Immigration Scams, Tourism and Colleges

The numbers are staggering when it comes to fraudulent scams as they relate to immigration. We cant begin to know all of them, but it should challenge our imagination and then we must begin to ask questions calling for more research. Here are but two symptoms of problems that rarely hit media radar.

What is more chilling is members of Congress are well aware of the two conditions below as is the Governor of California. Since the White House learns about issues and situations in the news. perhaps help out by sharing this post with the Obama team as it seems the full news media cant seem to report it.

Children born in the US automatically qualify for citizenship, one of the reasons behind the popularity of ‘maternity tourism’

Row over US-born immigrant children heats up
Federal agents in California have raided more than a dozen hotels that cater to pregnant foreigners who want their children to be born US citizens.

The “birth tourism” hotels hosted mainly Chinese women who paid between $15,000 (£9,756) to $50,000 for the services.

The raids focused on hotels suspected of engaging in visa fraud.

Court records said companies would coach women to falsify records and claims for their visa screening.

Birth tourism is not always illegal and many agencies openly advertise their services as “birthing centres”.

The raids represent a rare federal crackdown against the widespread practice of foreign nationals giving birth in the US.

Undercover operation

It is estimated that 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the US each year are the product of birth tourism, according to figures quoted in court documents filed to obtain search warrants for the schemes.

In one of the investigations into an Irvine “birthing centre”, an undercover agent posed as a pregnant mother.

She was helped to provide false proof of income and a college diploma, told to enter through popular US destinations like Hawaii or Las Vegas and make reservations with hotels and tours.

A China-based “trainer” assigned to help put together the visa application asked for full-length frontal and side photo of the undercover agent’s belly to see how visible her pregnancy was, according to agents.

Agents were also concerned that the schemes defrauded hospitals. Even though the women were paying birth tourism operators between $15,000 and $50,000 for their service, they paid local hospitals nothing or a reduced sum for uninsured, low-income patients, according to the affidavit.

No arrests were expected on Tuesday, according to the Los Angeles Times, but authorities said investigators would be seizing evidence and interviewing the mothers to build a criminal case against scheme operators.

*** Going Further:

Businesses engaged in maternity tourism, also known as “birth tourism,” are believed to have been operating for several years, relying on websites, newspaper advertising and social media to promote their services, immigration officials said.

Based on the results of previous investigations, the women who subscribe apparently pay cash for pre-natal medical treatment and actual delivery of their babies.

As part of the package, clients were promised they would receive Social Security numbers and U.S. passports for their infants – documentation the mothers would take with them when they returned to their home countries, ICE said.

Once the children, who by birth are U.S. citizens, reach adulthood they can apply for visas for family members living abroad.

More expensive packages “include recreational activities, such as visits to Disneyland, shopping malls and even an outing to a firing range,” the ICE statement said.

The practices came to public attention in California in recent years when residents of some Los Angeles-area communities complained about what they said were maternity hotels springing up in their neighborhoods, causing sanitation and other issues.

Ah, but hold on there is more.
Federal Agents Raid Suspected Fake Schools
Foreigners on U.S. student visas allegedly paid millions but didn’t take classes
LOS ANGELES—Amid a widening crackdown on immigration fraud, federal agents on Wednesday raided a network of schools alleged to be part of a scheme to collect millions of dollars from foreigners who came to the U.S. on student visas but never studied.

Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations arrested three individuals who ran four schools in the Los Angeles area alleged to serve as a front for the purported scheme.

Hee Sun Shim, 51 years old, was arrested at his Beverly Hills home, and his alleged associates, Hyung Chan Moon and Eun Young Choi, were arrested in their offices near downtown Los Angeles.

They were taken into custody and charged in Los Angeles federal court with conspiracy to commit visa fraud, money laundering and of other immigration offenses, U.S. authorities said. They weren’t immediately available for comment and their attorneys weren’t known.

Wednesday’s action was the latest in a series targeting visa fraud nationwide.

“It’s a priority for us,” said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge of HSI in Los Angeles. “It is something that can be exploited by types who want to do harm to the country.”

He added that authorities haven’t seen any evidence in this case that suspected terrorists used the alleged scheme to enter the country.

The main school in the alleged scam is Prodee University, located in Los Angeles’s Koreatown neighborhood. It is affiliated with three other schools: Walter Jay M.D. Institute and American College of Forensic Studies in Los Angeles and Likie Fashion and Technology College in nearby Alhambra.

Catering primarily to Korean and Chinese nationals, the schools enrolled 1,500 students, the government said, most of whom live outside of Los Angeles, including in Texas, Nevada and Hawaii. They generated as much as $6 million a year in purported tuition payments, authorities said.

Sham colleges across the U.S. are believed to attract thousands of foreigners who pay fees, some of them with the promise of an education they don’t receive and others with assurance that no classes need be taken.

“It’s never clear to what extent the students are victimized or are in on the scheme,” said Barmak Nassirian, policy analysis director at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

The crackdown comes at a time when U.S. colleges and universities are attracting a record number of foreign students—about one million currently.

The spate of student-visa scams has prompted some lawmakers to call for better government monitoring of both schools and students. In recent years, authorities have raided schools in Virginia, New Jersey and California, the state considered the center of the illicit activity.

A 2012 Government Accountability Office report concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was failing in its mission to detect fraud by school operators.

The agency last year began deploying field representatives to foster compliance with regulations; a compliance unit makes surprise visits to schools and a new risk-assessment tool helps identify suspicious activity at schools. ICE also says it has enhanced electronic record keeping of students.

“We have been working to fix vulnerabilities,” said Rachel Canty, deputy director of ICE’s Student Exchange and Visitor program, which certifies schools that enroll foreigners.

Concern about the legitimacy of foreign students and institutions they attend first surfaced after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since then, schools have been required to provide information about students to an online government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, overseen by ICE.

The Sevis contains a student’s personal record, including country of origin, age, coursework and U.S. address and other details. Schools that fail to comply can lose their certification.

More than three-quarters of some 9,000 certified schools have fewer than 50 international students, which makes it more challenging to comply with regulations. “People think foreign students come to UCLA and Harvard. We have a lot of mom-and-pop schools,” said Ms. Canty.

Security concerns resurfaced in 2013 after the deadly Boston Marathon bombing. Authorities learned that Azamat Tazhayakov, who hid evidence about the attack, had entered the U.S. on a student visa that was no longer valid. Since then, the government has integrated the SEVIS database into the screening process at airports. Mr. Tazhayakov, a Kazakhstan national, was convicted last July of obstruction of justice in the bombing.

Investigators say the defendants misrepresented students on federal forms, enabling them to secure student visas in what amounted to a pay-to-stay scheme. In exchange for the so-called Form I-20, a student made “tuition” payments for up to $1,800 to “enroll” for six months in one of the schools, according to the indictment.

As part of the suspected conspiracy, the defendants allegedly created bogus student records, including transcripts, for the purpose of deceiving immigration authorities.

The indictment further alleges that purported students often were transferred from one school to another to avoid arousing suspicion of immigration authorities about individuals in the country for long periods.

“We have nothing to indicate the students were getting education for anything,” said Mr. Arnold, the special agent.

After Wednesday’s raid, the schools’ access to Sevis was ended and authorities are seeking to withdraw the schools’ certification to enroll foreign students, ICE said.

The students’ fate is unclear. Foreign pupils enrolled at the schools should contact the Student Exchange Visitor Program office in Washington, officials said.

The largest student-visa fraud case, involving Tri-Valley University in northern California, left more than 1,000 students in limbo and sparked protests in India. The school’s president, Susan Su, was imprisoned in 2013 for making millions of dollars in the scheme.

That scandal prompted U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and others to call for action.

“The potential for bad actors to abuse the student-visa program has increased significantly over recent years,” Ms. Feinstein said, noting that a Senate-passed bill to overhaul immigration in 2013 included a provision to combat such fraud.

Where Were You America on Net Neutrality?

Going back as far as 2010, for the Federal government to take over the internet has been a building coup and while America did not care….the FCC assumed control.

After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to “media reform”—a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct “Fairness Doctrine” that used to regulate TV and radio companies. In a 2005 interview with the progressive website Buzzflash, Mr. McChesney said that campaign-finance reform advocate Josh Silver approached him and “said let’s get to work on getting popular involvement in media policy making.” Together the two founded Free Press.

Free Press and allied groups such as MoveOn.org quickly got funding. Of the eight major foundations that provided the vast bulk of money for campaign-finance reform, six became major funders of the media-reform movement. (They are the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers’s Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.) Free Press today has 40 staffers and an annual budget of $4 million.

 

 

FCC Cites Soros-Funded, Neo-Marxist-Founded Group 46 TIMES In New Regs

New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.

The FCC released the 400-page document on Thursday, two weeks after it passed new regulations, which many fear will turn the internet into a public commodity and thereby stifle innovation.

“Leveling the playing field” in that way has been a clear goal of Free Press, a group dedicated to net neutrality which was founded in 2003.

As Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment, first noted, Free Press is mentioned repeatedly in the FCC document. Most of the references are found in footnotes which cite comments by Free Press activists supporting more internet regulation.

The term “Free Press” is mentioned 62 times in the regulations. Some are redundant mentions referring to the same Free Press activists’ comments in favor of more oversight. In total, the FCC cited Free Press’ pro-net neutrality arguments 46 times.

The FCC received more than 4 million public comments as it was weighing the net neutrality initiative, but Free Press and other activist groups have received the most attention by pressuring the FCC and the White House on behalf of their cause.

One argument made against the FCC’s regulatory push is that the general public is largely happy with its internet service. Support for net neutrality was seen as the domain of special interest groups like Free Press.

The activist group has big money behinds its effort. It has received $2.2 million in donations from progressive billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and $3.9 million from the Ford Foundation.

And one of Free Press’ co-founders, Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has not been shy about his desire to see the internet regulated heavily. (RELATED: A Leading Net Neutrality Activist’s Neo-Marxist Views)

But internet regulation appears to be only part of McChesney’s more radical agenda of completely revamping how the media operate in the U.S.

“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay.

“Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism,” he said.

“The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society. Once we accept this, we can talk about the kind of media policies and subsidies we want,” McChesney once argued.

Sentiments such as these have raised questions about whether the FCC’s new regulations will eventually led to oversight of internet content.

“The unthinkable has become thinkable, and the free-market Internet – one of freedom’s greatest triumphs – is set to be reduced to a public utility, subject to pervasive economic regulation and, in turn, to content control,” American Commitment’s Kerpen wrote in an open letter to McChesney after the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of the regulations.

McChesney, who is currently on Free Press’ board of directors, made a series of progressive proposals in a 2010 book, “The Life and Death of American Journalism.” He suggested spending $35 billion on federal subsidies for public media outlets. He also proposed creating a journalism branch of AmeriCorps and said it would be a good idea to give each American a $200 news voucher which could be given only to publicly-owned media outlets.

“Advertising is the voice of capital,” McChesney said in a 2009 interview with the Socialist Project. “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications.”

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai blew the whistle on the agency’s attempt to sneak the new regulations in under the radar. He pressed FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to release the proposed regulations so that the public could view them before the commission voted on the measure. Wheeler refused.

In his dissent, Pai, a Republican, slammed the commission’s secrecy and also mentioned Free Press as one of the activist groups which received special attention on the matter.

“What the press has called the “parallel FCC” at the White House opened its doors to a plethora of special-interest activists: Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few,” Pai wrote.

Indeed, even before activists were blocking Chairman Wheeler’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with White House officials. But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process. They were being played for fools.”

 

Swell, Eric Holder had Email Aliases Too

It is an epidemic in government, all kinds of powerbrokers in the Federal government are using alias emails. The very agency bound to enforce law and the very top lawyer at the agency, the Department of Justice, is in violation himself.

There is a U.S. Criminal Code where government business transactions including emails, text messages, photos, documents and more belong to the Federal government, not the individual. This must be certified upon leaving office and Eric Holder has tendered his resignation. There is a separation notice (Form OF; 109) under penalty of perjury that all materials are turned over.

Per Shannen Coffin, lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson LLP:

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) adopted regulations in 1995 which required the preservation of official e-mails created on non-official accounts. The Archivist interpreted the Federal Records Act to apply to e-mail records and further provided that “[a]gencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system . . .” So as early as 1995, all federal agencies were required to preserve official e-mails, including those created or maintained on “external electronic mail systems.” Later NARA regulations merely clarified this requirement. In 2009, after a Government Accountability Office report indicated that certain agencies had lax e-mail practices, the NARA adopted new regulations that provided that any emails created on private e-mail accounts must be preserved. But that regulation merely restated, in perhaps slightly different language, what the 1995 regulation had already mandated, requiring that “[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” More here.

Eric Holder Used Email Aliases. DOJ Says It Wasn’t A Transparency Dodge.

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder has used three email aliases to conduct government business over the past six years, a Justice Department official revealed Tuesday.

All three email aliases, including the one Holder currently uses, are official Justice Department addresses on the @usdoj.gov domain, the official told The Huffington Post. Holder has used the aliases to prevent spam and to keep his inbox from being overwhelmed by the public, not to avoid transparency, the official said. The addresses were known to DOJ officials handling Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional inquiries, according to the official.

“The Attorney General uses a Justice Department email address to conduct official business. As with many Cabinet officials, he does not use his given name in the handle of his email address,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. “This practice is similar to using initials or numbers in an email address and helps guard against security risks and prevent his inbox from being needlessly inundated. It does not in any way impact compliance with FOIA requests. The Attorney General’s email address is known to the individuals who process FOIA requests, and his emails are regularly produced, albeit with his exact address redacted.”

Holder’s first alias, Henry Yearwood, was a combination of his mother’s maiden name and the first name of another family member. His second alias, David Kendricks, came from the names of two members of the Temptations: singers David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks.

Fallon, who described Holder’s choice of email addresses as “soulful,” declined to provide Holder’s third and current email alias, but said it is based on the name of an athlete.

The aliases were changed twice over Holder’s tenure, once when the email address was accidentally exposed by another federal agency responding to a FOIA request.

The email practices of top officials in the Obama administration have come under increased scrutiny due to Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email as secretary of state. Former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson pointed to indications that Holder used an email alias in a recent post on The Daily Signal. Attkisson noted that the names associated with Holder’s email address were redacted in documents disclosed by the Justice Department, with his name replaced by “Attorney General.”

Many high-ranking government officials use email addresses that are not readily available to the general public. Lisa Jackson, for example, came under scrutiny for using an email alias during her tenure as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Although an EPA Inspector General report found a lack of internal agency controls for identifying such email addresses, it found no evidence the practice was intended to dodge federal record-keeping rules.

Could Loretta Lynch Decide Hillary’s Fate?

Truth be known, Hillary was ONLY allowed to use a specially designed Blackberry as was the policy at the State Department. But lil miss Hillary admitted to finessing that policy by also using an iPhone, iPad, and other tablets. She is shown here in her own words.

It must be included in this EmailGate affair as the Clinton server resides in their home in New York which is currently under the legal jurisdiction of AG Loretta Lynch and she is slate to be confirmed next week by the Senate to replace the now resigned U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Lynch is a legal protective firewall of the White House and all government employees, so Hillary’s fate could necessarily be placed in the lap of Loretta Lynch, which means that Hillary could be on the good receiving end of the Department of IN-Justice.

So this begins to add more gasoline to the fire and more comes out where it could be that Hillary committed a felony. Everyone at the State Department assigned directly to Hillary’s inner circle knew about her exclusive email server and private emails. This server should be considered either a proxy server under the ownership of the State Department and hence part of official government property or it could be called an alias server still part of government property. It would be also prudent at this juncture to ask who else uses private emails….alas that of Lisa Jackson the formerly of the EPA and are there other alias servers out there as well. Digressing….

One of the defenses that Hillary Clinton offered at yesterday’s press conference was that she had complied with federal records laws because those laws leave it up to her, as the employee who created or received an e-mail, to decide whether that e-mail must be preserved under the Federal Records Act. But while Clinton is correct that every employee has to make some initial determination of whether a particular document is an official “record,” the ultimate determination is most definitely not up to the employee, but rather to the agency and its records-management officials. Bear with me through some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo for a moment, because the payoff is pretty significant. That Mrs. Clinton is not the ultimate arbiter of whether her records must be preserved is made very clear in the Department of State’s own records-management manual. Under a provision titled “Removal Procedures,” the manual sets forth the process that each Department of State employee must go through upon separation (i.e., resignation or retirement) from the department. In addition to relinquishing classified materials, all employees are required to clear the removal of any unclassified materials through records-management officials.

First, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials proposed for removal.” The departing official must then “request a review of the materials proposed for removal.” Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for “Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.” The purpose of this independent review by records officials (as opposed to simply accepting the say-so of the departing official) is “to certify that the documentary materials proposed for removal may be removed without diminishing the official records of the Department; violating national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure; or exceeding normal administrative economies.” The process “generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials to verify the accuracy of the inventory.” (5 FAH-4 H-217.2(b)). Finally, there is a formal certification by the State Department records official authorizing the employee to remove the documents from State’s custody: “Once the reviewing official is satisfied that documentary materials proposed for removal comply with Federal law and regulations the reviewing official completes Form DS-1904, Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials, and forwards the form and the inventory to the Department of State records officer.” These “nonrecord materials” may be removed only “when authorized by the Department and only to the extent that their removal does not: (1) Diminish the official records of the Department; (2) Violate confidentiality required by national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure (e.g., commercial or financial information, personnel files or investigative records); (3) Exceed normal administrative economies.” Despite her repeated protestations at yesterday’s press conference that she followed all applicable rules, it is pellucid that she did not. Mrs. Clinton plainly did not just remove personal e-mails without clearing that removal with records officials; she also did not even return official records. Her defense now is that returning the documents two years later is good enough. But the same records manual emphatically rebuts that post-hoc justification. The department’s records manual requires that departing officials “must ensure that all record material that they possess is incorporated in the Department’s official files and that all file searches for which they have been tasked have been completed, such as those required to respond to FOIA, Congressional, or litigation-related document requests.” And lest the employee not get the message, the manual adds that “fines, imprisonment, or both may be imposed for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code (e.g., 18 U.S.C., section 2071).” I have already discussed here the question of whether Mrs. Clinton may have violated that criminal prohibition on willful concealment of government records, and the evidence to date — especially her disclosure yesterday that she deleted any document that she determined to be personal in nature (without permission of the Department under the records-removal guidelines) — suggests a strong possibility that she did. But might she have lied to department records officials when she separated from service? The department’s records manual (5 FAH-4 H-217.1(a)) requires that records officials “remind[] all officials, about to leave the Department or a post, of the requirements for the removal of personal papers and nonrecord materials.” Critically, the department enforces “compliance with these procedures for the removal of documentary materials prior to execution of the Separation Statement (Form OF-109).” And what is Form OF-109? It is a formal separation statement, in which the departing official certifies the return of any classified materials, and, more relevant for present purposes, that the departing official has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents, and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department.” The form makes very clear that a false statement in the certification is punishable as a crime, including under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal facts in statements made to federal agencies concerning a matter within its jurisdiction. According to the department’s procedures, then, every departing official is required to certify the return of all government documents under penalty of law. Did Hillary Clinton sign such a certification upon her separation from government? Did she knowingly swear that she had returned all records, when in fact she had retained at least 55,000 pages of official e-mails (and perhaps more)? And if she did not sign such a certification, why not? Every other departing employee and official of the State Department is required to do so. Did she ignore her obligations to return the records and thus avoid a false certification? It seems that the one document in all of this that we need to see, if it exists, is Hillary Clinton’s Form OF-109.
**** Get some popcorn, there is more…

Besides exclusively using a secret email account to conduct official government business, it’s likely that Hillary Clinton also used unauthorized electronic equipment—an iPad and an iPhone—as Secretary of State after being warned not to, a veteran State Department official told Judicial Watch this week.

On at least half a dozen occasions Clinton’s top aides asked the State Department’s Office of Security Technology to approve the use of an iPad and iPhone, according to JW’s inside source. Each time the request was rejected for security reasons, the source confirms. The only mobile device that meets the agency’s security standards is the BlackBerry, JW’s source said, adding that the Office of Security Technology—Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Directorate  of Countermeasures must approve all equipment such as cameras, phones and communication devices for all officials.

Evidently set on using the popular Apple devices, Clinton repeatedly challenged the ban and asked management in the Office of Security Technology to allow their use. The executive secretariat responsible for all communications and information technology always rejected the requests, JW’s source affirms. “From day one Hillary was trying to get the iPhone and the iPad approved,” the State Department official told JW. “She kept trying and trying to get us to approve the iPhone and the iPad, but we wouldn’t do it. Technology security experts tested the iPhone and the iPad several times because she constantly wanted them approved, but it never happened.”

The longtime State Department employee reveals that it’s common knowledge among government security tech experts that Apple devices don’t meet strict security standards so agency insiders were puzzled that the Secretary of State was hell-bent on using them. “There was a lot of head-scratching,” JW’s source revealed. Every State Department employee goes through a rigorous security training that includes strict warnings about using non approved equipment or personal email like Clinton did throughout her tenure as the president’s chief foreign affairs officer, the agency insider said.

Clinton’s persistent efforts to persuade the State Department’s technology security experts to approve the use of her favorite Apple devices led those in the division to conclude that she did in fact go through with it. “My guess is she did it and wanted approval after the fact,” JW’s source said. “But no waivers were ever issued.” JW reached out to the State Department for a comment on this latest potential scandal surrounding its former leader, but failed to get a response.

In the meantime, JW has launched a full-scale investigation into Clinton’s secret email system and has filed a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that will likely end up being litigated in federal court. Prior to the email scandal JW already had nearly a dozen active lawsuits in federal court that could be affected by Clinton and her staff’s use of secret email accounts to conduct official government business. Among them is a public-records request for communications between the former Secretary of State and her Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin with Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi.

Hillary was Hacked, Data Virgin Islands/Ukraine

EmailGate courtesy of Hillary Clinton’s home server has taken on a life of its own.

From the Blaze:

Clinton Email Domain Hosted by a Company That Was Hacked in 2010 and Had Data Redirected to Ukraine — and IP Address Reveals Link to British Virgin Islands

As news of Hillary Clinton using a private email during her tenure as Secretary of State continues to emerge, TheBlaze has learned that the email domain was hosted by a “consumer grade” company whose data was hacked in 2010, with information being sent to Ukraine. Additionally, data reveals that the domain was hosted at one point in the British Virgin Islands. This, experts say, is a big security no-no.

Domain history data reveals Clintonemail.com was registered in 2009 with Network Solutions, shortly after Clinton was appointed as the nation’s top diplomat. But the decision to host the domain for such a high-profile person on a consumer registrar like Network Solutions is questionable to security experts.

Bill Sweetman, a domain registration expert based in Canada who describes himself as part of the “left-leaning camp,” told TheBlaze Friday that the whole Clinton email controversy has struck him as “naive on the part of the players.”

Image source: DomainTools.com
.

“If you’re someone that is concerned about security of your data, you don’t go and register your domain name with a consumer-oriented registrar like Network Solutions or GoDaddy,” Sweetman said.

Image source: DomainTools.com

“You would work either with a corporate domain registrar like MarkMonitor or CVSC, or you would talk to your employer – in this case the government – about their internal solutions that would protect the domain name and would protect the data associated with it.”

Sweetman isn’t alone in thinking this.

Rod Rasmussen, a leading expert on the abuse of domain name systems, wrote in a 2013 column for the trade publication Security Week, that any domain managers using a consumer-grade registrar for a “major enterprise” should lose their jobs. Rasmussen wrote the piece after Network Solutions was hacked in 2010, resulting in thousands of domains being transferred to Confluence Networks, a domain registrar traced to the British Virgin Islands.

“When it comes to Internet security, there is absolutely no way major corporations would use consumer grade anti-malware and anti-phishing solutions as a one-stop security solution. So why would major organizations – we’re talking major Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, financial services and critical infrastructure organizations – put their domains in the hands of consumer grade registrars?” Rasmussen wrote.

Among the companies whose domains were moved offshore at the time of Rasmussen’s column were organizations like LinkedIn, Fidelity, Craigslist, Yelp and the U.S. Postal Service

“We have received reports that Network Solutions customers are seeing malicious code added to their websites, and we are really sorry for this experience,” company spokesman Shashi Bellamkonda wrote in a company blog post at the time. Aside from that admission, Rasmussen wrote that Network Solutions has been “tight-lipped” about the details, only adding that the websites of a “small number” of customers were “inadvertently affected for up to several hours.”

Computer World reported in 2010 that throughout the course of the attack, users of up to 50 domains hosted by Network Solutions were redirected to a Ukrainian attack server.  Historical domain data associated with Clintonemail.com reveals the last recorded change to a Clintonemail.com IP address occurred Dec. 22, 2011. A simple lookup of that particular IP address shows it is hosted in Road Town, British Virgin Islands, although its unclear whether the offshore IP address is a direct result of the Network Solutions hack.

What’s also unclear is whether Clintonemail.com was one of the domains directly involved in the same attack that redirected to a Ukrainian attack server. What is evident, however, is that the security threat posed by Hillary Clinton using a “consumer-grade registrar” for her private email domain, potentially containing classified information, was greater than the threat that could have been posed had she decided to use the State.gov domain.

Since the New York Times broke the story, questions surrounding Clinton’s use of private email have circulated throughout the media and even some members of her own party. Republicans, especially those who are expected to be considering a 2016 presidential run, have also pounced on the issue. After days of silence, Clinton finally tweeted a response to the controversy Thursday.

Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told the press during a visit to Saudi Arabia that the review would be conducted “as rapidly as possible,” Reuters reported.

But the review of the nearly 55,000 emails Clinton sent from her private email could take some time, as one State Department official acknowledged: ”The review is likely to take several months given the sheer volume of the document set.”   ***    SIX YEARS

Hillary Clinton was in violation of State Department rules governing the use of non-governmental email accounts during her entire tenure as secretary of state and for nearly two years after she left the job, ABC News has learned.

A senior State Department official tells ABC News that under rules in place while Clinton was secretary of state, employees could only use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers. They were also forbidden from including sensitive but unclassified information on private email, except under some very narrow exceptions.

This policy is still in place, according to the Department. Until any private emails are entered into government computers, the official says, an employee is in violation of the rules.

Clinton used a private email account for her entire tenure as secretary — and did not even have a government-issued email. She only turned over some 55,000 pages of emails to be entered into government computer systems late last year, nearly two years after she stepped down from the State Department.