THE CLINTON "SERVER"

In the recent consternation about Hillary’s use of a “server” in her home, as if a “server” is somehow more nefarious than using a desktop computer.
OK,
a) should the Secretary of State have the right to have a computer in her home, just like every other citizen?
b) should the Secretary of State take precautions that any (possibly) sensitive information is protected from probable attempts by hackers?
I wondered what the difference between a “server” and a “computer” is.

A desktop computer system typically runs a user-friendly operating system and desktop applications to facilitate desktop-oriented tasks. In contrast, a server manages all network resources. Servers are often dedicated (meaning it performs no other task besides server tasks). Because a server is engineered to manage, store, send and process data 24-hours a day it has to be more reliable than a desktop computer and offers a variety of features and hardware not typically used in the average desktop computer.
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/difference_between_server_and_desktop.html Can an argument be made that the Secretary of State should have a reliable computer, which can run 24hr/7, even in her home? Can an argument be made that the more sophisticated resistance to hacking of a server, would be a wise precaution to take by the Secreatary of State, even in her home? Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State would withold any information which would affect the National Security of the US, especially in view of the very cooperative relationship between the President and his Secretary of State? Perhaps it is time to equate the persistence of scurrilous allegations against the person of the Secretary of State, appointed by the President with outright "sedition".
scur·ril·ous, adjective. 1.making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation: "a scurrilous attack on his integrity" synonyms: defamatory · slanderous · libelous · scandalous · insulting
http://www.bing.com/search?q=scurrilous&qs=AS&pq=scurrilous&sc=8-10&sp=1&cvid=A692282E49874F0DA1CDDE1CD4DD298A&FORM=QBRE

Um, ya that’s all fun. But the bottom line is, I’m pretty sure Hillary isn’t a Network Engineer (the job title that handles networked computers and server). So obviously there was a government IT team that installed the server in her home, configured it to have just as much security as would be available in a dedicated server room, etc. And I wouldn’t doubt the team was the same one that worked on other high level officials computer needs going back to Bush, etc. This kind of thing goes on all the time, especially for CEOs and whatnot. They get special equipment, but always in line with whatever the current standards are for their company, or office.

Um, ya that's all fun. But the bottom line is, I'm pretty sure Hillary isn't a Network Engineer (the job title that handles networked computers and server). So obviously there was a government IT team that installed the server in her home, configured it to have just as much security as would be available in a dedicated server room, etc. And I wouldn't doubt the team was the same one that worked on other high level officials computer needs going back to Bush, etc. This kind of thing goes on all the time, especially for CEOs and whatnot. They get special equipment, but always in line with whatever the current standards are for their company, or office.
You'll never convince the Republicans of that. They've got a nice big bone to gnaw on and they aren't going to give it up any more easily than a mad dog would. Lois
Can an argument be made that the Secretary of State should have a reliable computer, which can run 24hr/7, even in her home? Can an argument be made that the more sophisticated resistance to hacking of a server, would be a wise precaution to take by the Secreatary of State, even in her home?
“A computer is the most secure instrument for data that mankind has made." That statement was true in past history. But not today. Memory may be off a year or two, but it was around 1985 that the government outlawed all encryption methods that the government did not have the key for. The government ended up buying many of the encryption companies. By government law all security is now compromised by back doors and keys for access by government departments. Point being, today all personal computers and servers can be hacked. Then around 1989 the government had funded the monitor technology that could read what you have on your computer screen from up to a half mile away. Secure government computing operations have buildings built to combat monitor reading or they use special monitors that can cost 10K and upward each that are secure. I would think that the Secretary of State could have a computer system in her home that was secure. But Hillary would have had to go through the government procedures to have such a system. The question at hand is “why didn’t she"?
Can an argument be made that the Secretary of State should have a reliable computer, which can run 24hr/7, even in her home? Can an argument be made that the more sophisticated resistance to hacking of a server, would be a wise precaution to take by the Secreatary of State, even in her home?
“A computer is the most secure instrument for data that mankind has made." That statement was true in past history. But not today. Memory may be off a year or two, but it was around 1985 that the government outlawed all encryption methods that the government did not have the key for. The government ended up buying many of the encryption companies. By government law all security is now compromised by back doors and keys for access by government departments. Point being, today all personal computers and servers can be hacked. And that is supposed to prove anything about the integity of the Secretary of State?
Then around 1989 the government had funded the monitor technology that could read what you have on your computer screen from up to a half mile away. Secure government computing operations have buildings built to combat monitor reading or they use special monitors that can cost 10K and upward each that are secure.
Oh really?
I would think that the Secretary of State could have a computer system in her home that was secure. But Hillary would have had to go through the government procedures to have such a system. The question at hand is “why didn’t she"?
She did. It was a Department employee which installed the server. All other Secretaries of State did.
Secretary of State, The head of the United States Department of State and, as leading member of the cabinet, fourth in line of succession to the presidency.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/secretary of state Do you think a Secretary of State should not have immediate access to breaking (real time) information from her subordinates about developments on the ground which MAY affect the Nation and before they are handled by 20 people in the State Department, before he/she gets a heads-up? Remember Hillary properly forwarded all information which she deemed important, to Her Department. What do you think heads of state talk about when playing a round of golf. The price of golf balls? Do you know what information is exchanged? As to hacking, the DOD itself has been hacked, SS has been hacked, Banks have been hacked. Claiming vulnerability to hacking is not a good argument, all computer systems are vulnerable to hacking. Remember the impenetrable "Enigma Code"? The entire story is made up and being used strictly for political purposes. This is a "get Hillary because she is running for President" tactic only. Have you seen any legislation being introduced, forbidding the use of private servers by high placed individuals? If not, you bet the next Secretary of State will have one in their home. After six months of sorting through the information has anything of real value been discovered that was not forwarded to the DOS, DOD, or to the President himself? Any criminal indictments yet? If not, then wait until the results of the investigation are published, before you accuse anyone of nefarious practices.

As the facts are slow coming out on the Hilary computer setup. The IT was not the government standard. Hilary’s IT guy was her personal employee that was given a job at the State Department by Hilary. And as Hilary has said. It was allowed by the State Department. And if you don’t believe her just ask her. She was in control of the State Department.
It reminds me of the early banking system in America. Congress wanted to know how much money the banks were having printed. The banks said it was none of their business. And congress was never able to find out how much money the banks had printed and given to the banks. So laws were passed that made the departments responsible to report to the people or congress.
As far as legislation being introduced. I don’t follow you. The laws are already in place. The secure home systems are already being used. What we are seeing is that Hilary did not follow the laws or use the secure systems. And she never turned the data over to the State Department when she left as required by law.
Your thinking that I have political against Hilary is wrong. I disagree with the caste system of the rich and the government rulers being privileged and beyond the laws the rest of us have to follow.
As to hacking, the DOD itself has been hacked, SS has been hacked, Banks have been hacked. Claiming vulnerability to hacking is not a good argument, all computer systems are vulnerable to hacking. Remember the impenetrable “Enigma Code"?
I took a computer security class at Coleman Collage. One of the top computer software colleges in the country at the time. And it is government regulations that are behind the programs being able to be hacked. The Enigma Code is stone age compared to the encryption capabilities of today’s computers. And that is why the military uses its own encryption system for weapons. It is beyond hacking and very safe.

I wondered what the difference between a "server" and a "computer" is.
A desktop computer system typically runs a user-friendly operating system and desktop applications to facilitate desktop-oriented tasks. In contrast, a server manages all network resources. Servers are often dedicated (meaning it performs no other task besides server tasks). Because a server is engineered to manage, store, send and process data 24-hours a day it has to be more reliable than a desktop computer and offers a variety of features and hardware not typically used in the average desktop computer.
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/difference_between_server_and_desktop.html
There are 2 levels of differences between a desktop computer and a server: physical and functional. The physical design follows the function. A server, as the name suggests, offers services. In Clinton's case, one of the services is a mail relay server. Mails are effectively send and received by this server at a 24/7 basis, and therefore normally runs on more robust hardware. This guarantees that mails can always be received, even if Clinton has turned her PC off. When she opens her email client on the PC (the service on the server is for clients), it retrieves the email to the PC, and she can read them there. Normal mortals have 2 options (if they do not want to have their own mail server): use these services from a service provider, i.e. the service provider lets you their server(s), and you connect to it via a router; or you use the facilities that are offered by your employer. Now it is very unusual that you do your business mails on your private email account. It means, that when for some reason it is necessary for your employer to trace what has happened in a some email exchange, he can't do this, even if he, under certain circumstances, is obliged to do this (i.e. investigation about compliance, fraud, whatever). So an employee should never do it; and that is also true when the employee happens to be a secretary of state. So what she did is definitely wrong.

My first reaction to this was, “Why is this news?” My next one was, “F@$k I hate election seasons.”