It is known for fact that her server had an insecure ssl cert. This alone tells me that whomever set this up didn’t give a fuck about security. If they fuck that up why assume they did anything else right?
Look, there is a process for ensuring government contractors meet security requirements. I have been through it, have you?
If the server had been through a fisma review I am damned sure the Clinton team would have mentioned it.
Slee
Goal post move? I wasn’t aware Cheney was running for President.
Og knows, he could win the nomination.
Nice to see you admit you only care about this because Clinton is running for president. Not that anyone actually believed that this was a nonpolitical investigation, but I appreciate you dropping the pretense.
Silly me. An American concerned that highly classified documents are being transmitted and kept in unsecured computers in this era of hacking, identity theft by foreign powers from OPM etc. No one would care about anything other than politics though. :dubious:
I am an American concerned about the security of classified documents, and that’s why I think the guidelines should be solidified. Now, if only there was an on-going investigation into the current guidelines and processes, we’d be in business!
That’s a real hoot coming from someone who obviously know jack squat about the topic. There are NO “guidelines” when it comes to storing, transmitting and managing classified information.
Wow, just wow. :smack:
So if we point to one of the many “guidelines”–labeled as such and explicitly calling for discretion in their application–governing the storing, transmitting and managing classified information, will you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about?
What guideline discussion do you require?
She was doing the nation’s business. Those emails are property of the US government. They should be on a government server. I work for DoD. My emails are property of the government. I don’t have a choice of using my gmail account.
Because she wanted to control her emails which were government property, she choose to use her own server. Not for the betterment of the State Department. But for her (selfish) reasons.
Because of this, when she mistakenly, carelessly, unintentionally, thoughtlessly, selfishly, (choose your own word) has TS SCI information in her email, it was stored in on non secure server.
I’m ambivalent about Hillary. But as a government employee, it pisses me off that do to her own poor choices she has TS SCI information in her home. The same info that at the very least would get tens of thousands of other government employees clearances taken away, and had them fired. But for some reason it’s perfectly OK for Hillary.
What guidelines do you need? You can’t have TS SCI laying around your house. How much more clear does that need to be?
Among the literally THOUSANDS of regulations and policies which are DIRECTIVE in nature (see re-occurrence of the word “shall” etc.) you find:
That should give you a better Idea why the Justice dept. is involved.
Your turn, Mr. Parker - either point away or go away - ya bother me.
Hmm, that’s a big doc. Can you point to a particular section that shows where the law was broken?
Yeah, just as soon as the investigation is finished. Got time to wait? 
Bolding mine:
Classified control guidelines. Really? That’s just ridiculous.
You appeared to claim that the rules governing classified information are categorical and do not include guidelines. That claim is quite false. So you seem to have shifted to something else. I’m not interested in your new claim.
Arguing semantics will not save you from the ridicule you have brought on yourself.
Lots of contenders for ironic post of the year here.
So let’s get clear: are you in fact claiming that none of the rules governing classification of information are stated as discretionary guidelines?
Prove it.
Maybe you should look for another thread to de-rail. You’ve obviously failed in your attempt to do so here.
Here’s an exampleof the kind of discretionary guidelines governing classified information (see page 99 of PDF setting out the “general guidelines” to be discretionarily followed when there has been unauthorized access to classified information, according to the Department of Defense manual). Naturally, like any complex system of rules, the classification system has many such points of discretion. It is utterly absurd to suggest that there are no discretionary guidelines involved.
You’ve gotta be yankin’ my chain. Nice try, but you’re gonna have to quote section and paragraph like I did in my post 390 above.
By my count, the word “shall” appears 567 times in the 5200.1
The word “must” comes up 78 times. Sounds more directive than optional in my view.
You have no concept of government classified operations whatsoever. What a joke. 