
Romanian hacker who claims he breached Clinton server says he spoke with FBI - testrun
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/07/romanian-hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-says-spoke-with-fbi-at-length.html
======
g00gler
That's pretty crazy. Politics aside, she should definitely be indicted. They
arrest us hackers for much much less.

~~~
jonny_eh
What did she do wrong?

~~~
adrenalinelol
Removing classified material from the state department and storing emails on a
personal server @ her house after stepping down as Sec. State. It's against
the law; I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is the relevant text:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798)

~~~
threeseed
From what has been shown to date storing emails on her personal server was
authorized and there is no clear evidence she removed classified material.
There are a lot of allegations going around but only the FBI is going to know
what is true or not.

But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent.
That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
>But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent.

That's completely false even though that talking point has been oft repeated
in the media lately. Intent is not required to be guilty of the crime of
mishandling classified information. The Relevant law is 18 USC 793

>793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any
document … or information relating to the national defense … through __gross
negligence __(to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of
custody.”

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793)

Aside from the fact that intent isn't required in order for a crime to have
been committed, even a cursory examination of the emails clearly prove intent.

>one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top
adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

>In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points,
Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re
working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no
identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

[http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/hillar...](http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/hillary-e-mail2.jpg)

Nothing says intent more then a clear and direct command to strip classifying
headers off classified documents and send "nonsecure".

>That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.

The only factor in whether or not she is indicted is unfortunately the fact
that our legal system has entirely broken down. She will not be indicted by
the Obama administration no matter what she does. It seems much more likely
she will be impeached by the Republican Congress if she wins the election.

~~~
rdancer
> “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send
> nonsecure.”

This is not the smoking gun; there are innocuous readings of that instruction.
They were likely using secure channel to transmit nonclasified information —
which is something she should be praised for, given how little of what she was
up to can be described as good practice.

The thread in the printout you link is about "TPs" (presumably Talking
Points?). Unlikely to be classified.

------
howlingfantods
As far as I can tell, this guy guessed Sydney Blumenthal's AOL account
security password and got access to his AOL email account. He then saw emails
from Clinton and did an IP scan on her email server. He says he has 2 gigs of
data but the article doesn't make clear whether this is from Blumenthal's AOL
account of Clinton's email server.

Are there anymore details? This article seems like it's dangling the word
"hack" for scaremongering.

------
meeper16
Was this an actual sendmail server sitting in Clinton's house or was it an
offsite server?

~~~
jayess
Apparently it was an Exchange server. It doesn't seem to have been resolved
exactly physically where the server was hosted:

[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/09/location-
clinton-...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/09/location-clinton-
email-server.html)

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/03/clinto...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/03/clintons-email-hosted-on-exchange-2010-server-now-not-in-
chappaqua/)

Clinton's PR machine claims that the server was in their home:

[http://andstillipersist.com/2015/08/new-information-on-
the-l...](http://andstillipersist.com/2015/08/new-information-on-the-location-
of-the-hillary-clintonemail-com-server/)

~~~
matheweis
Other sources have the reason for running a private server as enabling the use
of a Blackberry... Does BB work with active sync?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-
clintons-e...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-
email-scandal-took-
root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html)

edit: Oh wow, it does.
[http://support.blackberry.com/kb/articleDetail?articleNumber...](http://support.blackberry.com/kb/articleDetail?articleNumber=000033940)

So it may well have been Exchange. How awful...

~~~
partiallypro
It was an exchange server, which is a bit irrelevant to its security, were it
maintained correctly. One issue is that it wasn't just an Exchange server, it
was a 2003 version of the software and seemingly didn't have very good
security protocols surrounding it.

On a side now, I despise that Gmail dropped ActiveSync support. Hooking up
Outlook is a huge pain in the ass, and it's 100% intentional.

