Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails • Hacker News Board

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#121

Post by SeanLuke » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:21 AM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #71

SeanLuke wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the current investigation, they've discovered classified emails - some classified after the fact, some not "some not"? If you are implying that Clinton's server held messages marked as classified when sent, could you provide some evidence to this effect? The Clinton campaign is quite adamant that this is not true.

I did not imply anything, I said it quite clearly: some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. According to CNN: > Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are un…

> some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them.

As far as I can tell, the article to which you refer says nothing of the sort. It says that the email contains information which was classified after the fact. The article is based on the Inspector General's letter (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-....), which says the same thing. Do you have evidence that the information was classified at the time it was mailed to her server? Her campaign says it was not.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#122

Post by salgernon » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:24 AM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #36

epistasis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems somewhat worse, they used private email on servers they did not control?

A rare lapse in following procedure, likely accidental, is not even on the same planet as setting up a private email server to avoid oversight. Those emails would still be safer on gmail than in some small IT firm's bathroom closet.

You are asserting that she did this to avoid oversight. If that were truly the case, wouldn't she have had a drastic hard drive failure and unreliable backups? That model has worked for IT departments for years.

Isn't it far more likely that she instructed someone on her staff to instruct someone in the back office to instruct some underpaid admin to just "make crap work so I can stop using dialup?"

I know we cannot prove a negative, but I'd bet $100 she couldn't edit an /etc/sendmail.cf without bricking it. (I know that's not your point, I just find it an amusing thought.)

Edit: parent was edited and my reply appears nonsensical. The parent stated that the server was set up to avoid oversight, which I do not believe has been established as true.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#123

Post by caseysoftware » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #102

caseysoftware wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than functional or not, it is the duty of people with access to classified information to protect it. You sign tons of paperwork to that effect. Honest mistakes happen all the time. If you're lucky, your hand is slapped and people move along. But it is possible to have your clearance revoked - like Sandy Berger - or even serve prison time for purposeful malfeasance or disregard for the rules. And this isn't a ne…

Which works when you're the President and can have a custom device made. But what about when you're Secretary of State? Or even, god forbid, some poor functionary down at the bottom end of State? Or the Department of Indian Affairs? I absolutely agree that protecting classified information by whatever rules are in place is of primary importance. However, we've all seen dysfunctional organizations. So I'm also sympath…

> ignoring soft guidelines

Except we're not talking about "soft guidelines" or simple recommendations but actual laws:

* Executive Order 13526 - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-...

* 18 U.S. Code § 793 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

* The 2009 Federal Records Act

* (probably) The Freedom of Information Act

in addition to a classified information non-disclosure agreement:

* https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C...

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#124

Post by yompers888 » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #102

caseysoftware wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than functional or not, it is the duty of people with access to classified information to protect it. You sign tons of paperwork to that effect. Honest mistakes happen all the time. If you're lucky, your hand is slapped and people move along. But it is possible to have your clearance revoked - like Sandy Berger - or even serve prison time for purposeful malfeasance or disregard for the rules. And this isn't a ne…

Which works when you're the President and can have a custom device made. But what about when you're Secretary of State? Or even, god forbid, some poor functionary down at the bottom end of State? Or the Department of Indian Affairs? I absolutely agree that protecting classified information by whatever rules are in place is of primary importance. However, we've all seen dysfunctional organizations. So I'm also sympath…

You don't use custom devices, of course; in fact, your phone stays at the front. I've never known of anyone to be able to move IT equipment in and out of classified environments. I'm assuming that they make exceptions just for these top leaders so that they can move about and interface with the world while still keeping connected to classified information.

So, if it's some poor functionary at the bottom of state, his ass is out on the street if his phone comes into the classified area. Some spillage can sometimes be met with a slap on the wrist, but there's very little chance that you'll get off easy after bringing a microphone/GPS/camera/networked/mass storage device in to secure areas.

Most of the NSA people are free to buy Huawei Nexus 6p (although I'll bet there's some statistically significant disinclination) because their phones should never be interfacing with any of the information they use in their work.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#125

Post by rrggrr » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

Does anyone doubt a grand that a Grand Jury would indict based on this evidence alone? I would like to see a Judge or Jury hear evidence and render a verdict here.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#126

Post by yompers888 » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:39 AM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #84

meric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a two star general who did this, he'd be in jail.

> If it was a two star general who did this, he'd be in jail. You go to jail if you anger someone powerful and/or are disloyal, e.g., by leaking something without authorization or whistleblowing. Everyone else gets a slap on the wrist at most, afaict. General and CIA Director Petraeus gave classified information to his mistress; CIA Director John Deutch kept classified information unsecured on his home computer. Neit…

You see similar things in the military as a tension between enlisted service members and officers. It's a common belief that officers can get away with murder while the enlisted are given severe punishments for minor infractions. There's plenty of truth to it, but also a less visible component; it's far easier to get rid of officers than enlisted because enlistment confers rights, whereas officers serve at the pleasure of the President. So while officers aren't being made to stand in front of everyone while being berated for showing up late, I've known officers to be kicked out for things as minor as poorly-timed kidney stones (right before they were supposed to start a school.)

Anyway, all that is to say that the underlings are subjected to the rules, but up at the top it's more a matter of shuffling people away, often with minimal fanfare.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#127

Post by hackuser » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:40 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #115

hackuser wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> McChrystal ... got thrown out for showing distain for the same wasteful, corrupt system that everyone else gripes about. OT: IIRC he resigned after he and his staff openly mocked to a journalist the President, VP and others in the chain of command, and their comments were published in Rolling Stone. That's not an effort to end corruption, it's insubordination, apparently widespread in his staff under his leadership…

From the article (which is partially reproduced and fleshed out with additional chapters in the book) a lot of the mocking seemed to concern involvement: "Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. 'It was a 10-minute photo op,' says an adviser to McChrystal. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who…

> I'd probably be in a less than charitable mood concerning the entire enterprise.

I don't blame him for his mood but I do for his actions. He's a general running a major operation; millions of lives and the welfare of nations depend on him; those are the responsibilities and stakes. He can't undermine the enterprise because he feels like complaining to a reporter.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#128

Post by caseysoftware » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:42 AM UTC

SeanLuke wrote: post #121

caseysoftware wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not imply anything, I said it quite clearly: some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. According to CNN: > Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are un…

> some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. As far as I can tell, the article to which you refer says nothing of the sort. It says that the email contains information which was classified after the fact. The article is based on the Inspector General's letter ( http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.... ), which says the same thing. Do you hav…

Well as long as the campaign is your source, you should definitely believe them. They're much better informed than the FBI, State Department, and Senate Select Intelligence Committee investigators.

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#129

Post by caseysoftware » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:43 AM UTC

yompers888 wrote: post #124

ethbro wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works when you're the President and can have a custom device made. But what about when you're Secretary of State? Or even, god forbid, some poor functionary down at the bottom end of State? Or the Department of Indian Affairs? I absolutely agree that protecting classified information by whatever rules are in place is of primary importance. However, we've all seen dysfunctional organizations. So I'm also sympath…

You don't use custom devices, of course; in fact, your phone stays at the front. I've never known of anyone to be able to move IT equipment in and out of classified environments. I'm assuming that they make exceptions just for these top leaders so that they can move about and interface with the world while still keeping connected to classified information. So, if it's some poor functionary at the bottom of state, his…

I once had my two-way pager destroyed because I forgot to check it in one day. I had to pay for the new one myself. :(

Re: Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails

#130

Post by jonnybgood » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 5:46 AM UTC

SeanLuke wrote: post #121

caseysoftware wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not imply anything, I said it quite clearly: some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. According to CNN: > Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are un…

> some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. As far as I can tell, the article to which you refer says nothing of the sort. It says that the email contains information which was classified after the fact. The article is based on the Inspector General's letter ( http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.... ), which says the same thing. Do you hav…

What is classified after the fact? It's pretty straight forward in that letter. The emails contained info derived from classified info. Info derived from classified info is itself classified. There is no classified after the fact. It was all classified from the get go.