8 ms·

>> how similar situations have been handled in the past Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and se

>> how similar situations have been handled in the past Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and secret emails through to a server I'm running myself I imagine I'd have criminal proceedings against me.

adrenalinelol 10y ago
Go get some political connections and/or $$ in order to join the next tier of our justice system.
cylinder 10y ago
Petreaus was just in "similar circumstances" and was sanctioned and fined.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Petraeus worked for Defense, not State.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    Actually, by the time they went after him, he had retired from the DoD and was the Director of the CIA, a civilian agency.
jrs235 10y ago
I believe yes. Similar things occurred with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And even though that may not be the full truth, its the perception that the public is picking up on and it's very bad to be occurring. Depending on who you are, who your friends are, and who you know, if you have the connections you can rest not having to know the law(s). You and I? We must always be on alert, vigilant, and know all the laws at all times lest we be prosecuted. No wonder trust in government is eroding. We need to either a) actually enforce the laws on the books or b) remove the laws from the books we don't intend to faithfully enforce. Selective enforcement is a tragedy.
- gallonofmilk 10y ago
  eww this really makes me despise her
- basch 10y ago
  >Similar things occurred with Colin Powell not even close. he had a personal aol account he used to test internet connections abroad. he had separate classified and personal lines going into his office, connected to separate devices.
  - tzs 10y ago
    There was classified email in Powell's personal, non-classified email account [1] [2] [3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-cla... [2] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...
    - basch 10y ago
      there were two emails, sent to him, that were retroactively marked as classified. he personally reviewed them and said he has no idea why they are marked classified, and they shouldnt be. sounds like politics to me.
- jcadam 10y ago
  > the precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And if you vote for HRC, you're endorsing this POV. Though, at this point I'm willing to believe that at least half the country has no problem with it.
  - throwanem 10y ago
ryanczak 10y ago
violating the terms of your security clearance agreement is not generally a criminal offense. You will almost certainly lose your clearance and your job but you have to have committed an actual crime to be prosecuted. If their is not evidence of classified material being leaked then there is no crime. My guess is that there is no evidence of a crime in this case. If she were still Sec. of State she would have bigger problems I imagine because she would lose her clearance at the very least and likely her job. Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  > Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president. Being elected POTUS automatically gives you the highest ranking clearance, end of discussion. You could have been a convicted felon with your security clearance stripped and no chance of getting it back, the moment you become POTUS all of that becomes irrelevant for your term.
- beat 10y ago
  Indeed. If she were still SoS, she'd probably have to resign over this. But the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous - especially when you consider that the point of security clearance rules is not to protect the data, but rather to protect the nation. A president who couldn't see the data required to make sound decisions would be actively dangerous. It'd be like driving with a blindfold on. Of course, this won't make much of a difference to her partisan detractors. Haters gonna hate, and the email scandal is not so much reason as excuse for most of the people who already oppose her. But if she is elected, of course she'll get full presidential security clearance. To do otherwise is stupid. What matters most to me is that we make changes in both policy and process so this doesn't happen again - policy in that it becomes crystal clear that private email for public business is unacceptable, and process so that the "If you can do your job, we're not doing ours" vibe of the info security world doesn't make the Secretary of State (or anyone else) feel like they can't do their job properly using the official channels.
talmand 10y ago
Get selected to be a Presidential nominee and that problem will just go away.
jonwachob91 10y ago
I don't know about the exact situation, but plenty of times intelligence has been leaked accidentally. In fact, while I was in Military Intelligence we use to get regular briefings on call such and such number if you hear some dudes at the bar talking about classified information. I've had briefings on what to do if I discover classified material left at a bar. I've had a lot of briefings about classified material being leaked because something happened at a bar... It's a very real issue... It pretty much boils down to contact FBI CI (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence) or the CI agents on base (if it happened on a military instillation.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  And one of the big problems (doesn't seem to be the case here) is where aggregated information is at a higher [EDIT: classification] than individual pieces. For instance, you can know any two of the following and it might only be FOUO (for official use only): When a military deployment will happen Where it will be to Who will be going But all three, together, are considered classified. (Trivial case, usually not this small a data set, but this is the concept.) The result is that someone gets apparently safe information from several sources. They put this into a briefing, or talk about it at the bar. The accumulated information is now considered Confidential (or higher), but was developed entirely from non-Confidential (or higher) sources.
  - jonwachob91 10y ago
    >>When a military deployment will happen >>Where it will be to >>Who will be going Having all three aggregated is not classified, but it is critical information (AR530-1, para 1-5, section b(2) [1]). An entire deploying unit is given those 3 bits on information, but the entire unit rarely is 100% on security clearances. EXAMPLE: when 2BCT,25ID deployed in 2004 the entire unit was told when they were deploying and for how long, where they were going, and who units/personnel were going; everyone including that fresh 18y/o 11B PVT that graduated BCT 1 week prior were told. But yes I agree with you on the first statement about information aggregation. [1]https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf
GVIrish 10y ago
> Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and secret emails through to a server I'm running myself I imagine I'd have criminal proceedings against me. Unlikely. You would lose your job for sure, but typically for a criminal prosecution to result there has to be an element of willful unauthorized disclosure of classified info, or very high impact of the disclosure of classified info. In practice this means that the people who get prosecuted have almost always been people intentionally sharing secrets with foreign entities (spying). I only know of one case where charges were brought against someone who was not doing that. It was when the feds retaliated against Thomas Drake for whistleblowing against the NSA. Even then the charges got dropped.
- steve_g 10y ago
  Kristian Saucier - https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier He took photos of a sub he was stationed on, apparently just for his own use, with no intention of "spying" He's going to jail for a few years.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Might want to edit that link to: https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier or flag it NSFW - when I clicked it, SafeSearch bounced me to the one I just posted. I'm actually at work, so don't intend to investigate, but my guess is "Kristen Saucier" is a different person in a different line of work.
    - steve_g 10y ago
      Done - thanks.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    In that situation, the military may sometimes be stricter than a civilian agency would be for the same infraction. Anything dealing with nuclear tech has a higher chance of turning into a much bigger deal. The other thing is that he tried to destroy evidence, which usually makes matter worse. Be that as it may, cases like Saucier's are fairly rare. It happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Retric 10y ago
Her direct predecessor, and their direct predecessor back through five people also used private emails. So, it was practically policy at that point. Also, it's not like it was secret at the time. Refuge in audacity may seem like an odd defense, but for stuff like this it's actually relevant. I mean if they did try and prosecute it would come off as completely politically motivated. PS: If you disagree feel free to comment why.
- dudifordMann 10y ago
  I disagree because "practically policy" is not policy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/
HoochTHX 10y ago
Yes, go get digital copies of Stars and Stripes for the last ten years, and you will see many cases where Enlisted and Officers are brought up on charges, court martialed, and convicted, for things like this.
- trentmb 10y ago
  Is the SoS subject to the UCMJ?
  - frankydp 10y ago
    No. The SoS is not subject to UCMJ.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case.
    - koolba 10y ago
      > No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case. Simple. Because politicians transfer from the legislative branch to the executive branch. They (generally) don't entered the armed forces. If they did, I'm sure they'd make sure they have equal protections there as well.

adrenalinelol 10y ago

Go get some political connections and/or $$ in order to join the next tier of our justice system.

cylinder 10y ago

Petreaus was just in "similar circumstances" and was sanctioned and fined.

throwanem 10y ago
Petraeus worked for Defense, not State.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  Actually, by the time they went after him, he had retired from the DoD and was the Director of the CIA, a civilian agency.

jrs235 10y ago

I believe yes. Similar things occurred with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And even though that may not be the full truth, its the perception that the public is picking up on and it's very bad to be occurring. Depending on who you are, who your friends are, and who you know, if you have the connections you can rest not having to know the law(s). You and I? We must always be on alert, vigilant, and know all the laws at all times lest we be prosecuted. No wonder trust in government is eroding. We need to either a) actually enforce the laws on the books or b) remove the laws from the books we don't intend to faithfully enforce. Selective enforcement is a tragedy.

gallonofmilk 10y ago
eww this really makes me despise her
basch 10y ago
>Similar things occurred with Colin Powell not even close. he had a personal aol account he used to test internet connections abroad. he had separate classified and personal lines going into his office, connected to separate devices.
- tzs 10y ago
  There was classified email in Powell's personal, non-classified email account [1] [2] [3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-cla... [2] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...
  - basch 10y ago
    there were two emails, sent to him, that were retroactively marked as classified. he personally reviewed them and said he has no idea why they are marked classified, and they shouldnt be. sounds like politics to me.
jcadam 10y ago
> the precedent being set is: if you're a government officer or official, you're exempt from the law. And if you vote for HRC, you're endorsing this POV. Though, at this point I'm willing to believe that at least half the country has no problem with it.
- throwanem 10y ago

ryanczak 10y ago

violating the terms of your security clearance agreement is not generally a criminal offense. You will almost certainly lose your clearance and your job but you have to have committed an actual crime to be prosecuted. If their is not evidence of classified material being leaked then there is no crime. My guess is that there is no evidence of a crime in this case. If she were still Sec. of State she would have bigger problems I imagine because she would lose her clearance at the very least and likely her job. Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president.

snuxoll 10y ago
> Where things get interesting to me is that by being elected to office she is put in a position to require a clearance. A typical person (one that has had a clearance revoked) would not be granted a new clearance. I suspect the rules are different when you get elected president. Being elected POTUS automatically gives you the highest ranking clearance, end of discussion. You could have been a convicted felon with your security clearance stripped and no chance of getting it back, the moment you become POTUS all of that becomes irrelevant for your term.
beat 10y ago
Indeed. If she were still SoS, she'd probably have to resign over this. But the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous - especially when you consider that the point of security clearance rules is not to protect the data, but rather to protect the nation. A president who couldn't see the data required to make sound decisions would be actively dangerous. It'd be like driving with a blindfold on. Of course, this won't make much of a difference to her partisan detractors. Haters gonna hate, and the email scandal is not so much reason as excuse for most of the people who already oppose her. But if she is elected, of course she'll get full presidential security clearance. To do otherwise is stupid. What matters most to me is that we make changes in both policy and process so this doesn't happen again - policy in that it becomes crystal clear that private email for public business is unacceptable, and process so that the "If you can do your job, we're not doing ours" vibe of the info security world doesn't make the Secretary of State (or anyone else) feel like they can't do their job properly using the official channels.

talmand 10y ago

Get selected to be a Presidential nominee and that problem will just go away.

jonwachob91 10y ago

I don't know about the exact situation, but plenty of times intelligence has been leaked accidentally. In fact, while I was in Military Intelligence we use to get regular briefings on call such and such number if you hear some dudes at the bar talking about classified information. I've had briefings on what to do if I discover classified material left at a bar. I've had a lot of briefings about classified material being leaked because something happened at a bar... It's a very real issue... It pretty much boils down to contact FBI CI (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence) or the CI agents on base (if it happened on a military instillation.

Jtsummers 10y ago
And one of the big problems (doesn't seem to be the case here) is where aggregated information is at a higher [EDIT: classification] than individual pieces. For instance, you can know any two of the following and it might only be FOUO (for official use only): When a military deployment will happen Where it will be to Who will be going But all three, together, are considered classified. (Trivial case, usually not this small a data set, but this is the concept.) The result is that someone gets apparently safe information from several sources. They put this into a briefing, or talk about it at the bar. The accumulated information is now considered Confidential (or higher), but was developed entirely from non-Confidential (or higher) sources.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  >>When a military deployment will happen >>Where it will be to >>Who will be going Having all three aggregated is not classified, but it is critical information (AR530-1, para 1-5, section b(2) [1]). An entire deploying unit is given those 3 bits on information, but the entire unit rarely is 100% on security clearances. EXAMPLE: when 2BCT,25ID deployed in 2004 the entire unit was told when they were deploying and for how long, where they were going, and who units/personnel were going; everyone including that fresh 18y/o 11B PVT that graduated BCT 1 week prior were told. But yes I agree with you on the first statement about information aggregation. [1]https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf

GVIrish 10y ago

> Has there been anything like this before? If I work for the government and forward confidential and secret emails through to a server I'm running myself I imagine I'd have criminal proceedings against me. Unlikely. You would lose your job for sure, but typically for a criminal prosecution to result there has to be an element of willful unauthorized disclosure of classified info, or very high impact of the disclosure of classified info. In practice this means that the people who get prosecuted have almost always been people intentionally sharing secrets with foreign entities (spying). I only know of one case where charges were brought against someone who was not doing that. It was when the feds retaliated against Thomas Drake for whistleblowing against the NSA. Even then the charges got dropped.

steve_g 10y ago
Kristian Saucier - https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier He took photos of a sub he was stationed on, apparently just for his own use, with no intention of "spying" He's going to jail for a few years.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Might want to edit that link to: https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=kristian+saucier or flag it NSFW - when I clicked it, SafeSearch bounced me to the one I just posted. I'm actually at work, so don't intend to investigate, but my guess is "Kristen Saucier" is a different person in a different line of work.
  - steve_g 10y ago
    Done - thanks.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  In that situation, the military may sometimes be stricter than a civilian agency would be for the same infraction. Anything dealing with nuclear tech has a higher chance of turning into a much bigger deal. The other thing is that he tried to destroy evidence, which usually makes matter worse. Be that as it may, cases like Saucier's are fairly rare. It happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Retric 10y ago

Her direct predecessor, and their direct predecessor back through five people also used private emails. So, it was practically policy at that point. Also, it's not like it was secret at the time. Refuge in audacity may seem like an odd defense, but for stuff like this it's actually relevant. I mean if they did try and prosecute it would come off as completely politically motivated. PS: If you disagree feel free to comment why.

dudifordMann 10y ago
I disagree because "practically policy" is not policy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/

HoochTHX 10y ago

Yes, go get digital copies of Stars and Stripes for the last ten years, and you will see many cases where Enlisted and Officers are brought up on charges, court martialed, and convicted, for things like this.

trentmb 10y ago
Is the SoS subject to the UCMJ?
- frankydp 10y ago
  No. The SoS is not subject to UCMJ.
- throwanem 10y ago
  No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > No, but it's reasonable to wonder why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander in this case. Simple. Because politicians transfer from the legislative branch to the executive branch. They (generally) don't entered the armed forces. If they did, I'm sure they'd make sure they have equal protections there as well.