Languish.org

Is this email server scandal finally going to gain real traction?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

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

By RACHAEL BADE and JOSH GERSTEIN 01/19/16 04:43 PM EST Updated 01/19/16 07:54 PM EST

Intelligence officials have discovered sensitive national security information on Hillary Clinton's server that goes beyond the "top secret" level, the intelligence community inspector general told lawmakers in a letter last week.

In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as "special access programs," or SAP. That's an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, which is top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

"To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community agency]," the letter reads. "These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community agency] to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified [intelligence community agency]sources."

Fox News first reported the content of the letter.

The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton's unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton's emails at the "confidential" level or beyond, though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time. Six of those have been flagged as "secret," a step below "top secret."

State and the intelligence community, however, have clashed over whether the content of at least two yet-to-be-released emails were at the highest classification level: "top secret." Those two emails actually triggered an ongoing FBI probe into the email matter over the summer, sources say.

Intelligence officials insist that both of those messages were "top secret" when they were sent and one remains so, while one is now considered "secret."

However, the emails now deemed to contain "top secret, special access program" information are in addition to the messages previously disputed between State and the Director of National Intelligence, according to a spokesperson for McCullough. The official said the intelligence community review group is wrapping up its look into the documents and is putting these documents in the SAP category.

The Central Intelligence Agency is the agency that provided the declarations about the classified programs, another U.S. official familiar with the situation told POLITICO Wednesday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate "special access programs" related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was "top secret" because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of "parallel reporting" that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.

However, State is set to acquiesce in the determinations regarding classified programs like drone strikes because there is a longstanding, government-wide consensus that such information must be treated as classified even if it leaks or becomes apparent from events on the ground, the official added.

The FBI, meanwhile, is still investigating whether Clinton's server put national security at risk and whether top State staffers sent around classified information via unclassified means, which is in many cases illegal.

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received" said Clinton Campaign Spokesman Brian Fallon. "It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Justice Department's inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference."

Just days ago, State released an email showing Clinton asking top policy staffer Jake Sullivan to send information that was slated to be transmitted on a secure fax machine over an unsecured fax because the secured machine was apparently broken. Republicans seized on the message, saying it suggested Clinton was playing fast and loose with classified contents.

It is unclear, however, if the content of the information slated to be faxed that day was indeed classified. And State later said they had no indication that the content in question was ever sent via non-secure means.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the latest inspector general's letter, but said State will protect any information determined to be classified.

"We are focused on—remain focused on releasing the rest of, the remainder of former Secretary Clinton's emails in a manner that protects sensitive information. ....Nobody's going to take that more seriously than we are," Kirby said Wednesday at a daily press briefing. "We've said repeatedly that we do anticipate more upgrades [of classification] in our release process and we've been very open and honest about those upgrades when they've occurred."

In the past, State has adamantly disputed the existence of any "top secret" information in the Clinton email records. However, Kirby appeared to soften that position Wednesday.

"Our FOIA review process is still ongoing and once that process is complete if it is determined that information should be classified as top secret then we'll do so, as we have consistently done throughout the process," he said.

Quote
The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

So why was Clinton relying on her own jury-rigged server instead of the presumably regular in-house, spook-approved IT solution the rest of the US government uses to process classified emails?

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 08:50:57 AM

Quote
The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

That's some 1984 shit.  :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2016, 08:57:24 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 08:50:57 AM

Quote
The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

That's some 1984 shit.  :lol:

Indeed. So really this continues to be a non-story, beyond perhaps why the federal government didn't have better IT practices in place /enforce them.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 08:42:55 AM
Is this email server scandal finally going to gain real traction?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.flickr.com%2F23%2F27444937_5c82cc736e.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=75613aadd2aaf9b3d94efc6469758516063a6934)

It's never going to go completely away.  It was a monumental lapse in judgement on Hillary's part.  That's the best case for her.  The worst case is she was trying to hide emails and she deleted a bunch of stuff that would have made her look bad.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 09:25:32 AM
It's never going to go completely away.  It was a monumental lapse in judgement on Hillary's part.  That's the best case for her.  The worst case is she was trying to hide emails and she deleted a bunch of stuff that would have made her look bad.

Not nearly as bad a lapse of of judgement as when she murdered Vince Foster!

Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2016, 09:50:02 AM
Not nearly as bad a lapse of of judgement as when she murdered Vince Foster!

Where are you trying to go Raz?  That the accusation that Hillary used an unauthorized private email server is a loony conspiracy theory?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 09:55:19 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2016, 09:50:02 AM
Not nearly as bad a lapse of of judgement as when she murdered Vince Foster!

Where are you trying to go Raz?  That the accusation that Hillary used an unauthorized private email server is a loony conspiracy theory?

There is no doubt that she had such a server. This latest news item, though, smacks of making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

QuoteThe information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

If merely discussing drone strikes is "top secret" (even if the source isn't secret), then presumably this official is leaking "top secret" stuff to the news! After all, he or she mentions drone strikes.  :hmm: Hell, we discuss that sort of thing all the time on Languish.

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
This latest news item, though, smacks of making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Does this have some connection to Vince Foster?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 10:04:44 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:01:41 AM
This latest news item, though, smacks of making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Does this have some connection to Vince Foster?

The suicide of Vince Foster and Clinton's server problems are both real events, the significance of which have been exaggerated for partisan political purposes.

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2016, 08:57:24 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 08:50:57 AM

Quote
The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

That's some 1984 shit.  :lol:

Is there anything less intelligent than an "intelligence community"?

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:08:27 AM
The suicide of Vince Foster and Clinton's server problems are both real events, the significance of which have been exaggerated for partisan political purposes.

Are you suggesting that calling Hillary's use of a private server "a monumental lapse in judgement" is an exaggeration of its significance for partisan political purposes?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 10:16:59 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:08:27 AM
The suicide of Vince Foster and Clinton's server problems are both real events, the significance of which have been exaggerated for partisan political purposes.

Are you suggesting that calling Hillary's use of a private server "a monumental lapse in judgement" is an exaggeration of its significance for partisan political purposes?

I'm suggesting that this particular article in the OP is such an exaggeration.

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:08:27 AM
The suicide of Vince Foster and Clinton's server problems are both real events, the significance of which have been exaggerated for partisan political purposes.

The issue with the Foster suicide wasn't that its significance was exaggerated.  It was the (insane) accusations that he was murdered by order of the Clintons who then covered it up. The politically relevant aspect of the suicide was a made-up conspiracy theory.

The politically relevant aspect of the Clinton server problem is simply that it existed at all.  There is no good explanation for it.  The "classified doc" angle may be an exaggeration but even without that aspect there is still a real problem.

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:20:22 AM
I'm suggesting that this particular article in the OP is such an exaggeration.

Then I'm confused as to why you felt the need to interject your comment into my request to Raz for clarification about his Vince Foster comment.

There's also the puzzling aspect of the Intelligence Inspector General's partisan agenda.

Quote... though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time.

That will be her excuse? Really?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2016, 10:21:10 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:08:27 AM
The suicide of Vince Foster and Clinton's server problems are both real events, the significance of which have been exaggerated for partisan political purposes.

The issue with the Foster suicide wasn't that its significance was exaggerated.  It was the (insane) accusations that he was murdered by order of the Clintons who then covered it up. The politically relevant aspect of the suicide was a made-up conspiracy theory.

The politically relevant aspect of the Clinton server problem is simply that it existed at all.  There is no good explanation for it.  The "classified doc" angle may be an exaggeration but even without that aspect there is still a real problem.

It's a problem, but this particular article appears on the surface at least a bizarre exaggeration of it. If merely discussing drone strikes = "top secret", even when the info comes from the news, there is hardly a server in the US with foreign policy aware people using them that does not have "top secret" material on it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 10:25:26 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:20:22 AM
I'm suggesting that this particular article in the OP is such an exaggeration.

Then I'm confused as to why you felt the need to interject your comment into my request to Raz for clarification about his Vince Foster comment.

I don't need an excuse to post stuff.  :huh:

QuoteThere's also the puzzling aspect of the Intelligence Inspector General's partisan agenda.

It is a puzzle indeed, given the strange nature of the claim made.

Minsky, what's your take on the whole server business?  I have to admit that I have completely ignored everything in the news about it, because there was 99%+ chance I would just run across content-free drivel.  One side will say that Clinton should be executed for treason, while another side will claim that all State Department employees for the last 100 years communicated via unsecured toy walkie-talkies.

It's murky b/c my understanding is that State Dept policy permitted the use of private email accounts for work purposes, except where certain sensitive material was involved and the definition of what is sensitive or not isn't entirely clear.  But Clinton didn't just use a personal email every now and then for convenience; she used it as the primary method of communication.  That may not be against the letter of policy but it contravenes the spirit.  And more significantly, there is no good explanation of why she would do that.  It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done to maintain control over the communications record.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2016, 11:00:56 AM
It's murky b/c my understanding is that State Dept policy permitted the use of private email accounts for work purposes, except where certain sensitive material was involved and the definition of what is sensitive or not isn't entirely clear.  But Clinton didn't just use a personal email every now and then for convenience; she used it as the primary method of communication.  That may not be against the letter of policy but it contravenes the spirit.  And more significantly, there is no good explanation of why she would do that.  It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done to maintain control over the communications record.

Thanks!

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
I don't need an excuse to post stuff.  :huh:

Most people assume that if a poster quotes another post it has some relevance to what he has to say.  If you don't want your quoting to be interpreted this way, that's fine.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 11:12:46 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
I don't need an excuse to post stuff.  :huh:

Most people assume that if a poster quotes another post it has some relevance to what he has to say.  If you don't want your quoting to be interpreted this way, that's fine.

You asked me what the relevance was and I answered. Apparently, I was not convincing to you.  :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 11:12:46 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
I don't need an excuse to post stuff.  :huh:

Most people assume that if a poster quotes another post it has some relevance to what he has to say.  If you don't want your quoting to be interpreted this way, that's fine.

I'll quote whatever I want, hell, I'll throw in some randoms from other threads.  :blurgh:

Quote from: Liep on January 21, 2016, 07:16:34 AM

Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2016, 06:50:24 AM
Jurassic Park's main theme slowed 10x

https://soundcloud.com/birdfeeder/jurassic-park-theme-1000-slower

It's actually a pretty great ambient track.  :lol:

Very nice.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2016, 06:48:29 PM
Pluto will always be the ninth planet to me! :angry:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/new-ninth-planet-may-have-been-detected-scientists-say-n500396

;)

Why would you send "top secret" or beyond information via e-mail anyway? E-mail isn't exactly the most secure means of communication...

What I don't understand is this...apparently other government officials have also used private email servers, so it isn't just Clinton. But how is that possible?

I don't deal with anything approaching top secret clearance, but if I decided to use a personal email address rather than a work email address, that would never fly. No one would agree to send me emails. It is just basic data security. One client I had back in the day prohibited any thumb drives from their facilities to keep data from leaving their network security.

Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
Why would you send "top secret" or beyond information via e-mail anyway? E-mail isn't exactly the most secure means of communication...

Because all sorts of mundane matters get classified as top secret and they need to function effectively? That is my guess.

Quote from: lustindarkness on January 21, 2016, 11:24:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 11:12:46 AM

Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
I don't need an excuse to post stuff.  :huh:

Most people assume that if a poster quotes another post it has some relevance to what he has to say.  If you don't want your quoting to be interpreted this way, that's fine.

I'll quote whatever I want, hell, I'll throw in some randoms from other threads.  :blurgh:

Quote from: Liep on January 21, 2016, 07:16:34 AM

Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2016, 06:50:24 AM
Jurassic Park's main theme slowed 10x

https://soundcloud.com/birdfeeder/jurassic-park-theme-1000-slower

It's actually a pretty great ambient track.  :lol:

Very nice.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2016, 06:48:29 PM
Pluto will always be the ninth planet to me! :angry:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/new-ninth-planet-may-have-been-detected-scientists-say-n500396

;)

:D :hug:

This is the most secret stuff, classified SAP and on a need to know basis. Considered extremely damaging info if it gets out. There really is no justification for it being on a private server. Who ever sent it to "Hillary.com" may also be culpable, along with sending other classified emails to an unsecured server. And indeed the State dept did tell Hillary's aides that she should get a "government.com" email so lots of people knew about this.

The idea that something is or is not "stamped" classified isn't necessarily the point either. All the officials who will handle classified info are trained on what classified means and sign off on it. That includes info that won't have some official classified "stamp" on it, but officials are trained to know what could be classified. When in doubt consider it classified. Some info/emails are born classified depending on the subject matter regardless of some geek stamping it with a label. 

This latest, on top of all the others, is from the Intel Inspector General and was apparently first reported by the NY Times or maybe another news paper. Calling this, again, a right wing conspiracy doesn't hold up as it's part of an FBI and IG investigation, but that's just the first pass of the Hillary campaign. And certainly they will come up with more views on it. If this weren't Hillary and the place she is in running for President, I would think it very likely that person would already be indicted a while ago. But the FBI is taking its time and making sure they have everything set properly before they decide whether or not to go to the Justice Department. I'll be very surprised if less than a few indictments come out of this for other people, whether Hillary also gets one or not.

Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2016, 11:41:36 AM
This is the most secret stuff, classified SAP and on a need to know basis. Considered extremely damaging info if it gets out. There really is no justification for it being on a private server. Who ever sent it to "Hillary.com" may also be culpable, along with sending other classified emails to an unsecured server. And indeed the State dept did tell Hillary's aides that she should get a "government.com" email so lots of people knew about this.

The idea that something is or is not "stamped" classified isn't necessarily the point either. All the officials who will handle classified info are trained on what classified means and sign off on it. That includes info that won't have some official classified "stamp" on it, but officials are trained to know what could be classified. When in doubt consider it classified. Some info/emails are born classified depending on the subject matter regardless of some geek stamping it with a label. 

This latest, on top of all the others, is from the Intel Inspector General and was apparently first reported by the NY Times or maybe another news paper. Calling this, again, a right wing conspiracy doesn't hold up as it's part of an FBI and IG investigation, but that's just the first pass of the Hillary campaign. And certainly they will come up with more views on it. If this weren't Hillary and the place she is in running for President, I would think it very likely that person would already be indicted a while ago. But the FBI is taking its time and making sure they have everything set properly before they decide whether or not to go to the Justice Department. I'll be very surprised if less than a few indictments come out of this for other people, whether Hillary also gets one or not.

And this is exactly the response that such an 'article' hopes to elicit. :rolleyes:

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:36:00 AM
What I don't understand is this...apparently other government officials have also used private email servers, so it isn't just Clinton. But how is that possible?

I don't deal with anything approaching top secret clearance, but if I decided to use a personal email address rather than a work email address, that would never fly. No one would agree to send me emails. It is just basic data security. One client I had back in the day prohibited any thumb drives from their facilities to keep data from leaving their network security.

With email it's not nearly so straightforward.  Setting up forwarding accounts is trivial, so you can use the work address but receive it on your personal.  It's also pretty easy (and quite common) to set it up so that email is read from one server to another for a variety of different reasons.  Depending on how it is set up it won't necessarily be obvious to the originating server that the emails are being saved that way. 

To me this whole thing seems like a non-story.  Email shouldn't be considered a good way to keep data from getting outside of a system.  I hope they at least used pgp and/or tls when sending/receiving though.

We have been told not to send truly confidential stuff by email, no matter where the server is located, because it is allegedly inherently not secure, and things can be learned from it even if the message is encrypted. Not being a techie, I have no idea how true that is.

Quote from: frunk on January 21, 2016, 11:54:16 AM
With email it's not nearly so straightforward.  Setting up forwarding accounts is trivial, so you can use the work address but receive it on your personal.  It's also pretty easy (and quite common) to set it up so that email is read from one server to another for a variety of different reasons.  Depending on how it is set up it won't necessarily be obvious to the originating server that the emails are being saved that way. 

To me this whole thing seems like a non-story.  Email shouldn't be considered a good way to keep data from getting outside of a system.  I hope they at least used pgp and/or tls when sending/receiving though.

From a worker bee perspective, this all sounds insane, and I am sure I would be fired if I tried to use a personal server for work email, and probably would be fired if I sent work related emails to a coworkers personal account on a regular basis to facilitate such an arrangement.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:58:00 AM
From a worker bee perspective, this all sounds insane, and I am sure I would be fired if I tried to use a personal server for work email, and probably would be fired if I sent work related emails to a coworkers personal account on a regular basis to facilitate such an arrangement.

Let me ask you this, do you read your work email on your laptop/desktop using outlook or other email program that isn't web based?  Boom, your laptop/desktop probably has most if not all of your work email stored.  The only difference between your machine and Hillary's is that she could forward the email to other machines.  Yours could easily be set up the same way.

Quote from: frunk on January 21, 2016, 12:05:53 PM

Let me ask you this, do you read your work email on your laptop/desktop using outlook or other email program that isn't web based?  Boom, your laptop/desktop probably has most if not all of your work email stored.  The only difference between your machine and Hillary's is that she could forward the email to other machines.  Yours could easily be set up the same way.

My company computer definitely has it stored, but we also can't access our email from a non work computer using outlook or an email program. I could forward my email to a non company email server, but as i was saying, I think that would end up threatening my employment status. It is a big no no.

Frunk, to add to this...I used to work as a third party auditor of companies, and currently work with third party auditors.

As a third party auditor, it was common that the client was unable to send sensitive files via email to me, so they would give them via thumbdrive. Except at the one client I mentioned where thumbdrives were prohibited. (I don't remember how we ended up getting the data)

At my current company, we prohibit sending sensitive files to third parties via email, so we have given all our auditors company email accounts that they can use to receive sensitive files.

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 would get in deep doodoo if I tried sending classified or PII on a webmail or such.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 12:19:19 PM
Frunk, to add to this...I used to work as a third party auditor of companies, and currently work with third party auditors.

As a third party auditor, it was common that the client was unable to send sensitive files via email to me, so they would give them via thumbdrive. Except at the one client I mentioned where thumbdrives were prohibited. (I don't remember how we ended up getting the data)

At my current company, we prohibit sending sensitive files to third parties via email, so we have given all our auditors company email accounts that they can use to receive sensitive files.

Which is all good policies.  I don't think there's been any indication that there was sensitive information sent through email (apart from, apparently, a NYT article).  I think it would be tough to tell the secretary of state that they can't send or receive email with anybody without a government email though.

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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 think I downplayed it a bit too much, but it is a lapse of judgement rather than anything nefarious.  The extent to which it was risky is the extent to which it was permitted under the existing rules.

Quote from: frunk on January 21, 2016, 12:40:14 PM
Which is all good policies.  I don't think there's been any indication that there was sensitive information sent through email (apart from, apparently, a NYT article).  I think it would be tough to tell the secretary of state that they can't send or receive email with anybody without a government email though.

And this is where there is a huge culture gap that I don't understand. When I've audited high level executives, I would have no problem pointing out mistakes and potential issues to them. I've never gotten the pushback "those rules shouldn't apply to me"--explicit or implicit.

Outside of audit, I've never felt shy about discussing policy compliance in the same way. Not with the attitude of: "Hey Senior Executive--you are not following the rules! You need to comply!" But with the attitude of, in a private setting, saying, "Just want to help keep us out of trouble with the auditors or to avoid something bad happening, but in order to ensure xxx we have this policy yyy." Again I've never gotten pushback--the experience I have is that executives want to follow the rules to set a good example and to keep out of trouble. If the issue here is that people were scared to speak up to the secretary of state, that didn't seem to serve her very well, did it?

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

She's 68 years old.  Basically, the age of your moms/stepmoms.  How confortable are they with technology?  How would you rate their capacity to explain secure and unsecure on-line behavior?  The difference between various types of encryption?

Quote from: viper37 on January 21, 2016, 01:16:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

She's 68 years old.  Basically, the age of your moms/stepmoms.  How confortable are they with technology?  How would you rate their capacity to explain secure and unsecure on-line behavior?  The difference between various types of encryption?

Are you saying she was not capable of preforming her job as Secretary of State?  :)

It isn't allowed to use a personal server for government classified work. For instance, it gets said that many govt. employees use or have personal email accounts, just like anyone else. But it doesn't stop there - they're not allowed to use personal accounts for certain government uses, especially classified. Hillary saying she never had classified on her personal server is just wrong anyway. As Sec State she by definition would be in the loop for classified. And well over 1k classified emails have now been found and not all the emails have yet been released to the FBI. The State Dept releases a certain amount monthly, something like that, as required by court ruling.

I think one way Hillary gets out of this is if the AG looks at it and determines that she didn't mean for anyone else to have access to the info. Different from Petraeus who let his biographer see the info. Still it's a hefty crime to be negligent in handling classified info but it could be that the AG will consider it a lesser issue. And I still say that some people who sent the info may be in some trouble regardless of the outcome for Hillary.

State is a bizarre shithole when it comes to basic information security and/or Clinton is a complete retard or worse.

OK as a foreigner I've not really followed this story. From the headlines I'd assume she had a physical private server located in some cupboard or at least a virutal server, but is it actually that she accessed these emails from a personal laptop/pc/tablet or phone ?

If it's the latter then perhaps she's just been lazy and slapdash in the way she's carried on, though clearly she needs a stern telling off and a rap across the knuckles. 

The way some of the press as been reporting it, seems she was probably conspiring with foreign governments to bring down the USA by copying and planning to leak top secrets documents to foreign intelligence agencies.

Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2016, 01:23:49 PM
It isn't allowed to use a personal server for government classified work. For instance, it gets said that many govt. employees use or have personal email accounts, just like anyone else. But it doesn't stop there - they're not allowed to use personal accounts for certain government uses, especially classified. Hillary saying she never had classified on her personal server is just wrong anyway. As Sec State she by definition would be in the loop for classified. And well over 1k classified emails have now been found and not all the emails have yet been released to the FBI. The State Dept releases a certain amount monthly, something like that, as required by court ruling.

I think one way Hillary gets out of this is if the AG looks at it and determines that she didn't mean for anyone else to have access to the info. Different from Petraeus who let his biographer see the info. Still it's a hefty crime to be negligent in handling classified info but it could be that the AG will consider it a lesser issue. And I still say that some people who sent the info may be in some trouble regardless of the outcome for Hillary.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289#link15

QuoteFACT: Clinton's Use Of A Personal Email Account Was Legal And Did Not Violate State Department Policy

The National Law Journal: Clinton "Obeyed The Law."  In a March 9 article on Clinton emails, The National Law Journal explained that according to legal experts, Clinton "technically obeyed the law" with her use of email. The Journal explained:

Quote"There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

If it turns out that Clinton destroyed documents or mishandled classified information, that would be another story -- such violations can be criminal. However, the State Department has said there are "no indications" that Clinton improperly used her email for classified information.

The New York Times on March 2 reported that Clinton relied on her personal email account exclusively when she ran the State Department between 2009 and 2013, thwarting government record-keeping procedures.

National Archives and Records Administration regulations require emails to be "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system," but when Clinton was in government there was no specified deadline for turning them over.

In 2013, David Ferriero, who heads the archives, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency "discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur."

Following that hearing, according to a statement from the archives, Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 -- 21 months after Clinton left government -- to "prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days."[The National Law Journal, 3/9/15]

CNN: State Department Rules Allowed Clinton To Use Private Account. Citing a State Department source, CNN reported that "Clinton was not automatically in violation of State Department policy when she exclusively used a private email during her four years as America's top diplomat." CNN further reported that 2005 guidelines insisting that employees use government-provided email "were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account." [CNN, 3/6/15]

So basically what Joan said. Definitely in violation of spirit but no, no indication that she was breaking policies, regulations or the law.

Certainly open question of why she did what she did but really I don't think we need the Fox News spin that you are providing. :P

Quote from: frunk on January 21, 2016, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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 think I downplayed it a bit too much, but it is a lapse of judgement rather than anything nefarious.  The extent to which it was risky is the extent to which it was permitted under the existing rules.

A lapse in judgement is having one too many martinis and then backing the car into a light pole as you try to leave the parking lot. This was something that was purposely set up. A lot of thought went into it and it was done for a reason,  so she could control the communication records.

Quote from: lustindarkness on January 21, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Are you saying she was not capable of preforming her job as Secretary of State?  :)

I doubt many people of her age did antyhing differently.  Ever brought work home from a government office?  That was likely illegal.

Tech wise, most government people aren't qualified at all, at every level, even programmers.

Given that the material considered top secret was revealed on the New York Times front page, I doubt that any would be hacker reading Miss Clinton's e-mail would have discovered something really threatening to US interests.

See, two weeks ago, we learn that a senior police officer from Montreal's police force carried an unencrypted USB key in his car containing confidential info, while attending end of year party.  We're talking stuff like investigation details and names of confidential informant.  We learnt of it because that date was stolen by thieves linked to Montreal's street gangs.  That was careless, that was stupid, and it was borderline criminal.  That's a kind of things that would, at the very least, warrant an immediate termination of employment.

If you tell me this is the kind of stuff Hillary used her personal e-mail account for, yes, I agree with you, she did not have the qualification to do her job.

Otherwise, we should bar anyone over 50 from working in superior government levels.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 09:55:19 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2016, 09:50:02 AM
Not nearly as bad a lapse of of judgement as when she murdered Vince Foster!

Where are you trying to go Raz?  That the accusation that Hillary used an unauthorized private email server is a loony conspiracy theory?

You ever heard of the story, "Of the boy who cried wolf"?  We've had "scandals" about Hillary Clinton for two decades.  From murder (of multiple people!), to plotting a Marxist takeover, to killing Kathleen Willey's cat.  Why should we take this one particularly seriously?  Hell, the chairman of the Benghazi committee already admitted this was political and was quite pleased with himself about the whole thing.

Here's a list of "scandals" about Hilary Clinton that appears to be well sourced.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-conspiracy-theories

Quote from: Legbiter on January 21, 2016, 08:55:30 AM
So why was Clinton relying on her own jury-rigged server instead of the presumably regular in-house, spook-approved IT solution the rest of the US government uses to process classified emails?

Because sometimes the NIST requirements and federal restrictions are a pain in the ass and lots of whiners say "but I wanna use my iPad waaaaa". And you can't let them.

Well, apparently when Hillary says waaa she gets her own server.

Quote from: viper37 on January 21, 2016, 01:16:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

She's 68 years old.  Basically, the age of your moms/stepmoms.  How confortable are they with technology?  How would you rate their capacity to explain secure and unsecure on-line behavior?  The difference between various types of encryption?

My mom's 89, and by no means comfortable with technology.  But if she had a job and was given a work e-mail and told, "This is your work e-mail;  don't use it for personal messages and don't use your personal e-mail for work-related communications" she could handle that.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is too stupid to know the difference, either.  But that's one of only 3 possible explanations--either she's too stupid to know better, she did it for some nefarious purpose, or she just has the attitude that the rules don't apply to her.  Personally, unless I see some hard evidence otherwise, I'll just figure it's the last one.  You can pick which of the 3 you prefer.

Quote from: dps on January 21, 2016, 05:33:49 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 21, 2016, 01:16:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

She's 68 years old.  Basically, the age of your moms/stepmoms.  How confortable are they with technology?  How would you rate their capacity to explain secure and unsecure on-line behavior?  The difference between various types of encryption?

My mom's 89, and by no means comfortable with technology.  But if she had a job and was given a work e-mail and told, "This is your work e-mail;  don't use it for personal messages and don't use your personal e-mail for work-related communications" she could handle that.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is too stupid to know the difference, either.  But that's one of only 3 possible explanations--either she's too stupid to know better, she did it for some nefarious purpose, or she just has the attitude that the rules don't apply to her.  Personally, unless I see some hard evidence otherwise, I'll just figure it's the last one.  You can pick which of the 3 you prefer.

Odd that MIM posted a reason just above you that isn't in your set of 3. Sure it has some element of 'rules don't apply' but it is more like 'I can bend the rules here' and therefore less haughty than you put it.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2016, 04:09:01 PM
Why should we take this one particularly seriously?

Well, to start, maybe because Hillary admitted it happened?

She needs to be immediately arrested and tried for treason.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 06:54:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2016, 04:09:01 PM
Why should we take this one particularly seriously?

Well, to start, maybe because Hillary admitted it happened?

And?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 08:42:55 AM
Is this email server scandal finally going to gain real traction?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

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

By RACHAEL BADE and JOSH GERSTEIN 01/19/16 04:43 PM EST Updated 01/19/16 07:54 PM EST

Intelligence officials have discovered sensitive national security information on Hillary Clinton's server that goes beyond the "top secret" level, the intelligence community inspector general told lawmakers in a letter last week.

In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as "special access programs," or SAP. That's an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, which is top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

"To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community agency]," the letter reads. "These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community agency] to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified [intelligence community agency]sources."

Fox News first reported the content of the letter.

The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton's unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton's emails at the "confidential" level or beyond, though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time. Six of those have been flagged as "secret," a step below "top secret."

State and the intelligence community, however, have clashed over whether the content of at least two yet-to-be-released emails were at the highest classification level: "top secret." Those two emails actually triggered an ongoing FBI probe into the email matter over the summer, sources say.

Intelligence officials insist that both of those messages were "top secret" when they were sent and one remains so, while one is now considered "secret."

However, the emails now deemed to contain "top secret, special access program" information are in addition to the messages previously disputed between State and the Director of National Intelligence, according to a spokesperson for McCullough. The official said the intelligence community review group is wrapping up its look into the documents and is putting these documents in the SAP category.

The Central Intelligence Agency is the agency that provided the declarations about the classified programs, another U.S. official familiar with the situation told POLITICO Wednesday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate "special access programs" related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails "was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered 'per se' classified" because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was "top secret" because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of "parallel reporting" that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.

However, State is set to acquiesce in the determinations regarding classified programs like drone strikes because there is a longstanding, government-wide consensus that such information must be treated as classified even if it leaks or becomes apparent from events on the ground, the official added.

The FBI, meanwhile, is still investigating whether Clinton's server put national security at risk and whether top State staffers sent around classified information via unclassified means, which is in many cases illegal.

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received" said Clinton Campaign Spokesman Brian Fallon. "It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Justice Department's inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference."

Just days ago, State released an email showing Clinton asking top policy staffer Jake Sullivan to send information that was slated to be transmitted on a secure fax machine over an unsecured fax because the secured machine was apparently broken. Republicans seized on the message, saying it suggested Clinton was playing fast and loose with classified contents.

It is unclear, however, if the content of the information slated to be faxed that day was indeed classified. And State later said they had no indication that the content in question was ever sent via non-secure means.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the latest inspector general's letter, but said State will protect any information determined to be classified.

"We are focused on—remain focused on releasing the rest of, the remainder of former Secretary Clinton's emails in a manner that protects sensitive information. ....Nobody's going to take that more seriously than we are," Kirby said Wednesday at a daily press briefing. "We've said repeatedly that we do anticipate more upgrades [of classification] in our release process and we've been very open and honest about those upgrades when they've occurred."

In the past, State has adamantly disputed the existence of any "top secret" information in the Clinton email records. However, Kirby appeared to soften that position Wednesday.

"Our FOIA review process is still ongoing and once that process is complete if it is determined that information should be classified as top secret then we'll do so, as we have consistently done throughout the process," he said.

Good. Maybe it will be trump/sanders race

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
A lapse in judgement is having one too many martinis and then backing the car into a light pole as you try to leave the parking lot.

Marti lost weight and got run over anyway? :(

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Odd that MIM posted a reason just above you that isn't in your set of 3. Sure it has some element of 'rules don't apply' but it is more like 'I can bend the rules here' and therefore less haughty than you put it.

Yes, I'd say that MIM's explanation and my #3 are basically the same thing, just worded differently.

Quote from: viper37 on January 21, 2016, 01:16:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

She's 68 years old.  Basically, the age of your moms/stepmoms.  How confortable are they with technology?  How would you rate their capacity to explain secure and unsecure on-line behavior?  The difference between various types of encryption?

Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.

My mom is not the secretary of state.

i can see her age/experience with the internet affecting her decision, though. she probably didn't see it as a big deal.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM


A lapse in judgement is having one too many martinis and then backing the car into a light pole as you try to leave the parking lot. This was something that was purposely set up. A lot of thought went into it and it was done for a reason,  so she could control the communication records.

What sort of inhuman evil is supposed to be going on here?  We started out trying to prove that Hilary Clinton killed a US ambassador, and we are now down to some emails that were misfiled.  If all we have on Hilary is what emails were on what server then excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.  Especially after 20 years of accusations.

i haven't read much into this controversy, but isn't it probable that she felt there was just too much red tape with the email system and so created a workaround?

Quote from: LaCroix on January 24, 2016, 11:54:43 PM
i haven't read much into this controversy, but isn't it probable that she felt there was just too much red tape with the email system and so created a workaround?

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

Quote from: LaCroix on January 24, 2016, 11:54:43 PM
i haven't read much into this controversy, but isn't it probable that she felt there was just too much red tape with the email system and so created a workaround?

I don't know what kind of red tape you're talking about.

I'm surprised no one has made a connection yet to that Clinton NSA dude who was caught stuffing papers into his underwear at the National Archives.

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:12:10 AMI don't know what kind of red tape you're talking about.

I'm surprised no one has made a connection yet to that Clinton NSA dude who was caught stuffing papers into his underwear at the National Archives.

there's an image floating around that shows a series of email exchanges between clinton and another guy re: some fax or something. at the end, she says to fax it on regular paper. do you know what i'm talking about? I can find it if you haven't seen it

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM
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 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.

I think people who are seriously concerned about this are either 1) looking for support for their existing negative opinions on Clinton, 2) hard core "the rules must be followed at all times" types, or 3) have a strong IT background and thus consider IT policies very important.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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 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.

I am all for "just get it done", but that only works when the person willing to "just get it done" exercises reason and prudence.

She is the secretary of state, not the assistant manager at McDonalds telling the fry cook that he doesn't REALLY have to wait 46 seconds after the fries are out before he salts them - she is dealing with National security.

And she didn't say "Hey, we need to get some specific task done RIGHT NOW, so lets bend some rules for the moment..."

She decided, on her own, to circumvent national security policy because it was just too much of a hassle to follow it, and she did so on a permanent basis.

And people who make decisions like that NEVER "learn their lesson" except the lesson of trying a little harder not to get caught when they ignore the rules.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:20:47 AM
there's an image floating around that shows a series of email exchanges between clinton and another guy re: some fax or something. at the end, she says to fax it on regular paper. do you know what i'm talking about? I can find it if you haven't seen it

So by red tape you mean the security protocols for handling classified communications?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:26:26 AM
So by red tape you mean the security protocols for handling classified communications?

It's my understanding that Clinton didn't violate any security protocols that were implemented at the time. Her private server was neither expressly permitted nor prohibited, but at a later time such servers were prohibited. Is that incorrect?

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 12:31:35 AM
It's my understanding that Clinton didn't violate any security protocols that were implemented at the time. Her private server was neither expressly permitted nor prohibited, but at a later time such servers were prohibited. Is that incorrect?

I don't know.

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:23:31 AMI am all for "just get it done", but that only works when the person willing to "just get it done" exercises reason and prudence.

She is the secretary of state, not the assistant manager at McDonalds telling the fry cook that he doesn't REALLY have to wait 46 seconds after the fries are out before he salts them - she is dealing with National security.

disagree that an elderly (albeit experienced) woman would think sending the emails she sent would constitute a huge breach of national security. I suspect every president has risked national security in some way by doing something that wasn't strictly by the books. difference is (1) they weren't caught, or (2) for those who were caught, the political climate didn't turn it into a huge issue

QuoteAnd she didn't say "Hey, we need to get some specific task done RIGHT NOW, so lets bend some rules for the moment..."

She decided, on her own, to circumvent national security policy because it was just too much of a hassle to follow it, and she did so on a permanent basis.

And people who make decisions like that NEVER "learn their lesson" except the lesson of trying a little harder not to get caught when they ignore the rules.

well, yeah. someone with a personality type to not 100% follow the rules is going to make a decision, on his/her own, and do it on a permanent basis. these things happen. I've done it before, all this past year actually re: a specific task that I've felt was redundant and stupid.

no, people do learn their lessons. i.e., "shit, I guess that was a bigger deal than I thought. guess I'll be doing that in the future." to say the person NEVER learns his lesson is a pretty sweeping generalization.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:26:26 AMSo by red tape you mean the security protocols for handling classified communications?

:hmm:

was this a trick or

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:35:09 AM
:hmm:

was this a trick or

Or.  Definitely or.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:37:27 AMOr.  Definitely or.

okay, should have said perceived red tape

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 12:23:11 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM
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 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.

I think people who are seriously concerned about this are either 1) looking for support for their existing negative opinions on Clinton, 2) hard core "the rules must be followed at all times" types, or 3) have a strong IT background and thus consider IT policies very important.

I think we can cut out 2 and 3.  When you get comments like "I'm surprised no one has made a connection yet to that Clinton NSA dude who was caught stuffing papers into his underwear at the National Archives.", I think we can count on option 1 all the way.  I don't see how Sandy Berger (the dude), is in anyway relevant.  It's a bit like bring up Ollie North's office destroying documents.  What does it have to do with anything?

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:40:14 AM
okay, should have said perceived red tape

Still don't know what you're talking about.  Maybe that image you mentioned would be helpful.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:56:21 AMStill don't know what you're talking about.  Maybe that image you mentioned would be helpful.

that hillary felt this was typical government red tape that made it more difficult to communicate, so she created a workaround.

the image
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hillary-Email-Remove-Markings-From-Fax-e1452276100869.jpg

I've no idea where this image fits in the controversy. like I said, I don't know the details of this controversy. maybe this has nothing to do with it

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 12:23:11 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM
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 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.

I think people who are seriously concerned about this are either 1) looking for support for their existing negative opinions on Clinton, 2) hard core "the rules must be followed at all times" types, or 3) have a strong IT background and thus consider IT policies very important.

You forgot 4) understanding the nature of Muckity Mucks.

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.

People like these, and people like Clinton, do not believe the rules apply to them when it comes to things like convenience;  they are too busy Doing Important Stuff and Thinking Big Things to worry about such worker bee annoyances like IT policy thingies.  They don't bend to process; the processes bend to them.  Just like countless other business executives, government leaders and other assorted muckity mucks in this world, Hillary Clinton was simply too busy being Hillary Clinton to be bothered with the requirements of a second device, not when I only want to carry one device, and besides, the one I have already has all my contacts in it, and they automatically pop up when I type in the first couple characters, see?

You know exactly how this played out:  when she was appointed Secretary of State, they told her want she needed to do regarding secure devices, she didn't want to do it for convenience, so she had her aides deal with it for her--which is why we see headlines like "Hillary's team copied intel off top-secret server to email" (http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/) today.

Completely and totally predictable, because that's just how these people are: entitled and out of touch.  It's not malicious, it's not even intentional; it just doesn't register on their radars. 

 :yes:

see, that makes way more sense than anything nefarious. I know that feeling (not with this particular subject, granted), and I'm not important at all

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:33:46 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 12:31:35 AM
It's my understanding that Clinton didn't violate any security protocols that were implemented at the time. Her private server was neither expressly permitted nor prohibited, but at a later time such servers were prohibited. Is that incorrect?

I don't know.

Well in that case I'll assume it's an accurate memory of an accurate accounting of facts :)

In fact, I'm pretty sure if there were actual breaches of security policy or illegal acts committed, we'd hear that trumpeted incessantly.

Yes, she had beyond top secret documents on her server. But if that had been in direct contravention of policy or even worse, downright illegal, then then the stories would include that information. They don't, because it wasn't, and instead we're left with insinuations and uninformed tut-tutting.

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

It is what I had noted with citations earlier in the thread.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 03:11:51 AM
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.

I must admit that I am enjoying this effort by the Clinton-bashers to tie themselves into pretzels to "prove" that Clinton "revealed classified information" much more than I enjoyed the pretzel-making in Benghazigate.  I know a lot more about this stuff.

I think Seedy hit the nail on the head:  this server stuff wasn't even on Clinton's radar.  And the assumption that State's unclassified email system was more secure than Clinton's private server is hilariously ill-informed.

The best part, though, is the idea that retroactive security classifications create security breaches for those who shared the info before it was classified.  All this retroactive classification is designed to do is to embarrass Clinton; if this was real info the security guys would just be serving to inform the enemies of the US where to look for classified information.  Real security guys protecting read codeword stuff would never say stuff like this.  When I worked on Sea Shadow (now declassified) we couldn't even acknowledge that there was a program, and never publicly responded to breaches of security.

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
Yes, she had beyond top secret documents on her server.

There is, by the way, no such thin such as "beyond top secret documents."  That's one of the clues that this story is phony.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 03:11:51 AM
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.

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 07:03:43 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 03:11:51 AM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:32:02 AM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2016, 01:44:41 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 11:51:13 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 11:35:12 AMThe 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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

:D

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 07:03:43 AM
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. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
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.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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.

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

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 12:31:35 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 12:26:26 AM
So by red tape you mean the security protocols for handling classified communications?

It's my understanding that Clinton didn't violate any security protocols that were implemented at the time. Her private server was neither expressly permitted nor prohibited, but at a later time such servers were prohibited. Is that incorrect?

You can store work emails at home, or use your own email address, or even your own private server. It might not very professional, especially when working for the government or a big corporation, but you absolutely cannot, ever, store classified information at home or access it on a personal device.

If it was retroactively classified, then perhaps there is room for error there.  But if she knowingly stored classified information on her home server/devices, then she broke the law, period.

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 03:34:40 PM
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.

For a person who's incapable of concluding whether she made a poor choice, you seem to be arguing very passionately that she did not make a poor choice.

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:52:07 AM
I must admit that I am enjoying this effort by the Clinton-bashers to tie themselves into pretzels to "prove" that Clinton "revealed classified information" much more than I enjoyed the pretzel-making in Benghazigate.  I know a lot more about this stuff.

I think Seedy hit the nail on the head:  this server stuff wasn't even on Clinton's radar.  And the assumption that State's unclassified email system was more secure than Clinton's private server is hilariously ill-informed.

The best part, though, is the idea that retroactive security classifications create security breaches for those who shared the info before it was classified.  All this retroactive classification is designed to do is to embarrass Clinton; if this was real info the security guys would just be serving to inform the enemies of the US where to look for classified information.  Real security guys protecting read codeword stuff would never say stuff like this.  When I worked on Sea Shadow (now declassified) we couldn't even acknowledge that there was a program, and never publicly responded to breaches of security.

Yeah, well said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 04:01:27 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 03:34:40 PM
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.

For a person who's incapable of concluding whether she made a poor choice, you seem to be arguing very passionately that she did not make a poor choice.

:huh: You must be having a different poster in mind.

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:00:00 PM
If it was retroactively classified, then perhaps there is room for error there.  But if she knowingly stored classified information on her home server/devices, then she broke the law, period.

Did she break the law? I don't think anything has been reported to that effect - and I'm pretty sure that if she had, it would be reported by now.

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 04:05:46 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:00:00 PM
If it was retroactively classified, then perhaps there is room for error there.  But if she knowingly stored classified information on her home server/devices, then she broke the law, period.

Did she break the law? I don't think anything has been reported to that effect - and I'm pretty sure that if she had, it would be reported by now.

The FBI is still looking into it.

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 04:03:49 PM

:huh: You must be having a different poster in mind.

It's possible.  So your position is you just don't know either way?

Quote from: citizen k on January 25, 2016, 04:09:33 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 04:05:46 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:00:00 PM
If it was retroactively classified, then perhaps there is room for error there.  But if she knowingly stored classified information on her home server/devices, then she broke the law, period.

Did she break the law? I don't think anything has been reported to that effect - and I'm pretty sure that if she had, it would be reported by now.

The FBI is still looking into it.

I think the latest news is that the FBI is now looking into whether or not Clinton's team 'copy and pasted' information from a secure server.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 04:09:59 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 04:03:49 PM

:huh: You must be having a different poster in mind.

It's possible.  So your position is you just don't know either way?

I have absolutely no idea how objectively important and relevant the e-mail scandal is.

Quote from: DGuller on January 25, 2016, 04:13:31 PM
I have absolutely no idea how objectively important and relevant the e-mail scandal is.

The Fate of the Republic hinges upon it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

No, they are referring to "Special Access Programs".  But they are using it incorrectly, it does not making anything more classified or mean it is more sensitive. The article is attempting to paint this "worse" than it is.  The government compartmentalizes information and you need to be read on to different programs to have access to them to limit access and make sure people have "need to know" before accessing it.  For instance, regardless of any level of clearance someone may have they cannot access top secret information relating specifically to "X" without being read-on to that particular program or group.

The government does this to protect information and to stop people snooping into stuff they have no need to know.  Came in to effect after major leaks to the Russians, I believe.

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:18:29 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

No, they are referring to "Special Access Programs".  But they are using it incorrectly, it does not making anything more classified or mean it is more sensitive. The article is attempting to paint this "worse" than it is.  The government compartmentalizes information and you need to be read on to different programs to have access to them to limit access and make sure people have "need to know" before accessing it.  For instance, regardless of any level of clearance someone may have they cannot access top secret information relating specifically to "X" without being read-on to that particular program or group.

The government does this to protect information and to stop people snooping into stuff they have no need to know.  Came in to effect after major leaks to the Russians, I believe.

Alks, are you sure the structure of government secrecy isn't in itself a secret also?  :P

Quote from: mongers on January 25, 2016, 04:42:24 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:18:29 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

No, they are referring to "Special Access Programs".  But they are using it incorrectly, it does not making anything more classified or mean it is more sensitive. The article is attempting to paint this "worse" than it is.  The government compartmentalizes information and you need to be read on to different programs to have access to them to limit access and make sure people have "need to know" before accessing it.  For instance, regardless of any level of clearance someone may have they cannot access top secret information relating specifically to "X" without being read-on to that particular program or group.

The government does this to protect information and to stop people snooping into stuff they have no need to know.  Came in to effect after major leaks to the Russians, I believe.

Alks, are you sure the structure of government secrecy isn't in itself a secret also?  :P

I checked before I posted.   :lol:

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:44:36 PM

Quote from: mongers on January 25, 2016, 04:42:24 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:18:29 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2016, 02:35:03 AM
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.

No, they are referring to "Special Access Programs".  But they are using it incorrectly, it does not making anything more classified or mean it is more sensitive. The article is attempting to paint this "worse" than it is.  The government compartmentalizes information and you need to be read on to different programs to have access to them to limit access and make sure people have "need to know" before accessing it.  For instance, regardless of any level of clearance someone may have they cannot access top secret information relating specifically to "X" without being read-on to that particular program or group.

The government does this to protect information and to stop people snooping into stuff they have no need to know.  Came in to effect after major leaks to the Russians, I believe.

Alks, are you sure the structure of government secrecy isn't in itself a secret also?  :P

I checked before I posted.   :lol:

:D

Well played.

This "beyond top secret" stuff reminds me of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Beyond_Zebra!

Clinton didn't do anything that every single one of my baby boomer bosses didn't also do.

The government IT guys aren't stupid about security because they're zealous dumbasses. They focus on some things and ignore others because so much of the stuff they have to adhere to is written in law. So they spend all of the time they have available making sure there aren't any law violations, and there's no time left to make sure the systems are actually safe. The laws are written so specifically.

Having your password on a post-it isn't illegal. But the stupidly long and complicated password requirement is. So duh. Of course it actually makes it more likely to be breached. I've found many passwords during audits that way. But it doesn't matter. Senator Meet The Press can say they made the password requirements super-strict. It will play well as a sound byte, and when the good Senator gets back to the office, he'll have his assistant write his password down on a post-it.

Sup3rl#ngPassw0rd$suck@$$:(

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 25, 2016, 05:32:31 PM
Clinton didn't do anything that every single one of my baby boomer bosses didn't also do.

Seriously?  Every single one of your baby boomer bosses maintained a private email server?

Quote from: lustindarkness on January 25, 2016, 05:55:23 PM
Sup3rl#ngPassw0rd$suck@$$:(

Nice try, can't be a password you've used in the last 50 passwords.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 06:01:07 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on January 25, 2016, 05:55:23 PM
Sup3rl#ngPassw0rd$suck@$$:(

Nice try, can't be a password you've used in the last 50 passwords.   :rolleyes:

:lol:

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 03:54:52 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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.

Didn't Clinton leave department of state before snowden's shenanigans?

I know both happened in 2013 but she left in February, didn't she?

Quote from: sbr on January 25, 2016, 06:10:44 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 03:54:52 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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.

Didn't Clinton leave department of state before snowden's shenanigans?

I know both happened in 2013 but she left in February, didn't she?

Sorry - I meant Bradley Manning.  I can't use flash drives any more.  :weep:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 06:00:52 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 25, 2016, 05:32:31 PM
Clinton didn't do anything that every single one of my baby boomer bosses didn't also do.

Seriously?  Every single one of your baby boomer bosses maintained a private email server?

No. I maintained them. Obviously.  :lol:

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 06:01:07 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on January 25, 2016, 05:55:23 PM
Sup3rl#ngPassw0rd$suck@$$:(

Nice try, can't be a password you've used in the last 50 passwords.   :rolleyes:

Mot#3rF00k3rC2br0nmi3rd4M3c4g0en5uMadr3! :mad:

:glare:
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-clinton-emails-194823520.html (http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-clinton-emails-194823520.html)


:tinfoil:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/indictment-looms-fbi-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/indictment-looms-fbi-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret)

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: sbr on January 25, 2016, 06:10:44 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 03:54:52 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 12:19:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2016, 12:07:22 AMOf 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.

Didn't Clinton leave department of state before snowden's shenanigans?

I know both happened in 2013 but she left in February, didn't she?

Sorry - I meant Bradley Manning.

She thanks you for your microaggression.

She.
She screams in silence.
A sullen riot penetrating through her mind.
Waiting for a sign
To smash the silence with the brick of self-control.

Are you locked up in a world
That's been planned out for you?
Are you feeling like a social tool without a use?
Scream at me until my ears bleed
I'm taking heed just for you

The phone NSA wanted Hillary to use (http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-use-this-secure-windows-phone/)

Now, I kinda understand her.
A modified Blackberry was good enough for the President, but not good enough for the Secretary of State.
The phone had a cost of 4 700$ + 30 000$ for the server infrastructure.

And Republicans are giving her shit because she spared the tax payers some expenses?  Oh my! ;)

Well, Republitards are all about cutting government spending.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2016, 06:05:48 PM
She.
She screams in silence.
A sullen riot penetrating through her mind.
Waiting for a sign
To smash the silence with the brick of self-control.

Are you locked up in a world
That's been planned out for you?
Are you feeling like a social tool without a use?
Scream at me until my ears bleed
I'm taking heed just for you

She walked out with empty arms
Machine gun in her hand
She is good and she is bad
No one understands

She walked in in silence
Never spoke a word
She's got a rich daddy
She's her daddy's girl

She loves naked sin
He loves evil sex
She has lost control
They are growing old

She will hide in silence
Then her day will come
She was virgin vixen
She is on the run
She is on the run
She is on the run