[marcusgarvey]

>previous people in the same position also had private servers

Such as?

[projectramo]

Powell and Rice. Click on the link.

[marcusgarvey]

False. They did not have private servers.

[projectramo]

Private as opposed to public or government. Not private in the sense of their own set up for themselves.

I didn't think that was the distinction you were focused on.

[marcusgarvey]

But the distinction is material.

[projectramo]

Just to be clear, let's set up some terms:

1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up

2. Private server - a service like hotmail or gmail

3. Personal server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you

We agree that the violation is setting up a non #1 type server, but you are saying it matters if it was #2 or #3?

If that is what you are saying, please elaborate on why you think so. (I don't see that it matters much, but am curious about your argument).

[marcusgarvey]

Let's enhance said terms.

1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up. Chief attribute(s): security

2. Private sector email provider - a service like hotmail or gmail. Chief attribute(s): convenience and security.

3. Personal homebrew server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you. Chief attribute(s): control and convenience.

A public servant who would use #2 for testing purposes so that they can execute the duties of their jobs is one thing. A public servant who would go to the lengths needed to secure #3, thereby placing their complete archive beyond the reach of the public but well within the reach of intruders, has in my view used their public office for private gain at the potential cost of national security. Their motives and judgment are entirely dubious.