Morning Must Reads: March 4

Mark Wilson—Getty Images The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

Obamacare in Court Again

Supreme Court justices will hear arguments Wednesday in the case of King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to President Obama’s signature health care law and one that could leave it gutted from an unexpected direction

The Weird Benefit of Salty Diets

The latest research, which the scientists stress is still in its early stages, hints that there may be some benefits to salt that have gone unnoticed

Alabama Halts Same-Sex Marriage

The state’s all-Republican supreme court ordered probate judges on Tuesday to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples

How Airlines Cheat You Out of Frequent Flyer Miles

A new study shows that a switch by airlines to frequent flyer programs based on dollars spent rather than miles traveled could cause around 45% of passengers to lose out on points

Concern Over Iran’s Nukes Drowns Out Its Growing Role

Consternation over Iran boiled on Tuesday as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared its nuclear ambitions a threat to Israel. But at the Pentagon, the focus was on Tehran’s growing role in Iraq’s fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria

New Hormone Discovered That Curbs Weight Gain, Diabetes

Scientists have discovered a new hormone that normalizes the metabolism and slows weight gain caused by high-fat diets — mimicking the health benefits of exercise. MOTS-c increases insulin sensitivity, allowing the body to more effectively process glucose

The Most Expensive Places to Book a Hotel in the U.S.

Planning a spring trip within the U.S.? You might want to budget a bit more money for a hotel. The 20 most expensive American cities to stay in are surprisingly scattered across the nation, from Butte, Mont., to Panama City, Fla.

Top General Says U.S. Should Consider Arming Ukraine

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey argued during a Senate hearing on Tuesday that the allegedly Russian-backed rebellion in Ukraine threatens to undo more than six decades of peace in Europe and could potentially splinter NATO

NFL Duo to Donate Brains to Trauma Research

New York Giants punter Steve Weatherford and former NFL receiver Sidney Rice both announced that they will donate their brain to science research after their death. Weatherford said he’s doing it “more to help generations after us”

Calif. Teacher Found Hanging Knew Suicide’s Devastation

The California teacher whose students found her hanging in her classroom knew the devastating effects of suicide: Her own father went missing and was found dead with a bullet wound to his head after committing suicide nearly four years earlier

Khloé Kardashian Wants to Join Fashion Police

The star of Kourtney & Khloé Take the Hamptons is interested in joining E!’s Fashion Police now that Kelly Osbourne has left the show, according to People Kardashian, 30, has previously appeared on the network for red carpet commentary

Teach for America Passes a Big Test

New teachers who sign up with Teach for America for two-year classroom stints in some of the nation’s highest-poverty schools are just as effective as other teachers in those same schools, and sometimes more so, a new study finds

Get TIME’s The Brief e-mail every morning in your inbox

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton Ran Email Server Out of New York Home

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the 30th Anniversary National Conference of Emily's List March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee—Getty Images Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the 30th Anniversary National Conference of Emily's List March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Clinton is under fire for using a personal email address for official State Department business

(WASHINGTON) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton’s secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands.

Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton’s home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

But homebrew email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY’s List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.

It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton’s $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.

The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton’s email server. The former president’s full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton’s private email account was reconfigured to use Google’s servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google’s accusations in June 2011 that China’s government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton’s private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.

The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.

In theory but not in practice, Clinton’s official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can’t already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.

The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn’t possess all her emails.

Clinton’s private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.

President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.


Associated Press writer Stephen Braun contributed to this report.

TIME politics

Why March 4 is a Great Day for Women in Politics

Jeannette Rankin and Frances Perkins
FPG / Getty Images (L) and Gamma-Keystone / Getty Images (R) Jeannette Rankin pictured in 1916 (L) and Frances Perkins in 1928 (R)

Two women took historic public offices on this day

On the same date, March 4, many years apart, two women made history in American politics. In 1917, Jeannette Rankin took office as a representative of Montana, the first woman ever in Congress. The first female member of a president’s cabinet, Frances Perkins, took her post on Mar. 4, 1933. Both were pioneers, carving out their roles as they went along. But their accomplishments extended beyond just showing up as the first women in what had previously been male political spheres. Rankin took an influential stand for women’s suffrage and pacifism, and Perkins’ ideas laid the groundwork for the New Deal and social security.

“They both had to invent the roles for themselves in public life,” says Kirstin Downey, author of The Woman Behind the New Deal, a biography of Perkins. “And they had to do it by being strong and independent-minded.”

The two women were born the same year, 1880 (although Perkins, who notoriously lied about her age, always claimed 1882). Rankin was raised in Montana by a rancher and a schoolteacher. After working for years in the woman’s suffrage movement, in 1914 she succeeded in winning women the right to vote in her state. Two years later she was running for one of two of the state’s at-large Congressional seats, which she secured by 6,000 votes with the help of Montana’s newly enfranchised women.

Pacifism played a major role in the women’s suffrage movement, and Rankin was one of its staunchest champions. She took office amid intense debate over whether or not the U.S. should enter World War I. In the final vote, she was one of 50 dissenters, a decision that generated controversy in the media and among her fellow suffragists. Among the citizens of Montana, her move wasn’t as unpopular, but new state legislation changed the rules about Congressional elections, placing the Republican Rankin in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. Rankin decided to gamble on a Senate race in 1918, which she lost.

Although she wanted to be remembered as the congresswoman who voted for women’s suffrage nationwide, the 19th Amendment passed in 1919, when she was out of office. Instead, she immortalized her reputation as a pacifist when in 1940 she was elected to a House seat a second time. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, she stood firm as the only vote against the United States entering World War II. Responding to nearly universal pleas to change her vote to a “yes,” or at least to abstain, she responded, “As a woman I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else.” The ethical stand she took drew a major backlash, making it difficult to do much with the rest of her term and obliterating her chances at reelection.

Frances Perkins, for her part, got her political start in 1911 when she witnessed the horrific Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City. She made a name for herself on work-safety commissions in the city, helping to conceive and draft many fire regulations that still exist today. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected the governor of New York, he appointed her as his industrial commissioner. According to Downey, she was one of his most trusted, lifelong advisers. Yet her appointment to Secretary of Labor was still uncertain after he won the presidency, as her gender made her a highly controversial choice. When Roosevelt offered her the job, Downey says, she accepted with conditions—that he let her pursue policy goals that would eventually make up the New Deal.

“She’s really the creator of social security. She’s the driving force behind the Federal Labor Standards Act. It lead to the 40-hour work week. It banned child labor,” Downey tells TIME. “And it changed America.”

To be taken seriously, Perkins dressed very modestly, rarely wearing any makeup. She noted that men tended to take more seriously women who reminded them of their mothers—one of many observations she recorded in a journal she’d been keeping throughout her professional career titled, “Notes on the Male Mind.” She was quiet in meetings, lest she interrupt and be shouted down, or worse, bruise the ego of the man she sought to contradict. She later wrote:

“I tried to have as much of a mask as possible. I wanted to give the impression of being a quiet, orderly woman who didn’t buzz-buzz all the time. … I knew that a lady interposing an idea into men’s conversation is very unwelcome. I just proceeded on the theory that this was a gentleman’s conversation on the porch of a golf club perhaps. You didn’t butt in with bright ideas.”

Rankin and Perkins confronted odds that exceeded under-representation, from repressive stereotyping to an absence of bathroom facilities. When Rankin first took office, American women were three years away from having the vote guaranteed. Perkins herself was unable to vote for much of her early political career, until New York state voted for suffrage in 1917.

“There was a lot of stigma attached to them. There was an unsavory association to unattended women,” Downey says. “Back then there was a saying about women, ‘You only want to be in the newspaper twice—when you’re married and when you die.'”

Perkins hoped her unquestionable success would earn her a comfortable professorship after her retirement from public life. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case. She had trouble securing offers, moving universities often when she wasn’t granted tenure. Eventually, she ended up at Cornell, where she stayed until her death in 1965.

Meanwhile, though Rankin never again took public office, she used her notoriety as a pacifist to continue lobbying against war. She led a peace march in the Washington in 1968 to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and when she died at age 91 in 1972, she was considering yet another run for Congress.

TIME Education

Teach for America Passes a Big Test

But the number of new teacher applications are down this year, for the second year in a row

New teachers who sign up with Teach for America (TFA) for two-year classroom stints in some of the nation’s highest-poverty schools are just as effective as other teachers in those same schools, and sometimes more so, a new study finds.

That’s good news for the national nonprofit, which has come under fire in recent years as battles over education reform have become increasingly contentious.

Critics accuse TFA, which is closely aligned with the charter-school movement, of devaluing the teaching profession by pushing its recruits — mostly young, bright-eyed college grads — into classrooms without adequate experience or training. The organization’s supporters, meanwhile, argue that these new recruits fill a vital role in some of the highest-poverty schools, which are often unable to find teachers at all.

The findings released Wednesday conclude that TFA’s first- and second-year elementary school teachers, who average just over a year and a half of teaching experience, were as effective as their counterparts in the same schools, who averaged 13.6 years of teaching experience, as measured by their students’ test scores in reading and math. A small subset of those TFA teachers — ones in pre-K through second-grade classrooms — were found to be slightly more effective in teaching reading than the national average in those grades.

The study, conducted by the research group Mathematica Policy Research, was required as part of a $50 million U.S. Department of Education grant that TFA received in 2010 to help it recruit and place more teachers in the neediest schools. It was designed to measure the quality of the new teachers recruited and trained between 2011 and 2013.

The study looked at 156 lower elementary school teachers — prekindergarten through fifth grade — from 36 schools across 10 states. TFA teachers were compared with non-TFA teachers at the same school, in the same grade level, who covered the same subjects. The study’s authors noted the results reflect similar findings in previous, large-scale random studies, published in 2004 and 2013.

TFA had planned to use the Department of Education grant to increase the size of its teaching team by more than 80% by September 2014, but fell short of that goal, according to the study. By the 2012–13 school year, it had increased its teaching pool by only 25%, from 8,217 to 10,251 teachers nationwide. The number of new applications are down this year, for the second year in a row.

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton Gets Hero’s Welcome at Emily’s List Gala

“Don’t you someday want to see a woman President of the United States?” the former Secretary of State asked the crowd

Hillary Clinton got a warm welcome at the 30th anniversary Emily’s List gala Tuesday night, calling for equal pay and paid leave before a crowd that’s worked to elect pro-choice Democratic women for decades.

Accepting the fundraising group’s “We Are Emily” award, the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic presidential front runner gave a taste of the “middle-class economics” she’ll likely campaign on, calling for greater protection of labor unions and taking digs at Republicans’ “old trickle-down economics.”

“We’re fighting for an economy that includes everyone and works for everyone,” Clinton said.

Even when she wasn’t on stage, Clinton was the topic of the night. Nearly every speaker at the two-hour event referenced her still officially unannounced campaign. Top Chef host Padma Lakshmi, who opened the event, called her “our next President.” Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who started his speech by jokingly apologizing for being a man, suggested her first granddaughter refer to both Clintons as “POTUS,” instead of grandma or grandpa. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said Clinton would be one of the “most qualified Presidents in the history of the United States of America.”

Pelosi added, “And she just happens to be a woman.”

“Do you want Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States?” Emily’s List founder Ellen Malcolm asked the crowd, which immediately erupted into roaring applause.

“Well, Hillary, you heard us,” Malcolm said before the program paused for dinner. “Just give the word and we’ll be right at your side. We’re Emily’s List. We’re ready to fight and we’re ready to win 2016.”

The other star of the night was Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who announced Monday that she won’t run for another term in office. Clinton, who is known for wearing practical pantsuits, referenced Mikulski’s 1993 fight to overturn a precedent that required women to wear skirts and dresses on the Senate floor.

“She blazed a path forward,” Clinton said. “And among her many accomplishments, one that I’m particularly grateful for, was when she forced the Senate to allow women to wear pantsuits on the floor.”

TIME republicans

Danforth Cites Political Bullying in Schweich Eulogy

Former U.S. Sen. John Danforth leaves in Clayton, Mo., after delivering the eulogy at the funeral for Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich
Robert Cohen—AP Former U.S. Senator John Danforth leaves after delivering the eulogy at the funeral for Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich in Clayton, Mo.

Political bullying and an anti-Semitic whisper campaign led to the Missouri auditor Tom Schweich's death, former U.S. Senator John Danforth says

(CLAYTON, Mo.) — Former U.S. Sen. John Danforth denounced the ugly nature of American politics Tuesday while eulogizing Missouri Auditor Tom Schweich, suggesting that political bullying and an anti-Semitic whisper campaign led his friend to kill himself.

Danforth expressed “overwhelming anger that politics has gone so hideously wrong” as he spoke at a memorial service that drew many of Missouri’s top elected officials and hundreds of others to the Episcopal church that Schweich had attended in suburban St. Louis.

“Words do hurt. Words can kill,” Danforth said. “That has been proven right here in our home state.”

Schweich, 54, fatally shot himself last Thursday in what police say was an apparent suicide at his home in Clayton. He left behind a wife, two children and an apparently rising political career. He had launched a campaign for the Republican nomination for governor just a month before his death and was already locked in a contentious primary with Catherine Hanaway, a former Missouri House speaker and U.S. attorney.

Danforth, who is an ordained Episcopal priest, served 18 years as a Republican senator before retiring in 1995 and remains one of the more respected elder statesmen of Missouri politics. Danforth said he had talked with Schweich two days before his death. He said Schweich was upset about a radio ad from a political action committee that mocked his physical appearance and suggested he was a pawn of Democrats who would “quickly squash him like the little bug that he is” in a general election.

But Danforth said Schweich was particularly distraught by what he perceived to be an anti-Semitic whispering campaign by the chairman of the Missouri Republican party, who Schweich said had been telling people that Schweich was Jewish. Schweich was Christian, but had some Jewish ancestry and had said his grandfather had long-encouraged him to stand up to anti-Semitism.

The party chairman, John Hancock, has denied making anti-Semitic remarks, though he has acknowledged he mistakenly believed Schweich was Jewish and may have mentioned it in an off-hand way to some people. Hancock didn’t attend the memorial service and declined to comment about Danforth’s remarks.

“Today is not an appropriate time to engage in political back-and-forth,” state GOP Executive Director Jonathon Prouty said on Hancock’s behalf.

Schweich’s former spokesman, Spence Jackson, said after the service that Hancock “should resign immediately” as Republican party chairman and that Hanaway should “do some serious soul-searching about the race she’s run so far and the people she’s associated with.”

Hanaway did not attend the funeral and a spokesman for her said she will not have any comment.

Danforth recited a passage from the gospel of Matthew in which Jesus describes as blessed those “who are persecuted for righteousness sake” and against whom others “utter all kinds of evil against you on my behalf.”

He said Schweich was a “model public servant” who “was a person easily hurt and quickly offended” — so much so that Danforth said he had tried to discourage Schweich from entering politics six years ago because he didn’t believe Schweich had the temperament for it.

Danforth said he is haunted by the fact that he had advised Schweich not to personally go public last week with the allegations of the anti-Semitic whispering campaign and had suggested Schweich should have someone else supply that information to the media.

“He may have thought that I had abandoned him — left him on the high ground all alone,” Danforth said.

On the morning of his death, Schweich had invited reporters for The Associated Press and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to his home for an afternoon interview, saying he was ready to go public with the allegations about the anti-Semitic campaign. He shot himself about 13 minutes after talking to the AP reporter over the phone.

“The death of Tom Schweich is the natural consequence of what politics has become,” Danforth said. “It is now our duty — yours and mine — to turn politics into something much better than its now so miserable state.”

Schweich’s coffin, draped in a Missouri flag, was placed at the front of the sanctuary, with his family seated on one side and Gov. Jay Nixon and other top officials seated on the other. The pews were packed and hundreds of people stood along the side isles.

Schweich was first elected in 2010 and had easily won election to a second, four-year term in November. He previously served as Danforth’s chief of staff for a 1999 federal investigation into the deadly government siege at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and followed Danforth to the United Nations, where he was chief of staff for the U.S. delegation.

President George W. Bush appointed Schweich to the State Department in 2005 as an international law enforcement official and picked Schweich two years later to coordinate the anti-drug and justice reform efforts in Afghanistan.

TIME Senate

Mikulski Will ‘Give It All I’ve Got’ to Elect More Women to the Senate

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the longest-serving woman in the history of Congress, speaks during a news conference announcing her retirement after her current term, in the Fells Point section of Baltimore on March 2, 2015.
Steve Ruark—AP Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the longest-serving woman in the history of Congress, speaks during a news conference announcing her retirement after her current term, in the Fells Point section of Baltimore on March 2, 2015.

“I’m not ready to write my last chapter"

Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski took the stage at the EMILY’s List 30th anniversary gala to a raucous applause on Tuesday, one day after announcing she would not seek re-election after her current term ends in two years.

The firebrand Democrat, the longest-serving woman in Senate history, said while she’s ready to “turn the page,” she’s not quite throwing in the towel: “I’m not ready to write my last chapter.”

“I want to give it all I’ve got to elect more women to the United States Senate… and a woman to the White House,” she said, before a not-so-veiled nod to presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. “In 2016, we will elect that Democratic woman president and you know who I’m talking about.”

Mikulski was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in 1986, after about a decade in the House, with the support of EMILY’s List. The organization, which was in its early stages at the time, has helped elect pro-choice Democratic women to public office. Calls for paycheck fairness, raising the minimum wage and tax breaks for the middle class were intertwined with others for electing and supporting women in politics.

When they say, “she doesn’t look the part,” Mikulski said, “Tell them, this is what the part looks like.”

TIME Security

What’s More Secure: Gmail or Government Email?

Ministers Attend The London Conference On Libya
WPA Pool—Getty Images U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone at the opening of the Libyan Conference, a meeting of international allies to discuss the next steps for Libya on March 29, 2011 in London, England.

Consider this before emailing your Social Security number — or State Department business

From a lone entrepreneur in Nigeria to the U.S. Secretary of State, email security is a major issue that impacts everyone. While third-party email providers like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo claim their services are safe and secure, sometimes it seems smarter to use your work address instead.

But Hillary Clinton opted to use a personal account instead of a government account while serving as Secretary of State, according to the New York Times. That revelation is causing headaches for the potential presidential candidate because she may have violated rules requiring public officials’ correspondence to be archived.

It’s still unclear why Clinton chose to use a personal email account instead of a State Department-supplied one (or which email service she used). Some observers, however, say it was a security risk for Clinton to go off the government grid. But when it comes to hacks and brass tacks, which email service is actually more secure: Consumer services like Gmail or government email?

“Neither,” says Justin White, a former director of information security compliance for the state of Colorado, who has also worked as an information security consultant with Microsoft, Costco, Wells Fargo, and the state of Washington. When asked which service he would use to send sensitive information, White, a graduate of the FBI Citizens Academy, begins to answer one way, then another.

And then he pauses and says: “You’d have to torture me to force me to do it.”

There are several reasons for White’s wavering response. First, while some governmental email systems are highly secure, that’s not true for every department. For instance, he says, if you were going to send some sensitive information to another agency, if that department has poor security on its servers, your data is put at risk of being intercepted — even if the other office is located just next door.

Secondly, there’s no way of knowing which governmental agency has good email security and which doesn’t, because, for security purposes, they don’t typically reveal their protocols.

“Some people are woefully unprepared at securing their own email servers at an agency level, so for all you know, people could already be intercepting emails,” says White.

Still, the State Department probably has very good email security for classified messages — security that Clinton apparently opted out of using.

But on the other hand, consumer services like Gmail aren’t hacker-proof, either. They often tout the exact measures they use to keep messages secure as a means of marketing — but by doing so, they’re also helping hackers untangle their safety measures. From unencrypted data to servers that aren’t protected and breaches that haven’t been fixed yet, hackers catalog security deficiencies to find ways to break in.

“You could go on any forum as well, and see what other people have researched about any of the different cloud or (email) solutions,” says White.

Is email encryption a magic bullet solution? The disappointing reality is that between the senders’ and receivers’ servers, there are many opportunities for intercepting or hacking into emails. It’s enough to make a person go all Janet Napolitano (the former Secretary of Homeland Security once said she doesn’t use email).

But that’s not to say we should all revert to the digital dark ages — we just need to be conscious about how secure our email services really are. For Clinton’s part, she might have just opted for more secure methods than email for truly sensitive communications. A State Department spokeswoman said Tuesday Clinton could have used secure voice and video chats instead, or opted for something truly old fashioned: printed documents.

TIME justice

U.S. Faults Ferguson Police for Racial Bias

Protesters drop a mirrored casket in front of a line of police officers in front of the Ferguson Police Department in Ferguson, Mo. on Oct. 10, 2014.
Robert Cohen—St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Getty Images Protesters drop a mirrored casket in front of a line of police officers in front of the Ferguson Police Department in Ferguson, Mo., on Oct. 10, 2014

The report is scathing, but the big question is what comes next

The violent protests in Ferguson last August were driven by the indelible image of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, lying in the street after a white police officer, Darren Wilson, shot him dead. But the outrage in Ferguson, and the national debate that accompanied it, were also about something harder to see: racism, and the allegation that Ferguson’s largely white cops were deeply, systematically and violently prejudiced against black residents.

Now, as one of his last acts as U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder has painted a picture of Ferguson’s entrenched racism that is clear and unmistakable. A Justice Department investigation opened after Brown’s shooting has found routine patterns and practices of racism in Ferguson, including the excessive use of force and unjustified arrests, officials said Tuesday. The findings are scathing in their detail:

In 88 percent of the cases in which the department used force, it was against African Americans. In all of the 14 canine-bite incidents for which racial information was available, the person bitten was African American.

In Ferguson court cases, African Americans are 68 percent less likely than others to have their cases dismissed by a municipal judge, according to the Justice review. In 2013, African Americans accounted for 92 percent of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued.

The investigation also turned up bigoted emails, like one from November 2008 that reportedly said President Obama wouldn’t complete his first term as President because “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported another racist message, from May 2011, reading: “An African-American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers.'”

The Justice Department spent 100 days in Ferguson collecting such details, and the report is an end in itself, putting an official stamp on the town’s problems that some had found easy to dismiss. But when it comes to fixing the harsh reality of racism in Ferguson, it’s not clear transparency will be enough.

The question now is whether the report will deliver reform in the beleaguered St. Louis suburb. The Justice Department under Holder has significantly increased the number of pattern or practice investigations, and some past settlements with police departments have led to dramatic improvements. But others say the department’s lack of enforcement powers mean reform depends on local politicians, and worry Ferguson’s leaders won’t bring change.

Under the 1994 law authorizing such “pattern or practice” investigations, the Justice Department has little enforcement power to fix the problems it finds. As a rule, it enters into contracts with the offending force, which agrees to increase transparency and data collection and to provide better training and supervision.

Police officials and their unions often resist reform, several studies have shown. The Justice Department has “very few sticks they can use,” to get past such obstacles, says Elliot Harvey Schatmeier, a lawyer at the New York City office of Kirkland & Ellis and the author of one such study.

Others say that in many cases, the attention brought by the investigations is enough. In Pittsburgh, New Jersey and Los Angeles, Justice Department investigations led to successful reforms, says Chris Stone, president of the Open Society Foundations and a criminal-justice scholar. More important, Stone says, “They’ve established a national standard for what good policing looks like.”

Holder’s Ferguson findings, Stone says, have the potential to lead to a similar blueprint for smaller, suburban police forces around the country, which have typically been hard to reform.

By the same token, though, a failure in the high-profile Ferguson case could set back the effort to reform small police departments. Holder has established with clarity the problem in Ferguson. But without local political buy-in, the town that came to symbolize 21st century police racism in America could end up symbolizing its resistance to reform too.

TIME Supreme Court

The 4 Words That Could Cause 8 Million to Lose Their Insurance

Marketplace guide Stephanie Cantres works on the Healthcare.gov federal enrollment website to help a resident sign up for a health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act at a Westside Family Healthcare center enrollment event in Bear, Delaware, on March 27, 2014.
Andrew Harrer—Bloomberg/Getty Images Marketplace guide Stephanie Cantres works on the Healthcare.gov federal enrollment website to help a resident sign up for a health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act at a Westside Family Healthcare center enrollment event in Bear, Delaware, on March 27, 2014.

Oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell will be delivered on Wednesday

Nearly eight million Americans could lose their health insurance depending on how the Supreme Court interprets four words in the Affordable Care Act.

At the nation’s highest court on Wednesday, justices will hear arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to President Obama’s signature health care law and one that could potentially leave it gutted from an unexpected direction.

The 2010 law already survived an earlier Supreme Court challenge on the constitutionality of its requirement that most Americans buy health insurance. But the current case centers on whether, as many Republicans argue, one line in the law was intended to restrict subsidies to people who bought insurance through a state exchange or whether, as Democrats contend, that line was a simple oversight in the law’s drafting.

The consequences are potentially huge. Thirty-four states rely on the federal government to run their exchange, meaning that their residents would lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable and causing rates to rise for those who remained insured. One study by the Rand Corp. found that eight million people would lose their insurance in those states if the court rules against the Obama Administration.

The Administration contends that the phrase is a “term of art,” and says that other parts of the law show that there is no distinction between federal and state run exchanges.

“If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of those who were involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the law, the understanding was that people who joined the federal exchange were going to be able to access tax credits,” President Obama said in an interview with Reuters. “And there’s in our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down.”

The Obama Administration has stated it has no backup plan ready if the Supreme Court rules against it. “If they rule against us, we’ll have to take a look at what our options are,” Obama said recently. “But I’m not going to anticipate that. I’m not going to anticipate bad law.”

Republicans on the other hand, are eager to show they have a Plan B. In the past two days, lawmakers from the House and the Senate have said they’re in the process of working on alternatives to the law, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Reps. Paul Ryan, John Kline and Fred Upton wrote in the Wall Street Journal, they’re proposing an “off-ramp out of Obamacare,” that would allow states to opt-out of insurance mandates and offer options for those who can’t otherwise insurance. Sens. Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander and John Barrasso wrote in the Washington Post, they too would help those who can’t afford coverage during a “transitional period” and let states create alternative marketplaces.

Grace Marie Turner, the president of the health-policy organization the Galen Institute, says though Congressional lawmakers are in only in the process of shaping legislation, there’s real opportunity.

“This case provides an accelerator,” Turner tells TIME. “This could provide a real opportunity to begin the process of fixing the law.”

Read next: Here’s the Tough Choice the Uninsured Have to Make Now

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser