FBI: Hillary Clinton Didn't Know 'C' in Emails Meant Classified(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
FBI: Hillary Clinton Didn't Know 'C' in Emails Meant Classified
http://gizmodo.com/hillary-clinton-had-11-blackberrys-while-secretary-of-s-1786108731
43 comments
I've been in the computer security industry for decades, 20 years ago I did intrusion detection and computer network security for a large government location as part of a team of about 12 people. I referred people to the Inspector General for prosecution when they attacked our networks.
I am really shocked at the level of incompetence here. Even 20 years ago we had 300,000 to 450,000 probes and hack attempts on that one network alone, on a weekly basis. It seems almost certain that her emails were compromised.
Destroying them is inexcusable, at the very least those records could have been used to determine what data had been potentially compromised.
I can't imagine what went on at the State Department where this kind of thing could happen. And, it isn't just Hillary Clinton who is guilty here.
I remember the first day after my security clearance and background checks completed, they spent several hours explaining security policies to me; that felony charges would be brought against me if I walked out the gate with so much as a hard copy of an internal email. I only had the lowest level of clearance for "classified" of "confidential" and even then only as was relevant to performing my job. There were entire buildings in our complex that had "secret" data, and only certain members of our team could investigate those systems for potential intrusions.
Even at that level, when you work with potentially classified material, the default behavior is to act is if all information is classified. If you want to published, or release information, it needs to checked and approved, even if it's not sensitive, just to be sure.
The only excuse I can possibly imagine, is that the clintonemail.com server was actually an elaborate ruse to leak misinformation to foreign actors.
I am really shocked at the level of incompetence here. Even 20 years ago we had 300,000 to 450,000 probes and hack attempts on that one network alone, on a weekly basis. It seems almost certain that her emails were compromised.
Destroying them is inexcusable, at the very least those records could have been used to determine what data had been potentially compromised.
I can't imagine what went on at the State Department where this kind of thing could happen. And, it isn't just Hillary Clinton who is guilty here.
I remember the first day after my security clearance and background checks completed, they spent several hours explaining security policies to me; that felony charges would be brought against me if I walked out the gate with so much as a hard copy of an internal email. I only had the lowest level of clearance for "classified" of "confidential" and even then only as was relevant to performing my job. There were entire buildings in our complex that had "secret" data, and only certain members of our team could investigate those systems for potential intrusions.
Even at that level, when you work with potentially classified material, the default behavior is to act is if all information is classified. If you want to published, or release information, it needs to checked and approved, even if it's not sensitive, just to be sure.
The only excuse I can possibly imagine, is that the clintonemail.com server was actually an elaborate ruse to leak misinformation to foreign actors.
Remember that all of the classified information on the server was either not classified at the time or was 1 of 3 incorrectly marked classified emails. Also remember the official state server at the time was also confirmed hacked.
But, why was she moving any State-related content off government computers? Why would she put herself and others at risk like that? These weren't all personal emails she was sending - she was discussing State department business with the foundation and with her trusted operator, Sidney Blumenthal.
Worst of all is how sloppy everyone involved in this fiasco has been. I feel bad for Obama, what a cluster!
> Also remember the official state server at the time was also confirmed hacked.
Look, clearly Hillary engaged in unsafe IT practices. Could it be she was phished? Maybe she was the one who enabled the hack!
Worst of all is how sloppy everyone involved in this fiasco has been. I feel bad for Obama, what a cluster!
> Also remember the official state server at the time was also confirmed hacked.
Look, clearly Hillary engaged in unsafe IT practices. Could it be she was phished? Maybe she was the one who enabled the hack!
Simple: the NSA refused to give Clinton the same secure BlackBerry setup they had provided President Obama.
Has she claimed this anywhere in testimony? The reason I heard given was she needed a way to send emails of a personal nature.
That reason and the one you've given sound like a dodge.
Fact is, if she even tangentially admitted to knowingly transmitting information _marked_ confidential off State networks (which she did), she'd be guilty of multiple crimes and none of her friends could save her. She would be frog-marched off to the hoosegow. Hence, the endless excuses, waving-off, and feigned ignorance.
The drip, drip, drip of damning evidence will continue and to save her skin all she can do is shrug absent-mindedly.
That reason and the one you've given sound like a dodge.
Fact is, if she even tangentially admitted to knowingly transmitting information _marked_ confidential off State networks (which she did), she'd be guilty of multiple crimes and none of her friends could save her. She would be frog-marched off to the hoosegow. Hence, the endless excuses, waving-off, and feigned ignorance.
The drip, drip, drip of damning evidence will continue and to save her skin all she can do is shrug absent-mindedly.
Very rarely did I see anything marked confidential. The assumption was that all work related documents and information was to be protected. As far as I was concerned, removing any work related data, email, or other information from the site was grounds for immediate termination and likely charges being brought.
I don't know the practices at the state department, but for my section, the guideline was, "Just assume everything is sensitive, protect it, and you won't have any problems."
Compiling a list of networked computers by IP and OS, that data would be considered sensitive, and obviously not to be removed off site, but would not be marked in any way.
From a practical perspective, the "not marked as classified" doesn't really make sense to me, it may have some legal merit, but I couldn't speak to that.
I don't know the practices at the state department, but for my section, the guideline was, "Just assume everything is sensitive, protect it, and you won't have any problems."
Compiling a list of networked computers by IP and OS, that data would be considered sensitive, and obviously not to be removed off site, but would not be marked in any way.
From a practical perspective, the "not marked as classified" doesn't really make sense to me, it may have some legal merit, but I couldn't speak to that.
I made some updates to my post regarding classification.
Being marked as classified was not something I would expect, instead you should operate as if all information is sensitive. Act as if information must be white-listed for public release. Much how the FBI is handling the data, each piece of information must be reviewed before release.
The excuse of "not marked as classified" is akin to a thief using "not marked as don't steal" to justify theft.
Being marked as classified was not something I would expect, instead you should operate as if all information is sensitive. Act as if information must be white-listed for public release. Much how the FBI is handling the data, each piece of information must be reviewed before release.
The excuse of "not marked as classified" is akin to a thief using "not marked as don't steal" to justify theft.
'The excuse of "not marked as classified" is akin to a thief using "not marked as don't steal" to justify theft.'
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense.
Do you think it's okay to run a private email server as your primary conduit for work communication, if nothing "marked as classified" is ever sent to you as Secretary of State?
I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense.
Removing any information, classified or not, off site is a huge no no. The fact that it was confidential information, that was later marked as such does not change the nature of the information.
I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense.
Removing any information, classified or not, off site is a huge no no. The fact that it was confidential information, that was later marked as such does not change the nature of the information.
The "C" designation actually means "confidential", which is one of the levels of classification, the other common ones being "secret" and "top secret".
"[Confidential] is defined as information that would 'damage' national security if publicly disclosed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_...
"[Confidential] is defined as information that would 'damage' national security if publicly disclosed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_...
> The "C" designation actually means "confidential"
Good point. Though original quote still makes sense as "Confidential" is a classification level. So (C) does mean classified, as does (S) and (TS)
Good point. Though original quote still makes sense as "Confidential" is a classification level. So (C) does mean classified, as does (S) and (TS)
Doubtless this article will be flagged and removed. But I'll put in my 2 cents before then.
Only 3 of the 30,000+ emails had these markings. The C marking in the body on its own is not a proper or common method of classification. Comey said that missing this was entirely reasonable in his explanation. This is a non story.
Only 3 of the 30,000+ emails had these markings. The C marking in the body on its own is not a proper or common method of classification. Comey said that missing this was entirely reasonable in his explanation. This is a non story.
It's not a method of classification, it's a way to mark what is classified (and at what level) and what is not. While I have never sent/received classified email, in the past, I have dealt with classified Navy message traffic. Markings like (C), (S), and (TS) were "portion marks" and marked subjects, paragraphs, etc. throughout the message. (U) is used to mark portions which are unclassified (in a classified message).
Clinton took deliberate and illegal action to hide her emails from FOIA. She either told bald-faced lies during a federal investigation, or she was too stupid to deserve to keep her security clearance. And now she will probably be the Commander in Chief of the USA.
It kinda makes me miss Bush.
It kinda makes me miss Bush.
> It kinda makes me miss Bush.
In which respect?
Wasn't the Bush administration guilty of a similar offense -- albeit on a much larger scale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
In which respect?
Wasn't the Bush administration guilty of a similar offense -- albeit on a much larger scale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
The state department is so twisted up in intelligence-related operations. She was read in and briefed on all these classified operations. She was the SECRETARY of STATE: the top of the food chain.
I roll my eyes at the excuses given for all her money/power related moves while at State, especially when she could have compromised our agents or moles with her carelessness. She was abysmal as top diplomat (russia reset, all for cratering Syria, Libya and Egypt governments, Benghazi CIA cluster f-). And the whole thing with the Clinton Foundation and her "private" (ClintonEmail.com) email server is icing on the cake - just stinks of pay-to-play, pure greed.
She's going to win the presidency, not go to jail or ever be impeached, and she's a terrible person. All that is acceptable to me because Hillary Clinton is just one of those problems that is out of my control.
I roll my eyes at the excuses given for all her money/power related moves while at State, especially when she could have compromised our agents or moles with her carelessness. She was abysmal as top diplomat (russia reset, all for cratering Syria, Libya and Egypt governments, Benghazi CIA cluster f-). And the whole thing with the Clinton Foundation and her "private" (ClintonEmail.com) email server is icing on the cake - just stinks of pay-to-play, pure greed.
She's going to win the presidency, not go to jail or ever be impeached, and she's a terrible person. All that is acceptable to me because Hillary Clinton is just one of those problems that is out of my control.
It doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law and all that... but I suppose that only applies to us little people.
The law is worded as "knowingly and willfully". This situation is a decent argument for incompetence, but in that case, she isn't criminal.
What "law" are you talking about? Because I was referring to the general, long established rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Try your "knowingly and willfully" argument with a cop or with the IRS and see how far that gets you. It doesn't work that way and you know it, they proceed with the ticket or the tax + penalties and the courts back this procedure up. The point of my comment is that Clinton broke the law and mishandled classified information. Anyone who accepts that responsibility has to accept the consequences, even if they "didn't mean it", of failing to protect the info.
Some crimes are defined by intent. Look up "mens rea". It's what distinguishes manslaughter from murder, for instance. Federal law distinguishes between accidental mishandling and intentional leaking of classified material. The former is what Hillary Clinton did. The latter is what Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
I am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car in the rain on bald tires you don't get a pass because you "didn't mean it". Comey made a recent speech and basically said the evidence shows that Clinton violated the laws regarding the handling of classified material but we aren't going to charge her. If it was due to incompetence or brain seizures or an honest mistake or selling out her country for financial gain, these are separate questions apart from the fact that a crime was committed and that she did it (or was complicit).
That isn't true. Most crimes require mens rea of some kind. This can include intent (I'm going to kill that guy with this brick), recklessness (I'm going to toss this brick out the window, who cares if it hits anyone), negligence (I'm going to put this teetering pile of bricks on the windowsill over a busy street, hope nobody knocks it over), and some others.
This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind".
"Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind".
"Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
Another important caveat is that Clinton, as far as we know, hadn't intended to leak or otherwise share classified information. While the server may not have been up to State Department security standards, it was not there with the intent to disseminate classified material to anyone without clearance.
The laws that would be used to classify Clinton as a criminal for leaking classified information. What other laws would be relevant?
The one I've heard cited is this one:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
The one I've heard cited is this one:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
They laws that us little people are more likely to come up against aren't worded that way...
Maybe you should take ownership as a citizen of this country and actually work to change the injustice you see rather than whining about how you're powerless on Hacker News?
And what do you suggest, oh great bearer of condescension?
"Maybe you should take ownership as a citizen of this country and actually work to change the injustice you see"
Reading comprehension for a start.
Last I checked this was supposed to be a forum for people who thought they could change the world, and make it a better place. If you don't think you can handle that, or have no ideas, maybe you don't belong here. We don't need people who's only contribution is "We're all completely helpless, there's nothing we can do!". You' re an engineer, you solve problems. Act the fuck like it.
Cynicism at this point is nothing but laziness.
You want a clue though? Maybe you should look locally and understand the problems there. If you're in San Francisco, there's plenty of things to do to get your feet wet.
Reading comprehension for a start.
Last I checked this was supposed to be a forum for people who thought they could change the world, and make it a better place. If you don't think you can handle that, or have no ideas, maybe you don't belong here. We don't need people who's only contribution is "We're all completely helpless, there's nothing we can do!". You' re an engineer, you solve problems. Act the fuck like it.
Cynicism at this point is nothing but laziness.
You want a clue though? Maybe you should look locally and understand the problems there. If you're in San Francisco, there's plenty of things to do to get your feet wet.
Oh, I'm not whining, I'm just stating things as I see them.
But yes, of course, complaining online doesn't really do much to influence the ruling class.
But yes, of course, complaining online doesn't really do much to influence the ruling class.
I'm doing everything in my power to save Capitalism.
There you have it, de facto testimony (by her own admission) that she was incompetent to do her job and one should wonder if she should be granted a more complicated position as President.
If you presume everything she told the FBI was true then she was woefully incompetent to be a Secretary of the state and should not be allowed near the oval office.
If some or all have proven to be lies then she should have been indicted.
If some or all have proven to be lies then she should have been indicted.
AKA the Bill Gates defense.
It means "Clinton"
Maybe she thought it was the MSN "coffee" emoticon? http://neowin.s3.amazonaws.com/forum/uploads/post-32224-1119...
The FBI identified three e-mail chain, encompassing eight individual e-mail exchanges to or from Clinton's personal e-mail accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked "(C)," a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. The emails contained no additional markings, such as a header or footer, indicating that they were classified. State confirmed through the FOIA review process that one of these three e-mail chains contains information which is currently classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. State determined that the other two e-mail chains are currently UNCLASSIFIED. State did not provide a determination as to whether any of these three e-mails were classified at the time they were sent.
When asked about the e-mail chain containing "C" portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated she did not know what the "(C)" means at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. Clinton identified tied a "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer (inserted in the document by the FBI prior to the interview) and asked if the "(C)" related to the "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer. Clinton did not believe the content of the e-mail was classified and questioned the classification determination. When asked of her knowledge regarding TOP SECRET, SECTET, and CONFIDENTIAL classification levels of USG information, Clinton responded that she did not pay attention to the "level" of classification and took all classified information seriously.