Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[csyphrett]

I think it has been noted that the state department uses unsecure lines to communicate when they can't use a secure server. Comey slammed the whole State Department in his statement. Kerry was not happy

CES 

[csyphrett]

Additionally the Times reported didn't just use one server in her house. She used double digits, all of which were cleaned and stored after she switched them out.

 

I think the main problem is Hillary is shown in various places using her phone to check things. A cell is easier to crack because it's easier to get at by anybody, but the FBI couldn't find a breach.

CES    

[薔薇語]

As to your question:

 

I don't need to receive an email from you (or intercept one) to know where your server is.  Having your email address is enough.  Likewise, knowing where your server is (or having your email address) is not "access to the system."  It doesn't provide access in any form.  Knowing the IP address of a public-facing server is how the intertubes work and does not represent a vulnerability in any way.

Perhaps there is a bit lacking in clarity here. 

 

It wasn't my intent to suggest that simplying knowing my e-mail address would give you access. But more that knowing my email address lets you know where information is being stored and thus where to go. 

 

To use an analogy - Joe is a Big-Game-Hunter. He really wants to hunt a particular large beast. He does not know where that beast lives at the moment but he soon hears the unmistakable cry of that critter. Heading of in that direction, he find his target. He of course must still track down its exact location and follow through with the killing blow and retrieval but had he not heard that initial cry from the animal, he would have had no chance. 

 

Now, moving to your initial point: I think this is best dealt with in two parts. First is the stricter rules and the second is with the general implication of your statements. 

 

On the initial side, it isn't up to any particular employee in the government or contracted by the government to decide security procedures; this includes 'making improvements'. While I am sure you could point to some weaknesses in the national security system, we recognize that you don't have the unilateral authority to change security procedures. This is even true of the Secretary of State. 

 

On the second side, your argument I think runs a rather slippery slope. It would imply that all federal data would more secure by being distributed on several servers that lacked 24/7 security professionals (like the Secretary's), and were poorly coordinated among each other. Perhaps there is something to be said for a layer of anonymity, but I would doubt such a system would be truly better off than the centralized one we have (even with its red tape). And of course the Secretary wasn't pleading to reduce red-tape nor doing something as a means of bolstering security. So I think the whole issue on this line is moot twice over: It wasn't her goal and it wasn't / shouldn't have been her prerogative to make such a choice. 

 

Soar. 

[Simon]

Perhaps there is a bit lacking in clarity here. 

 

It wasn't my intent to suggest that simplying knowing my e-mail address would give you access. But more that knowing my email address lets you know where information is being stored and thus where to go. 

 

To use an analogy - Joe is a Big-Game-Hunter. He really wants to hunt a particular large beast. He does not know where that beast lives at the moment but he soon hears the unmistakable cry of that critter. Heading of in that direction, he find his target. He of course must still track down its exact location and follow through with the killing blow and retrieval but had he not heard that initial cry from the animal, he would have had no chance. 

 

Now, moving to your initial point: I think this is best dealt with in two parts. First is the stricter rules and the second is with the general implication of your statements. 

 

On the initial side, it isn't up to any particular employee in the government or contracted by the government to decide security procedures; this includes 'making improvements'. While I am sure you could point to some weaknesses in the national security system, we recognize that you don't have the unilateral authority to change security procedures. This is even true of the Secretary of State. 

 

On the second side, your argument I think runs a rather slippery slope. It would imply that all federal data would more secure by being distributed on several servers that lacked 24/7 security professionals (like the Secretary's), and were poorly coordinated among each other. Perhaps there is something to be said for a layer of anonymity, but I would doubt such a system would be truly better off than the centralized one we have (even with its red tape). And of course the Secretary wasn't pleading to reduce red-tape nor doing something as a means of bolstering security. So I think the whole issue on this line is moot twice over: It wasn't her goal and it wasn't / shouldn't have been her prerogative to make such a choice. 

 

Soar. 

Here's the problem: knowing your email address tells me only where your emails originate from.  Storage, internal routing, etc. are all hidden.  

 

And I don't need to receive an email from you to know your address.  Nor do I need to know your address to know where your emails originate from (public-facing IP).

 

To use your analogy - Anyone in the world can hear the cry of the critter.  It's public information and is broadcast to everyone every time the animal makes a sound.

 

On the arguments:

 

I'm not saying that I disagree with the statements that Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of a private server for sending State Department emails.  Not at all.  But that doesn't point to grounds for prosecution and, as stated by Comey, has no precedent for such.  The closest you'll come to a non-technical analogy would be someone who discussed classified information with qualified people (cleared to receive said information) in a public place.  They didn't willfully compromise the information, but they handled it carelessly in a manner that could allow hostile parties to overhear it.  Careless, but not criminal.

[Certified]

I've stated multiple times in this thread that linking to articles or videos does not absolve you of the rules of the thread -- they will be treated as if you made the statements yourself in a post.

 

The rules stated that videos and articles would be treated as if we had made the statement. The only thing I can see that would be a violation is posting half truths or lies. Are you saying that this is what the warning is for, posting something misleading or a lie? 

[Greywind]

Negligence is its own offense. Its own criminality. That itself is a crime. Anyone else at this point would be losing their security clearance, their job and probably looking at a day in court.

[薔薇語]

Simon: I think I understand you better but perhaps not to the extent desired. 

I think the Director over stated the rules for prosecution in security cases. That was the bigger point surrounding my linked article. I believe it was also the case in the Young Turks' video (assuming it is the one I think it is). In general, security breaches don't require intent to do harm. Nor is the "I didn't know any better" (ignorance of the law) defense generally acceptable. Lastly, clear and provable harm has rarely been a standard. Thus, when two folks talk opening about classified data at Starbucks, we are not concerned if they intended to give classified data to spies, didn't realize that discussing classified data in public was not okay, nor whether or not any spies or such were actually present at that particular starbucks at that particular time. It is rather that there is a reckless breach of security. Harm, knowledge, and intent are largely non-issues in ascertaining guilt. 

However, it would seem that in this case the Director is applying those standards here. The Secretary did not provably harm national security nor seem to have had intent to harm national security. Although the ignorance of the law bit she seems to have clearly have been a slip up even by the FBI directors statements about how anyone in her or a similar position should have known better. And while these are certainly good standards to have in a lot of cases (robbery, fraud, violent crime, etc), they are not the standard nor reasonably should be the standard in the realm of national security. 

I think the folks crying foul on this one (myself included) are upset most by a perceived double standard in government. 

Soar. 
 

[Simon]

The rules stated that videos and articles would be treated as if we had made the statement. The only thing I can see that would be a violation is posting half truths or lies. Are you saying that this is what the warning is for, posting something misleading or a lie? 

Yes.

 

If you feel that this is unfair, I'd suggest bringing it up with an administrator.

 

Oh...wait...

[Simon]

Negligence is its own offense. Its own criminality. That itself is a crime. Anyone else at this point would be losing their security clearance, their job and probably looking at a day in court.

That is actually very false, a fact that is corroborated by Director Comey in his statement.

 

Which of the following are you alluding to:

 

1. Director Comey lied when he said that while Clinton's actions were extremely careless, there was no precedent for prosecution given the facts and evidence (and that there is precedent for the opposite, hence his recommendation)

 

2. Director Comey is misinformed and you or the public sector has better information

[Simon]

Simon: I think I understand you better but perhaps not to the extent desired. 

 

I think the Director over stated the rules for prosecution in security cases. That was the bigger point surrounding my linked article. I believe it was also the case in the Young Turks' video (assuming it is the one I think it is). In general, security breaches don't require intent to do harm. Nor is the "I didn't know any better" (ignorance of the law) defense generally acceptable. Lastly, clear and provable harm has rarely been a standard. Thus, when two folks talk opening about classified data at Starbucks, we are not concerned if they intended to give classified data to spies, didn't realize that discussing classified data in public was not okay, nor whether or not any spies or such were actually present at that particular starbucks at that particular time. It is rather that there is a reckless breach of security. Harm, knowledge, and intent are largely non-issues in ascertaining guilt. 

 

However, it would seem that in this case the Director is applying those standards here. The Secretary did not provably harm national security nor seem to have had intent to harm national security. Although the ignorance of the law bit she seems to have clearly have been a slip up even by the FBI directors statements about how anyone in her or a similar position should have known better. And while these are certainly good standards to have in a lot of cases (robbery, fraud, violent crime, etc), they are not the standard nor reasonably should be the standard in the realm of national security. 

 

I think the folks crying foul on this one (myself included) are upset most by a perceived double standard in government. 

 

Soar. 

 

OK...I think I see where the confusion is: lack of understanding of the nature of the communications channel itself and the impact that has on the ability/likelihood of prosecution.  I alluded to this previously in my data at rest statement.

 

If you have a system that is a secured system meant to store classified information, there are controls around that system to both limit access to that information only to those qualified to access it, limit the ability of individuals to modify that information, and the limit the ability of individuals to move that information to a non-secured environment.  Take Snowden as an example -- he took classified information from controlled systems and transferred it onto USB drives (and other devices) with the clear and demonstrated intent of providing it to non-qualified individuals.  Regardless of your opinions of his actions as a whistleblower, this meets all definitions for prosecution.

 

With email, you're dealing with something else entirely -- it's not data at rest.  Clinton did not take files from a controlled/air-gapped system, move them to her personal server, and then send them out.  She communicated (wrote emails containing) classified information.  Even this is not a problem - it's the nature of her job at the time.  That she used a personal server to do this means that one end of the email chain was not under direct control of the government -- everything after the sending server is exactly as it would have been at any other time.  The concern this raises is that her personal server _may_ not have been as well-protected as the State Department systems (though they found no evidence of a compromise to the servers, while the State Department systems were compromised during the same timeframe). The main issue this raises is one of an audit trail or accountability -- it is more difficult for the government to maintain a full audit trail of the communications.  Not impossible -- and this is the nature of what the FBI did (which was pretty impressive)...they reconstructed the audit trail for her email traffic.  In more detail than you would likely get from the State Department systems.

 

The best non-technical example I can give is similar to the one used above:  you have someone making a phone call to an individual outside of the US. The person knows classified information and is authorized to discuss it with the person she is calling. While they have apparently taken precautions to ensure that their own phone is not compromised or monitored, they are not calling from a functionally identical phone within the State Department.  This means that there is some concern that the originating phone may not be as secure as it could be.  Everything after the originating phone is still exactly as it would be in any other case:  the lines of communication between the two individuals could still be monitored in either case, the receiving phone could be compromised and/or monitored in either case, or the receiving individual could be compromised and/or monitored in either case.

[Simon]

Put slightly differently: Clinton was authorized to have the classified information that she placed in her emails.  She was authorized to send that information to the individuals she was communicating with. Finally, she was authorized to send that information via the communication channels that were utilized (i.e. unsecured email).  

 

She was (in Comey's words) extremely careless in her decision to use a personal server as the origin point of those communications, but the communications themselves were not an issue.

[Certified]

Yes.

 

If you feel that this is unfair, I'd suggest bringing it up with an administrator.

 

Oh...wait...

 

Thank you for clarifying. I'd be happy to have a conversation about any point in that news story you feel is misleading. 

[Simon]

Thank you for clarifying. I'd be happy to have a conversation about any point in that news story you feel is misleading. 

You won't get one -- you'll just get removed from this thread (potentially the NGD as a whole) and placed in the moderation queue for the foreseeable future.

 

You have the rules.  If you choose to continue to push the bounds, you'll suffer the same consequences that others have.  This is the last post I'll make on this and I would STRONGLY SUGGEST that you follow suit.

[megaplayboy]

Apparently Bob Corker and Joni Ernst have removed themselves from consideration for Trump's VP pick.

I wonder if Mike Pence will follow suit.

[Old Man]

Being cleared and being innocent are not always the same thing. Director Comey's own press conference read like "here is all the reasons that we should arrest the Secretary but somehow we won't."

It kind of had to, since he's a Republican but doesn't have enough evidence to recommend prosecution.

 

It is of note that this standard of "intent" is not the standard used with issues of national security (and for good reason).

That's actually not accurate. U.S. Code 793 does require intent to injure the United States, in the very first sentence. Gross negligence is also mentioned, but that legal standard has not been met either.

 

There is a litany of folks who have gone to prison for mishandling top secret information.

Not really. The standard of intent for purposes of Espionage Act violations is really high. The spy who worked at my last company, who happened to take TS documents home where his girlfriend, who happened to be from the People's Republic of China, happened to be, didn't go to jail. Neither did Petraeus, who unquestionably gave TS material to his biographer, who he happened to be having an affair with. Neither did Scooter Libby, who intentionally leaked TS information to out a CIA agent in the field.

 

110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have been classified at the time they were sent.

8 of those chains contained information that was classified as top secret at the time they were sent and received on Secretary Clinton's unclassified private email server.

36 contained info that was Secret at the time.

8 contained confidential information.

 

2000 were later up listed as confidential post their initial transition and receipt (another reason you don't use unclassified servers!)

Another thing that no one seems to remember is that senior government officials have considerable leeway to use their judgment when it comes to disseminating classified information. It is a logistical nightmare to properly move classified information across SIPR, JWICS, dozens of government agency and military networks, and foreign governments. And keep it all air gapped from NIPR or the internet. I would expect State to have the ability to circumvent those procedures in a crisis situation.

 

There were several THOUSANDS of emails Secretary Clinton failed to turn over when she left office. Some of which had been deleted.

Of those THOUSANDS, three (3) were classified at the time of transmission.

 

Because she was not using a government account or exterior commercial account, there was no archiving of deleted emails (so the FBI has to just hope they recovered everything).

The folks that cleaned out the Secretary's email server then cleaned their own devices that they used and did so in a way that make it impossible for the FBI to verify any content.

Thousands? How about 22 million? Not that it really excuses the deletion of any records. Although that would be one way to maintain the security of the information.

 

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding with in those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation"

It's possible that an unclassified system was exactly the place for those conversations, although without knowing what was in the emails, we'll never know.

 

"None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system." - these systems weren't even on systems that had around the clock protection as would a government or even commercial sector account.

I should point out that it was State's servers, not Hillary's, that got hacked. It's conceivable that Hillary's server was more secure. Or at least less of a disaster.

 

 

She used her personal email extensively outside of the US in potentially hostile environments.

Well, she can't carry a SCIF with her. What would matter here is the security and encryption on her mobile, not which server she used.

[Pattern Ghost]

I should point out that it was State's servers, not Hillary's, that got hacked. It's conceivable that Hillary's server was more secure. Or at least less of a disaster.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if her servers were more secure.

 

The deletion of massive quantities of e-mails is, I think, going to be one thing that she's going to be attacked on. She'll be accused of wanting to keep back channel deals off the record, etc. However, I seriously doubt that's unique to her. Full transparency and diplomacy don't necessarily mix well, and I'm sure ever secretary of state since Jefferson has used unofficial communications channels to get the job done.

 

So, the more I think about it,the less I'm concerned about it.

[megaplayboy]

MSNBC reporting Sanders will endorse Clinton next Tuesday.

[Enforcer84]

Okay, just for the sake of curiosity, how many people honestly believed that there was even the slightest chance that Hillary Clinton would be indicted as a result of the recent FBI investigation? Anyone?

about as much as Gove getting indicted for deleting 22 million emails.

[Christopher R Taylor]

None.  Absolutely no chance that the Obama administration was going to indict his party's nominee for the presidency.  Zero.  It doesn't matter how much she lied (Comey's testimony before the Senate proves she did, repeatedly) or how incompetent and sloppy she was at minimum.  The party comes first for both parties.  That's the system: them vs us.

[Starlord]

None.  Absolutely no chance that the Obama administration was going to indict his party's nominee for the presidency.  Zero.  It doesn't matter how much she lied (Comey's testimony before the Senate proves she did, repeatedly) or how incompetent and sloppy she was at minimum.  The party comes first for both parties.  That's the system: them vs us.

 

This.

[Enforcer84]

I doubt we come into the equation at all. 

[Badger]

None.  Absolutely no chance that the Obama administration was going to indict his party's nominee for the presidency.  Zero.  It doesn't matter how much she lied (Comey's testimony before the Senate proves she did, repeatedly) or how incompetent and sloppy she was at minimum.  The party comes first for both parties.  That's the system: them vs us.

 

Yeah, pretty much what I expected on this for months. 

[Greywind]

That is actually very false, a fact that is corroborated by Director Comey in his statement.

 

Which of the following are you alluding to:

 

1. Director Comey lied when he said that while Clinton's actions were extremely careless, there was no precedent for prosecution given the facts and evidence (and that there is precedent for the opposite, hence his recommendation)

 

2. Director Comey is misinformed and you or the public sector has better information

 

You are correct, Dan. My apologies.

 

But it is interesting to note that the members of the military are held to a higher standard of conduct than the people that sit in positions of power in the government.

[wcw43921]

Trump Strongly Considering Retired US General For Running Mate

[csyphrett]

he's also considering the Newt according to the Journal

CES