Was it wrong for Hillary to have her own email server? Yes, technically under the law this seems like it would be the case. So if that is the only part of the situation you are interested in, then move along. If not, feel free to continue on to my opinion of this matter from a logic stand point.
The reason that this is silly feels fairly evident to me, she's the Secretary of State and in such capacity, she can do as she pleases. Wait...Wait...let me explain before you begin to beat me about the face. Feel free to go ahead and stop your internal dialog. We are entrusting her with a fairly high position in government which, whether you agree with her or not, has a certain amount of executive privilege that comes with the position by default. You get to speed, you get escorted almost everywhere you go(not sure if that is a benefit or a curse, never had the pleasure), and you get a lot of other comforts and privilages that others aren't able to take advantage of.
Just like any CEO, CFO, etc. they aren't going to be following all the same rules that the mail-room guy, or even a senior account manager would be getting shown the door for betraying. This is just generally SOP in this country, it's not written but implied by the way things work. If you know this about society you need to know little else, though if you don't know this basically everything else you know is useless.
So I would say that Hillary has a reasonable ability to diverge from SOP, because she has the level of clearance and knowledge of threats that one would need to make reasonable adjustments to policy from time to time.
To say that she has the ability to control security policies, embassies, facilities, etc. - but she isn't able to have her own server? That is just not logically consistent with how flexible government needs to be to run.
That is not to say that government is the most flexible institution by design. It is certainly not to suggest what transpired was is the most secure way of doing things, just that it is secure enough for the purpose for which it was being used.
In any security scenario it is really time that you are fighting against, not the cracker, criminal, etc. Nothing is going to be impossible to break into, the real trick is how long and involved will be the process be compared to the return. Just like anything else, criminal activities are weighed and managed by criminals, just as they would be by a corporation, probably better. I believe the writers of
Freakonomics have proved this point quite convincingly.
It would be reasonably hard for an interested party to gain access to Hillary's email, especially since the server in question wouldn't be found where one would expected it. Though I think any hacker would automatically assume she had her own, but likely would waste time with it unless paid, since it is not likely to possess anything of real value. Whether that be militarily or politically.
It would be rather unlikely for someone to get her private email that wanted it, and this would put her at just as much risk as would normally be associated with using public or private networks. Certainly there would be little to no increased risk associated with the practice.
The only conceivable increased risk that I could see possible would be if her and Bill set it up themselves, and even then anything they would be able to get running would likely have fairly good default security settings based on basic conventions. Based on reports, the setup was as expected and had been upgraded to a hosted solution toward the end of her tenure, at what is classified as a secure location by the DOD.
From some of the technical communications that have been in the news, it sounds as though her server had access to both the public and private networks, and the mail was being forwarded from her official account. Which means that it was just as secure as the communication would have been otherwise, and all official internal communications should be copied on the internal government servers. Other than those messages that she sent over any private networks she had/has access to, which would have still been an option regardless of where her official email was hosted.
Though I don't know any of this for sure, as likely not many people do. This is just conjecture on my part based on what I have heard. Though my opinion would likely be the same even if the server was compromised and we were finding out that way.
At any rate, there exposure over the wire would be the same, the contents were likely encrypted so any intrusion would likely lead to scant results.
The positioning of the system in the Clinton's home also seems to be a rather large topic of conversation that probably shouldn't be. Mainly because computer equipment often ends up in the closet of
normal folks, as it tends to be rather unsightly mess of cables at some point. Only nerds proudly display there techno-mania, and it still will likely be in a closet.
With all the secret service around, the equipment it's self was likely safer than it would be at any other facility, where more people than you think would have access.
Anyone that has ever worked in a government facility can tell you how relaxed procedures tend to be, especially as time goes on.
Prisons are another place where you can see this happening regularly, but someone only gets in trouble things go wrong or are otherwise put in the spotlight -- as we have seen recently with regards to the NY prison escape and subsequent investigation alone.
The amount of security holes, not including the ones we don't have the ability to identify yet, if such a things was able to be accurately quantified, would be tremendously unsettling if mentioned to the average citizen. Especially if that citizen didn't have any real technical knowledge with which to decipher the information, which is where we really find our culture now. Things are complicated, and complicated things are scary when you don't understand the way these things fit together.
The lack of understanding with regards to technical concepts is also a thorn in the side of the progression and application of technology within the government. Each time a new technology or methodology is introduced, adoption by the government is going to be especially slow.
If you work with technology regularly, especially system administration, you know how hard it can be to plug every security hole and still have a system that is usable. This is constantly an issue. So the reasoning behind being slow to adopt new technology and techniques has a good bit of rational behind the practice. Though I think most would agree that corporations go so far in the other direction that they are actually negating any advantages they may receive from such practices.
In this case, Hillary's server is the one that seemed like it wasn't getting hacked, unlike the rest of the government at the time, at-least I haven't seen any information to that effect.
Government servers and facilities, both private and government run, have been getting hacked since hacking was a thing. One needs to simply watch the multiple Kevin Mitnick documentaries to see how complex and futile security can be when you have a worthy adversary. Now imagine how many of these types exist in countries around the world. Don't forget also that our allies have had us hacked for sometime, this is the reason for encryption.
There is very little that is a secret these days. The only thing that a country, business or individual can really do is make it hard enough for the
bad guys to operate, that many things are not worth the trouble, therefor rendering it secure, even if gaps in security exist.
It has been shown time and time again, that all the laws, procedure, planning, and alerts cannot stop the truly determined from doing bad things. These measures simply align to mitigate the problems.
Though the argument exist that technically a thing can be true. Technically one can break the law without knowing it, or being directly cognizant of the tragic implications that ones actions could have. Either from a technical standpoint, or a theoretical one. It is also completely reasonable that a policy could be actually causing a security flaw as an externality of it's application.
It makes me think of a saying that I often hear, "It is only illegal [if/when] you get caught."
While this may, on the surface, sound like bad policy but it is on of the many mantra's of our society. The way that our culture functions, at it's core. It is not what we say, but what we do that defines who we are.
Most people speed, knowingly. The difference between those persecuted for it and those that aren't, and to what degree vary greatly. Some of them are doing it in a way officers find acceptable or are better at not getting caught, and some aren't. Some have tinted windows, or a speedy color that attracts the eye. There are all sorts of variables that go into each action and reaction in this world, and most are not fair.
Things are largely not even across the board, we say this is how we intend things to be. Though our actions as a society tell a different tale. The morality that we profess and the world as it truly is, are two very different things.
In the end, our government officials should -- and it seems as though they have and do continue to utilize -- the ability to make adjustments where they see fit. As long as they don't do something knowingly negligent or treasonous, this shouldn't be a problem.
So do we really need to have legislation that controls things at such a micro-level? I am sure that most Conservatives and Libertarians would have a dog in that fight.
How can we demand that people be responsible for the results of actions if so many of their decisions that lead to any number of situations have been mandated by law? Which is a valid argument in regards to all sorts of legal situations that can arise.
At what level of education, experience, etc. are people able to make important decisions that effect others? Doctors have such freedom, too a point, but then restricted by the insurance companies and other regulation with regards to many areas of care -- that often seem to be the areas that need the least restriction. So it seems like even those that we look too the most for advice are largely constrained by a body of individuals with far less knowledge and experience in the area of concern than the one's they are constraining.
So on one hand we tell everyone that they are responsible to follow all the regulations, though know one knows them off hand. Only after a team of aids, researchers and some personal research do we see politicians take questions about even the most obvious areas of policy, and one would be hardpressed to get solid legal advice even from ones lawyer.
Really I think one of the main questions we should be asking is: If we can't trust these people, at this level of power, with general logistical decisions, perhaps they shouldn't be the people that we have in government in the first place?
