Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:47 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
It took me less than a minute to google that one. Granted it took a few tries to get the name of the bags right, but that's not a good test.
What WOULD be a good test?
  #302  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:55 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hey Johnny Ace -- you know the bags used to carry classified stuff? Can you describe how the locks work?
FWIW, I accept at face value that Johnny has held a security clearance and he went to the Naval Academy but "I know the classification system inside and out. [...] And I'm not impressed." is just not endearing.
  #303  
Old 06-14-2016, 12:24 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What WOULD be a good test?
It would have to be something timed. Federal regulations on treatment of classified materials are public, but it would take time to find, read, and understand them. Give each person a short, fixed amount of time to answer a question that someone who dealt with classified materials would know the answer to off-hand, but a faker would have to look up.

By the way, my personal opinion is that crypto is a faker, and would fail this test.
  #304  
Old 06-14-2016, 12:41 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
There's unlikely to be anything that I would feel comfortable answering that couldn't be googled anyway. There are reasons for what I said about the email scandal which delve into cautious territory. It has to do in part with the classification system itself, which in many cases is pretty stupid and arbitrary, and partly with other atmospheric factors.

Whatever, believe it or don't. I can't convince you, so you get to get away with calling me a bullshit artist. Congratulations.
  #305  
Old 06-14-2016, 01:02 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
It took me less than a minute to google that one. Granted it took a few tries to get the name of the bags right, but that's not a good test.
Yeah, so what's the answer?
  #306  
Old 06-14-2016, 01:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,302
Look, I don't want to argue with you anymore or make this personal but you are old enough and have been on the internet long enough to know that "Trust me, I'm an expert. I can say no more" is just totally uncool. At least, I hope you know that now.
  #307  
Old 06-14-2016, 01:30 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Oh yeah? How old am I? I'm not going to take YOUR word for it.
  #308  
Old 06-14-2016, 01:42 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Oh yeah? How old am I? I'm not going to take YOUR word for it.
Lol. I have no idea but if Johnny went to the Academy in '86 I figure he's pushing pushing 50. I know because I finished my astronaut and commando training in '86 and I'm pushing 50.
  #309  
Old 06-14-2016, 01:53 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Pushed and passed.
  #310  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:08 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
It would have to be something timed. Federal regulations on treatment of classified materials are public, but it would take time to find, read, and understand them. Give each person a short, fixed amount of time to answer a question that someone who dealt with classified materials would know the answer to off-hand, but a faker would have to look up.

By the way, my personal opinion is that crypto is a faker, and would fail this test.
The problem with that is the same as stated above. If you haven't dealt with clearance stuff or classifications, you won't be able to come up with a question that can't be answered quickly via Google.

Also, a lot of things are not answerable on a public message board.

I will say that anyone who thinks that classified information on a non-secure server should always result in jail time has NEVER worked with classified information before.

And people who think that the heads of government departments HAVE to follow that department's policies has never worked in government before.
  #311  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:09 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yeah, so what's the answer?
These appear to be the relevant regulations, which say (in part):
All classified information physically transmitted outside
facilities shall be enclosed in two layers, both of which provide
reasonable evidence of tampering and which conceal the contents. The
inner enclosure shall clearly identify the address of both the sender
and the intended recipient, the highest classification level of the
contents, and any appropriate warning notices. The outer enclosure
shall be the same except that no markings to indicate that the contents
are classified shall be visible. Intended recipients shall be
identified by name only as part of an attention line.
Here's a link to a supplier of "Classified Material Bags--Dual Locks" to the government with exact specifications of the lock bags.
  #312  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:12 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The problem with that is the same as stated above. If you haven't dealt with clearance stuff or classifications, you won't be able to come up with a question that can't be answered quickly via Google.
That's why a strict time limit is necessary. Say, "here's three basic questions about handling classified materials. Provide your answer to all three questions within 5 minutes." So the question re: lock bags could be one of the questions.

Of course, you'd need the interviewee to participate, to be prepared to answer the questions the time you post them. You probably couldn't get a faker to participate, but they wouldn't participate anyway.
  #313  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:24 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Basic questions about handling classified materials can be answered in 10 seconds via Google. That's why they are "basic questions"

Not sure you can prove someone's authenticity via a message board.

Last edited by manson1972; 06-14-2016 at 02:24 PM.
  #314  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:27 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
These appear to be the relevant regulations, which say (in part):
All classified information physically transmitted outside
facilities shall be enclosed in two layers, both of which provide
reasonable evidence of tampering and which conceal the contents. The
inner enclosure shall clearly identify the address of both the sender
and the intended recipient, the highest classification level of the
contents, and any appropriate warning notices. The outer enclosure
shall be the same except that no markings to indicate that the contents
are classified shall be visible. Intended recipients shall be
identified by name only as part of an attention line.
Here's a link to a supplier of "Classified Material Bags--Dual Locks" to the government with exact specifications of the lock bags.
That's not what I'm asking. If you've dealt with a lockbag before, you wouldn't quote regulations.
  #315  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:33 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Basic questions about handling classified materials can be answered in 10 seconds via Google. That's why they are "basic questions"
No, it would take longer than that. Looking up the lock bag information, reading the regs to make sure they were the right ones, faking knowledge based on reading the regs...that would take me a couple minutes easy. And that's just one questions and I'm a very fast researcher/reader.

Tell you what...if I gave you 5 minutes to answer some basic questions about regs I do know off the top of my head, do you think you could do it? I don't think you could.

Sample question: what's a non-contestable interest rate range that can be charged between related parties?

For simplicity, here's the relevant regs.
  #316  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:36 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That's not what I'm asking. If you've dealt with a lockbag before, you wouldn't quote regulations.
I wouldn't quote the regs in my answer, I would re-write it to make it seem as though it was coming off the top of my head (if I were a faker).

By the way, I will note that there's no restriction on the locks, other than they "provide reasonable evidence of tampering and which conceal the contents".

So, what answer were you looking for?
  #317  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:37 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Yes, but you know the answer already. You need someone who deals with classified information to develop the questions. And then what would be the point? You already have someone who knows, you don't need to vet another person.

I could come up with questions, but I already know the answers. I don't need to prove that someone else on this message board deals with classified information, because I already know the correct answer.

Last edited by manson1972; 06-14-2016 at 02:38 PM.
  #318  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:41 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That's not what I'm asking. If you've dealt with a lockbag before, you wouldn't quote regulations.
Yeah, you would say something like: "The end of the zipper goes into a space under the lock. The lock has a mechanism that pushes down and locks the zipper tab into place."
  #319  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:42 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yeah, you would say something like: "The end of the zipper goes into a space under the lock. The lock has a mechanism that pushes down and locks the zipper tab into place."
If that what he's looking for, then that's a worse question than I thought. Those bags aren't just used for classified materials. I have one that I used for collecting donations. You can buy them at Staples.
  #320  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:47 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
The purpose of the question isn't necessarily that "right answer equals trustworthy." It's that bad answers probably equal untrustworthy, and there's a certain not-so-common feature of the locks that if one was familiar with them, there's a 50/50 chance you'd mention it without having to be prompted. If you mentioned it without being prompted, it's more likely (but not certain) you know what you're talking about as opposed to those googling for answers.

ETA: just the fact that an innocuous question caused a tizzy of several posters jumping in to botch answers to the question, pretty much speaks for itself.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-14-2016 at 02:49 PM.
  #321  
Old 06-14-2016, 02:52 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, but you know the answer already. You need someone who deals with classified information to develop the questions. And then what would be the point? You already have someone who knows, you don't need to vet another person.

I could come up with questions, but I already know the answers. I don't need to prove that someone else on this message board deals with classified information, because I already know the correct answer.
I can see the question, see the answer (or lack of an answer) and reach my own conclusion.

For example, going back to my question. If you had claimed knowledge of 482 regs, then I would throw out a couple basic questions, you would answer them, and then people could judge if you actually knew the regs based on your answer. I already know the regs, but I could test you in public, and if you passed then people could have faith that you weren't misrepresenting your knowledge. In fact, anyone could read the regs and write their own questions--they could take their time writing the questions, but by putting a time limit on the response it's a valid test.
  #322  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
I can see the question, see the answer (or lack of an answer) and reach my own conclusion.

For example, going back to my question. If you had claimed knowledge of 482 regs, then I would throw out a couple basic questions, you would answer them, and then people could judge if you actually knew the regs based on your answer. I already know the regs, but I could test you in public, and if you passed then people could have faith that you weren't misrepresenting your knowledge. In fact, anyone could read the regs and write their own questions--they could take their time writing the questions, but by putting a time limit on the response it's a valid test.
True, but people would have to trust you that you knew the regs well enough in order to pose the questions in the first place. And if they did trust you, then there is no need to vet another person, since you are already vetted.
  #323  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:29 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The purpose of the question isn't necessarily that "right answer equals trustworthy." It's that bad answers probably equal untrustworthy, and there's a certain not-so-common feature of the locks that if one was familiar with them, there's a 50/50 chance you'd mention it without having to be prompted. If you mentioned it without being prompted, it's more likely (but not certain) you know what you're talking about as opposed to those googling for answers.
You do realize that there's dozens of types of locking document bags, each of which operates slightly differently, and that the federal regs don't specify which type you use? In fact, the regs don't even specify that a lock is necessary.

Also, you can buy "deposit bags" at Staples, office depot, Amazon, etc. Lots and lots of people know how locking bags work. (and, given that they all work slightly differently, they'll give a different answer to your question).

I get the feeling you saw a locking bag used to transport classified materials once, and you've decided that's how all classified documents bag worked.
  #324  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:29 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
If that what he's looking for, then that's a worse question than I thought. Those bags aren't just used for classified materials. I have one that I used for collecting donations. You can buy them at Staples.
Yes, but people who didn't use them for classified information wouldn't know they were used for classified information
  #325  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:36 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Pushed and passed.
Knocked down, kicked and beat to a pulp.
  #326  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:36 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
You do realize that there's dozens of types of locking document bags, each of which operates slightly differently, and that the federal regs don't specify which type you use? In fact, the regs don't even specify that a lock is necessary.

Also, you can buy "deposit bags" at Staples, office depot, Amazon, etc. Lots and lots of people know how locking bags work. (and, given that they all work slightly differently, they'll give a different answer to your question).

I get the feeling you saw a locking bag used to transport classified materials once, and you've decided that's how all classified documents bag worked.
My question wasn't designed to prove that I know what I'm talking about. As I said, even the answers to my very simple question cannot prove that someone actually has had a clearance or knows what they are talking about.

But if someone answers the question by throwing up a lot of chaff like the post quoted here, then it is evidence that somebody probably has no idea what they are talking about. Seriously, have you never asked questions of a teenager before?

Example 1:
"Hey kid, where were you last night?"
"I was at the library."
-- This doesn't establish proof that the kid was at the library, but the answer is useful.

Example 2:
"Hey kid, where were you last night?"
"Why are you bugging me? Don't you trust me? God, you're so intrusive! You never ask these questions about my brother!"
-- Uh oh. Ask more questions.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-14-2016 at 03:37 PM.
  #327  
Old 06-14-2016, 03:56 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, but people who didn't use them for classified information wouldn't know they were used for classified information
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
My question wasn't designed to prove that I know what I'm talking about. As I said, even the answers to my very simple question cannot prove that someone actually has had a clearance or knows what they are talking about.

But if someone answers the question by throwing up a lot of chaff like the post quoted here, then it is evidence that somebody probably has no idea what they are talking about. Seriously, have you never asked questions of a teenager before?

Example 1:
"Hey kid, where were you last night?"
"I was at the library."
-- This doesn't establish proof that the kid was at the library, but the answer is useful.

Example 2:
"Hey kid, where were you last night?"
"Why are you bugging me? Don't you trust me? God, you're so intrusive! You never ask these questions about my brother!"
-- Uh oh. Ask more questions.
You both have some very weird ideas about how to test knowledge. If you want to test knowledge you give questions that have specific, correct, answers, and apply a time limit on answering them. The requirement for correct answers means that anyone can verify the answers for themselves, and the strict time limit means that Google won't help.

Going back to my 482 question, anyone who knew the regs could answer it in seconds. Anyone who didn't know the regs would take more than 5 minutes to look it up. And the correct answer could be verified by anyone who cared to do so.

As an example related to classified material: "what brands of combination locks with the dial on the bottom can be used with classified material? What criteria must be met to have access to classified materials? What's the difference in storage requirements between top secret and confidential materials." Simple questions with verifiable correct answers. Throw in a few more similar questions and you have a test that someone with a background in handling classified materials could answer instantly, but a faker would take too long to look up all the answers to meet the time limit.
  #328  
Old 06-14-2016, 04:16 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
As an example related to classified material: "what brands of combination locks with the dial on the bottom can be used with classified material? What criteria must be met to have access to classified materials? What's the difference in storage requirements between top secret and confidential materials." Simple questions with verifiable correct answers. Throw in a few more similar questions and you have a test that someone with a background in handling classified materials could answer instantly, but a faker would take too long to look up all the answers to meet the time limit.
I'm not really arguing with you about this, but those are not simple questions. Each one can be answered in numerous ways.

For instance "What's the difference in storage requirements between top secret and confidential materials?"

What kind of Top Secret? Collateral TS? SCI? SAP? SPECAT?

What kind of Confidential?

How long are you storing them for? Is your place rated for open storage? Temporary open storage? What model safe do you have? When was it last certified?

Or some answer that could be given

1) There are no differences because they have to be stored in a safe that is GSA approved
1b) Except when you have open-storage, then there are no storage requirements
1c) Except if it is a trackable TS document, then you need a coversheet that has the names of those who viewed it
1d) Except if it is a certain SAP program, in which case it has to be in a safe on its own, separate from other classified information

And several other differences I could name, all correct, and all answers that would be acceptable to me.

A simple question with a basic answer would be "How long must you retain COMSEC destruction reports?" Has a clear, basic answer, and something that can be found easily.

Last edited by manson1972; 06-14-2016 at 04:17 PM.
  #329  
Old 06-14-2016, 04:48 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
You both have some very weird ideas about how to test knowledge.
My question isn't about knowledge, it's about credibility.
  #330  
Old 06-14-2016, 09:36 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The problem with that is the same as stated above. If you haven't dealt with clearance stuff or classifications, you won't be able to come up with a question that can't be answered quickly via Google.

Also, a lot of things are not answerable on a public message board.

I will say that anyone who thinks that classified information on a non-secure server should always result in jail time has NEVER worked with classified information before.

And people who think that the heads of government departments HAVE to follow that department's policies has never worked in government before.
Not to mention that all government employees aren't necessarily the brightest bulbs in the box.
  #331  
Old 06-14-2016, 09:41 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Are you people serious with this? Get over it and move on.

Back to the sublimely derailed subject (we're beyond ridiculous here)...for all the haranguing and handwringing, watch: there will be no indictment against Hillary. You can come back in a couple of months and bitch at me how I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. But it won't. It's much much MUCH ado about nothing except as yet another talking point for Pubbies to deny how qualified Hillary really is and how corrupt she really isn't.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-14-2016 at 09:43 PM.
  #332  
Old 06-16-2016, 03:55 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Although this article from Cynthia Dill in the Huffington Post came out a couple weeks ago, in the aftermath of the State Department inspector general’s report release. I don't see it mentioned in this thread and I think it's relevant.

An excerpt:
Quote:
The thrust of the criticism of Clinton is that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management were not asked permission by Clinton to use her private server. Had she asked, the new person in charge says, permission would have been denied.

So let’s get this straight: The bureaucrats “in charge” of security knew Clinton was using a private email server since 2001 — and they sent her email regularly to it between 2009 and 2013 — but they wouldn’t have given her permission to do that?

They sent her emails to her personal address, but they didn’t know she had a personal address?

This was no covert operation, for heaven’s sake. It’s not like Clinton was secretly selling arms to Iran and funding the Contras. The Clintons paid out-of-pocket for a few techies to work in their basement keeping this server humming and free from cyber breaches. Staffers from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security inspected the email system, looked at the logs and communicated with these people on a regular basis. The bureau even refused to help fix it when Hurricane Sandy disrupted power “because it was a private server,” according to the report.

The inspector general’s report found the State Department under Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice and Kerry fell short of rules around the management, storage and protection of email transmission — as do virtually every other government agency and corporation.

Does this justify bad behavior? Of course not, but there’s a reason why so many people don’t care about Hillary Clinton’s 55,000 emails. The fact is, had she followed the letter of the law, our lives would be no better or worse. We would have had boxes of printed emails and instead we have boxes of printed emails. There’s not one iota of evidence of any motive to do harm, break the law or personally gain.
  #333  
Old 06-16-2016, 04:00 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
So fine. It's okay for government officials to only submit the emails they want to submit and delete the rest.
  #334  
Old 06-16-2016, 04:12 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
So fine. It's okay for government officials to only submit the emails they want to submit and delete the rest.
She claimed she didn't delete anything relevant. Then the FBI was able to retrieve most, if not all of those emails.

If those emails that she deleted were going to show she deleted important things and she knew the FBI had them, do you think Hillary would not have attempted some proactive damage control to at least soften the blow she would be taking at a time not of her choosing? Or just go along like everything was fine, hoping that a disgruntled employee, angry about his missing stapler, would burn the FBI offices down taking the investigation and evidence with it?

I know you don't like Hillary Clinton, but do you think she's stupid? She evaded a lot more serious charges from Republicans in the past 25 years by not being stupid (and also by not doing much of anything wrong, which also shows a non-stupid person). If she's not stupid, how come she hasn't done the politician equivalence of shitting her pants and attempting to explain what happened before the FBI does?
  #335  
Old 06-16-2016, 04:53 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
All I want to do is make sure that the same standards apply to all. Clinton is not special. The rules apply to everyone else the same as her.
  #336  
Old 06-16-2016, 05:22 AM
Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
If those emails that she deleted were going to show she deleted important things and she knew the FBI had them, do you think Hillary would not have attempted some proactive damage control to at least soften the blow she would be taking at a time not of her choosing?
You mean proactive damage control like deleting important things, and then deleting emails that were going to show she deleted important things?
  #337  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:45 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
So fine. It's okay for government officials to only submit the emails they want to submit and delete the rest.
Now I've got the tune of "The Boxer" stuck in my head. Thanks.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #338  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:13 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
It's much much MUCH ado about nothing except as yet another talking point for Pubbies to deny how qualified Hillary really is and how corrupt she really isn't.
Their whole effort is aimed at finding some evidence of something in Benghazi in those emails. This change in focus to the emails themselves may, may indicate they're finally giving up on Benghazi as a possible route to getting her for something.
  #339  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:20 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
So fine. It's okay for government officials to only submit the emails they want to submit and delete the rest.
I respectfully submit that this has been the case since politicians started using email and will continue to be the case until there is some automatic and incorruptible method of preventing this from happening. Some jurisdictions even "triple delete" to make sure emails can't be recovered. See scandal here (involving murders along a notorious stretch of highway):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ndal-1.3487546

As regards Hillary Clinton, I am reminded of the wisdom of Norman Reedus who said that if you have enough footage of Santa Claus you can edit it to make him look like an asshole. I think that is exactly what Hillary's political opponents realize. Somewhere in those archives is something that can be misconstrued or taken out of context or or et cetera to make Hillary look like a villain. She knows people are (figuratively) gunning for her and I can't fault her for not wanting to hand them ammunition.

It can be a good thing that the ambiguities surrounding email and communications security and archiving and whatnot are being addressed. But the whole scandal reeks to me of recreational outrage. By accusing Hillary of what basically amounts to treason Hillary's opponents have an opportunity to do a level of digging that none of us would be comfortable with. Even Santa Claus.
  #340  
Old 06-16-2016, 04:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Their whole effort is aimed at finding some evidence of something in Benghazi in those emails. This change in focus to the emails themselves may, may indicate they're finally giving up on Benghazi as a possible route to getting her for something.
Excellent point.

They may be reduced to 'finding evidence' that she used office pens to sign personal Christmas cards (and such).
  #341  
Old 06-16-2016, 05:05 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
All I want to do is make sure that the same standards apply to all. Clinton is not special. The rules apply to everyone else the same as her.
Not exactly. The Secretary of State is not subject to the same exact rules as a lower-level functionary in the State Department. To some degree, the Secretary makes the rules.

(As they say in theology, you aren't bound by rules you, yourself, created.)
  #342  
Old 06-16-2016, 05:19 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Excellent point.

They may be reduced to 'finding evidence' that she used office pens to sign personal Christmas cards (and such).
This is a bit different, however. There ARE rules for handling sensitive and classified data, and none of them involve having your own, personal email server. Dismissing this as the same as 'office pens to sign personal Christmas cards' is sticking your head in a hole or plugging your ears and saying 'nananananananana...I can't HEAR you' over and over again.

She was very foolish for doing what she did and exposing herself in this way. And she could still be burned by this thing, as opposed to Benghazi or a theoretical office pen signing scandal. The fact that she probably won't be isn't because what she did wasn't wrong...it's because she, like so many high ranking elected or appointed officials are entitled and get away with crap that would ruin the careers of lesser beings. I have to say that this is one of the biggest black marks against Hillary, in my own books, and shows a serious lack of judgement on her part. It won't change my own mind wrt voting for her or voting for Trump, as Trump is such a freaking boob (and I have no doubt that, given the chance his security violations would be biblical in proportion), but it's appalling that a lot of Democrats and liberals on this board and off are handwaving this whole thing away instead of really looking at it.
  #343  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:50 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
This is a bit different, however. There ARE rules for handling sensitive and classified data, and none of them involve having your own, personal email server. Dismissing this as the same as 'office pens to sign personal Christmas cards' is sticking your head in a hole or plugging your ears and saying 'nananananananana...I can't HEAR you' over and over again.
There are two separate lines of attack for HRC opponents, that have been discussed throughout this thread:
  • Alleging that the emails must contain information that would damage Clinton. This is what I was posting about, in response to the post suggesting that Benghazi was not proving fruitful for Clinton opponents--I was saying that since they didn't seem to be finding any damaging material relating to Benghazi, the opponents would be reducing to trying to make hay over office-supply 'scandals.' And then there is the second line of attack:
  • The issue you are discussing, which differs from the one I've just described--namely, the 'she ran a private server' issue. In my post to which you replied, I didn't refer to that issue (making your comment rather off-point).

Since you bring it up, though, my view is essentially this: Clinton, like everyone else in the State Department in 2009 (as we have learned), was dealing with an ambiguous set of 'instructions' about a technology that was continuing to evolve. (The technology was evolving and so were the vulnerabilities of that technology.) No one at State was communicating over guaranteed-secure email systems at that time; various employees had opinions about what would create perfect security and various employees voiced those opinions to Clinton. She did not act on the opinions or recommendations of all those who told her what she should be doing. They knew what she was doing and did not call the CIA or FBI or NSA or remove her from her job, which seems to indicate, if nothing else, that no one was entirely certain of how email security could be guaranteed.

I think she erred on the side of trying to protect herself against the inevitable humiliations of having her every request for tech help (etc.) made public by FOIA requests. I can understand her wish for a bit of privacy. However, the fact remains that in 2016 we have decided that people doing jobs at that level don't get much privacy.

I can't see that anything she did rose to the level of criminality (especially as compared with other 'security breach' stories of recent years, particularly the outing of Valerie Plame). But it is important that in her future public life (whether as President or in any other capacity), transparency must be demanded even if it costs her some privacy. It is important that the press continue to demand transparency and follow through on those demands. It is understandable that she would seek privacy, but if she's to continue in public life, she will just have to grin and bear the oversight that has come to be considered normal in our times.
  #344  
Old 06-16-2016, 06:57 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
The Secretary of State is different from other personnel in three important ways:

1. She had the power to change policy.

2. She was far more likely to be individually targeted for spying.

3. She was personally warned that her communications practices were dangerous and she acknowledged it without changing them.

Any defense of her that fails to account for those facts rings pretty hollow.
  #345  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:09 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,541
Quote:
1. She had the power to change policy.
Isn't that exactly what she did?

She used a private server--not a secret--and expected State to make that work. That was the policy decision that she made.

As far as being "warned that her communications practices were dangerous" is concerned: I'd be curious to know precisely who was doing the warning. How credible were those particular individuals?

I'm thinking of personal experiences with the IT department in my last corporate job; various individuals at various times told me contradictory things about matters both hardware-related and software-related. Some of them were clearly self-important functionaries. It would have been impossible to follow all the strictures, or even to know which were opinion and which were incontrovertible facts.
  #346  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:12 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,159
You might be surprised to learn that the security advice given to one of the most intense targets of espionage in the world is slightly different from what your crappy IT guy tells you about updating Windows. For more information on this subject, see the OP of this thread.
  #347  
Old 06-16-2016, 07:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
2. She was far more likely to be individually targeted for spying.
And targeted not just for spying, and not just by foreign powers, or even primarily, as we all know. Wasn't protection from the Republicans at least part of her thinking?
  #348  
Old 06-16-2016, 08:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Wasn't protection from the Republicans at least part of her thinking?
While likely true, that isn't really a legitimate defense for a private server at your house.
  #349  
Old 06-16-2016, 08:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
And the only reason anyone knows or cares about it is ... what, pray tell?
  #350  
Old 06-16-2016, 08:18 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And the only reason anyone knows or cares about it is ... what, pray tell?
Well there is this FBI investigation I've heard tell of. But regardless, surely you agree that "I was hiding my official emails on a private server in my basement because I didn't want my Republican enemies to get at them" isn't a particularly good political sell.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017