FBI report: Hillarys emails...worse than we thought

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 04:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, just because you claim this as "best case" does not mean it is true.

The fact that she could not recognize information as "classified" might have nothing at all to do with stupidity.  But obviously that fact is not allowed in the echo chamber you confuse with reality.

As others have said, you would sure hope the SOS would recognize classified when she saw it.  So,incompetence is her defense?  And she wants to be President?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Like I wrote, I haven't paid attention to this topic because I see it as just partisan bickering.

But, if what you claim is true:

Why doesn't a Secretary of State have a secure server at home?  Or some means to check email when they aren't in the office?

In case she is compromised and forced to check such traffic

Why weren't the emails encrypted so they can't be opened on an unsecured server without the same encryption?

You would have to ask Hillary and the others that sent them; but I'm gonna say the defense is ignorance.

How is any SOS supposed to know the contents is classified until after they read an unencrypted email on an unsecured server?

The title. But  this doesn't address the question of: even if it were titled too ambiguously to know until reading the message, what actions should be taken once the message was read (assuming you were bright enough to understand what you just read may be of a secure classification.) Which in Hillary's case she is claiming she was not.  

Does the US Government not have an IT department?
Yes they do

Was there a data breech?
I don't think anyone is denying there was spillage.

Answers in bold, Anything further I can do to get you up to speed. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that she could not recognize information as "classified" might have nothing at all to do with stupidity.  

Poor eyesight? 

Feel free to change stupidity to incompetence or ignorance if that helps with the defense; that she, herself, is using.

FWIW, I have said this is the best case. If I followed the "echo chamber" I would replace stupidity with criminal. 

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:39 PM)McC Wrote: As others have said, you would sure hope the SOS would recognize classified when she saw it.  So,incompetence is her defense?  And she wants to be President?

Others have said it but thay have no idea what is in the emails.  How could she possibly know the source of the information in the emails?  If the emails just dealt with administrative details of a classified operation she would not be able to tell if it was classified.

If it is so 100% obvious then why were none of the emails classified before they were sent to her?

Like I have said all along, I am not a huge Hillary fan.  if it is proven that she messed up then I will agree she should be punished.  But considering the source of the allegations I have to see how it all plays out.  These people claiming that it was "obvious" that the emails were classified are also the same ones who said it was "obvious" that Hillary was to blame for the deaths in Benghazi.

[Belsnickel]

The thing that I think bothers me is that even if these emails went to her state.gov email address then that would have been a mishandling of classified information, the way I am given to understand it. Correct? Isn't classified information supposed to be only available through a more secure method and that even the general office email is not up to snuff on that? If this is the case, how many more classified emails are sitting on unsecured servers in our government, because I guarantee you that what we're talking about here is only a drop in the bucket.

I deal in sensitive data (not the same, I know) and state policy is that we aren't to even email SSNs because of these sorts of things. There are to be no SSNs or banking information on our computers, and so there is to be no emailing of this information. In order to share it, we have certain computers with increased security (mine being one) and we can share the documents on a secure network drive that only our computers with our logins active can access. But we are still not allowed to email this information from these computers because having the data on the computer itself is more vulnerable and the email server is not as tightened down.

So are these similar rules like this for classified information, and if so, shouldn't we really be taking a hard look at everyone's emails in government?

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Feel free to change stupidity to incompetence or ignorance if that helps with the defense;

Some of us know the difference between "ignorance" and "stupidity"?

It is possible to be "ignorant" without being "stupid" or doing anything wrong at all.

Educate yourself.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The thing that I think bothers me is that even if these emails went to her state.gov email address then that would have been a mishandling of classified information, the way I am given to understand it. Correct? Isn't classified information supposed to be only available through a more secure method and that even the general office email is not up to snuff on that? If this is the case, how many more classified emails are sitting on unsecured servers in our government, because I guarantee you that what we're talking about here is only a drop in the bucket.

I deal in sensitive data (not the same, I know) and state policy is that we aren't to even email SSNs because of these sorts of things. There are to be no SSNs or banking information on our computers, and so there is to be no emailing of this information. In order to share it, we have certain computers with increased security (mine being one) and we can share the documents on a secure network drive that only our computers with our logins active can access. But we are still not allowed to email this information from these computers because having the data on the computer itself is more vulnerable and the email server is not as tightened down.

So are these similar rules like this for classified information, and if so, shouldn't we really be taking a hard look at everyone's emails in government?

When the information was sent it was not classified.

That might have been a big mistake, but that happened before the info got to Hillary.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The thing that I think bothers me is that even if these emails went to her state.gov email address then that would have been a mishandling of classified information, the way I am given to understand it. Correct? Isn't classified information supposed to be only available through a more secure method and that even the general office email is not up to snuff on that? If this is the case, how many more classified emails are sitting on unsecured servers in our government, because I guarantee you that what we're talking about here is only a drop in the bucket.

I deal in sensitive data (not the same, I know) and state policy is that we aren't to even email SSNs because of these sorts of things. There are to be no SSNs or banking information on our computers, and so there is to be no emailing of this information. In order to share it, we have certain computers with increased security (mine being one) and we can share the documents on a secure network drive that only our computers with our logins active can access. But we are still not allowed to email this information from these computers because having the data on the computer itself is more vulnerable and the email server is not as tightened down.

So are these similar rules like this for classified information, and if so, shouldn't we really be taking a hard look at everyone's emails in government?

As I understand it. There is much data that if sent back and forth on the same server causes no issue, it is when servers are crossed that the spillage can occur.

For instance her assistant could have emailed her the arrival time of Soldiers returning from combat so she can great  them. The assistant does not encrypt the message because he/she assumes it will be read on the same secure served from which it were sent.

Hillary goes home puts her Common Access Card into her home computer and reads the message. We know have a problem.  

I realize this, but apparently a sitting SOS may not. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some of us know the difference between "ignorance" and "stupidity"?

It is possible to be "ignorant" without being "stupid" or doing anything wrong at all.

Educate yourself.

And some of us get caught up in semantics when trying to dispute a point.

Could be I know the difference in the words that is why I said you may interchange them however, you wish to prove your point. 

Let's go with incompetent; does that work for you?

Why should I have to educate myself when I have all these brilliant minds in the forum willing to do it for me? 

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And some of us get caught up in semantics when trying to dispute a point.

Could be I know the difference in the words that is why I said you may interchange them however, you wish to prove your point. 

Let's go with incompetent; does that work for you?

Why should I have to educate myself when I have all these brilliant minds in the forum willing to do it for me? 

The fact you think that they are interchangeable proves that you still don't understand the difference in the meanings.

Changing the words changes the meanings to people who understand the difference.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I realize this, but apparently a sitting SOS may not. 

No, the SOS gets it.

You just made up that story.  It has nothing to do with reality.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact you think that they are interchangeable proves that you still don't understand the difference in the meanings.

Changing the words changes the meanings to people who understand the difference.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

I chose stupidity because that was my opinion of best case.

If you think the case is made better by changing it to ignorant, feel free. That is just one of the many options.

Others may choose to use:
Laziness
Stupidity
Ignorance
Incompetence
aloofness
Arrogance
Criminal

But trying to deflect the attention away from Hillary's actions to my inability to know the meanings of different words is a tactic.

A feeble and transparent one; but one, non the less. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When the information was sent it was not classified.

That might have been a big mistake, but that happened before the info got to Hillary.

I get this, but that is my concern. There are probably any number of emails sent by email that may contain information that should be classified, but isn't.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, the SOS gets it.

You just made up that story.  It has nothing to do with reality.

I actually used an illustration to help answer Matt's question about security and classification of data.

Rules change when servers are crossed. That is reality. 

If i were a Hillary fan; I hope she didn't "get it" and purposely failed to report it.

You just made up the fact that she "got it"' You must be pushing for criminal charges. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I understand it. There is much data that if sent back and forth on the same server causes no issue, it is when servers are crossed that the spillage can occur.

For instance her assistant could have emailed her the arrival time of Soldiers returning from combat so she can great  them. The assistant does not encrypt the message because he/she assumes it will be read on the same secure served from which it were sent.

Hillary goes home puts her Common Access Card into her home computer and reads the message. We know have a problem.  

I realize this, but apparently a sitting SOS may not. 

How does the assistant assume it will be on the same server if she sends it to a private email address? Isn't the whole thing stemming from Hillary not using her @state.gov email address and instead using a personal one on a private server? My other question is that are we certain the server for @state.gov emails is one that is secure? Would spillage occur even if it had been sent to her official email because of the security level of the email servers?

I'm asking genuinely, because as I said in my post, we don't email sensitive information for reasons like this. Obviously I am aware there are more secure email servers out there than what we have, but would the security level of the server for the @state.gov email addresses be at that level?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 05:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How does the assistant assume it will be on the same server if she sends it to a private email address? Isn't the whole thing stemming from Hillary not using her @state.gov email address and instead using a personal one on a private server? My other question is that are we certain the server for @state.gov emails is one that is secure? Would spillage occur even if it had been sent to her official email because of the security level of the email servers?

I'm asking genuinely, because as I said in my post, we don't email sensitive information for reasons like this. Obviously I am aware there are more secure email servers out there than what we have, but would the security level of the server for the @state.gov email addresses be at that level?

Because Hillary chose to use her personal email as her official email; in the example provided the assistant had no choice but to send it to her personal email. 

I am not a cyber-security expert, but I will say no spillage would have occurred if anything is sent and received on the same server. The only issue would be that you sent information to someone that did not have the permissions to read it.

I'm just a lowly HR Supervisor and I have all my official mail set to encrypt automatically.  

[GMDino]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

Quote:The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained

The saga of Hillary Clinton and her emails took an unusual turn on Friday: the State Department announced it is withholding 22 emails because they contain information marked "top secret." And Clinton's campaign immediately objected, putting out a statement demanding that the emails be released.

So what is going on here? Why are these emails top secret, why is it a big deal, and why would Clinton, of all people, want them released?



It's impossible to know the answers to those questions with absolute certainty without seeing the emails. But the key dispute is over whether the classification shows that Clinton was emailing out highly sensitive secrets or if these were everyday emails that just got swept up in America's deeply broken classification system. There's some real reason to believe that the latter is at least possible. Here's what we know and how to parse this latest email controversy.


One really key issue here is when the emails were classified


This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?


Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?


Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.


The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."



But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.


According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.


This might all just be a product of America's problem with overclassification


The American government's system for classifying things as secret is widely considered a giant mess, by which agencies reflexively overclassify things, and the reasons for classifying often make little sense. It is thus extremely easy to imagine that Clinton's emails were classified not because they contained super-sensitive national secrets, and possibly not for any good reason at all, but rather just as a product of America's broken classification system.


This goes back to 1982, when the Reagan administration began a program of such aggressive classification that the unofficial slogan was, "When in doubt, classify." This waned under Bill Clinton but shot back up dramatically under George W. Bush, so much so that by 2004 the mere bureaucracy for classifying documents cost $7 billion per year.


Even John Bolton, a senior Bush official who often championed executive secrecy, once complained, "If there is anyone who fully understands our ‘system’ for protecting classified information, I have yet to meet him."


The problem was not so much secrecy itself as bureaucratic disarray; something that contains no obviously sensitive information might nonetheless be reflexively classified, or might be classified because the information at some point passed through someone or something that also handles classified information. Or maybe the information is banal but it was later wrapped into a report or document that is itself classified for different reasons.


The problem, in other words, isn't that the rules for classification are too strict. It's that the rules are unclear, messy, or contradictory, to the degree that the rules exist at all, and individual people and agencies have learned to overclassify to stay on the safe side.


The problem has grown so severe that it has hampered even the ability of American intelligence officials and policymakers to access the information they need to do their jobs. The head of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, told Congress in 2005 that "the failure to share information was the single most important reason why the United States government failed to detect and disrupt the 9/11 plot." He warned, "Information has to flow more freely. Much more information needs to be declassified. A great deal of information should never be classified at all."


In 2010, as a result, Congress passed the Reducing Over-Classification Act, which ordered federal agencies to do exactly that.

But no one thinks that overclassification has been fixed. Federal agencies still have a habit of heavily classifying things, regardless of whether they need to be.


As an example of how silly this can get, State Department employees are banned from reading WikiLeaks cables or articles that quote them, as the cables include classified information. So the people responsible for guiding American foreign policy are barred from reading foreign policy coverage that you and I may access freely. Virtually no one in the State Department likes this policy, by the way, but it is a product of the government's larger, and largely broken, system of assigning and dealing with classifications.


So what does that mean? Do Clinton's emails contain sensitive national secrets?


The unsatisfying truth is that we don't know. The only way to know for sure is to read the emails, and the government is just not very good at declassifying things like this quickly or easily. The Clinton administration had to fight pretty hard to roll back Reagan-era classification practices. Maybe the Obama administration will find a way, if this becomes a problem for Hillary Clinton, but it could also end up hanging over her for months.


Unfortunately this story will be immediately politicized, polarizing people into seeing Clinton as absolutely guilty or absolutely innocent.

The Associated Press got a little carried away in writing this up, declaring that the government had "confirmed" that "Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets." Maybe this will turn out to be true, but at present we have no idea that it is, and it strikes me as irresponsible to assert this when anyone who has reported on the government's overclassification addiction knows that classified information is just as likely to be banal as is to be "the US government's most closely guarded secrets."


Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, released a statement defending Clinton, saying that he had read many of the emails and urging people to remember that the classification process can be messy, particularly with after-the-fact classification like that applied here. But Schiff has an obvious political interest in seeing Clinton defended here, so take that with a grain of salt.


It makes sense why the Clinton campaign would want these emails released. If they remain top secret, then this will give her Republican opponents an opening to accuse her of bandying highly sensitive secrets around on her private email account, and thus paint her as dangerously irresponsible.


The Clinton campaign's statement is obviously meant to imply that the emails are harmless enough to be immediately released and thus do not contain anything particularly sensitive. But it's also possible this is just a clever bluff.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2016, 05:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm asking genuinely, because as I said in my post, we don't email sensitive information for reasons like this. Obviously I am aware there are more secure email servers out there than what we have, but would the security level of the server for the @state.gov email addresses be at that level?

Why does it matter?  Govt IT does not monitor her private server, issue #1.  Information on her private server is "outside" FOIA requests, relying on her cooperation and compliance, issue #2.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But trying to deflect the attention away from Hillary's actions to my inability to know the meanings of different words is a tactic.

A feeble and transparent one; but one, non the less. 

So I am not allowed to point out the fallacies in your logic when discussing this issue with you?  Pointing out that you are wrong is somehow "deflecting"?


This is getting ridiculous.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 05:26 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why does it matter?  Govt IT does not monitor her private server, issue #1.  Information on her private server is "outside" FOIA requests, relying on her cooperation and compliance, issue #2.

More info here.  Too long to copy and paste.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/