Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy

[werepossum]

Just as obviously, Repubs have determined that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, at all.

The real issue is that this is a dishonest attack vector invented just for Hillary.

Guess what? Other than for the True Believers who wouldn't vote for her anyway, it'll be gone, water under the bridge, long before the election. So put another little fail boat in the water & watch it float away, just like all the rest.

Actually that would have to be a dishonest attack vector invented just for Hillary years after it was used against the Bush administration.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, you are a moron. Subpoena an email account from Hotmail or Google and the server drives will be pulled, tagged and turned over that day, ready for analysis and if necessary forensic recovery. They will NOT be sanitized because people at Hotmail or Google have no vested interest in protecting whomever is being investigated, only in making sure that the proper legal procedures are followed. If you really feel that the FBI cannot recover an email message because Google won't recover it for free if you accidentally deleted it - well, I've already covered that part.

And I didn't completely reverse my claim, I was mocking you.

No, you dumbass, all that is kept are logs, the deleted emails are deleted forever. I've provided you with proof and all you've provided is more bullshit claims. Put up or shut up.

 

[compuwiz1]

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/stat...vate-emails-were-legal-republicans-are-lying/

State Department: Hillary’s Private Emails Were Legal, Republicans Are Lying

The Republican smear campaign against Hillary Clinton is firmly debunked yet again, this time by John Kirby, spokesperson from the U.S. State Department. While the right-wing has wept and moaned about the “criminal” use of a private email server by Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, it turns out that there was no prohibition against using a private email.

Rules have been put in place now, following growing evidence of cyber-attacks by Chinese and Russian hackers, but at the time there was nothing wrong with her use during her years in the Obama Administration. It just goes to show how the right will stop at nothing to tear down one of America’s most dedicated public servants, all to distract attention from their own lack of coherent policy proposals and the increasingly fascist tendencies of their presidential front-runner.

The “scandal” began as angry Benghazi conspirators in the Senate realized they couldn’t find any emails linked to Clinton, because they were on a personal server for her own convenience. The muckraking and vitriol being thrown at Hillary Clinton by the Republican Party is most unbecoming of a proud democracy. It is part of the larger baseless and by now very personal attacks on the former First Lady.

The Occupy Democrats site is the left wing of the National Enquirer. Pure bullshit and spin and the libbies are loving this false news, which has been falsely posted across all their favorite liberal haunt news rags. This investigation is ongoing. Nothing and nobody has been cleared. It is still in the FBI's hands and when they are finished, they will close the case or refer if for an indictment. We shall see what happens.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually that would have to be a dishonest attack vector invented just for Hillary years after it was used against the Bush administration.

The dishonest part is the double standard of Hillary's detractors.

 

[SP33Demon]

[petty attacks removed] all that is kept are logs, the deleted emails are deleted forever. [posturing removed]

So if they can recover the logs, why can't they recover the original emails in question from NSA/DIA/NGA accounts/servers? Just because it was wiped on hillary's end doesn't mean it's wiped from government servers. Maybe you're talking about the public domain.

 

[Jhhnn]

So if they can recover the logs, why can't they recover the original emails in question from NSA/DIA/NGA accounts/servers? Just because it was wiped on hillary's end doesn't mean it's wiped from government servers. Maybe you're talking about the public domain.

You improperly assume the information ever existed on NSA/DIA/NGA servers.

The notion is absurd.

 

[cabri]

You improperly assume the information ever existed on NSA/DIA/NGA servers.

The notion is absurd.

Should .gov emails have been recorded?

If the sender was from .gov; the email can be recovered via the logs;
UNLESS someone chose to deliberately delete/destroy gov records

I thought that was the issue with the IRS/Lerner

 

[ivwshane]

So if they can recover the logs, why can't they recover the original emails in question from NSA/DIA/NGA accounts/servers? Just because it was wiped on hillary's end doesn't mean it's wiped from government servers. Maybe you're talking about the public domain.

We are discussing public officials using non government email accounts. It was claimed that services like gmail and hotmail are better than a private server because a user doesn't have a way to cover their tracks. I pointed out that a user of such services not only can delete their emails but also deleted emails are only retained for a short period of time. Retrieving the deleted emails from such services is no less difficult than retrieving them from a private server such as Hilary's and both can be equally subpoenaed.

The claim was also made that email services such as gmail and hotmail are also more secure than a private server but no proof was provided.

We don't know if Clinton's server was hacked but we do know gmail has been hacked before:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/11/was-your-gmail-account-just-hacked-this-site-will-tell-you/

And it certainly seems Microsoft isn't perfect:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/report-says-hotmail-exploit-spread-like-wild-fire-is-now-fixed/

 

[Jhhnn]

Should .gov emails have been recorded?

If the sender was from .gov; the email can be recovered via the logs;
UNLESS someone chose to deliberately delete/destroy gov records

I thought that was the issue with the IRS/Lerner

Please. The claim was that one of the electronic security/ surveillance agencies would have secretly obtained Clinton's emails.

Logs merely indicate that a transmission occurred, not necessarily that the actual transmission is archived. Deletions are obviously common- I don't think the govt has the resources to store every email ever sent by employees.

 

[cabri]

Please. The claim was that one of the electronic security/ surveillance agencies would have secretly obtained Clinton's emails.

Logs merely indicate that a transmission occurred, not necessarily that the actual transmission is archived. Deletions are obviously common- I don't think the govt has the resources to store every email ever sent by employees.

Most .gov people do not clean emails that are related to their work - personal stuff from .gov, yes (even though by policy, they are not supposed to use .gov for personal use)
Specifically because it may be needed to play CYA or reference later.

It matters not who may have captured the email; the fact that is that it should be captured/archived and the logs may allow tracking of the actual email

 

[werepossum]

No, you dumbass, all that is kept are logs, the deleted emails are deleted forever. I've provided you with proof and all you've provided is more bullshit claims. Put up or shut up.

Just on the off chance you honestly are that stupid, Google Negro v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 230 Cal. App. 4th 879 (2014).

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2863378/court-reaffirms-think-before-you-email.html
http://shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resourc...providers-to-disregard-subpoenas-for-e-mails/

A recent ruling is another wake-up call for email users in this post-Snowden era of email privacy — or lack thereof. It makes it clear that hitting the delete button does not mean that the email no longer exists or is no longer accessible. And it reaffirms the need to think before you put information in an email. Once it is written, you have already lost control.

In a decision that will protect the rights of email account holders to access their stored email and that will affect how evidence is gathered in civil lawsuits, a California appeals court has made two noteworthy decisions. First, Google cannot refuse to disclose email communications in a Gmail account in defiance of the account holder’s lawful consent to disclose the email. Second, courts can compel account holders to retrieve deleted email stored in Gmail accounts. Let’s see how the court came to make these decisions and the lessons we can draw from them. (A copy of the court’s full decision can be found here.)

Note also that this wasn't even a criminal subpoena, just a routine civil discovery subpoena in 2011 for deleted emails from 2009 & 2010. Note also that Google spent probably hundreds of thousands unsuccessfully defending against this subpoena in multiple courts and yet never once argued that it couldn't get the emails, only that no proper consent had been given per the Stored Communications Act and then after losing on that point, that the SCA allowed them to produce the emails but did not compel them to do so. Hint: Commercial email companies maintain backups on top of backups. They have to do so to maintain a saleable product. When you delete a message, its header is deleted within your account space. If and when you need the space, that deleted file will be overwritten. However, the service isn't going to go back through all its backups and make that edit. And while it really, really, really doesn't want to dig up a copy of your deleted email, especially for your convenience, that certainly doesn't mean it can't. It merely means it is expensive and disruptive, especially given that there are roughly 15 million civil lawsuits filed in America each year and having a lawyer draw up a subpoena request for discovery costs a couple hundred bucks. Negro v. SCSCC means they don't have the option of not doing this for material under a legitimate subpoena, even from civil court, although they can still refuse to provide that service to you, especially for free.

Is that "UP" enough for you?

There is a reason why the Hildabeast's server was wiped before it was turned over. That reason is not convenience.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The dishonest part is the double standard of Hillary's detractors.

AND her defenders!


Brian

 

[werepossum]

AND her defenders!


Brian

Yup. The left is dishonestly pretending she did nothing wrong, and many on the right are dishonestly pretending that this is unique. We can't PROVE the Pubbies did the same because they were smarter and less blatant about it, but I think we all pretty much know that when something got politically very touchy, it would somehow migrate to the RNC servers where it would not be subject to oversight and discovery.

 

[ivwshane]

You certainly get an A for effort but ultimately you failed. Not only is your court case about compelling google to hand over emails a straw man (I never claimed email service providers don't have to hand over data) but the article provides zero information on what info google was able to provide. The court can compel google to hand over deleted emails all day but it doesn't mean it's at all possible for google to do so. So unless you have the court documents that show deleted emails that google recovered all you've got is a catchy title to support your confirmation bias. Now certainly google could recover deleted emails that no longer exist on it's servers using forensic tools but the same could be used on Clinton's email server.

Which brings us back to the point: using a third party email system is, for all intents and purposes, no different than using a private server.

The rest of your post, like all of your others is more speculation and bullshit on your part. You think companies that store petabytes of data daily keep back ups forever? I'm sure you do but you have zero proof (I've looked).

Just on the off chance you honestly are that stupid, Google Negro v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 230 Cal. App. 4th 879 (2014).

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2863378/court-reaffirms-think-before-you-email.html
http://shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resourc...providers-to-disregard-subpoenas-for-e-mails/



Note also that this wasn't even a criminal subpoena, just a routine civil discovery subpoena in 2011 for deleted emails from 2009 & 2010. Note also that Google spent probably hundreds of thousands unsuccessfully defending against this subpoena in multiple courts and yet never once argued that it couldn't get the emails, only that no proper consent had been given per the Stored Communications Act and then after losing on that point, that the SCA allowed them to produce the emails but did not compel them to do so. Hint: Commercial email companies maintain backups on top of backups. They have to do so to maintain a saleable product. When you delete a message, its header is deleted within your account space. If and when you need the space, that deleted file will be overwritten. However, the service isn't going to go back through all its backups and make that edit. And while it really, really, really doesn't want to dig up a copy of your deleted email, especially for your convenience, that certainly doesn't mean it can't. It merely means it is expensive and disruptive, especially given that there are roughly 15 million civil lawsuits filed in America each year and having a lawyer draw up a subpoena request for discovery costs a couple hundred bucks. Negro v. SCSCC means they don't have the option of not doing this for material under a legitimate subpoena, even from civil court, although they can still refuse to provide that service to you, especially for free.

Is that "UP" enough for you?

There is a reason why the Hildabeast's server was wiped before it was turned over. That reason is not convenience.

 

[ivwshane]

Yup. The left is dishonestly pretending she did nothing wrong, and many on the right are dishonestly pretending that this is unique. We can't PROVE the Pubbies did the same because they were smarter and less blatant about it, but I think we all pretty much know that when something got politically very touchy, it would somehow migrate to the RNC servers where it would not be subject to oversight and discovery.

Who would that be?

 

[Jhhnn]

Just on the off chance you honestly are that stupid, Google Negro v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 230 Cal. App. 4th 879 (2014).

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2863378/court-reaffirms-think-before-you-email.html
http://shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resourc...providers-to-disregard-subpoenas-for-e-mails/



Note also that this wasn't even a criminal subpoena, just a routine civil discovery subpoena in 2011 for deleted emails from 2009 & 2010. Note also that Google spent probably hundreds of thousands unsuccessfully defending against this subpoena in multiple courts and yet never once argued that it couldn't get the emails, only that no proper consent had been given per the Stored Communications Act and then after losing on that point, that the SCA allowed them to produce the emails but did not compel them to do so. Hint: Commercial email companies maintain backups on top of backups. They have to do so to maintain a saleable product. When you delete a message, its header is deleted within your account space. If and when you need the space, that deleted file will be overwritten. However, the service isn't going to go back through all its backups and make that edit. And while it really, really, really doesn't want to dig up a copy of your deleted email, especially for your convenience, that certainly doesn't mean it can't. It merely means it is expensive and disruptive, especially given that there are roughly 15 million civil lawsuits filed in America each year and having a lawyer draw up a subpoena request for discovery costs a couple hundred bucks. Negro v. SCSCC means they don't have the option of not doing this for material under a legitimate subpoena, even from civil court, although they can still refuse to provide that service to you, especially for free.

Is that "UP" enough for you?

There is a reason why the Hildabeast's server was wiped before it was turned over. That reason is not convenience.

Than you for the long & involved explanation of what we already know- deleted emails are sometimes recoverable & providers can be required by law to retrieve what they can.

Drive wiping is common practice w/ retired servers & corporate/ govt computers for security reasons. The Clintons upgraded to a new server, remember?

Weren't y'all going on about Clinton's so called lack of security?

It's like the whining abut Jackson- even when they get it right, they're still wrong.

 

[PokerGuy]

Which brings us back to the point: using a third party email system is, for all intents and purposes, no different than using a private server.

Baloney. If you use a third party service (lets say google), you don't have direct control of the data, where and how it is housed, how it is retained and backed up, whether it can be produced -- and how quickly it will be produced -- with a court order. You can't delete the issue and wipe out any backups at any point, you are subject to the backup processes of that provider. With your own server, you control exactly what happens with the data, how / if it is retained, if copies are made, if backups are stored etc. More importantly, you can decide what exactly to hand over when a subpoena is issued, and you have leeway in terms of how long you have to turn that information over. You can decide to delete and wipe any emails as well as backups at any point when you feel it might be good to do so.

Completely different animals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Baloney. If you use a third party service (lets say google), you don't have direct control of the data, where and how it is housed, how it is retained and backed up, whether it can be produced -- and how quickly it will be produced -- with a court order. You can't delete the issue and wipe out any backups at any point, you are subject to the backup processes of that provider. With your own server, you control exactly what happens with the data, how / if it is retained, if copies are made, if backups are stored etc. More importantly, you can decide what exactly to hand over when a subpoena is issued, and you have leeway in terms of how long you have to turn that information over. You can decide to delete and wipe any emails as well as backups at any point when you feel it might be good to do so.

Completely different animals.

So, using RNC servers gave 88 Bush White House members the same options as Hillary, right?

 

[PokerGuy]

So, using RNC servers gave 88 Bush White House members the same options as Hillary, right?

Maybe. I don't know how that was set up and who had what control on it. Did individual people have the power to decide what to do with all the data, when to delete things, what to backup etc? I dunno.

If you feel like digging, you can find my postings from around that time, it thought it was BS then too, my stance is very consistent -- these politicians doing this stuff to end-run around FOIA and retention requirements and oversight needs to stop. The difference is, by setting it up so that they had the RNC server for "non official business" stuff and using the "official" accounts for government business, they were able to keep anyone from digging further into the RNC server. Was there classified info on there? Very possible, but we'll never know.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a video of Hillary complaining about secret email accounts in June, 2007.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_know_about_bushs_secret_email_accounts.html

 

[OutHouse]

We are discussing public officials using non government email accounts. It was claimed that services like gmail and hotmail are better than a private server because a user doesn't have a way to cover their tracks. I pointed out that a user of such services not only can delete their emails but also deleted emails are only retained for a short period of time. Retrieving the deleted emails from such services is no less difficult than retrieving them from a private server such as Hilary's and both can be equally subpoenaed.


]

you really need to stop posting about shit you READ on the internet and try to pass yourself off as a subject matter expert . But please since you want to be a subject matter expert on Google's email retention policy please tell us EXACTLY what the retention period is and how it works. since you are an expert and know everything about this subject i expect a detailed whitepaper in your words in an hour.

lol never mind, you dont know.

 

[OutHouse]

Not only is your court case about compelling google to hand over emails a straw man

your typical response when you get bitched slapped. STAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN.

get a life loser.

 

[Bowfinger]

you really need to stop posting about shit you READ on the internet and try to pass yourself off as a subject matter expert . But please since you want to be a subject matter expert on Google's email retention policy please tell us EXACTLY what the retention period is and how it works. since you are an expert and know everything about this subject i expect a detailed whitepaper in your words in an hour.

lol never mind, you dont know.

You should follow your own advice. Before you bumble in to attack someone, you ought to find out what you're talking about. Had you bothered to read the thread and follow the exchange between Ivwshane and Werepossum, you might have noticed that Ivwshane posted a link to Google's policies (post #120).

your typical response when you get bitched slapped. STAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN.

get a life loser.

The fact that you don't understand what a straw man is doesn't mean others can't use the term accurately. Ivwshane was correct in his usage, and even explained why in his very next sentence (that you conveniently omitted, naturally). You are wrong again.

So, let's review the score:

Ivwshane - 2
Outhouse - 0
​

Want to take another shot at determining the "loser" here? You owe him an apology.

 

[OutHouse]

You should follow your own advice. Before you bumble in to attack someone, you ought to find out what you're talking about. Had you bothered to read the thread and follow the exchange between Ivwshane and Werepossum, you might have noticed that Ivwshane posted a link to Google's policies (post #120).



The fact that you don't understand what a straw man is doesn't mean others can't use the term accurately. Ivwshane was correct in his usage, and even explained why in his very next sentence (that you conveniently omitted, naturally). You are wrong again.

So, let's review the score:

Ivwshane - 2
Outhouse - 0
​

Want to take another shot at determining the "loser" here? You owe him an apology.

lol spoken like a troll. First off the google link is dealing with GOOGLE APPS not Gmail. Two completely different animals but of course you did not know that. Second, the MS link, I personally know several people who work at MS in Redmond and i can guarantee you that even though a user deletes a hotmail email and no longer can retrieve it, MS still has it stashed in a datacenter someplace in the world. Same with Chats apps like Yahoo and google talk. Nobody knows but google and MS on how long their free email service retention policy is, not even you or IamaShame.

Email service providers do not retain deleted emails forever, doing so would result in massive amounts of data storage being required.

The retention policy for google vault is 36,500 days, so 100 years, so yes massive storage is being used.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow you stupid fuck!

If you don't know that gmail is a part of google apps then perhaps you should shut the fuck up!

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_features.html

I'll quote the relevant section for your stupid ass:

Google Apps Core Services summary (if Google Apps for Work – also known as Google Apps for Business or Google Apps Premier Edition – or Google Apps for Government is selected in Order Form or otherwise purchased – or Google Apps (Free) – also known as Google Apps Standard Edition)

"Gmail" is a web-based e-mail service that allows an organization to run its e-mail system using Google’s systems. It provides the capability to access an End User's inbox from a supported web browser, read mail, compose, reply to, and forward mail, search mail, and manage mail through labels. It provides filtering for spam and viruses and allows Administrators to create rules for handling messages containing specific content and file attachments or routing messages to other mail servers. Rules can be set up by group or the Customer (all domains).

Fucking A you are retarded!

lol spoken like a troll. First off the google link is dealing with GOOGLE APPS not Gmail. Two completely different animals but of course you did not know that. Second, the MS link, I personally know several people who work at MS in Redmond and i can guarantee you that even though a user deletes a hotmail email and no longer can retrieve it, MS still has it stashed in a datacenter someplace in the world. Same with Chats apps like Yahoo and google talk. Nobody knows but google and MS on how long their free email service retention policy is, not even you or IamaShame.


The retention policy for google vault is 36,500 days, so 100 years, so yes massive storage is being used.

You have a great deal of difficulty with your language. Take some time off to calm down and not take everything so personally.
admin allisolm