EPIC FAIL IN THE CLINTON-ABEDIN-WEINER E-MAIL CASE. NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

My best guess about how Abedin’s e-mails wound up on Weiner’s computer is that Abedin’s e-mails were automatically backed up to the Cloud (another unsecured server!), and because Weiner’s computer was linked as “family” to the same Cloud, they automatically were downloaded to it. I have a four computerized devices, all of which, via this mechanism, receive all incoming emails addressed to me. 

I’m assuming the FBI reviewed emails on Abedin’s computer and found them to be consistent with their findings of those on Clinton’s server: “carless but not criminal." Since Clinton-related e-mails on Weiner's computer are likely to be copies of those on Abedin’s computer, the FBI is unlikely to turn up anything damning. 

There remains the unresolved issue of the reported 30,000 emails Clinton and her staff deleted. Since every email appears on at least two computers, (sender and recipient), it’s reasonable to assume the FBI, reviewing the emails on Clinton’s official correspondents, including Abedin, has found all or nearly all of those deleted emails, revealing nothing criminally compromising, according to the FBI’s previous report. 

Bottom line: It seems unlikely that the review of Clinton-related emails on Weiner’s computer will yield anything new. The FBI should have figured that out before Comey released his statement to Congress. Cold comfort to the Clinton campaign which will suffer the consequences of Comey’s injudicious revelations. 

Apparently Comey felt obliged to reveal the existence of emails on Weiner’s computers because he had agreed to provide Republicans in Congress with “any further developments” bearing on the case. His mistake was in giving Congress unqualified assurances of disclosure, when he should have added: “subject to DoJ and FBI policies and protocols regarding ongoing investigations” prohibiting release of preliminary findings. That would have given him the latitude to ascertain the significance of the Weiner material before releasing his statement, whether before or after the election.

What we have here is a case of technologically unsophisticated government officials being done in by overly user-friendly software. This automatic backup process is engaged simply by checking a couple of boxes on the backup menu — without the user fully understanding the implications of so doing — an instance of the technology tail wagging the dog. 

The fault lies with the government’s information technology (IT) departments, which failed to install and monitor the appropriate computer security protocols. Both government and corporations try to be quite rigorous on this issue, strictly enforcing what and who is allowed into and out of their closed systems, but as we know, with notable lapses. 

Much work remains to be done to ensure the security of data, including universal use of biometrics and password-generating devices, making encryption easier, safeguarding against the downloading of large amounts of sensitive data without verification in person, and countermeasures crashing the computers of hackers attempting to penetrate secure networks.  

The question before us is: How long will it be before we turn from playing politics with the unfortunate consequences of this lapse in IT procedures, to fixing the data security problem?