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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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):
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.