jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,172
- 29,131
for me I really couldn't care less that hitlery had a server, I mind that she deleted 33k of email while under subpoena. and then bleachbit the server's hard drive while under subpoena. And for the life of me, I can't understand how she ain't in jail just for those two things. destroying evidence.i don't think it's illegal to own/run the server but if they do, they are required to cc or include a gov alias for record of the e-mail.well I think at contention is if private email in itself is illegal for use by a sworn in person of government. what's your answer?I'm not trying to "move your words around", I'm trying to interpret what you said and it appeared that you were attempting to distinguish between the Queen of Corruptions use of a mail server that she owned & managed and WH staffers using private mail hosting services (you used the example of GMAIL), from a federal government perspective there is NO difference. If that wasn't your contention then I misread what you were trying to say and I apologize.Distinction without a difference, PRIVATE is the operative word as in NOT Federal Government owned, managed (i.e. subject to Federal Government information security and systems administrative policy & control) and approved.they are not using their own server. they are using like a gmail account or some other account where they don't control the server, unless i mis-read something.
gmail is hosted on PRIVATE servers as in privately owned and managed and in context NOT Federal Government approved.
Not really, any PRIVATE mail hosting provider can choose to nuke mailboxes and their entire contents and history at their own discretion and are under no obligations (other than contractual obligations ) to keep any historical data, if gmail were (for example) used by a business then Federal, State and Local retention laws would apply but the responsibility for compliance is on the business that's using the service not on the mail hosting provider.in other words, if the feds want access to the e-mail, they can get it. i can go nuke my entire account on my own *.personalaccount.net that i have for myself, but my hosting provider will have all my records and can turn them over to them if needed.
in other words, they can't do things like run bleach bit, or lose 33k mails so no comparison really except to giggle and think this is the same.
yes a private one could. i said this and you're just moving words around. however, their backups should still have the mail/account history there.
The only obligation any mail hosting provider has is what is stated in its terms of service or what is specified under contract, that's why using personal mail accounts hosted on them to conduct business is a problem not only for government employees but also for employees of any business that has a rational information systems policy.i did not say much of what you're saying i said so i'll move on. i never said google or a hosting provider was under obligation to make sure the accounts/customers comply. but they will have the mail if called for.
now i can hire a hoster that is a friend and get roughly the same as having a private server - but the hosting provider is now balls down to be responsible for their customers stated "private" needs.
they need to just make it illegal and lose the gray area.