information and maintaining an adulterous affair. We cannot have our military leadership getting away with such things. Point is, we can still like someone while conceding to the fact they have done wrong, and ensure they suffer the consequences. Those who like Clinton are instead trying to deflect and rationalize her failures in a pitiful attempt to overcome this issue. Why? Because they like her? Wouldn't you say that's just as bad as your premise about those who do not like her? The sad thing is, it all may work out for her in the end.
Politics aside, I know for a fact that Sec Clinton has done enough to warrant most of the allegations leveled her way. As one who has had to advise senior leaders on the importance of cyber security, what IT capabilities the law allows, and their obligations (by law) to maintain and preserve official records, Clinton epitomizes those who have attempted to circumvent regulations and the law, simply because they feel entitled to it (due to their position). This has to stop, no matter who holds the position. I want that example made so I can refer to it in the future when senior leaders consider circumventing the rule and regulations they're responsible for.
I am a huge fan of Gen Patraeus and yet I still agreed that he had to step down for mishandling classified information and maintaining an adulterous affair. We cannot have our military leadership getting away with such things. Point is, we can still like someone while conceding to the fact they have done wrong, and ensure they suffer the consequences. Those who like Clinton are instead trying to deflect and rationalize her failures in a pitiful attempt to overcome this issue. Why? Because they like her? Wouldn't you say that's just as bad as your premise about those who do not like her? The sad thing is, it all may work out for her in the end.
Politics aside, I know for a fact that Sec Clinton has done enough to warrant most of the allegations leveled her way. As one who has had to advise senior leaders on the importance of cyber security, what IT capabilities the law allows, and their obligations (by law) to maintain and preserve official records, Clinton epitomizes those who have attempted to circumvent regulations and the law, simply because they feel entitled to it (due to their position). This has to stop, no matter who holds the position. I want that example made so I can refer to it in the future when senior leaders consider circumventing the rule and regulations they're responsible for.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Steve Spence
If a member of the military had treated the information stored on her server would have quite probably been given a courts martial at the very least.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Steve Spence
Never should classified information be stored on a server along with personal emails.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kevin Childers
Leavenworth KS has two facilitie for people who place classified matterials at risk.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google