How will Benghazi affect Hillary's run?

[RunningMn9]

See, up here, our ministers are like, in charge of their ministries.

If your Secretary of State equivalent is spending any amount of time, at all, on worrying about whether or not your State Department equivalent is employing IT email server best practices, than you have a stupid country.

Solving email server dilemmas is not part of what our Secretary of State does - or is supposed to do. When our President is looking to appoint a Secretary of State, he's not screening based on managerial skill, or technological aptitude. He's screening entirely based on diplomatic ability, political acumen and/or straight up cronyism.

[Max Peck]

Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

You've got lots of free time, look it up for yourself.
Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

I'm too busy dropping into threads and shitting on people.

<Grumpy taxpayer notices time of day and day of week.>

You don't have anything else you could be doing?

[Isgrimnur]

Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

You're becoming acclimated. I like to see that.

[GreenGoo]

Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

You've got lots of free time, look it up for yourself.
Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

I'm too busy dropping into threads and shitting on people.

<Grumpy taxpayer notices time of day and day of week.>

You don't have anything else you could be doing?

Ah. I see.

First, fuck off.

Second, my work allows me a LOT of time to multitask.

Third, any actual down time I have you can thank Harper for. He nuked IT for the entire government. I used to have a direct line to my clients and was responsible for pretty much their entire system. Now I have 2 layers of management between me and the client, and 15 other groups that I need to contact to diagnose a problem, all of which have their own priorities that aren't mine or my clients.

I've been waiting 6 months to get my new building pass, a previously trivial matter for an indeterminate employee.

But mostly fuck off.

[Rip]

Those situations involve a third party defrauding the taxpayer, not Congress. That's not the government (in)efficiency we're looking for.

Even without fraud those were absolutely stupid thing to waste taxpayer money on.

[Max Peck]

Why don't you explain to us how the state department is run, who's responsible for what, and who's in charge.

You've got lots of free time, look it up for yourself.
Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

I'm too busy dropping into threads and shitting on people.

<Grumpy taxpayer notices time of day and day of week.>

You don't have anything else you could be doing?

Ah. I see.

First, fuck off.

Second, my work allows me a LOT of time to multitask.

Third, any actual down time I have you can thank Harper for. He nuked IT for the entire government. I used to have a direct line to my clients and was responsible for pretty much their entire system. Now I have 2 layers of management between me and the client, and 15 other groups that I need to contact to diagnose a problem, all of which have their own priorities that aren't mine or my clients.

But mostly fuck off.

Heh, it was just a joke man, although being so tetchy about it makes me think you know you should be doing some actual work.

Edit: My words, they are bad and incomplete. Mostly incomplete.

[Isgrimnur]

Research into demographic differences in health and healthcare outcomes, in a general sense, is absolutely worthy of taxpayer funding. If we can spend $10M in research that leads to the prevention of $10B in end-of-life medical expenses, it's worth it.

[GreenGoo]

Those situations involve a third party defrauding the taxpayer, not Congress. That's not the government (in)efficiency we're looking for.

Even without fraud those were absolutely stupid thing to waste taxpayer money on.

But we're not talking about those things, and to bring them up in this topic is simply a distraction.

Sure I may drive on the sidewalk and manslaughter a buncha people, but why are you bothering with me when I'm sure there is a new Homolka brewing out there.

So sure, I agree that those things on the surface appear to be silly and cost a lot of money. Without actually digging into the details of those studies, I don't actually know (and I'm suspicious, because they are being used to distract me), but what I do know, is that Benghazi has been a witch hunt from the start. Or if not from the start, from the time a new investigation was started when the first one produced results that didn't sink Hillary. And that's not even addressing the fact that the GOP can't even hide behind the guise of legitimacy any more due to their big mouths.

[GreenGoo]

Heh, it was just a joke man, although being so tetchy about it makes me think you know you should be doing some actual work.

Edit: My words, they are bad and incomplete. Mostly incomplete.

If you had actual concerns with me spending time on the internet instead of working, there are better ways to bring your concerns to light than trying to guilt me into shutting up in an unrelated topic.

Not cool.

If anything, I'm pissed it is so hard to get actual work done now. I wanted Harper out not because he was after my sick time and pensions, but because he destroyed any way for me to take satisfaction in the job I do every day. I refused to put a public service sign on my lawn during this election because if people want smaller government, that's their right and there is indeed a lot of waste in the government.

But Harper said stereotypical things about public service, and then made changes so that public service would be more like the stereotypes he espouses.

Mostly I wanted Harper out because he took a small, strong, confident and happy team and turned it into a small, impotent, morally destroyed team of zombies. And then said "see? I was right! Public servants suck".

So my response was less about my guilt and more about my rage.

[Max Peck]

Heh, it was just a joke man, although being so tetchy about it makes me think you know you should be doing some actual work.

Edit: My words, they are bad and incomplete. Mostly incomplete.

If you had actual concerns with me spending time on the internet instead of working, there are better ways to bring your concerns to light than trying to guilt me into shutting up in an unrelated topic.

Not cool.

Look, I can see that you are genuinely upset. I apologize for that. I wasn't trying to "shut you up" at all; it was just intended as a light-hearted jibe along with a pointer to the information you had challenged someone else to look up for you. In my (former) corner of DND, the "Find something to do or I'll find something for you to do" trope is a time-honoured basis for joking around, but it looks like that isn't the case over in your nook. At any rate, if I had serious concerns I'd have made a phone call to someone who would address them, not poke fun at you here, and if I had actually wanted to upset you, I'd have used phrases like "security log audit" or something in that vein.

If you still want to grind your gears about this, then fill your boots. I'm just going to note that it's a sensitive trigger issue for you and move along.

[GreenGoo]

As a public servant, I get to hear about what a waste of space we are from pretty much every direction. That makes one sensitive enough over time. Most people would understand how rude it would be to say it to someone directly.

This topic is also addressed when people (other people) complain that some threads are not safe for work, and then other other people suggest that they shouldn't be on the forums during work hours anyway.

I'm not the only one who's a little touchy about the subject of using the board during the day, but I've never had someone pull the "I pay your salary" on me directly before. Cops don't find it a good laugh when you say it to their faces either.

For the record, regarding the nsfw stuff I mentioned above, I'm of the opinion that I'm at work, it's my responsibility to make sure the content I look at is safe for work. I can't and shouldn't rely on everyone else to curb their behaviour so I can feel comfortable clicking on stuff without paying attention.

The other side of the argument is that OO is pretty much only active during the work day. Participation tapers off into the evening, and only a small handful of members actively post on the weekend. The community is already below critical mass (imo). Having people (including me, as one of the more active posters) stop writing during the day would end OO as a viable general discussion forum. So I'm sensitive to the "don't post from work" argument for other reasons besides my own business. I like OO. I live here when I'm online.

I tend to smooth things over in personal conflicts, and was going to soften my approach, but you're right, I am genuinely upset about it. But I've said my piece so there isn't anything else to it. I know you think it was harmless, and it is. No harm was caused. It's still crappy though.

I don't know what your working relationship is to the government, DND or anything else. If my co-worker said something (and they do, just as I give them shit about fiddling with their phones and shit) that's one thing, when a stranger says it to me during a disagreement we're having, well hopefully I can be forgiven for not understanding it was all in jest.

[GreenGoo]

I wasn't trying to "shut you up" at all; it was just intended as a light-hearted jibe along with a pointer to the information you had challenged someone else to look up for you.

I think this needs it's own response. Lawbeef has a certain opinion. I support him in that opinion. Others offer differing opinions. So now we get to argue back and forth as we are wont to do.

Then Rmn9 comes in and offers nothing new, except for the heaps of scorn he dumped on us, as he is wont to do. Given that he is confident enough in his opinion that he is willing to denigrate opinions that differ from his, I asked him for proof. Not because I'm not capable of doing it myself, or as a cheap way to get him off my back (as occurs occasionally) but as a legitimate request for him to back up his opinion if he's going to be a dick about it.

So he drives by and then he's off again, just as he used to complain msduncan did. From my perspective, he is behaving in exactly the same way he would complain about endlessly from others. Except he'll return, tell us he was busy, and skate around a bit and try to win the argument by shear force of personality. It's worn a bit thin to be honest. I actually like Rmn9, and he has been very conscientious in the past of backing up his opinions with facts, even if I disagree with what those facts mean at times. Lately he's just "too busy for this horseshit" and dumps his opinion on us like we're supposed to just accept it because it's his.

When I explain how the buck stops with our ministers, he is kind enough to call our country stupid (which I have no problem with, outside of him just ad hominening the country instead of backing up his claim).

Then I have 2 separate people show me an org chart with Hillary at the top, like that settles things. I'm not gonna use the eye rolly because it's lame and I personally liked it better when it was banned from the forums, but man, it sure seems like it would be appropriate. Not necessarily at you, just the discussion in general.

[Isgrimnur]

HEY!

I linked to the org chart.

[GreenGoo]

HEY!

I linked to the org chart.

Same thing. I'm not Jeff V. I click on stuff.

And lastly, for the record, I'm not singling Max out for special treatment. I'm very long winded and if I'm in a bad mood I can be angrily long winded. He may not have been around for long enough to realize that, although he's been very active on the forums and seems to pay attention to what he's reading, which has been good for the forums and discussion in general.

[Isgrimnur]

No worries. I'm a bit manic today.

From my point, I was intrigued by the questions being asked, which let me down my rabbit hole, as I am wont to do. I make no judgments as to the failure of the CEO of the dept to address the CIO's failings in the context of a governmental cabinet-level department.

[GreenGoo]

No worries. I'm a bit manic today.

From my point, I was intrigued by the questions being asked, which let me down my rabbit hole, as I am wont to do.

Lol.

Was feeling particularly verbose (a word I learned playing Zork, btw).

[Max Peck]

Edit: Dammit (again) Isgrimnur!

You're becoming acclimated. I like to see that.

Well, it's hard not to take it personally. I am, in many ways, an early-model* prototype Isgrimnur. Older, slower, less efficienct...

* Ah, the good old days of Archie, Veronica, Jughead... I kind of want to go and poke around on a gopher server now.

[Rip]

Add another 268 classified e-mails to the heap.

Friday's document release is the sixth of its kind and with it, more than half of the messages turned over to the agency have now been made publicly available. The 268 emails now deemed classified in this batch are at the lowest classification tier, according to State Department spokesman John Kirby, who said that none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received." There are now between 600 and 700 emails newly marked as classified since the releases began in May.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/h ... ase-215359

[Exodor]

none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

And you wonder why so few care about this "scandal".

[msduncan]

none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

And you wonder why so few care about this "scandal".

I like how you put the descriptor for the email violations in quotes: "scandal"

My wife works for the Federal government. If she even inadvertantly forwards the wrong email, or somehow exposes very basic "not for public" (which isn't technically classified) emails to the public --

1. She's fired
2. She's prosecuted

But apparently if you are a fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate, then you can ride on the wheels of a lock-step immoral Democratic party and their legions of social media zombies and completely get a goddamn pass for breaking the law as long as the liberal special interest groups get their candidate into the White House.

[Exodor]

But apparently if you are a fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate, then you can ride on the wheels of a lock-step immoral Democratic party and their legions of social media zombies and completely get a goddamn pass for breaking the law as long as the liberal special interest groups get their candidate into the White House.

I was literally JUST thinking how great it was to have you back in R&P, msd.

It's too boring when it's just the Liberal Lounge.

[Rip]

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUME ... 759255.pdf

Now I have a reason to live another nine years.

[GreenGoo]

none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

And you wonder why so few care about this "scandal".

I like how you put the descriptor for the email violations in quotes: "scandal"

My wife works for the Federal government. If she even inadvertantly forwards the wrong email, or somehow exposes very basic "not for public" (which isn't technically classified) emails to the public --

1. She's fired
2. She's prosecuted

But apparently if you are a fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate, then you can ride on the wheels of a lock-step immoral Democratic party and their legions of social media zombies and completely get a goddamn pass for breaking the law as long as the liberal special interest groups get their candidate into the White House.

How is this news to you? You can out covert operatives and nothing happens. You think some diplomatic emails to ambassador Borat are going to mean anything?

[RunningMn9]

But apparently if you are a fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate

To be fair, that's just one get out of jail free card that your wife doesn't have access to. She could also get one of those if her name happens to be Dick Armitage.

As an aside, I also work for the federal govt and spillage doesn't necessarily result in loss of employment or prosecution. It turns out that in the event of spillage, they can still look at how and why the spillage occurred and act appropriately.

I've seen spillage occur. No one was terminated or prosecuted. It was through email incidentally, although Hillary wasn't involved. Not sure if the offender was some other fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate though. Or Dick Armitage.

[Anonymous Bosch]

none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

And you wonder why so few care about this "scandal".

Just to clarify, the claim of HRC's emails not being marked classified at the time they were sent/received is little more than a convenient political fig leaf. Because that may simply reflect the fact that HRC negligently did not mark them so as required. Bear in mind, taking intelligence from classified documents and putting it in unclassified e-mails does not make the information unclassified. In fact, that could arguably be an additional offense.

[malchior]

Just to clarify, the claim of HRC's emails not being marked classified at the time they were sent/received is little more than a convenient political fig leaf. Because that may simply reflect the fact that HRC negligently did not mark them so as required.

I severely doubt anyone at that level is classifying their own email (except at a very high level). If it came to them unclassified...it was going to be assumed to be unclassified. Someone later on looking at the contents and deciding that there were elements that should be classified is *not out of the ordinary* in any way. To further reinforce this - the emails in question were forwarded to her from the unclassified system at state.gov. Not the classified system. It probably indicates a process problem - not generally individual failings of one person but the failings of several people. Anyway the gist IMO is that so far they've managed to conduct an incredibly expensive and inefficient audit. Hopefully at least there will be some findings (and funding - ha!) to fix the IT problems that lead them to this sad state of affairs.

[msduncan]

But apparently if you are a fucking ugly, politically opportunistic, bitch-on-wheels lead Democratic candidate, then you can ride on the wheels of a lock-step immoral Democratic party and their legions of social media zombies and completely get a goddamn pass for breaking the law as long as the liberal special interest groups get their candidate into the White House.

I was literally JUST thinking how great it was to have you back in R&P, msd.

It's too boring when it's just the Liberal Lounge.

I thought you guys have had a couple stand-ins for me lately?

[Exodor]

I thought you guys have had a couple stand-ins for me lately?

There's nothing like pure unaltered msd OUTRAGE.

[Rip]

Just to clarify, the claim of HRC's emails not being marked classified at the time they were sent/received is little more than a convenient political fig leaf. Because that may simply reflect the fact that HRC negligently did not mark them so as required.

I severely doubt anyone at that level is classifying their own email (except at a very high level). If it came to them unclassified...it was going to be assumed to be unclassified. Someone later on looking at the contents and deciding that there were elements that should be classified is *not out of the ordinary* in any way. To further reinforce this - the emails in question were forwarded to her from the unclassified system at state.gov. Not the classified system. It probably indicates a process problem - not generally individual failings of one person but the failings of several people. Anyway the gist IMO is that so far they've managed to conduct an incredibly expensive and inefficient audit. Hopefully at least there will be some findings (and funding - ha!) to fix the IT problems that lead them to this sad state of affairs.

Not really.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... BW20150821

[Pyperkub]

Just to clarify, the claim of HRC's emails not being marked classified at the time they were sent/received is little more than a convenient political fig leaf. Because that may simply reflect the fact that HRC negligently did not mark them so as required.

I severely doubt anyone at that level is classifying their own email (except at a very high level). If it came to them unclassified...it was going to be assumed to be unclassified. Someone later on looking at the contents and deciding that there were elements that should be classified is *not out of the ordinary* in any way. To further reinforce this - the emails in question were forwarded to her from the unclassified system at state.gov. Not the classified system. It probably indicates a process problem - not generally individual failings of one person but the failings of several people. Anyway the gist IMO is that so far they've managed to conduct an incredibly expensive and inefficient audit. Hopefully at least there will be some findings (and funding - ha!) to fix the IT problems that lead them to this sad state of affairs.

Dick Cheney.

[malchior]

Just to clarify, the claim of HRC's emails not being marked classified at the time they were sent/received is little more than a convenient political fig leaf. Because that may simply reflect the fact that HRC negligently did not mark them so as required.

I severely doubt anyone at that level is classifying their own email (except at a very high level). If it came to them unclassified...it was going to be assumed to be unclassified. Someone later on looking at the contents and deciding that there were elements that should be classified is *not out of the ordinary* in any way. To further reinforce this - the emails in question were forwarded to her from the unclassified system at state.gov. Not the classified system. It probably indicates a process problem - not generally individual failings of one person but the failings of several people. Anyway the gist IMO is that so far they've managed to conduct an incredibly expensive and inefficient audit. Hopefully at least there will be some findings (and funding - ha!) to fix the IT problems that lead them to this sad state of affairs.

Not really.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... BW20150821

I'm not seeing anything in the article contradicting what I was saying. If there are people forwarding her emails with classified information from the non-classified system - that is definitely a problem. Note Reuters is talking about information that is coded with State Department codes that imply classification but appear from their description to be different from the general classification system or *should have* been classified i.e. a process/training issue. I suspect this is the 'legal distinction' they are hanging their hat on - since the emails weren't explicitly classified. And it speaks to how it is a poor idea to have a system like this for a senior official - since their will be a bias to provide information to them that will tend to be classified. But IMO realistically data leakage is an incredibly technical and difficult problem that *everyone* whether public or private struggles to deal with. The government even has separate systems for the information and data leakage between them routinely occurs. So yes it's still a problem that should be addressed. And it needs to be investigated at the very least to craft further policies/controls to try to mitigate these type of issues for the future but realistically - this type of thing happens all the time. And turning this into a multi-year Congressional investigation smells a whole lot more like politics than good governance.

[Rip]

You said they were forwarded from a .gov system to her. No many were originated in her office and many included information that any intern even knows are classified.

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.

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.

It doesn't get more simple or more obvious.

[Isgrimnur]

That the problem neither began with nor ended with Hillary and is systemic from before she took office? Yep, it's obvious.

[RunningMn9]

That the problem neither began with nor ended with Hillary and is systemic from before she took office? Yep, it's obvious.

As always, the problem is specific to your political opponents, it's just accidental hijinx when your political allies do it.

[malchior]

That the problem neither began with nor ended with Hillary and is systemic from before she took office? Yep, it's obvious.

Exactly and would be in any organization of that size. There are north of 50000 employees. Even if some super low number like 20% had clearance that'd be approximately 10k people who might make simple classification errors on information that made it to her. Should they not forward any email out of .gov for that reason alone? Almost certainly but the information was still in the unclassified email system at state.gov anyway. Should they have better training? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there a technology solution? Sort of - and they generally still rely on human's to make correct classification decisions. It isn't simple at all.

[Jaymann]

If I were in one of those positions, I would just say that everything is classified. Right down to a reminder to pick up some dog food for Fluffy.

[RunningMn9]

If I were in one of those positions, I would just say that everything is classified. Right down to a reminder to pick up some dog food for Fluffy.

It doesn't work that way.

Classification levels are for specific purposes, based on the harm that can be caused to the US if the information spills. Even information that foreign governments expect to be confidential may not be classified. That doesn't mean you should be emailing it from an insecure network, but it does mean that it's likely not a crime - just stupid.

[Fretmute]

Classification levels are for specific purposes, based on the harm that can be caused to the US if the information spills.

I see you take the same training I do!

[Rip]

So now that we know a lie was told to the American people intentionally, does anyone care?

[Isgrimnur]

The American public is lied to constantly. It's not the fact of a lie that moves the needle, it's the scale.