Home > 2015 > Identity Theft

Should the Secret Service Protect Candidates Online?

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment

The Democratic and Republican gristmills got to work last week on Hillary Clinton’s “homebrew” email, and the ensuing firestorm underscored an alarming lack of cyber-savvy among the leading players of the 2016 election. It also raised a serious question: Should the Secret Service protect presidential candidates from cyberattacks?

News of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email service, @clintonemail.com, hosted from her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., spread fast last week. The State Department commented that for six years the former secretary of state had not been in compliance with their policy, specifically because she failed to submit the records for transfer to government computers. Immediately, the Internet lit up with rapid-fire analysis of her server setup and heated discussions about the former secretary of state’s almost Nixonian will to control.

Was Secretary Clinton’s email secure? With what we know, it’s nearly impossible to answer that question. There have been reports about an out-of-a-box encryption program and critiques of other software used, but the question of whether her system was up to snuff with the State Department’s standards requires Edward Snowden-level clearance.

Security isn’t the sole point of critics’ contention. The fact that the Secretary of State’s communications were essentially beyond the reach of her boss, the President, will almost certainly be the subject of continued debate and discussion. So will the security issues this brings into sharper focus, though the extent of the faux pas is, at this point, unclear.

Hillary confirmed in her Tuesday press conference that the server used to store her emails was set up for her husband, the former President, and guarded in their home by the Secret Service. One can reasonably wonder whether that means they secured just the physical box, or did they take charge of the security software as well? Whereas the average American can make do with an over-the-counter Internet setup, we can only hope that the email of a former president wasn’t set up by the Geek Squad. I called the Secret Service for comment on the security measures used regarding the email server, but there was no reply. And why would there be? No security experts worth their salt would discuss such specifics publicly.

Clearly whatever protocols and safety measures are in place for the executive branch are not going to be discussed with reporters and citizen journalists looking for an angle on the 2016 presidential race. But while Hillary’s emailgate is certainly a big deal, so was an email-related misstep of the presumed Republican candidate.

The week before Clintonemail.com-gate (it doesn’t roll off the tongue), Jeb Bush compromised the identities of thousands of Floridians by publishing his email correspondence with constituents, and the error was in no way mitigated by the fact that no one on his team thought there might be an issue. Of the 250,000 emails from constituents that were published, some of them contained personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers.

“In the spirit of transparency, I am posting the emails of my governorship here. Some are funny; some are serious; some I wrote in frustration. But they’re all here so you can read them and make up your own mind,” Bush’s site reads.

After shaking off the seemingly well-meaning obliviousness of the above, I find myself asking what would be an acceptable level of risk for us to take with the private communications of our presidential candidates, and who should make that determination?

Given the fact that party-nominated candidates receive classified daily briefings on matters of state, this needs to be figured out. We’ve already seen too many compromises in what should be restricted cyberspace. In 2012, hackers gamed Mitt Romney’s Hotmail account by guessing a security question. (And who would have guessed it could be, “What’s the name of your favorite pet?”) In 2013, a black hat hacker named Guccifer managed to crack open an AOL account belonging to Dorothy Bush Koch, daughter of George H. W. Bush and sister of George W. Bush. This hack yielded plenty of their private correspondence, including a self-portrait of the 43rd president-turned-artist taking a shower.

The Secret Service protects presidential candidates from physical harm, but these latest email stumbles have caused me to wonder if that protection should be expanded to include the cyber-realm.

Setting aside the issue of how a campaign would be able to absorb the cost of White House-level cybersecurity in the middle of a presidential slugfest—and whether they would be required to—the above email snafus strongly suggest that the people making decisions are 1) nowhere near cyber-savvy enough to make sound decisions about data security or much worse; and 2) they are out of touch with public sentiment regarding breaches and identity theft and have somehow not grokked that a lapse in security could raise serious questions regarding a candidate’s judgment.

Either way, the cybersecurity of our next presidential candidates is a question that the Secret Service needs to answer sooner rather than after something serious happens on the campaign trail.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: U.S. Department of Defense

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Jojo

    With what budget and what manpower?

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team