home

Is "Foreign Government Information" Automatically Classified?

Reuters argues:

Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified. The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher[.] [My emphasis.

I think Reuters is misunderstanding the applicable rules. Reuters appears to be referring to 12 FAM 534.1(d):

Classify foreign government information, other than NATO information, that is “Restricted,” “Designated,” or “unclassified provided in confidence” as U.S. Confidential to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. When adequate to achieve the agreed-upon protection requirements of the providing government, this type of FGI may be handled under standards that are less restrictive than the safeguarding standards that ordinarily apply to U.S. Confidential information, provided that it is marked "Confidential/Modified Handling" or "C/MOD." [My emphasis]
32 CFR 2001.54 sheds more light on this:

Restricted and other foreign government information provided in confidence.

In order to assure the protection of other foreign government information provided in confidence (e.g., foreign government “Restricted,” “Designated,” or unclassified provided in confidence), such information must be classified under the Order. The receiving agency, or a receiving U.S. contractor, licensee, grantee, or certificate holder acting in accordance with instructions received from the U.S. Government, shall provide a degree of protection to the foreign government information at least equivalent to that required by the government or international organization that provided the information.

When adequate to achieve equivalency, these standards may be less restrictive than the safeguarding standards that ordinarily apply to U.S. Confidential information. If the foreign protection requirement is lower than the protection required for U.S. Confidential information, the following requirements shall be met:

(1) Documents may retain their original foreign markings if the responsible agency determines that these markings are adequate to meet the purposes served by U.S. classification markings. Otherwise, documents shall be marked, “This document contains (insert name of country) (insert classification level) information to be treated as U.S. (insert classification level).” The notation, “Modified Handling Authorized,” may be added to either the foreign or U.S. markings authorized for foreign government information. If remarking foreign originated documents or matter is impractical, an approved cover sheet is an authorized option;

(2) Documents shall be provided only to persons in accordance with sections 4.1(a) and (h) of the Order;

(3) Individuals being given access shall be notified of applicable handling instructions. This may be accomplished by a briefing, written instructions, or by applying specific handling requirements to an approved cover sheet;

(4) Documents shall be stored in such a manner so as to prevent unauthorized access;

(5) Documents shall be transmitted in a method approved for classified information, unless this method is waived by the originating government.

[My emphasis.]

What these regulations appear to be trying to achieve is honoring the requests of the foreign government providing the information, absent an independent basis for the US Government to impose classification.

In essence, I think the Reuters story is wrong. And if it is not, then it seems to me the State Department can not function outside of secure systems, as its main order of business is exchanging communications with foreign governments.

If Reuters' argument is considered accurate, I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that there are thousands of violations in State, including John Kerry, every day.

The key purpose of this provision is to respect foreign government's wishes, not to protect what the US Govt deems classified.

And indeed, Reuters' own story seems to confirm this:

A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.

If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.

The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

[My emphasis]

Treated what way? Confidentially? Or routed through classified systems? I think it is the former, not the latter. I do not believe foreign governments generally have the expectation that their communications with the State Department will be routed through classified secure systems. They do expect it will be kept confidential, not classified "CONFIDENTIAL," just every day normal confidential.

I think classification of "foreign government information" as "CONFIDENTIAL" comes when the foreign government asks for it. And I think that's what the regs require.

I think the Reuters argument is wrong.

And I think the State Department has operated as if the Reuters argument is wrong forever, and still does.

To wit, if Hillary Clinton violated these regulations, the State Department itself, from top to bottom, has violated these regulations forever.

< Clinton and EGhazi: Did William Roebuck Violate 18 USC 1924? | The Pileons Backfire? Hillary Net Dem Favorables Stable in Gallup Poll >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The worst part of all of this, for me, (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    is the abysmally poor way the media is covering this.  I suppose if I was someone who just assumed that if it's on the news, it's true and complete, I wouldn't be itching to throw things at my TV, or pound my keyboard into dust, but I'm not one of those people.

    It's not an issue that lends itself to 30 seconds, or even a minute.  It can't be unwound by sticking a microphone and a camera in front of someone who used to be in the State Department or who worked in some other capacity within the government.

    And while this may have had its genesis in Clinton's turning over her government e-mails for review prior to them being released as she wishes, I find it irresponsible for the entire media focus to be on her, when it's clear that the review of the e-mails has led to a shift in  focus to a more general questioning of how the State Department handled the materials being communicated by and among SD employees and members of other agencies and departments.

    In the two examples you cited yesterday, the e-mails were sent or received via unsecured government servers, which would be perfectly legitimate and within the parameters if, as these people believed at the time, they were working with non-classifed information.  If there's always a chance that material will later - sometimes MUCH later - be determined to be classified, it would require all materials sent or received to be treated as presumptively classified.  FOIA requests would be pointless,  We would have an entire segment of the government hidden from any public review.

    Is this the length being gone to just so that Hillary can be burned at the stake like the witch she is so often portrayed as being?

    The idea that this is going to go on for the next 14 months just exhausts me; I don't know if I can stand it.


    the reason is no actually cares about (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    the substance of his. (tbh I don;t really care.)

    Its a get the witch movement.

    And I suppose, I'm on the save the witch! side.

    Parent

    And I don't really care about it, either, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    and it kind of ticks me off that I feel like I have to at least educate myself about it in order to fend off the garbage-disguised-as-reporting.

    But in reality, to try to explain this to the average person, it might as well be Urdu for all the sense it makes to them.  

    It's so obvious that this has nothing to do with the integrity of the government's secrets, and everything to do with bringing Clinton down.  Because I think there's an assumption that Sanders can't win (and if it ever looks like he could, the long knives will be turned on him), so if they can knock Clinton out, or so damage her that she limps into November and lose convincingly, they will have the next juicy story to gleefully report, that of the rising-from-the-ashes-of-insanity of the GOP.

    The whole thing just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

    Parent

    The press (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    and the GOP will not be satisfied until Hillary is gang raped, her throat slit and she's thrown by the side of the road like a piece of garbage. Facts do not matter. Nothing matters except wanting her dead.

    Parent
    I really (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    wish it wasn't true but the hysteria they're trying to whip up is for real. It's gone way over the top at this point.

    Parent
    TGIF (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    You're right Anne, it's exhausting.  I'm going up the canal in my boat and have a fish taco and a beer.  Nothing is going to change over the weekend, I hope.  Adios comancheros.

    Parent
    Have a taco and a beer for me, would you? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    I think I should close my eyes and imagine being on the water, and then enjoying a delicious fish taco and an icy-cold beer while tropical breezes waft over me.

    That has to be better for the blood pressure than this stuff!

    Parent

    Yeah, I know...the misinformation (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    or misunderstanding of information, whatever they are doing, just drives me bonkers.

    But you know, if it were not this, it would be something else. It is why I had mixed emotions about her running in the first place. It is going to be really exhausting for all of us.

    Parent

    If every DS employee and contractor (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    unfailingly adhered to these regulations, nothing else would get done.

    That's why there are words in there like (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    'adequate to achieve' and 'degree of protection', etc... The agencies probably all have their own policies and instructions that interpret the regs and direct employees how to do what they need to do. I'd be willing to bet that most employees rarely read the regulations directly - they rely on the approved policies and procedures for their job.

    Parent
    What do you think (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    Of this?

    POLITICS

    'Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed
     Reuters
    REUTERS
    Aug. 21, 2015, 6:15 AM 28,527  38
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she speaks during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada August 18, 2015. REUTERS/David Becker
    Thomson Reuters
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she speaks during a town-hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada.

    For months, the US State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

    While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

    But the details included in those "Classified" stamps -- which include a string of dates, letters, and numbers describing the nature of the classification -- appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

    The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the US government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go -- regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

    In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The US government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to US officials by their foreign counterparts.

    This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to US regulations examined by Reuters.

    Hillary ClintonABC News/screenshot
    Clinton at a press conference this week.

    "It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the US government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

    "If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by US rules that is classified at the moment it's in US channels and US possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."



    Eek! Sorry! (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    I was asking about this (didn't v realize the whole thing got copied as inam on my phone).  Please delete.

    "It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the US government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

    "If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by US rules that is classified at the moment it's in US channels and US possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."



    Parent
    It's obviously wrong (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    in that if the FG says "I want it confidential but it does not have to be classified."

    But I found the example striking.

    Is a lower level exchange of information not "born classified?" If not, why not?

    Parent

    Was an email sent (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:17:17 AM EST
    to an unsecure e-mail by the British Foreign minister (by his secratry) "classified at birth?"

    Parent
    That doesn't fit the definition (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    As how I read Leonard's statement and 79 CFR 35936, title 22, section 9.4(c)(3) [2014] which I think is what he is saying.  (Don't know if this was in place in 2009).

    This section reads:  "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to national security."

    ...and which makes it eligible for classification.

    On another note, in an answer to questions yesterday, the same CFR says this:

    §9.12 Sharing other-agency classified information.

    The long-standing third-agency rule has required prior originating agency approval before a receiving agency could further disseminate classified information. Under the Executive Order, unless the originating agency indicates on the material that prior approval is required and provided that the criteria for access under section 4.1(a) of the Order are met, a receiving agency may further disseminate classified information in documents created subsequent to the effective date of the Order to another agency or U.S. entity without consultation with the originating agency. "U.S. entity" includes cleared state, local, tribal, and private sector entities. Similarly, under certain circumstances, receiving agencies may pass such classified information to foreign governments.

    I just don't know what to think anymore.  On one hand, I still support HRC and think she is BY FAR the best person for the job of POTUS.  But there is also something to this story that can't just be pooh-poohed away by Democrats, no matter how much they try. (It just sounds like new excuses every day).

    I never believe politicians are honest, even if I like them, so while I'm really disappointed that someone so smart, with a history of people coming after her - legit or not - would even THINK it was a good idea to have her own server and then to wipe it, especially since she knew she was running for president and every movement of hers was going to be put under a microscope.

    Parent

    "Unauthorized disclosure" ? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    What does "unauthorized disclosure" mean?

    BTW, you prepared to make this charge against the entire State Dept on those grounds?

    Or are you arguing that FGI is NEVEr sent on usecured .gov accounts?

    Hell, what do you do when the foreign principal ends on unsecured systems as happened with the Birth foreign Minister?

    Frankly I don't see much that makes sense to me in your argument.

    Parent

    Who's (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    blowing smoke? Was this Leonard guy privy to the original communications? How does he know the expectations of the original foreign source as to classification?

    Gotta love this line

    Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct
    Well duh.

    You only have to read this example to see the total silliness of it all(my emp.)

    In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

    Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

    OMG better investigate the Brits, they obviously sent classified information to Huma on a unsecured account. The British themselves obviously never had the expectation that this info would travel only via the secure channels.

    The SD of course redacted the contents before release to the public to honor the request of the British for confidentially, as is probably the case for all the redactions made by State before releasing any documents.

    Parent

    I dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    This guy was actually in charge if Information Security for the government, so I'm gonna guess he knows a thing or two more than everyone comnenting here.

    Parent
    You always make that assumption (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    I'm always more skeptical than you.

    For example, when he was in charge, Colin Powell used a private e-mail

    What did he know about that? What did he DO about that?


    Parent

    Funny comment (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    Since, even as an HRC supporter (way before it was cool), I'm much more skeptical of the, "Nope, move along. Nothing to see here," mantra.

    Parent
    Nah you are very resspectful of authortiy (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    in my experience.

    See your comment above.

    Hey the EXPERT said it so it must be true!

    Parent

    Well, some here are saying (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    BTD said it, so it must be true. That doesn't make it so, of course, but that's part of the rah-rah spirirt!  You might be absolutely right in your analysis, but you are still clearly missing the point.

    This was a witch hunt from the begnning.  Problem is, if you're smart enough to be president, and have a history of the opposition startng these witch hunts, why keep hidden magic wands and spell books and then say, "Everyone else does it too"?  That doesn't fly coming from 5 year olds - why accept it from politicians?

    It doesn't MATTER if she sent or received classified information at this point.  What matters is: a) it looks that way, b) it looks like she's trying to hide something, and C) it plays into the idea that many people already have about the Clintons - that she and Bill are above the law and will use weasel lawyer words to get out of a jam.  This is a popularity contest, and even if you're the person with good ideas, if voters don't like you or trust you, they ain't gonna vote for you.  

    The fact that this story has been around for months and people have to keep coming out and "explaining" should tell you something. This is going to dog her for months.

    Parent

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    sorry but the whole like and trust thing is not true. People vote for people they don't trust all the time.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    Actually would be a great question for some polling company to add their polling questions.

    Do you like the candidate?

    Do you trust the candidate?

    Would you vote for the candidate?

    Parent

    They already (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    ask it and trust doesn't go into voting for someone. In 1996 Bob Dole had a trust of 67% and lost in a landslide. I guess trust isn't too great when nobody likes your ideas.

    Parent
    Optics (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    Good argument.

    Really> That's all you got?

    Parent

    Have you watched any news lately? (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    Have you seen what the media and talking heads are making of this?  

    They have been hammering this subject in a completely dishonest way, then breathlessly reporting the falling poll numbers and electoral match-ups.

    I no longer doubt that they live for being able to manipulate things to get the stories they want to tell, to get the outcome that packs the most drama.

    It's sick, and it infuriates me, but it's real.  It may be the most real thing about the media: they want to write the stories, not report on them.

    So, while it's unutterably true that there's not as much to see here as we are being led to believe, I don't think you can deny that the optics are driving public opinion.  Is it, at its heart, a completely empty argument?  Of course.  But it's the reality we live in unfortunately.

    We are going to be treated to non-stop Trump coverage; they are going to flood the airwaves with images of huge, enthusiastic crowds.  Trump's poll numbers will keep going up.  Will they spend any time focusing on the content of his speeches and proposals?  We know they aren't.  So, he'll get to whip up crowds and get them behind what is essentially a cattle-car immigration plan - just to name one - and they'll make it seem exciting and new and Chris Matthews will be so tingly he won't be able to walk.

    You know this is what we have in store.

    I share your distaste and disdain for the "optics" argument, I wish it didn't have to be made, so if you can figure out how to replace it with responsible, more honest reporting, I'd love you forever.  For-ever.

    Parent

    You misunderstand me (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    I'm not discounting the Optics argument.

    But unless we agree to be sheep, that can not be the END of the argument.

    If you think it's wrong and care about it you fight to CHANGE the optics.

    In my small way, that is what I am doing.

    If we accept it as final, then let's just give up and go home.

    Parent

    And that's why we put ourselves (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    through the pain of digging into the details, so that we might just possibly be able, in conversations with the people we encounter, to get people to think for themselves.

    When someone you're talking to who's been parroting the media's talking points stops for a second and says, "gee...I didn't know that - that's not what Lester Holt/Scott Pelley/whoever said," sometimes that light goes on and stays on.  And one more sheep peels away from the herd.

    I do appreciate the work you've been doing on this issue; it's so frustrating Recon that he's busy posting away in what should be a closed Open Thread.  Yes, I'm a tattletale, but since I'm pretty sure I'm going to Hell one day anyway, what's the difference?

    Parent

    I like that (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    BTD said it so it must be true....What's wrong with that?  

    The reality is that I have very little time to track down and fly speck the relevant statutes and facts that are often discussed here.  After many years experience, BTD does have a track record.  I find very little to quibble with in his diaries.

    So, I do give him the benefit of the doubt.  Frankly, I am glad that someone is really running this stuff down......  

    Parent

    Sure he (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    probably knows something, but he also might be a partisan hack. The whole "born classified" sounds a bit ludicrous. By that standard a great deal info gathered by State would have to be considered classified unless it was "cleared" by foreign officials. By that standard foreign officials would have a say in what should be considered classified. I really don't think that the regulations were set up to give foreign officials the final say so on what and how things should be classified.

    If you think that any high level diplomat has never leaked or otherwise disclosed something from a foreign source, you are not only blowing smoke, you must be smoking blow.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    Since he not sure only was appointed by Bush I, but CLINTON as well, you're right, he's probably a partisan hack.

    Parent
    Hes not a hack (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    but people like to pretend they know more than they do sometimes.

    My basic problem is when he was in his jb Colin Powell had a private e-mail and apparently he did not know or did not care.

    I'm skeptical he really new how State operated.

    Parent

    This sounds like Miliband is saying (none / 0) (#31)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    do not classify/make a formal record of this info...

    "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."


    Parent
    This seems silly (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 09:55:47 AM EST
    Even in a representative republic there is an expectation of government transparency. Every communication, every breath, cannot be classified.  That's ridiculous.  This isn't North Korea.

    Parent
    the argument appears to be (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    by definition, everything the State Department does is classified "at birth."

    Parent
    And the American people are informed NEVER :) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    It's all classified...every period and comma, along with all breath and spittle.

    We are the pawns of the illuminati :)

    Parent

    And if that's the case, then why ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    ... should the State Department honor the media's FOIA requests? Certain members of the media appear to want it both ways, which is perhaps far more indicative of their own motivations in the reporting of this story, than it is reflective of the State Department's respective definitions for "confidentiality" and "classified."

    Parent
    Cogent observation (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 09:58:45 AM EST
    And State appears to agree with you, BT (none / 0) (#5)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    "The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect."

    If this really is a violation or technical violation, I wonder if it is violated more than it is adhered to.

    It will be interesting to see if other knowledgeable commentators start saying the same thing that BT has already said.

    the "original sin" (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by mm on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    I appreciate the work BTD is doing on this and the commentary here.

    It seems that they just want to keep punishing her for the "original sin" of using a private server and personal email address and will continue to look for a thousand pretexts to keep hammering her for that.

    The excerpt below confirms what BTD has been saying all along, that the same rules would apply on a state.gov address.  

    However, it appears that the assertion by Leonard that "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain is belied by the facts presented in these instances.

    The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

    Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.

    With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
     LINK



    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    The problem with these debates (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    is that the principles running our national Security apparatus have to, more or less, remain mute in trying to, specifically, and, publicly, define what, "confidential," means. The quote, "born confidential," is a fractured attempt to do just that.

    Let me try an example:

    Suppose our agents are tapping the conversations of some, suspected, foreign spies. Every day the main, "person of interest," comes into his office, and, says, "good morning everyone," to the staff there. Then, on one particular morning, he comes in and says, "morning everyone."
    Was that sentence (by leaving out the word, "good,") a surreptitious signal of some sort, or just a mindless change in the way he normally greets his employees?  And, in relaying this conversation, do our agents consider it "confidential?"

    Now, I understand that my example is imperfect. Wire taps satellite pick-ups, and other electronic surveillances are always considered confidential. But, for the purpose of our discussion here, and whether some conversations should be classified immediately, or, in retrospect, later, you can see why this debate is almost impossible to adjudicate.


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    bigger problem the total lack of historical context. The State department has always had a different idea of classification then Intel. My understanding is there has been always some tension there.

    Parent
    I Need A "Clinton Emails For Dummies" (none / 0) (#47)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    What I would like to know:

    1. Using a private email server avoids the email going through an ISP and it would seem makes it more secure than that alternative. So why the hysteria? Did she use the server for other Internet access, like research, besides email?

    2. Were the "confidential emails" encrypted?

    3. What is the "correct protocol" for a government official's use of the Internet and what was the advantage to HRC in not following it?

    I hope somebody can recommend a reference to get me up to speed on this issue.  Thanks.

    From the Washington Examiner (none / 0) (#49)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 07:26:19 PM EST
    Email timeline suggests second server may exist

    Conflicting accounts of when data was removed from Hillary Clinton's private server indicate copies of emails known to contain classified information may reside on a device other than the one presently in FBI custody.

    She may have printed 55,000 pages of emails for submission to the State Department from a different device than the one presently in FBI custody.

    Platte River Networks, the company that managed Clinton's email network after she stepped down from her post as secretary of state, indicated it transferred data off the original server in mid-2013.

    An attorney for Platte River said there is likely "no useful data" remaining on the server.

    But the Clinton campaign has suggested the former secretary of state did not erase emails she deemed personal until January of this year, raising questions as to where the emails were located when her staff sifted through them to determine which were related to her government service.



    the way (none / 0) (#50)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:02:43 PM EST
    >Treated what way? Confidentially? Or routed through >classified systems? I think it is the former, not >the latter. I do not believe foreign governments >generally have the expectation that their >communications with the State Department will be >routed through classified secure systems.

    Foreign governments which give to the USA information that they also and at the time consider to be "given in confidence" expect that the USA will treat that information as classified.

    It surely happens that as part of some conversations, some French fellow and some American fellow may refer to or discuss publicly known events, such as terrorist attacks or the praiseworthy and heroic action of some Americans in stopping the fellow who got on the train with the intention of shooting up some people.  Information which is already pubicly known can't be a matter of a confidential communication, except perhaps in certain details, if there are details related to say, spies and their activity as related to a publicly known event or action.

    I am sure that some French gov people discussed with American gov people their thanks for American aid with the fellow on the train . . .  No one supposes that such thanks or even general discussion of the Muslim attacker is confidential and classified.

    However, there are times in which some foreign gov has learned things by their intelligence agencies which they wish to share wish US officials . . . and they share such information confidentially and expecting it to be classified . . . and subsequent to classification, or due to automatic classification, to be treated in secure ways.

    How obvious.