I don't know why this comment was downvoted without explanation, because your point is correct: as a public servant, one is expected to live up to and follow the rules and laws dictated for that position.
Security is something you never need until you need it the most.
Security is something you never need until you need it the most.
Yeah, we get that part. But it isn't about secure, or not secure.
It's that she (or more specifically Donald Reid, her secure information technology coordinator) was never provided a legitimate explanation as to why this technology was available for the POTUS -- and for her predecessor -- but not for her. So it's understandable that they felt dissed.
Feeling dissed, is one thing, but subverting the process is another. The explanation given was that scaling the Blackberry that the POTUS was given was unmanageable. Whether that is a fair explanation or not we do not know. Even if it were not a fair explanation, does that give Mrs. Clinton the right to basically backdoor the whole process?
Feeling dissed, is one thing, but subverting the process is another.
Agreed - I definitely do not condone her going rogue in response.
My message is simply: if the NSA can't (or won't) reasonably coordinate with the 2nd most important office holder in the Executive Branch, on what should be a perfectly tractable issue... then we have to wonder whose interests they're serving, exactly.
The explanation given was that scaling the Blackberry that the POTUS was given was unmanageable.
How about you look at Hillary's own statement and actions in terms of other people breaking laws or regulations when they didn't feel like following them. Then, you'll see why some of us want her held accountable too. ;)
Besides, it wasn't all or nothing: she had several options available that she just didn't like. Security people's decisions sucked and should probably get them fired as chris_wot said. Yet, she did have options before creating the third that was a national security risk and illegal. I'm just saying no double standards here: apply her standards to her.
As a public servant, "I felt dissed" is certainly no reason for me to break the law. I expect better, both from the Secretary of State and from the President of the United States.
Oh, I agree. There's no defense for her going for a backchannel device in response.
Just that arguably, the NSA has a legal obligation to at least attempt to properly coordinate with the Executive Branch when it comes to perfectly reasonable-seeming requests (as this request appears to have been, from the outset).
Which they apparently did not do in this case, for some reason. So the legal aspects of that matter should be looked into, also.
Yes they were given a legitimate, real explanation. Quoting another comment here:
> [Approval] wasn't withdrawn for Clinton, it was withdrawn for the devices themselves. The NSA decided the potential consequences for a baseband compromise within a SCIF was too high risk.
That's what the poster of that comment surmises to have happened.
However, that information is not contained in the AT article. We can't just assume that's what the Clintons were told. And going by the article, that's not the explanation they were given.
Security is something you never need until you need it the most.