But your argument is that the fact of the server was disqualifying.
Sean Neville

But your argument is that the fact of the server was disqualifying. That is of course an opinion, therefore an argument.

Actually, my interest in the discussion, from the Tracy article that started all this off, was that the email issue was relevant while the DNC was making the mistake of minimizing it rather than addressing it. For me, what was disqualifying was Mrs. Clinton’s demonstrated tendency towards near-paranoid behavior, of which the email issue was a symptom, not the disease.

And your support in the following ¶ is an analogy: In the corporate world a private email system = loss of job, so it should be in the public sector.

Not quite. The point here is that corporations (and governments) set IT governance and security standards for good reasons. They invest substantial amount of money making sure that proprietary intellectual capital remains so; if proprietary information is compromised, there can be dire financial consequences to the corporation. So, any employee who demonstrates a cavalier attitude towards corporate governance is better off working elsewhere.

The same is true in PARTS OF (not all) the public sector. However, one of those areas is diplomacy.

I am quite certain that top management personnel at X corporation frequently use external communication systems for various projects.

You may be “quite certain” all you like, but that is not the case. In my corporation, which is rather typical (I’ve worked for several large corps), we have a firewalled and private box.com account through which we can invite external parties to a specific folder for collaboration. Information is marked “internal use” or “confidential” and we are required to adhere to specific guidelines for the handling and dissemination of documents. Break the rules and out you go.

So, you’re correct that corporations PROVIDE FOR external modes of communications. That, however, is a far cry from “oh, just use googledrive or whateverthehellyouwanttouse”. I have never been in any corporation where the movement of proprietary information to an unapproved external platform would not threaten your paycheck.

And it’s very unlikely that the CFO of say Goldman Sachs who communicates with a counterpart in Zurich through a personal server would be discharged too.

I can’t speak for what would happen to any particular individual at any particular company. What I can tell you that all companies have rules against it, and the consequences of breaking those rules is termination.

I’m not going to accept your word on that. But of course if you have some documentation, that’s another story.

Documentation on what? You don’t believe that corporations have internal it governance standards and that the consequences for moving proprietary material around outside those standards is termination? If you’re that out of touch to not believe that, then there’s no sense in continuing the conversation.

I see that responding to the rest of your post would just cause me to repeat myself, so I’ll stop here.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.