3 ms·

> ...aversion to checking her personal email on a desktop... Your point depends on Clinton having an understand of the way an NSA-berry works, how the traffic

by woodman 11y ago

> ...aversion to checking her personal email on a desktop... Your point depends on Clinton having an understand of the way an NSA-berry works, how the traffic is routed, and what the auditing policies are; then, using that the same level of understanding for the office computer to weigh the privacy of one over the other. That seems pretty unlikely, and I can easily imagine that she'd feel more in control of a phone in her pocket than a PC under her desk. > ...so she could comply with security requirements. One does not setup a private mail server, containing classified material, if one is interested in complying with security requirements. > ...ambiguous and incomplete security policies... There is nothing ambiguous about classified material, and the rules for handling are extremely simple: whatever contains the material must be rated greater than or equal to the classification level of the material. The policy is so comprehensive that it spans tactical radio key loaders to shielded government facilities.

justinlardinois 11y ago
>> ...aversion to checking her personal email on a desktop... > Your point depends on Clinton having an understand of the way an NSA-berry works, how the traffic is routed, and what the auditing policies are; then, using that the same level of understanding for the office computer to weigh the privacy of one over the other. That seems pretty unlikely, and I can easily imagine that she'd feel more in control of a phone in her pocket than a PC under her desk. I think you're reading into this too much. Any reasonably intelligent person should assume that a government device provided for government work should be under some kind of surveillance, regardless of what type of device it is. I doubt she knew the difference in how the desktop versus the phone would be monitored, but it doesn't matter. The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone, rather than a desktop computer, is all that's really at play here. >> ...so she could comply with security requirements. > One does not setup a private mail server, containing classified material, if one is interested in complying with security requirements. The security requirements I was referring to were that you couldn't bring your personal phone into secure facilities. But you read my whole comment, so you know that. >> ...ambiguous and incomplete security policies... > There is nothing ambiguous about classified material, and the rules for handling are extremely simple: whatever contains the material must be rated greater than or equal to the classification level of the material. The policy is so comprehensive that it spans tactical radio key loaders to shielded government facilities. I wasn't referring to information classification, I was referring to bring-your-own-device policies, which were non-existent or underdeveloped at the time. But you read my whole comment, so you know that.
- woodman 11y ago
  > The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone... I agree with that point - that personal preference over standard operating procedures is the likely motivator, but your pointing to the origin of the phone as some kind of evidence of logical exclusivity doesn't hold up. > The security requirements I was referring to were that you couldn't bring your personal phone into secure facilities. So your method of determining an individual's motives in an environment of uncertainty begins with "Throw out everything we know for a fact about this person..."? > I wasn't referring to information classification, I was referring to bring-your-own-device policies, which were non-existent or underdeveloped at the time. BYOD policies did exist and were well developed at the time, they were very simple: "Don't." That was made pretty clear in the article, so I'm not sure how you don't know that, unless you are confusing "underdeveloped" with "not what I want".

by woodman 11y ago

justinlardinois 11y ago

>> ...aversion to checking her personal email on a desktop... > Your point depends on Clinton having an understand of the way an NSA-berry works, how the traffic is routed, and what the auditing policies are; then, using that the same level of understanding for the office computer to weigh the privacy of one over the other. That seems pretty unlikely, and I can easily imagine that she'd feel more in control of a phone in her pocket than a PC under her desk. I think you're reading into this too much. Any reasonably intelligent person should assume that a government device provided for government work should be under some kind of surveillance, regardless of what type of device it is. I doubt she knew the difference in how the desktop versus the phone would be monitored, but it doesn't matter. The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone, rather than a desktop computer, is all that's really at play here. >> ...so she could comply with security requirements. > One does not setup a private mail server, containing classified material, if one is interested in complying with security requirements. The security requirements I was referring to were that you couldn't bring your personal phone into secure facilities. But you read my whole comment, so you know that. >> ...ambiguous and incomplete security policies... > There is nothing ambiguous about classified material, and the rules for handling are extremely simple: whatever contains the material must be rated greater than or equal to the classification level of the material. The policy is so comprehensive that it spans tactical radio key loaders to shielded government facilities. I wasn't referring to information classification, I was referring to bring-your-own-device policies, which were non-existent or underdeveloped at the time. But you read my whole comment, so you know that.

woodman 11y ago
> The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone... I agree with that point - that personal preference over standard operating procedures is the likely motivator, but your pointing to the origin of the phone as some kind of evidence of logical exclusivity doesn't hold up. > The security requirements I was referring to were that you couldn't bring your personal phone into secure facilities. So your method of determining an individual's motives in an environment of uncertainty begins with "Throw out everything we know for a fact about this person..."? > I wasn't referring to information classification, I was referring to bring-your-own-device policies, which were non-existent or underdeveloped at the time. BYOD policies did exist and were well developed at the time, they were very simple: "Don't." That was made pretty clear in the article, so I'm not sure how you don't know that, unless you are confusing "underdeveloped" with "not what I want".