|
Warbadger posted:Given the specific case of willfully avoiding the secure and internally audited system to pass all work related correspondence including a bunch of Classified stuff across a personal system for an extended amount of time because ~it's easier~ I wouldn't entirely rule jail time out had this been some random middle manager or whatever. So then why did she go through the hassle of using SIPRNet during her entire tenure for all classified communications? Necc0 fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Sep 4, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
Necc0 posted:So then why did she go through the hassle of using SIPRNet during her entire tenure for all classified communications? SIPRNet is airgapped from the regular internet and the workstations are locked down. If whomever you are talking to is on SIPRNet then you have to be on SIPRNet. Even if you wanted to reroute SPIRNet traffic to your own network and vice versa it would be very difficult and certainly raise some eyebrows. The_Franz fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:So then why did she go through the hassle of using SIPRNet during her entire tenure for all classified communications? Well, she didn't. Even if she had that doesn't make it any less against the rules, not an awful idea, or even cover all the reasons you're required to use State Department email for State Department business. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/ "In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status. Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said. "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 about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains. About 2,000 additional emails have been retroactively classified, or up-classified, meaning the information was not classified when it was first emailed. This is a regular practice when documents are reviewed for release, according to transparency experts." Note the bit about emails containing info that was later classified after review, that's why you keep your work correspondence on the secure system. Then there's the problem of the chunks of missing emails. One of the other reasons you are required to use State Department email (and furnish records in those exceptions where you get approved to use external systems) is because record-keeping is actually very important. "Throughout this saga, Clinton has said she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department. But Comey said FBI investigators uncovered "several thousand" work-related emails that she had not handed over, and three of those were classified at the time they were sent, though they were not marked as such. Comey added that some work-related emails are still out there, but FBI investigators were unable to find them. It’s possible those emails could contain classified information." Warbadger fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You should mark your posts "American Opinion", to help the OP find out the "non-american opinion of hilary's email "scandal" " without getting it mixed up with American opinions. id think the evident correctness and superior craftsmanship of my posting would be obvious enough
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Hrm, guess the FBI is smarter than you and those people. The FBI wants no part of indicting a cabinet official. That's my point. They would and do go much harder in the paint when they're investigating some anonymous bureaucrat without a national profile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:SIPRNet is airgapped from the regular internet and the workstations are locked down. If whomever you are talking to is on SIPRNet then you have to be on SIPRNet. Even if you wanted to reroute SPIRNet traffic to your own network and vice versa it would be very difficult and certainly raise some eyebrows. Yes that's my point. If she were recklessly disregarding classified material and forcing the DoS to follow her lead she would not have been using it. Warbadger posted:Well, she didn't. Are you saying that during her entire tenure as Secretary of State she'd only discussed anything classified a handful of times? Or are you saying she had some other as of yet undisclosed means of communicating the lion's share of classified material?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
If you wonder the non-american opinion, rather than "let's continue to US pol talking points": We don't care. Almost noone knows about it, as it is not reported about. There were some short notices in the newspapers about it, maybe a year or so ago, but it's not a part of current reporting on the election. As for my opinion, it's comparing a flu to the bubonic plague when you look at the two candidates, so no, I don't care about the email scandal. I don't expect either candidate to be likely to push US policy in a better direction, neither national policy or on the international stage, but it's still no competition of which one will be worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, she didn't. Even if she had that doesn't make it any less against the rules, not an awful idea, or even cover all the reasons you're required to use State Department email for State Department business. Yeah and in Germany which is not America nobody cares about these things. We expect our politicians, in so far as Germany even has any information worth classifying, to leak that information like a sieve while reflexively hitting reply all on emails so often that they crash the parliamentary email server (a thing that actually happened) and not realising/caring that adding a gmail account on your office machine in parliament doesn't make your gmail parliamentary email. Also there's a 100% chance that every """secure""" computer is already infiltrated by Russian and American hackers anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:39
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Between the tech talk and the GiP posters dick-swinging about who knows more about how classified intelligence is handled, this is easily the most boring scandal to hit America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/quick-follow-hillary-clintons-email http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/stategov-email-account-not-secure-account I'm just gonna leave these here. For those non-Americans who don't know, Mother Jones is one of the last journalistic companies that actually does meaningful journalism in America still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/quick-follow-hillary-clintons-email yeah and nobody cares, politicians being incompetent or negligent with any sort of technology or classified information is completely normal suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:yeah and nobody cares, politicians being incompetent or negligent with any sort of technology or classified information is completely normal I mean, the articles are basically about how the whole email scandal is literally nothing. So I suppose yes, I agree with you. Also the articles I posted observe that the notion that Hillary was the only one using private email or that if she was powerful she would've been punished is absurd. The email garbage represents the fact that American cyber security is top to bottom rotten to the core, underfunded, and woefully prone to compromising by state actors like the Russians. Not because of Hillary, but because the American policy establishment at large doesn't take it seriously enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, the articles are basically about how the whole email scandal is literally nothing. So I suppose yes, I agree with you. quote:Also the articles I posted observe that the notion that Hillary was the only one using private email or that if she was powerful she would've been punished is absurd. The email garbage represents the fact that American cyber security is top to bottom rotten to the core, underfunded, and woefully prone to compromising by state actors like the Russians. Not because of Hillary, but because the American policy establishment at large doesn't take it seriously enough. So basically same as everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
blowfish posted:if she technically followed procedure it really isn't worth making a """scandal""" out of it in the first place and I don't understand why the American people are so dumb and/or have so misplaced expectations about IT security I mean the only people here who care are either stupid young people with no grasp on the notion that politics is not a clean affair, or old conservatives who are still scared of flip phones. It is like everywhere else but we have the money and manpower to fix that, we just don't because we're stupid. I'm not saying it as a condemnation of Hillary, I'm saying a properly funded and designed system that people gave a poo poo about would've prevented this from ever occurring whatsoever and we should remedy that posthaste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
quote:I mean, the articles are basically about how the whole email scandal is literally nothing. So I suppose yes, I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah and we don't care about that poo poo, like we didn't cared about John Kerry's purple heart. Yet, you fuckers reelected Bush so i am sorry but we will believe you elected the flu over the bubonic plague when it happens. The current uncharismatic democratic leader versus prince of darkness republican scores aren't really in favor of the democratic party. Er, I'm sorry? I was in elementary school in 2004. I also don't think I disagree with either of you and I'm sorry if I've offended you. The "emails" aren't even really a scandal in and of themselves anyway. It's just a shorthand proxy for conservatives to drum up the spooky boogeymen of the Clintons (scare chord) and how evil they are, and a way to obliquely talk about Benghazi without actually talking about it. Once they're done running emails into the ground they'll move on to the next manufactured scandal. The only reason it's a point of contention on this forum is because a) there are, actually, conservatives here, far and few between, or at least gullible centrists and b) there were a lot of young Bernie supporters who bought into the email myth because they desperately wanted to believe that Bernie could pull ahead and defeat Clinton. In the interests of full disclosure, I was one of those Bernie supporters. I didn't overtly think that the emails were some horrible scandal - I knew nothing about it and assumed it was probably "bad" but nothing to write home about, overblown by Republicans - but when my Bernout friends would cluck and bob their heads about emails I would just smile and nod and assume there was some chance they would deliver the primary to Bernie because reasons. Basically, conservative messaging and propaganda took a bunch of young, idealistic progressives for a ride and now people are angry that Comey didn't descend from the heavens and deliver the primary to Bernie on a golden chariot. We just keep hearing about loving emails here because there are a lot of Bernie supporters here, I've observed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Er, I'm sorry? I was in elementary school in 2004. I also don't think I disagree with either of you and I'm sorry if I've offended you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:You didn't offend me so don't worry. Basically most people interested in US politics outside of the US know that the republican are just swiftboating Hillary like they did with Kerry. We know it's a smear campaign and we don't care. We are more concerned by the fact that poo poo kinda work with the american electorate and that Hillary isn't the kind of candidate who can just make it look irrelevant by the power of her charisma , like for example Obama did when the republican tried that kind of attack with the drugs allegations, the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the Joe the plumber poo poo. Ah, I understand now. Well, I would be concerned too if I were you. Thankfully Hillary is a more competent candidate fielding a far more impressively organized campaign apparatus (thanks, Obama) than Kerry was. Not that Kerry was a bad person or would've been a strictly speaking bad President, he just was a boring dude who ran a bad campaign, like Gore before him. Trump is also a dumpster fire that women, Hispanics (hello!  ) and black people find repulsive. Like for real Trump is going to lose white women as a demographic, which Romney won by something stupid like 15 points. He's also literally a con man who's just running to steal money from his campaign (<- not a conspiracy, you can go look at the government report on this that nobody cared about) and get blow jobs from the media. That's all well and good for him to get richer and lots of attention from, but he has no meaningful campaign apparatus and even if he polls well historically you need to prod American voters to get out of bed and go vote or the polls won't help you. The American electorate is also about 9% less white than when Kerry lost, give or take. That's a pretty big difference, statistically. All in all I think you're justified in being concerned, but so far, it doesn't seem like Republican conspiracy mongering has worked on Hillary. They've been doing it for decades and the American people are kind of tired of it. Seriously. They took a poll. Most Americans are sick of emails and sick of Benghazi. So, I think we're good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The American electorate is also about 9% less white than when Kerry lost, give or take. It's always nice when I can start my day by hearing some good news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Also there's a 100% chance that every """secure""" computer is already infiltrated by Russian and American hackers anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Yes that's my point. If she were recklessly disregarding classified material and forcing the DoS to follow her lead she would not have been using it. It doesn't matter that she conducted ~most~ of her classified communications through the proper channels and nobody has argued that point. It matters that she conducted DoS business communications through a private server in a way that is explicitly against the policies she was subject to in her position. It matters that she did not even attempt to go through the proper channels to do so. It matters that the records she furnished after getting caught were incomplete and that classified materials were found in the mix (including in some of the of the recovered missing materials!). It mostly matters that anyone else would be facing loss of clearance, loss of employment, and likely litigation for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
It's basically the government version of when a CEO gets away with something that would be immediate firing for cause of a lesser employee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Given the specific case of willfully avoiding the secure and internally audited system to pass all work related correspondence including a bunch of Classified stuff across a personal system for an extended amount of time because ~it's easier~ I wouldn't entirely rule jail time out had this been some random middle manager or whatever. Well that's cool, but I don't think you particularly know what you're talking about, and I think you're misrepresenting exactly what she did in reductionist terms in a case where individual details and motivations actually matter more than anything. Also, the only official source with weight on the matter, the FBI investigation, found otherwise. So I don't think that's true, and officially, according to the Justice Department and James Comey, it's not true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah as soon as he claimed she wasn't using SIPRNet that was pretty obvious
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:It's basically the government version of when a CEO gets away with something that would be immediate firing for cause of a lesser employee. Also a bucket load of "it isn't bad if our team does it". Even if you do get someone here to acknowledge that it was still against the law for federal records keeping, it'll be "well this shows how good a leader she is anyways". "FBI isn't prosecuting totally means that nothing illegal happened." "This is all just a bad guy smear job." "You must want Trump to win." Grognan fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
My opinion is that the emails thing is not great and it's silly to handwave it away as totally on the level but it's also not that big of a deal in terms of political corruption or mistakes and I'm sick to death of people trying to use it like a magic bullet. It's just not that big of a scandal. Yes, most other people would've gotten in trouble for it. That doesn't happen to rich people or important politicians in general though. I think Hillary Clinton will probably be a pretty decent president, possibly even a very good one. I do think she's totally aware what she did was wrong and she's playing willfully ignorant cause its the best choice for the situation. I also think any other politician on her level would have done the same thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Also a bucket load of "it isn't bad if our team does it". It's actually a super dumb scandal and you're dumb for buying into it and even dumber for complaining that other people aren't buying into it because they are blinded by political allegiance and not because it is, in fact, dumb. Also, the FBI report specifically states that they did not find any evidence that federal record keeping laws were knowingly violated. There are legitimate reasons to not like Hilary Clinton if you're to the left of her, find a better one that isn't predicated on the idea that e-mail is a good and secure medium of only used properly and that the classification system isn't a giant mess. I mean, the issue isn't even about classification really, because OpenNet is also an unclassified network, so it shouldn't have been there either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Well that's cool, but I don't think you particularly know what you're talking about, and I think you're misrepresenting exactly what she did in reductionist terms in a case where individual details and motivations actually matter more than anything. Also, the only official source with weight on the matter, the FBI investigation, found otherwise. So I don't think that's true, and officially, according to the Justice Department and James Comey, it's not true. The official source with weight on the matter found she did exactly the things I said she did, hence the quotes from said sources indicating they found she did those things. That she wasn't punished after their findings is kinda the point. Necc0 posted:Yeah as soon as he claimed she wasn't using SIPRNet that was pretty obvious I'm not the one conflating SIPRNet with the US State Department's OpenNet and ClassNet. I mean, I didn't call it out because it didn't actually relate to the points being made but as you're apparently going to talk about other people's lack of knowledge this seems like a good time to mention that you're talking about the wrong secure network. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It doesn't matter that she conducted ~most~ of her classified communications through the proper channels and nobody has argued that point. It matters that she conducted DoS business communications through a private server in a way that is explicitly against the policies she was subject to in her position. It matters that she did not even attempt to go through the proper channels to do so. It matters that the records she furnished after getting caught were incomplete and that classified materials were found in the mix (including in some of the of the recovered missing materials!). It mostly matters that anyone else would be facing loss of clearance, loss of employment, and likely litigation for doing it. She explicitly did try to establish the proper channels and was told that it would take an amount of time that was unacceptable for her to actually do her job - one of the most important jobs in the Western world. She asked Colin Powell what he did, he said well I said gently caress the rules, and she said hm, I think I'll attempt to follow the rules anyway. When the rules proved to literally prevent her from effectively doing her job, she then chose to ignore them. The records that were given to the FBI were incomplete because she delegated the responsibility to people she expected to handle them correctly. She didn't personally delete any of those emails, and the FBI has made it clear that the vast majority of what was deleted was not in fact relevant. The idea that other people in the State Department would get fired for doing what Clinton did is patently absurd because other people were doing what she did and the FBI found that out during its investigation. The email garbage is literally the stupidest non-scandal I've ever heard of and the only people who actually care are actively malicious, stupid, or IT personnel having a loving shitfit over the fact that normal people care more about doing their jobs than following garbage IT protocol that doesn't actually protect anything. It's not as if having a government email would've protected Hillary from Russian hackers, as Kerry so astutely observed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:She explicitly did try to establish the proper channels and was told that it would take an amount of time that was unacceptable for her to actually do her job - one of the most important jobs in the Western world. She asked Colin Powell what he did, he said well I said gently caress the rules, and she said hm, I think I'll attempt to follow the rules anyway. When the rules proved to literally prevent her from effectively doing her job, she then chose to ignore them. But imagine if another secretary of state did what she did!?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:She explicitly did try to establish the proper channels and was told that it would take an amount of time that was unacceptable for her to actually do her job - one of the most important jobs in the Western world. She asked Colin Powell what he did, he said well I said gently caress the rules, and she said hm, I think I'll attempt to follow the rules anyway. When the rules proved to literally prevent her from effectively doing her job, she then chose to ignore them. You forgot "are one of are troops", judging by the people who keep bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It doesn't matter that she conducted ~most~ of her classified communications through the proper channels and nobody has argued that point. It matters that she conducted DoS business communications through a private server in a way that is explicitly against the policies she was subject to in her position. It matters that she did not even attempt to go through the proper channels to do so. It matters that the records she furnished after getting caught were incomplete and that classified materials were found in the mix (including in some of the of the recovered missing materials!). It mostly matters that anyone else would be facing loss of clearance, loss of employment, and likely litigation for doing it.  Also no one in the state department at any level is ever going to see jail time for using the wrong email nitwit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:
Sending classified and secret poo poo through said email to other emails that were not secure would totally see that loss of clearance, loss of employment, and possible litigation. I mean, there's what he said and you totally brought jail-time into it. Real talk, if only so many american people that have handled classified information professionally actually post on SA. Non-american people with their respective clearances are going to be even rarer. Anyone showed up yet that has held a clearance as a foreign citizen in a non-USA agency? The institutional perspective might be relevant to the thread title. Grognan fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Real talk, if only so many american people that have handled classified information professionally actually post on SA. Non-american people with their respective clearances are going to be even rarer. Anyone showed up yet that has held a clearance as a foreign citizen in a non-USA agency? The institutional perspective might be relevant to the thread title. Hi edit: oh as a foreign citizen in something non-USA. idk Necc0 fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Sending classified and secret poo poo through said email to other emails that were not secure would totally see that loss of clearance, loss of employment, and possible litigation. I mean, there's what he said and you totally brought jail-time into it. Yeah, but professional opinion is really different from public opinion. And the public fully expects politicians to gently caress up to the maximum extent possible when it comes to classified stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah, but professional opinion is really different from public opinion. And the public fully expects politicians to gently caress up to the maximum extent possible when it comes to classified stuff. True, if there was a person for whom their opinion was always the public opinion, they'd probably be too stupid to breathe. I wish this forum had a better grasp on its own perspective when diving into these topics and the nasty intellectual short-cuts that happen when its one of the people with the right team colors doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Grognan posted:True, if there was a person for whom their opinion was always the public opinion, they'd probably be too stupid to breathe. I wish this forum had a better grasp on its own perspective when diving into these topics and the nasty intellectual short-cuts that happen when its one of the people with the right team colors doing it. I totally agree with the public in this case, expecting a politician handling sensitive information to be anything other than the literal worst is dumb, you have to design your information handling around that limitation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I totally agree with the public in this case, expecting a politician handling sensitive information to be anything other than the literal worst is dumb, you have to design your information handling around that limitation. Then you would not hand them the info or curate it to a tailored extreme, and then you'd have the goddamn iraq war all over again poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I would like to presumptively speak to the US media for all of Canada: shut the gently caress up about emails nobody cares
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
Grognan posted:Sending classified and secret poo poo through said email to other emails that were not secure would totally see that loss of clearance, loss of employment, and possible litigation. I mean, there's what he said and you totally brought jail-time into it. OpenNet, where it is suggested that she should have conducted her email business, is also an unclassified network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:38
|
|