Clinton's server had classified material beyond 'top secret'

[Jacob]

That's a strange rule for deciding when something is true.

To not be swayed by arguments of "I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that maybe it's bad even though I can't provide any evidence that it was" is a strange rule? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Razgovory]

That's a strange rule for deciding when something is true.

You have to admit that the credibility of anti-Clinton attacks by this point is pretty much automatically near-zero.  Cry wolf enough times, and people stop listening.  It is a shame, because public accountability doesn't work when someone is scandal-proof, but blame the people who were never able to accept voters' choice when that choice was to elect a Democrat.

Somehow I don't think he'll admit that.

[Berkut]

Yeah for sure. Though I don't think people in group 4) are particularly up in arms about it.

I think every IT department I'm aware of (except Microsofts, natch) had to put up with bullshit to support iDevices to executives f.ex. in spite of the headaches and breaches of established security policies. It's just how it is. To somehow make that out to be a critical lapse of judgement when it's clearly been dredged up after a decade long effort to make something-anything stick and when it's just how people (including the people who dredged it up) operate seems pretty inane.

...except that this isn't your companies IT department.

[alfred russel]

When I was with the state, I saw our cabinet-level department, after migrating from Novell GroupWise to Microsoft, go right back to GroupWise within a couple months just because the newly-appointed Secretary was too used to GroupWise, taxpayer costs be damned.  And when I was with Shareholder Value Inc., I saw our Fortune 200 company completely reconfigure its email and smartphone systems to accommodate the brand new iPad, all because the CFO wanted to get his Sarbanes-Oxley regulated email on his new toy instead of his Blackberry's RIM security features that met established compliance standards. Thousands of Blackberrys earned their angel wings at substantial shareholder expense.

The former auditor in me sees apples and oranges. Spend millions of company money to do the testing needed to accommodate iPads into the security system so some exec doesn't have to learn how to use a blackberry? So long as the expense is properly approved, that is a business decision, and not a breach of policy.

[DGuller]

Speaking of IT policy, and I'm not drawing any analogies to the Clinton business, but IT people are not necessarily the security ninjas they believe themselves to be.  I've either seen it, or heard from other people in other companies, how overzealous IT policies protect the data so well that they make it impossible for employees to actually do anything with it effectively.  All the while 20 other very obvious vulnerabilities are completely unaddressed. 

When it comes to security, there comes a point where too much is too little.  If you make security so onerous, people will find ways to work around it, and thus negate it completely.  If you make me change a password every week, I'll just write it down and leave it on my work desk.

[Razgovory]

Now that I think about it, Hillary Clinton's filing problems did lead confidential information falling into dangerous hands.  Keeping important stuff out of the hands of House Republicans should be a high priority.

[alfred russel]

Speaking of IT policy, and I'm not drawing any analogies to the Clinton business, but IT people are not necessarily the security ninjas they believe themselves to be.  I've either seen it, or heard from other people in other companies, how overzealous IT policies protect the data so well that they make it impossible for employees to actually do anything with it effectively.  All the while 20 other very obvious vulnerabilities are completely unaddressed. 

When it comes to security, there comes a point where too much is too little.  If you make security so onerous, people will find ways to work around it, and thus negate it completely.  If you make me change a password every week, I'll just write it down and leave it on my work desk.

Speaking of which, way back in the day, when I was in public accounting and auditing, we had a server that the entire team used to access client data--all the client data files were kept on the server. Someone might have put the password to the server on a sticky note attached to the server. Every so often, IT people would stop by and see an alleged sticky note, and scream at us that we couldn't do that.

Until one weekend when someone broke into the office and stole the server. And then someone (probably one of the IT people yelling at us) put an anonymous call to the company hotline that we had the password to the server on a sticky note attached to the server.

They had a guy from legal in New York interview the team to determine if there was in fact a sticky note on the server, but no one could remember seeing such a thing. With just an anonymous tip, nothing ever came of that. Probably the closest my career came to getting aborted.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, she had beyond top secret documents on her server.

There is, by the way, no such thin such as "beyond top secret documents."

Sure they even say what the category is.  Stuff in the public domain that the "Intel community" wishes was secret.

[CountDeMoney]

The former auditor in me sees apples and oranges. Spend millions of company money to do the testing needed to accommodate iPads into the security system so some exec doesn't have to learn how to use a blackberry? So long as the expense is properly approved, that is a business decision, and not a breach of policy.

[/quote].

The present Assburger in you is missing the point I am trying to make when it comes to Executive Privilege, and how those individuals in their insular existences will bend processes to their needs.

[garbon]

Yes, she had beyond top secret documents on her server.

There is, by the way, no such thin such as "beyond top secret documents."

Sure they even say what the category is.  Stuff in the public domain that the "Intel community" wishes was secret.

[Admiral Yi]

You have to admit that the credibility of anti-Clinton attacks by this point is pretty much automatically near-zero.  Cry wolf enough times, and people stop listening.  It is a shame, because public accountability doesn't work when someone is scandal-proof, but blame the people who were never able to accept voters' choice when that choice was to elect a Democrat.

I don't see how "the credibility of anti-Clinton attacks" has anything to do with it.  Richard Mellon Scaife is not asking you to take it on faith that Hillary used a private email server for her official correspondence then deleted 130,000 purportedly private emails from that server before handing it over.  Hillary herself has said she excercised poor judgement in using a private server.

If you treat any criticism of Hillary as part of the vast right wing machine then you're in effect saying she's incapable of making a poor choice. 

[DGuller]

I don't see how "the credibility of anti-Clinton attacks" has anything to do with it.  Richard Mellon Scaife is not asking you to take it on faith that Hillary used a private email server for her official correspondence then deleted 130,000 purportedly private emails from that server before handing it over.  Hillary herself has said she excercised poor judgement in using a private server.

The credibility part doesn't have to do with the facts, but their interpretation.  I took a dump yesterday, that's a fact.  What it tells about me is an interpretation.

If you treat any criticism of Hillary as part of the vast right wing machine then you're in effect saying she's incapable of making a poor choice.

No, I'm saying that I'm incapable of reliably concluding whether she's making a poor choice, a poor choice but is singled out for it, or not a poor choice at all, because of all the false attacks against her in the past.

[Alcibiades]

While I am pretty sure the right is exaggerating this, at the same time I am stunned that Clinton would think it was ok to use a personal computer to engage in any kind of State department business. Obviously nearly everything she does has some level or another of either real or even just practical "classification" to it, her normal daily business is about how the highest level of the US government is run, and no matter what they formally classify, or do not classify, or whatever, it should pretty much ALL be controlled, encrypted, and the risks associated with her communication carefully understood and controlled. Which is simply not possible on her personal server.

If she was some flunky, she would be fired for this, without question I think.

Could you imagine a CIA analyst, for example, doing work related stuff on their personal computer, even if they assured everyone they don't do *classified" stuff on it, of course? Fuck that - they don't get to make those decisions, and neither does the Secretary of State.

This isn't, IMO, a deal breaker in regards to her candidacy, but it is certain;y a significant negative mark against her judgement.

I mean, the military has completely closed networks for sending different levels of classified information. If one of my soldiers or I managed to send any level of classified material to a personal email we would absolutely be court martialed and in prison right now, regardless of it being a personal server or not.

[Alcibiades]

Of course. And that shows an incredible lack of judgement.

I don't think it shows an incredible lack of judgment. if she did it as a workaround, it shows that she's willing to bend the rules to get something done in a (perceived) easier way. people can disagree on whether this is OK, but I don't have a problem with it. last semester as a board member, I pulled an "act first, seek forgiveness later" because waiting for board approval would have taken too long. some people just have a personality where they want to get shit done. this controversy doesn't prove anything about hillary's behavior (edit: re being irresponsible or any similar alleged huge personality flaw) or what she will do as president, because frankly after all this mess... she's definitely learned her lesson and won't pull it again.

You dont understand though, in the intelligence community this is absolutely NOT OK.  Especially after Snowden, the level of caution and care with handling classified information of any type is indescribable.  I cannot stress how much this is hammered into EVERY individual that handles classified information and the consequences of your actions if you even make a mistake.

[MadImmortalMan]

The government's IT rules are on another level from what most of us have experienced in corporate america.