Emailgate - Uh Oh. None Dare Call it Conspiracy?

[dismal]

This is not a fact in dispute:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255

She sent over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server.

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize the 66 emails referred to in the OP are only from the latest batch that was released. It is a huge blunder, but given that nobody seems to have questioned the practice it seems to have been a flaw in State Department security policy. Sounds more like laziness than a conspiracy.

It's also against the law to send classified information on a non secure system. This is why the FBI is involved.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm just so very tired of anything being a scandalgate.

I mean, i recall Watergate.

I don't give a rat's if the best thing the media can come up with is Hillary's Emailgate.
But i also don't give a rat's about Christie's Bridgegate.
Or Trump's Hairgate.

Just the name is now telling me it's not worth any emotional investment.

 

[untermensche]

It's also against the law to send classified information on a non secure system. This is why the FBI is involved.

It would have to be "knowingly" sending classified information.

Otherwise, if some system was successfully hacked by criminals it would make everybody using it also a criminal.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's also against the law to send classified information on a non secure system. This is why the FBI is involved.

It would have to be "knowingly" sending classified information.

Well, no.
The burden is on the person with access to classified information. They have to ensure that the information does not contain classified data, whether it's been formally labeled with those handy (S) or (C) or (TS) paragraph headers.

The applicable guidance is typically phrased '...which he or she knows, or should know, or could be expected to know, contains information of a classified nature.'

So, you can spend an hour reading the classification guide or you can just use a secure platform to cover your ass. Which also has created problems as paranoid people overclassify every little goddamned thing and create literally tons of classified information that has nothing to do with national security or even embarrassing details of how the government works, but it's easier than trying to figure out if the five sentence memo contains classified data.

 

[untermensche]

It would have to be "knowingly" sending classified information.

Well, no.
The burden is on the person with access to classified information. They have to ensure that the information does not contain classified data, whether it's been formally labeled with those handy (S) or (C) or (TS) paragraph headers.

The applicable guidance is typically phrased '...which he or she knows, or should know, or could be expected to know, contains information of a classified nature.'

So, you can spend an hour reading the classification guide or you can just use a secure platform to cover your ass. Which also has created problems as paranoid people overclassify every little goddamned thing and create literally tons of classified information that has nothing to do with national security or even embarrassing details of how the government works, but it's easier than trying to figure out if the five sentence memo contains classified data.

The "knowingly" is knowing the network is not secure.

 

[dismal]

It would have to be "knowingly" sending classified information.

Well, no.
The burden is on the person with access to classified information. They have to ensure that the information does not contain classified data, whether it's been formally labeled with those handy (S) or (C) or (TS) paragraph headers.

The applicable guidance is typically phrased '...which he or she knows, or should know, or could be expected to know, contains information of a classified nature.'

So, you can spend an hour reading the classification guide or you can just use a secure platform to cover your ass. Which also has created problems as paranoid people overclassify every little goddamned thing and create literally tons of classified information that has nothing to do with national security or even embarrassing details of how the government works, but it's easier than trying to figure out if the five sentence memo contains classified data.

And now that we are in excess of 1000 emails containing classified information it seems hard to argue that Hillary was not at least grossly negligent or willfully indifferent in her handling of classified information. As Secretary of State she ought to have known that much of the work email she received contained classified information as almost al information related to negotiations with foreign governments is classified. Not to mention the latest email highlighted in this thread where she appears to be specifically requesting classified information be sent unsecure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where do you get "thousands"? The Fox News article in the OP says there were 66 emails that contained information that has since been classified, and none of it was at the time when they were sent.

This is not a fact in dispute:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255

She sent over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server.

Confidential != classified.

 

[RavenSky]

This is not a fact in dispute:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255

She sent over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server.

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize the 66 emails referred to in the OP are only from the latest batch that was released. It is a huge blunder, but given that nobody seems to have questioned the practice it seems to have been a flaw in State Department security policy. Sounds more like laziness than a conspiracy.

She did not send "over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server". She sent approximately 43,000 emails of which, to date, 1,274 have been retroactively made classified.

From the very article Dismal linked:

The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.

(bolding mine)

 

[RavenSky]

I'm just so very tired of anything being a scandalgate.

I mean, i recall Watergate.

I don't give a rat's if the best thing the media can come up with is Hillary's Emailgate.
But i also don't give a rat's about Christie's Bridgegate.
Or Trump's Hairgate.

Just the name is now telling me it's not worth any emotional investment.

"Bridgegate" is actually a rather big deal (in an amazingly petty sort of way).

"Emailgate" - not a big deal

"Hairgate" I've never even heard of, but I can just imagine

That said, I agree with you that the "...gate" nonsense needs to stop. It's stupid.

 

[Jayjay]

This is not a fact in dispute:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255

She sent over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server.

Confidential != classified.

Wrong. "Confidential" in this context refers to lowest level of security classification. Other levels are "Secret" and "Top Secret".

 

[Jayjay]

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize the 66 emails referred to in the OP are only from the latest batch that was released. It is a huge blunder, but given that nobody seems to have questioned the practice it seems to have been a flaw in State Department security policy. Sounds more like laziness than a conspiracy.

She did not send "over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server". She sent approximately 43,000 emails of which, to date, 1,274 have been retroactively made classified.

From the very article Dismal linked:

The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.

(bolding mine)

It makes no difference. The messages were retroactively classified because the State Department deemed them to contain information that would damage national security (or otherwise had to be kept from being published). The messages themselves were not classified before because they were on Clinton's private server and not scrubbed until now. This may or may not make it technically illegal, but it's still a fucking stupid idea for person in Clinton's position to use a private email server. Don't they have an IT department in US government?

 

[dismal]

She did not send "over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server". She sent approximately 43,000 emails of which, to date, 1,274 have been retroactively made classified.

From the very article Dismal linked:

The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.

(bolding mine)

It makes no difference. The messages were retroactively classified because the State Department deemed them to contain information that would damage national security (or otherwise had to be kept from being published). The messages themselves were not classified before because they were on Clinton's private server and not scrubbed until now. This may or may not make it technically illegal, but it's still a fucking stupid idea for person in Clinton's position to use a private email server. Don't they have an IT department in US government?

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

 

[Harry Bosch]

She did not send "over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server". She sent approximately 43,000 emails of which, to date, 1,274 have been retroactively made classified.

From the very article Dismal linked:

The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.

(bolding mine)

It makes no difference. The messages were retroactively classified because the State Department deemed them to contain information that would damage national security (or otherwise had to be kept from being published). The messages themselves were not classified before because they were on Clinton's private server and not scrubbed until now. This may or may not make it technically illegal, but it's still a fucking stupid idea for person in Clinton's position to use a private email server. Don't they have an IT department in US government?

Jay: It's not that I disagree with you. It's more that I'll be voting for the candidate who I think that best manage the US economy, minimalize our impact in the ME, avoid WW3, and elect justices who won't return the US to the dark ages.

 

[fromderinside]

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

DOIT Data Classification Methodology. http://www.ct.gov/best/lib/best/Data_Classification_Methodology_2_8_10.pdf

Proper procedure for classifying US documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class...ure_for_classifying_U.S._government_documents

To be properly classified, a classification authority (an individual charged by the U.S. government with the right and responsibility to properly determine the level of classification and the reason for classification) must determine the appropriate classification level, as well as the reason information is to be classified. A determination must be made as to how and when the document will be declassified, and the document marked accordingly. Executive Order 13526 describes the reasons and requirements for information to be classified and declassified (Part 1). Individual agencies within the government develop guidelines for what information is classified and at what level.

Often those responsibilities are distributed. A Secretary of State may not recognize a document may be sensitive, not be adequately familiar with standards to appropriately determine whether it is sensitive, confidential, secret or top secret. She may use it in correspondence with others within her department and She will send it on to properly trained personnel to determine exact level of classification. Having performed her operational tasks those who are trained in classification will process the material and perhaps even interviewing the SoC and classify the document which will become formal when it is confirmed in system review. That classification will eventually catch up with the material. The top priority of SoC is to get operational work done within the system. She will not transmit undetermined information outside operational channels.

As far as I know the only thing wrong with SoC emails is that they were held on a private server. There is no evidence they were divulged to unqualified individuals. So she is within the law and the House email Committee, like the House Benghazi committee just keeps pumping public money down a political hole for propaganda purposes.

Your claim that material is classified upon receipt or transmission is inaccurate. Your claim that information only reduces in classification over time is also inaccurate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She did not send "over a thousand confidential emails on her private unsecured server". She sent approximately 43,000 emails of which, to date, 1,274 have been retroactively made classified.

From the very article Dismal linked:

The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.

(bolding mine)

It makes no difference. The messages were retroactively classified because the State Department deemed them to contain information that would damage national security (or otherwise had to be kept from being published). The messages themselves were not classified before because they were on Clinton's private server and not scrubbed until now. This may or may not make it technically illegal, but it's still a fucking stupid idea for person in Clinton's position to use a private email server. Don't they have an IT department in US government?

Jay: It's not that I disagree with you. It's more that I'll be voting for the candidate who I think that best manage the US economy, minimalize our impact in the ME, avoid WW3, and elect justices who won't return the US to the dark ages.

He will definitely add something to the plate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

Sometimes information is classified after it's realized to be of importance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Often those responsibilities are distributed. A Secretary of State may not recognize a document may be sensitive, not be adequately familiar with standards to appropriately determine whether it is sensitive, confidential, secret or top secret. She may use it in correspondence with others within her department and She will send it on to properly trained personnel to determine exact level of classification. Having performed her operational tasks those who are trained in classification will process the material and perhaps even interviewing the SoC and classify the document which will become formal when it is confirmed in system review. That classification will eventually catch up with the material. The top priority of SoC is to get operational work done within the system. She will not transmit undetermined information outside operational channels.

And often the only reason something is classified is how the information was obtained. Someone who doesn't know where it came from (which in many cases is need-to-know information itself) has no way of realizing such stuff should be classified.

Suppose: "Putin likes waffles".

Obtained from the debrief of his cook that defected--harmless, no reason to classify it.
Obtained from the spy camera mounted in his dining room--TS/SCI.

 

[untermensche]

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

Sometimes information is classified after it's realized to be of importance.

Mostly things are classified to hide the lies government officials are telling.

Almost none of it has any real security importance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

Sometimes information is classified after it's realized to be of importance.

We go through that regularly.
Our Fleet liaison gets status reports on the ships we support, scrubbed by their office, with information needed by us.

Every so often, they will decide that the information that was sent is classified. Usually it's something like deciding that 'in aggregate,' the data may be useful in harming national interests.
It's not a matter of disregard or negligence on our part, but we still have to submit our hard drives to be scrubbed.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't they have an IT department in US government?

That's a scary thought.
"I can't open my emails."
"Have you tried invading a MidEastern country?"
"Of course I have, do you think i'm an idiot!?!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nonsense. Information does not become more classified over time, it becomes less. If it's classified now it was classified then. The fact that it wasn't marked as such is not exculpatory, it's (at a minimum) a sign of additional negligence or disregard.

Not in the real world.
Many discrete government authorities can apply classification to a piece of information, for reasons that will vary by the authority. Someone may decide to apply a level of classification to protect an agency's agenda, the source's identity, a politico's decision, future plans, or even national security.

It's possible to generate and discuss data that's not classified until a third party discovers it and then they decide to classify it for reasons the other participants did not know about (or even give a rat's ass about if they did know).

It can also be unclassified data until it comes from a certain agency. The weather in a foreign country, for example, is not classified. Unless it becomes associated with the targeting of nuclear weapons, then it's confidential as it might reveal our targets or possible targeting.