Hacking Hillary's Digital Comfort

We seem to want to punish candidates for being comfortable in their digital suits. 

Nearly all of us want, actually demand technology that gives us the best of access and convenience without the worries of having that comfort hacked apart (or open). But when politicos accept a similar desire -- when they show that they are comfortable and confident in their abilities -- some decide that they must stab that integrity.

This is likely Hillary Clinton's issue in regards to her email discomforts. She exemplifies comfort in her skills, including those that make her try to address criticisms when she ought not. 

There does not appear to be any element of what she did (or didn't do) regarding her email decisions that cannot be explained away as her simply shrugging with a sense of ordinariness concerning her digital tasks. She has likely accepted certain patterns of behavior as forms of efficiency -- behaviors that her staff at the State Department offices would normally seek to understand and adapt to. 

Most folks who depend on modern comm systems don't react with extremism -- and definitely not paranoia -- to the routine use of computerized techniques to move their work forward. And it seems we should want this for leaders in jobs that have massively complex schedules. Such a pattern fits what she said about setting up systems at the State Department. Her actions can be understood perfectly like this and carry no burden of bureaucratic deception, nor, of course, of any kind of criminal intent - other than the crime of caring about doing her work with digital speed. 

NOTE: The decision announced by the FBI on July 5, 2016, affirms the lack of criminality, but draws what appear to be undue inferences from her otherwise routine activities. If details are released, we can better judge me perspective. 

Hillary could easily have been doing what was necessary to do her job based on the level of comfort she has developed. Having others spend time worrying about this - and screaming chicken-little alerts - made any and all decisions she made seem exaggerated, thus causing her to overreact defensively to the whole idea of sophisticated technological advances by the State Department. Which was something that a recognized former Secretary, namely Colin Powell, expressly sought to counter. Hell, he even cashed in his top-notch, unimpeachable credentials when he was in office to force more reasoned reliance on technology. She could have known that from him and thus been sensitive.

Powell was SoS from the years 2001 through 2005. Have your social media and email skills and comfort evolved since then? Do you accept that you can carry on your professional work using such methods without grand thoughts of the vulnerabilities of the apps you use? 

The chances are that your skills have improved and that you work on systems without freaking out about them. The same is very probably true for Hillary as she took her position there 5 or more years later. Hacking during that time was nowhere near as prevolent as it is now. Unfortunately, an unforgiving few have turned their personal levels of tech craziness against others, and thus made her actions look sinister. 

Coulda Shoulda Woulda elements of her team and her decisions been better? Sure, I guess. Maybe by introducing deeper layers of distrust that undercut the comfort we want to value in the use of technology. The tech and security experts need be more responsible for this going forward, not backwards second guessing otherwise reasonable routines.

Hillary deserves being noticed for her comfort, even if comfort stil requires more learning.