XPost: rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, a   
   t.vietnam.veterans   
   XPost: soc.culture.soviet   
   From: multiple.felonies@hillaryclinton.com   
      
   Hillary’s homebrew server has been wiped blank. Long live   
   Hillary’s hosted server. Per the Washington Post: Before   
      
   Before it was taken to the data center in New Jersey, the   
   [homebrew] server had been in the basement of the Clintons’   
   private home in Chappaqua, N.Y., during the time she was   
   secretary of state, according to people familiar with the   
   Clintons’ e-mail network. After she left government service in   
   early 2013, the Clintons decided to upgrade the system, hiring   
   Platte River as the new manager of a privately managed e-mail   
   network. The old server was removed from the Clinton home by   
   Platte River and stored in a third party data center, which are   
   set up to provide security from threats of hacking and natural   
   disaster, Wells said.   
      
   Platte River Networks has retained control of the old server   
   since it took over management of the Clintons’ e-mail system.   
   She said that the old server “was blank,” and no longer   
   contained useful data. “The information had been migrated over   
   to a different server for purposes of transition,” from the old   
   system to one run by Platte River, she said, recalling the   
   transfer that occurred in June 2013. It would be easy for the   
   layman to conclude upon reading this news that, because the data   
   had been backed up, Clinton’s decision to wipe her original   
   server was inconsequential. This conclusion, I’m afraid, would   
   be a false one. On the contrary: By having cleaned the hard disk   
   on which all of the important activity took place, Clinton could   
   well have impeded the FBI’s investigation, and thereby rendered   
   it impossible for the federal government to learn what she has   
   been up to.   
      
   Casual users of modern computers do not realize that, until a   
   hard disk is deliberately and comprehensively wiped clean —   
   “overwritten” in the correct parlance — it will retain a good   
   amount of useful, accessible, intact information. On almost   
   every system available, what appears to the user’s eye to have   
   been “trashed” is in fact kept around unblemished until such   
   time as the space it’s taking up is needed for something else.   
   >From the point of view of the person controlling the operating   
   system, files that have been “erased” may indeed be   
   inaccessible. For a person who knows what he is doing, however,   
   those files can often be easily retrieved. If the FBI had been   
   given Clinton’s original hard disk(s), they would have had some   
   chance of discovering which files had been deleted (or, rather,   
   unlinked from the file system) and which had not. By wiping the   
   disks, she has denied them that opportunity.   
      
   “Aha,” the Clintonistas say. “But Hillary moved all of the data   
   to a new machine in 2013.” Indeed she did. But — and this is the   
   key — only the non-deleted information will have been   
   transferred over. As Clinton’s team presumably knows, when data   
   is copied from one hard disk to another, it is only the “active”   
   files that are included in the process. In only the rarest of   
   circumstances (RAID arrays, etc.) do source hard drives also   
   replicate the “dead” information they are carrying, and there is   
   next to no chance that Hillary asked for this to be done.   
   Instead, she has almost certainly done nothing more or less than   
   to make a copy of her e-mail cache as she had curated it; in   
   other words, to have copied exactly what she wanted to have   
   copied. From the perspective of an investigator, this is a   
   problem. Sure, keeping the homebrew machine in working order   
   would have provided no guarantees of anything. But by wiping it   
   she has ensured that there is no chance whatsoever that her   
   deleted items can be perused.   
      
   To illustrate why this matters so much, perhaps you will forgive   
   me an analogy? Imagine that you are writing a manuscript by   
   hand, and that your initial draft contains all the crossings   
   out, substitutions, and spelling errors that initial drafts tend   
   to include. Next, imagine that having completed that draft to   
   your satisfaction, you make a perfect copy — minus all the   
   changes and mistakes, of course — and then, lest anyone be privy   
   to your imperfections, you burn the original. In such a case,   
   handing over the finished draft would naturally be entirely   
   useless to anyone who wanted to find out what changes you had   
   made. Indeed, it would be of use only to those who believed that   
   you were a perfect writer. That, effectively, is what Hillary   
   Clinton has done here. As I noted yesterday, she may still come   
   a cropper. But if so, it will be because she didn’t get rid of   
   the incriminating materials when she had the chance.   
      
   Will this matter in the immediate term? As far as the FBI’s   
   investigation is concerned, probably not. Hillary claims that   
   she didn’t delete anything incriminating or important, and there   
   is now no obvious way of proving otherwise — unless a   
   whistleblower comes forward, that is. Legally, though, this is   
   another blow upon the bruise. By transmitting the server’s   
   contents to a third-party (Platte River), she may well have   
   committed a felony. As of now, Clinton’s best defense is that   
   she only passively received classified e-mails — as opposed to   
   having sent, forwarded, or deleted them — and that she is thus   
   not in violation of USC 18 793(f). But if she handed over a   
   server full of classified information and then actively copied   
   that information onto computers owned by a commercial provider —   
   a clear violation of both the “communicates, delivers, transmits   
   or causes to be communicated” and “fails to deliver” clauses in   
   USC 18 793(e) — that defense becomes horribly moot. Drip, drip,   
   drip . . .   
      
   http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422513/why-hillarys-wiping-   
   her-e-mail-server-clean-matters-more-it-might-seem-charles-c-w   
           
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)