house Bill H.R. 3743
Banning Cabinet Secretaries From Using Private Servers for Work Email and Data Storage
Argument in favor
Storing sensitive communications and data on a private server is practically asking for a foreign government or hacker to try and compromise it. Especially when the information belongs to a U.S. Cabinet Secretary, the use of private servers is too risky for national security.
01/28/2016
I am in the military. We take a mandatory course upon joining your unit. Called OPSEC. Or operation security. (If you are in the service as well, you should know what I am talking about). We learn from the very beginning of our careers that handling of any type of information should never be taken lightly. And the failure to do will result in UCMJ knocking at your door. Not only should you handle the sensitive items with care, but you should also report any wrong doings from a fellow comrade/ coworker. This to me means that Hilary should be prosecuted and those that knew, or sent classified information to her email should be investigated as well. #firstpost.
···
01/31/2016
Why does any government employees conducting government business need to keep that business on a private server? This is a no brainier or it should be.
···
01/29/2016
Yes, except Hillary Clinton. If she is Secretary again I think she should be allowed to have a private server, but we all get the password.
Argument opposed
If Cabinet Secretaries have a legitimate reason for wanting to use a private server for official government business, they should be able to, if they can prove the server is secure. They can be trusted to preserve classified information from those trying to access it.
···
01/28/2016
This bill is not necessary because storing classifed information on any private or commercial server is illegal and punishable by a fine and jail time. The federal government needs to do its job and enforce the law, not muddy the waters by granting officials further privileges.
01/27/2016
Seriously? This is yet another attack on Clinton basically. I'm not an over fan of hers, but this is ridiculous and obviously stemming from misogyny more than anything. For this law, just use some common sense people. If it's top secret, keep it in the most secure place and only there. And likewise with other materials. Otherwise, who cares? The politicians are people too. They don't top being people with lives when they are elected and sworn in! Treat them like it!
···
07/05/2016
This doesn't strike me as a real issue. It looks like a way to misuse government funds to continue raking Hillary Clinton over the coals for no real reason.
I am in the military. We take a mandatory course upon joining your unit. Called OPSEC. Or operation security. (If you are in the service as well, you should know what I am talking about). We learn from the very beginning of our careers that handling of any type of information should never be taken lightly. And the failure to do will result in UCMJ knocking at your door. Not only should you handle the sensitive items with care, but you should also report any wrong doings from a fellow comrade/ coworker. This to me means that Hilary should be prosecuted and those that knew, or sent classified information to her email should be investigated as well. #firstpost.
This bill is not necessary because storing classifed information on any private or commercial server is illegal and punishable by a fine and jail time. The federal government needs to do its job and enforce the law, not muddy the waters by granting officials further privileges.
Why does any government employees conducting government business need to keep that business on a private server? This is a no brainier or it should be.
Yes, except Hillary Clinton. If she is Secretary again I think she should be allowed to have a private server, but we all get the password.
This seems like a duplication of laws already on the books. Appears to be an excuse to cut Clinton a break from being indicted. How sad that politicians never hold themselves accountable and block efforts by the people to hold them accountable.
Seriously? This is yet another attack on Clinton basically. I'm not an over fan of hers, but this is ridiculous and obviously stemming from misogyny more than anything. For this law, just use some common sense people. If it's top secret, keep it in the most secure place and only there. And likewise with other materials. Otherwise, who cares? The politicians are people too. They don't top being people with lives when they are elected and sworn in! Treat them like it!
You need to ask?! Did we not learn from Hillary what a bad idea it is to let government employees use private servers, computers, flash drives, etc.?! BTW, WHY ISN'T HILLARY CLINTON BEING INDICTED FOR HER "FAUX PAS"??? AT THE VERY LEAST, SHE SHOULD HAVE HER SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED!
If I had consistently violated all measures to protect classified data and information while I was serving over 22 years in the Air Force the way Mrs. Clinton and her staff did at the State Department I would still be in Leavenworth. The government/citizens do not need the trouble and expense to review and certify that private email servers meet classifed data requirement. I was in charge of the budget to develop a secure classifed information facility at one base in the Air Force and the expense for the building and the equipment that it contained was very high. We do not need to tempt government officials by letting them play games with government information on private servers. Anyone who has handled classified data knows that even unclassifed data when combine or used in certain ways can become classifed or very sensitive. Don't we require appointed and elected officials undergo training on how to handle sensitive and classified information?!!
This doesn't strike me as a real issue. It looks like a way to misuse government funds to continue raking Hillary Clinton over the coals for no real reason.
Server is a broad definition. Local backup NAS can be considered a server. Storing data on a device connected to public domains could be restricted as a better alternative.
Yes, all government employees from Dept head, Deputies and secretaries.
Just another Republican non-issue to try to keep the scandal-mongering going leading up to the election. This is not a voter issue. It is a regulatory issue. Voters cannot be expected to even "understand" the technology involved, or having any valid way of coming up with a cogent answer. Waste of time legislation. Quit wasting my tax dollars playing Republican "Run out the clock" games.
National security shouldn't be jeopardized just because we "trust" someone enough to do the right thing
Since at least one was too arrogant or stupid to not realize the danger of an unprotected or inadequately protected private server for sensitive communications, WE NEED TO MANDATE IT.
Absolutely no reason to have government business conducted over personal email.
I think that you have a second server means...... One intends on DOING WRONG....
Look I get it. Hillary effed up and sent some emails that got everyone in trouble. But don't tell me you've never snap chatted your ex on a Friday night. I know you did! My point is this is a drastic oversimplification of a multi faceted and little understood issue. Our cyber security is vital yes, but prohibiting senior officials from using private servers is just a band aide solution. What if using a private server is the solution in an unforseen and future edge case? Then they'll have to break the law to do the right thing. No, instead our nation needs to completely rethink all of our cyber laws and consult the most knowledgeable and innovative people on Earth to do so. This law won't solve the root issue.
