|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] The right to your own private mail and papers
|From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Mar 9 13:11:41 2015
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 68F951612FC; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 540C7161311; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [18.104.22.168])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CB71612FC
for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.19] (unknown [22.214.171.124])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ACE9107A7
for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:11:16 -0400
From: Ruben Safir
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] The right to your own private mail and papers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
List-Id: NYLXS General Discussion Forum
In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are
technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and
surveillance they take matters into their own hands.
Just like everyone has their own mailbox, and a locked front door, they
should have their own mail server..... i hate these asshole.
On 03/09/2015 12:47 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> I'm reading this and it is bothering me that the actions of Mrs Clinton,
> in even setting up her own mail service and communications network can
> even be question. If a messenger goes to here house and knocks on her
> door, is this a crime. It is a crime to have any privacy with in your
> home, or even work. If something illegal is happening, say a
> communication with Putian to overthrow the Ukraine, the mechanism for
> investigation is as it has ALWAYS been... get a damn warrant from a
> judge and subpoena the papers.
> This attack on our rights to our own papers is bullshit
> Wonder what is being made of Hillary Clinton’s private email system by
> Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. We are not about to suggest that
> there is no scandal in the way Mrs. Clinton conducted her official
> communications while she was our chief diplomat. It will be
> illuminating, though, to see how she justifies setting up in her own
> private home the server that handled her wire traffic over the Internet.
> In the age of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, is it possible that this
> was, whether or not crosswise with the law, a prudent maneuver?
> Click Image to Enlarge
> /Library of Congress/
> CABLE TRAFFIC: What was Hillary Clinton thinking when she set up a
> private email server in her home to handle her email traffic while she
> was secretary of state? Above, a long-ago lineman from the days before
> the Internet.
> We are not the first to raise this question. One technology expert, Clay
> Johnson, who has worked in politics and for government agencies, was
> quoted by the Daily Beast as saying that, while he had no knowledge of
> Clinton’s decision-making, “it was possible,” as the Beast paraphrased
> him, that “she decided the State Department’s own networks weren’t
> secure enough.” Not just from Wikileaks but from foreign governments
> hacking our senior-most officials.
> Wikileaks was launched in 2007. No doubt many think it is a dandy idea.
> The New York Times and the Guardian newspapers became, for a while,
> collaborators with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. Mrs. Clinton, who became
> state secretary in 2009, was not among the scheme’s admirers. If a
> private system were being set up for the collection and publication of
> classified State Department cable traffic, is it possible that a prudent
> state secretary might be tempted to go to the edge of the law, or even
> over it, to protect her wire traffic?
> It strikes us that Republicans might want to think these things through.
> Did Mrs. Clinton do the same kind of thing that Wikileaks has been
> doing, that is, moving government messages onto its own servers? Or was
> she doing the opposite, putting government message out of reach of those
> who mean her — and our country — harm? If it was the latter, how
> successful was this effort? This might require the government seizing
> and examining her servers.
> Where is the line to be drawn in respect of the ownership of cable
> traffic of our political appointees? We understand there are laws on
> this head; they suggest that most of the mail is America’s property. The
> New York Times last week quoted an expert lawyer, Jason Baron, as saying
> that it would be “difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear
> winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its
> cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications
> channel for the conduct of government business.”
> Only time, though, will tell what is in Mrs. Clinton’s cables. Maybe
> there is a lot of damaging information. But when Governor Palin of
> Alaska was eventually forced to disgorge vast troves of her email,
> reporters looking for salacious or scandalous messages came up with
> zilch. Either Mrs. Palin wasn’t doing anything wrong. Or she kept it off
> the wires. For our part, we’re less concerned about Mrs. Clinton’s modus
> operandi — whose server she was using and whether it was a private email
> — than the substance of the Clinton doctrine.
> /That/ strikes us as unacceptably vague, even vapid, after all these
> years. Her support of Israel is not unalloyed (her husband sent a raft
> of operatives to the Jewish State to try to defeat the Likud in the 1999
> election). She is no better than anyone else on Jerusalem. She’s hinted
> at a hard line on Iran but backed President Obama’s appeasement. Her
> re-set with Russia is a joke. She made erroneous statements in respect
> of the riots in Egypt and Libya, laying the blame a film protesting
> mistreatment of Coptic Christians.
> There are, in short, no achievements. That is a bigger scandal than the
> question of through what servers she ran her email in the age of hackers
> and Internet spies. It could be a case of the scandal being not in
> what’s illegal but in what’s legal. Wouldn’t it be something if the
> woman who wants to be our next president went to all this trouble to set
> up a private email system, safe from prying eyes of her rivals in
> government, only for it to be discovered that she did nothing of
> substance worth protecting?