Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyldfire | Hacker News Reader

> FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged into ____'s email account and browsed email folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, _____ stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor software. FBI investigation to date was unable to identify the actor(s) responsible for this login or how _____'s login credentials were compromised.

Was this info already public? This seems to me that not only did Secretary Clinton use a private email server to mask her activities from public records law but in taking it under her/her staff's responsibility, she effectively leaked state secrets. How in the world does that not make her criminally culpable?

EDIT: Sorry for the tangent -- I'm really curious: is this part new or had the press already reported it (or discovered it and decided not to report it?)

View on HN

It's not so much the use of an email server that bothers me personally, it's the lack of accountability and double standard afterward.

For the purpose of staying somewhat on-topic for HN, and this is entirely speculative for entertainment purposes only, but I wonder if there were deeper motives to running a personal email server. Maybe she knows something about the intelligence agencies or the state department's official email system we don't, and was deliberately avoiding (or aiding?) them. Are there any such legitimate technical reasons for running a separate email server?

Well, state dept email was notoriously crap. It was also hacked [1]. She also asked for the same fake blackberry (blackberry tied to a local radio that travels with the person) that POTUS gets and was refused.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack...

I am not a lawyer, but criminal culpability has everything to do with state of mind / mens rea. This is why "murder" is a crime but accidental homicide is not, even though in both cases the same actions might have led to the same consequences.

"State secrets" is also one thing, "classified material" is another thing.

Accidental homicide isn't a crime? I thought that was what involuntary manslaughter was?

IANAL. It depends on who is at fault. If you are driving your car down the highway and a pedestrian jumps in front of you so close that there is nothing you can do...

That's not really homicide though.

Homicide doesn't mean murder. It simply means the killing of a person by another.

People make a big deal about how in capital punishment, the death certificate says 'homicide'. This isn't a political statement that capital punishment is murder; it is just the objective fact of what happened.

So if someone jumps out in front of you and they die, you're the victim of a homicide?

They would be the victim....

I'm talking about accidentally killing someone where there is no negligence or intent. It's not a crime. It's still homicide.

Accidental -> reckless -> negligent -> intentional

At least she should get punished at some level.Not like nothing happend and she can still run for president. What a joke. Shame on us.

Agreed. Even if she _actually_ didn't mean any harm by this, it's insane that we would be okay having someone this negligent vying for the most powerful office in the world.

Of course, the argument that she had no intent is getting tougher to prove with each bit of information coming out. The fact that she (or one of her people) just happened to use BleachBit once they realized investigation was imminent is pretty damning.

The voters are the ultimate authority in all of this, and we get to decide in November.

> "State secrets" is also one thing, "classified material" is another thing.

No, actually (in the US at least) they are the same thing.

Perhaps he meant that not all classified material is state secret.

In the sense that not all classified material should be classified, perhaps. By definition, though, the US government considers everything classified to be a state secret.

Accidental homicide is called manslaughter, and is very much a crime.

Manslaughter requires negligence. Not all homicides are a result of negligence, i.e., shit happens.

"Gross negligence" in handling classified material is also criminal, regardless of intent.

I don't think this was reported. However there's a few points in the surrounding context that likely diminishes this as a significant detail:

1) The account belonged to a President (Bill) Clinton staffer, and not to Hillary or someone who worked at State with Hillary. Given the FBIs findings, it seems unlikely any classified information was found in their account.

2) The FBI did not identify any other successful scanning attempts on Clinton's server.

For those of us interested in the context, can you tell us where in the documents you found this?

Page 29 of 47: https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/politics/hillaryclinto...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com