4 ms·

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

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.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous Certainly so. I'm not sure the same is true of the idea that someone with a proven record of such a careless attitude toward security should be denied the presidency on that basis. That seems like a discussion worth having, although, given the modern political climate in the United States, not one likely to actually occur in any way that's even marginally useful to anyone.
  - beat 10y ago
    I wouldn't call it a "careless attitude toward security". She's thinking in a different way than we do, because she's a diplomat, not an engineer. There is no technical reason that a privately administrated email server would be inherently less secure than a government-administrated server (there are good arguments that it's likely to be more secure). However, a private email server is likely to be far more user-friendly and free of "security theater" constraints. Speaking from experience, the usual approach of government and other large organizations to "security" is to throw user experience out the window, forcing ugly/retro "proven" tech on users, requiring complicated and difficult administrative steps to use the system, slow approval and ticketing processes, etc. The primary job of the Secretary of State is to communicate. Any time wasted on arbitrary tech hoop-jumping, any restrictions on how that communication happens, is keeping the SoS from doing their job. Can you imagine if we were in the middle of a political crisis and suddenly the Secretary of State is on hold with tech support while dealing with a forced password reset or something equally stupid? American lives at risk, and Lotus Notes is the only way to communicate? Etc. See the issue here? To really resolve the problem, they would need a relentlessly service-oriented approach for whomever is responsible for email at the State Department. It would have to be as friction-free an experience for the user as possible, within the boundaries of security. Until then, every Secretary of State is going to put their ability to communicate quickly and easily with the most important and powerful people in the world ahead of the kinds of technical wank that the average HN user thinks is important.
    - frankydp 10y ago
jonwachob91 10y ago
Losing her clearance may not mean losing her job - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27... I found that one, but I was looking for a case with an Army General had lost his clearance but kept his job... I'm not sure what clearance the Sec. State gets, but as President she wouldn't need any clearance as the power to classify material stems from her office.
chris11 10y ago
Yeah, I think that being president requires access to classified material. And I believe that the voters electing someone president should be enough to get them access to that material.

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.

throwanem 10y ago
> the idea that she could be denied a security clearance as president is kind of ludicrous Certainly so. I'm not sure the same is true of the idea that someone with a proven record of such a careless attitude toward security should be denied the presidency on that basis. That seems like a discussion worth having, although, given the modern political climate in the United States, not one likely to actually occur in any way that's even marginally useful to anyone.
- beat 10y ago
  I wouldn't call it a "careless attitude toward security". She's thinking in a different way than we do, because she's a diplomat, not an engineer. There is no technical reason that a privately administrated email server would be inherently less secure than a government-administrated server (there are good arguments that it's likely to be more secure). However, a private email server is likely to be far more user-friendly and free of "security theater" constraints. Speaking from experience, the usual approach of government and other large organizations to "security" is to throw user experience out the window, forcing ugly/retro "proven" tech on users, requiring complicated and difficult administrative steps to use the system, slow approval and ticketing processes, etc. The primary job of the Secretary of State is to communicate. Any time wasted on arbitrary tech hoop-jumping, any restrictions on how that communication happens, is keeping the SoS from doing their job. Can you imagine if we were in the middle of a political crisis and suddenly the Secretary of State is on hold with tech support while dealing with a forced password reset or something equally stupid? American lives at risk, and Lotus Notes is the only way to communicate? Etc. See the issue here? To really resolve the problem, they would need a relentlessly service-oriented approach for whomever is responsible for email at the State Department. It would have to be as friction-free an experience for the user as possible, within the boundaries of security. Until then, every Secretary of State is going to put their ability to communicate quickly and easily with the most important and powerful people in the world ahead of the kinds of technical wank that the average HN user thinks is important.
  - frankydp 10y ago

jonwachob91 10y ago

Losing her clearance may not mean losing her job - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27... I found that one, but I was looking for a case with an Army General had lost his clearance but kept his job... I'm not sure what clearance the Sec. State gets, but as President she wouldn't need any clearance as the power to classify material stems from her office.

chris11 10y ago

Yeah, I think that being president requires access to classified material. And I believe that the voters electing someone president should be enough to get them access to that material.