Was Hillary Clinton's server a national security risk?

2015-09-24T22:46:37-04:00

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/09/24/nsa-director-private-server-open-to-spying?ref=yfp

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Sep 24 at 2015 11:02 PM

2015-09-24T23:02:25-04:00

Not sure it was one or not. Does not make sense why she would have her own server though.

Response by SSG Toryn Green made Sep 25 at 2015 12:29 AM

2015-09-25T00:29:09-04:00

Hillary Clinton is a national security risk!

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 25 at 2015 1:09 AM

2015-09-25T01:09:52-04:00

Everything about Hillary is a National Security risk, lol

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Sep 25 at 2015 5:11 AM

2015-09-25T05:11:31-04:00

SSgt Alex Robinson Even much more so than the average Soldier, who because of the potential of lost classified info, is taught, "do this", and, "don't do that !!" every time they sit down on a Military computer. Only documents of, or information with the appropriate classification may be used at certain work stations. The average soldier's server is somewhere on a Military base, well guarded and guaranteed to go through scheduled maintenance, and security checks.

Hillary's server was in the closet in someone's bathroom. It had no "advanced" protection, and as we have already seen, there were multiple documents on the server that contained information that was Top Secret, code word (SCI) classified. No one knows if any maintenance was EVER performed on this server, and security checks may well have been made (if at all), while the system administrator was sitting on the toilet. So, my guess would be........, Yes, "Hillary Clinton's server was" absolutely "a national security risk".

Response by MCPO Steve Spence made Sep 25 at 2015 5:44 AM

2015-09-25T05:44:36-04:00

The server can't be blamed. It is an inanimate object. Every bit of the risk was brought on by the former Secretary of State. Personally, I feel she should be held to the same standards that you or I would have been if we were traveling with classified materials.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 25 at 2015 7:18 AM

2015-09-25T07:18:05-04:00

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.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 25 at 2015 8:26 AM

2015-09-25T08:26:20-04:00

Again it would present itself as a gold mining opportunity, but as with any good hacker, most information you could want/need isn't on the higher security systems, but rather on the UNCLASS network. Folks want to talk about everything and all you need is just a little bit to put a bigger picture together. It would seem that HRM had a lot of the little bits on her server. Just what those little bits were is the question. A larger and bigger issue was the fact that her lawyer had a thumb drive with everything on it. No one's making a stink of a chain of custody in securing it, what was his official clearance level along with who verified it, and if he had ONE copy, are there more that no one knows about? This server is a dangerous proposition, but that thumb drive is much worse.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 2 at 2015 10:39 AM

2015-10-02T10:39:16-04:00

Is the Pope Catholic? Rhetorical question.

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:59 AM

2015-10-02T10:59:21-04:00

Her server was a risk to national security, her mishandling of her classified information on her server is a risk to national security... 1+1= She is a risk to national security.

Response by SFC Kevin Childers made Jul 15 at 2023 3:46 PM

2023-07-15T15:46:49-04:00

DEFINATELY A RISK, UNENCRYPTED OR LOW LEVEL ENCRYPTION IS LIKE PEEING YOUR PANTS IN A DARK SUIT. IT ONLY GIVES YOU A WARM FEELING AND ALL THE WRONG PEOPLE WILL NOTICE.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2023 4:48 PM

2023-07-15T16:48:43-04:00

For those who hate Hillary, of course, her server was a national security risk. For those who love Hillary, of course, her server was not a national security risk.