Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:If I have issues with people using personal email for business, you can be damn sure I'm going to have an issue with your running your own email server. There is no question about intent at that point.

But the 2005 policy was described as one of several “clear cut” directives the agency’s own inspector general relied on to criticize the conduct of a U.S. ambassador who in 2012 was faulted for using email outside of the department’s official system.

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.

Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had “no prohibition” on the use of private email for work purposes.

After this story was first published, a State Department official acknowledged the 2005 policy but emphasized that it is limited to records containing such sensitive information.

“Under State Department policy in the FAM referenced in news reports tonight, sensitive but unclassified information should be handled on a system with certain security requirements except in certain circumstances. That FAM policy pertains solely to SBU information,” the official said. “Reports claiming that by using personal email she is automatically out of step of that FAM are inaccurate.”

The official suggested it is possible a review the department is doing of a trove of emails Clinton returned to the agency in December at its request will conclude that none contains SBU information.

El Guapo wrote:SBU? I'm guessing "sensitive but unclassified"?

The 2005 policy says approved “telework solutions” satisfy the rule, which appears in a section of State Department regulations discussing “sensitive but unclassified” information — an extremely broad category of data. Former officials said a large volume of State Department paperwork and email falls into the swath of information known internally as “SBU.”

For the two-year 2014 cycle, the former Alaska governor’s PAC, a vehicle that helps her stay in the game amid talk that she may run in the 2016 presidential contest, has raised $2.5 million on top of more than $1.1 million that was in the bank at the start of the cycle. It has spent $2.7 million, with about $150,000 — or 5.5 percent — going to candidates.

That’s right about on par with the PAC’s parsimoniousness in 2012. Of the 417 leadership PACs that made at least one contribution in that cycle, SarahPAC was one of only 19 to give less than 10 percent of its total expenditures to candidates, other PACs or party committees. And it was one of only three of those spending more than $1 million to do so — the others being Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-Texas) Liberty PAC and Sen. Marco Rubio‘s (R-Fla.) Reclaim America PAC. Paul was a presidential candidate, and Rubio may be one in 2016.

Enough wrote:Sarah Pac, lol.

For the two-year 2014 cycle, the former Alaska governor’s PAC, a vehicle that helps her stay in the game amid talk that she may run in the 2016 presidential contest, has raised $2.5 million on top of more than $1.1 million that was in the bank at the start of the cycle. It has spent $2.7 million, with about $150,000 — or 5.5 percent — going to candidates.

That’s right about on par with the PAC’s parsimoniousness in 2012. Of the 417 leadership PACs that made at least one contribution in that cycle, SarahPAC was one of only 19 to give less than 10 percent of its total expenditures to candidates, other PACs or party committees. And it was one of only three of those spending more than $1 million to do so — the others being Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-Texas) Liberty PAC and Sen. Marco Rubio‘s (R-Fla.) Reclaim America PAC. Paul was a presidential candidate, and Rubio may be one in 2016.

Sarah Pac is like a new type of televangelist to separate chumps from their money.

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:Sarah Pac, lol.

For the two-year 2014 cycle, the former Alaska governor’s PAC, a vehicle that helps her stay in the game amid talk that she may run in the 2016 presidential contest, has raised $2.5 million on top of more than $1.1 million that was in the bank at the start of the cycle. It has spent $2.7 million, with about $150,000 — or 5.5 percent — going to candidates.

That’s right about on par with the PAC’s parsimoniousness in 2012. Of the 417 leadership PACs that made at least one contribution in that cycle, SarahPAC was one of only 19 to give less than 10 percent of its total expenditures to candidates, other PACs or party committees. And it was one of only three of those spending more than $1 million to do so — the others being Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-Texas) Liberty PAC and Sen. Marco Rubio‘s (R-Fla.) Reclaim America PAC. Paul was a presidential candidate, and Rubio may be one in 2016.

Sarah Pac is like a new type of televangelist to separate chumps from their money.

You mean like the Clinton Foundation?

I assume since that is all you brought up, you have no argument with the actual meme?

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:Sarah Pac, lol.

For the two-year 2014 cycle, the former Alaska governor’s PAC, a vehicle that helps her stay in the game amid talk that she may run in the 2016 presidential contest, has raised $2.5 million on top of more than $1.1 million that was in the bank at the start of the cycle. It has spent $2.7 million, with about $150,000 — or 5.5 percent — going to candidates.

That’s right about on par with the PAC’s parsimoniousness in 2012. Of the 417 leadership PACs that made at least one contribution in that cycle, SarahPAC was one of only 19 to give less than 10 percent of its total expenditures to candidates, other PACs or party committees. And it was one of only three of those spending more than $1 million to do so — the others being Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-Texas) Liberty PAC and Sen. Marco Rubio‘s (R-Fla.) Reclaim America PAC. Paul was a presidential candidate, and Rubio may be one in 2016.

Sarah Pac is like a new type of televangelist to separate chumps from their money.

You mean like the Clinton Foundation?

I assume since that is all you brought up, you have no argument with the actual meme?

The actual meme? Not sure what that would be, please elucidate.

Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses...

...When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity...

...’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state

Enough wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:If I have issues with people using personal email for business, you can be damn sure I'm going to have an issue with your running your own email server. There is no question about intent at that point.

Colin Powell did the same thing, it was an established practice at one point. And he probably did it for the exact same unsavory reasons. The agency rule to not do so was set by State in 2005, but there are plenty who argue the rule is murky and thus allowed the use of the server. The whole episode only increases my cynicism.

IC IG Charles McCullough III wrote:In response to the above referenced congressional notification, my office received multiple Congressional requests for copies of Former Secretary Clinton's emails containing classified Intelligence Community (IC) information. These emails, attached hereto, have been properly marked by IC classification officials, and include information classified up to ‘TOP SECRET//SI/TK/NOFORN,’

Pyperkub wrote:As usual, you conflate a PAC with an actual charity. Clinton Foundation expenditures:

Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses...

...When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity...

...’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state

Ericsson decided to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton and paid him more than he had ever been paid for a single speech: $750,000. According to Clinton financial disclosures, in the previous ten years Ericsson had never sponsored a Clinton speech. But now it apparently thought it would be a good time to do so.

On November 12, 2011, Bill appeared at a telecom conference in Hong Kong and talked in general terms aobut the role that telecom plays in our lives. One week later, on November 19, the State Department unveiled its new sanctions list for Iran. Telecom was not on the list….

In April 2012, President Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions on telecom sales to Iran and Syria. But those sanctions did not cover Ericsson’s work in Iran.

Rip wrote:Of course it is hard to tell since the Clinton Foundation does such a good job of hiding who actually gives them money, unlike PACs. PACs only last while you campaign, The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund that will be enriching the Clintons for generations.

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:As usual, you conflate a PAC with an actual charity. Clinton Foundation expenditures:

Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses...

...When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity...

...’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state

One person's charity is another's political vehicle.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... in-sweden/

Ericsson decided to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton and paid him more than he had ever been paid for a single speech: $750,000. According to Clinton financial disclosures, in the previous ten years Ericsson had never sponsored a Clinton speech. But now it apparently thought it would be a good time to do so.

On November 12, 2011, Bill appeared at a telecom conference in Hong Kong and talked in general terms aobut the role that telecom plays in our lives. One week later, on November 19, the State Department unveiled its new sanctions list for Iran. Telecom was not on the list….

In April 2012, President Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions on telecom sales to Iran and Syria. But those sanctions did not cover Ericsson’s work in Iran.

Of course it is hard to tell since the Clinton Foundation does such a good job of hiding who actually gives them money, unlike PACs. PACs only last while you campaign, The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund that will be enriching the Clintons for generations.

But I want to address one aspect of the media coverage that is troubling – and which betrays journalists’ evident lack of interest in the actual charitable works involved, in the structure of American philanthropy, and in the inherent issues of transparency in the U.S. nonprofit sector. Let me be clear: the idea that the Clinton Foundation has been less than forthcoming in its disclosure of data is preposterous, unfair, and unworthy of anyone interested in the truth.

In truth, the Clinton Foundation is among the most forthcoming of major charities and nonprofit foundations – especially those headed by public figures. That may be a low bar to clear (philanthropy in this country is notoriously opaque, and IRS requirements for disclosure woefully thin) but clear it the Clinton Foundation does, and with a considerable digital hop to its step; unlike most charities, the foundation provides a large searchable database of donors on it website, a veritable trove to journalists and researchers – and ironically (but in my view, honorably) the source of many of the scurrilous charges now laid against it.

So here’s a fact that should start appearing in news accounts and essays: In the world of big American philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation is remarkably transparent.

UBS is not the Clinton Foundation’s only foreign donor. In fact, the number of foreign donors continued to rise until recently, despite an earlier assertion from Bill Clinton that the Foundation had imposed a ban on such donations after Hillary was appointed Secretary of State. That ban was imposed at the request of President Obama, who expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest. That request didn’t have the force of law, however.

Rip wrote:Is that updated to include all the ones they missed?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... -donations

Of course as I understand many of those are shielded via group contributions.

Even then there is much to be questioned about what kind of money/influence swaps are going on.

The number of Quid Pro Quo government actions that equate to contribution/donations exceeds the threshold of coincidence.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/08/hill ... -wins-big/

UBS is not the Clinton Foundation’s only foreign donor. In fact, the number of foreign donors continued to rise until recently, despite an earlier assertion from Bill Clinton that the Foundation had imposed a ban on such donations after Hillary was appointed Secretary of State. That ban was imposed at the request of President Obama, who expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest. That request didn’t have the force of law, however.

But because Sarah Palin’s political action committee is dedicated primarily to promoting the political profile of the former Alaska governor and former VP nominee, it can get away with spending more than it takes in—and doling out nearly $97 to Palin’s inner circle for every $1 that went to elect Republicans.

ABC News wrote:Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal lawyer has told a Senate committee that emails and all other data stored on her computer server were erased before the device was turned over to federal authorities.

In a letter sent last week to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, attorney David Kendall said the server was transferred to the FBI on Aug. 12 by Platte River Networks, a Denver firm hired by Clinton to oversee the device. The Senate committee made Kendall's letter public on Wednesday. In exchanges with reporters earlier this week, Clinton said she was not aware if the data on her server was erased.

WaPo wrote:The most recent revelation is that Clinton is being asked whether her server was erased with the intent of preventing further disclosures. This line of questioning presents her with multiple challenges that only she and a couple of her most trusted aides can deal with. She can’t publicly say she knows her server was “wiped clean” because to do so would be an admission that could be viewed as obstruction either in the political realm or worse, as a legal matter.

And, complicating things, Clinton might not actually know for certain whether her server was “wiped clean.” Let’s face it: Clinton was probably told that the server was “taken care of,” but can she be sure? No doubt, in her mind, someone has already failed to do his job and has failed her in the process. Who knows what the FBI will be able to uncover? The uncertainty of what is in the e-mails that have been disclosed and what e-mails might be discovered later prohibits Team Clinton from getting its story straight.

Kraken wrote:The gubmint classifies about a trillion documents a year, most of them just because. I'd be concerned if Hillary was leaking nuclear launch codes and troop movements and covert agent identities and suchlike. I'd be less concerned if she was leaking things that were classified just because. I'd be more concerned again if she had no idea that she was leaking anything or didn't know what was leaking.

Am I to surmise from the server being wiped that we will never know?

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:The gubmint classifies about a trillion documents a year, most of them just because. I'd be concerned if Hillary was leaking nuclear launch codes and troop movements and covert agent identities and suchlike. I'd be less concerned if she was leaking things that were classified just because. I'd be more concerned again if she had no idea that she was leaking anything or didn't know what was leaking.

Am I to surmise from the server being wiped that we will never know?

Things don't get TOP SECRET//SI/TK/NOFORN classification just because. Don't be obtuse.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Clinton Lawyer Says Her Email Server Was Wiped Clean

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:The gubmint classifies about a trillion documents a year, most of them just because. I'd be concerned if Hillary was leaking nuclear launch codes and troop movements and covert agent identities and suchlike. I'd be less concerned if she was leaking things that were classified just because. I'd be more concerned again if she had no idea that she was leaking anything or didn't know what was leaking.

Am I to surmise from the server being wiped that we will never know?

Things don't get TOP SECRET//SI/TK/NOFORN classification just because. Don't be obtuse.

Not "just because" but there are plenty of respectable folk (not tied to the Hillary matter) who argue that documents are vastly over-classified as top secret or confidential. Which can be for a variety of reasons - bureaucratic (government workers getting in more trouble for under-classifying than over-classifying), corruption or semi-corruption (classification of documents that are embarrassing for government workers), or other reasons (including error).

This would probably have zero impact on whether Hillary broke the law here (if it's marked classified then it's marked classified even if it arguably shouldn't have been, I think). It could impact the harm from any misconduct (it's worse if she's e-mailing around the nuclear launch codes than a lunch order that was mis-classified).

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 U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. 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 U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. 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 U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Rip wrote:My cursory understanding is that they were not initially but that after the server changeover happened they were but I don't think that has been verified as fact.

Thing is that type of info shouldn't even touch the public internet. Even then they are vulnerable see: Diplomatic Cables Leak, with Hillary putting them out there on a public network the likes of Wikileaks doesn't even need a Bradley Edward Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning feeding them the stuff.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:My cursory understanding is that they were not initially but that after the server changeover happened they were but I don't think that has been verified as fact.

Thing is that type of info shouldn't even touch the public internet. Even then they are vulnerable see: Diplomatic Cables Leak, with Hillary putting them out there on a public network the likes of Wikileaks doesn't even need a Bradley Edward Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning feeding them the stuff.

Well, I have no idea what the policies behind telecommunications and various classifications of documents, so I have no comment on that. How do modern diplomats communication, if not through the internet?

In any case, I was just curious if these things were lying around/being sent in clear text.

Also, what the hell is a "cable" as a form of communication?

The current scandal roiling over the use of a private e-mail server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is just the latest in a series of scandals surrounding government e-mails. And it’s not the first public airing of problems with the State Department’s IT operations—and executives’ efforts to bypass or work around them. At least she didn’t set up an office in a restroom just to bypass State Department network restrictions and do everything over Gmail.

However, another Obama administration appointee—the former ambassador to Kenya—did do that, essentially refusing to use any of the Nairobi embassy’s internal IT. He worked out of a bathroom because it was the only place in the embassy where he could use an unsecured network and his personal computer, using Gmail to conduct official business. And he did all this during a time when Chinese hackers were penetrating the personal Gmail inboxes of a number of US diplomats.

Apparently, Gration’s impatience with IT extended to not using his secure email and the “front channel” secure diplomatic cable system. The Inspector General’s inspection team observed that “the Ambassador does not read classified front channel messages. No one in the mission screens incoming cables for the Ambassador relevant to Kenyan and US interests in the region. The OIG team also observed that the Ambassador very infrequently logs onto his classified account, which would allow him to read cables and classified emails.” In the end, the IG team recommended that somebody check his accounts for him and screen messages for relevance.

In other words, Gration was the end user from hell for an understaffed IT team in a politically sensitive outpost. “He has willfully disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for official government business,” the IG report noted, “including a front channel instruction from the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security against such practice, which he asserted to the OIG team that he had not seen”—because he never used his secure network account.

What could have possibly motivated that sort of behavior from a man who had clearly dealt with secure government IT systems in the past as an Air Force major general? In part, it may have been that regardless of how competent the IT team at the Nairobi embassy was, State Department information systems might make working out of a bathroom look good to anyone accustomed to more corporate IT.

All that aside, Gration’s insistence on running his own IT was part of a bigger pattern of telling the chain of command at the State Department to stuff it and basically doing whatever he wanted. “The Ambassador’s leadership example has negatively affected mission staff perceptions of his role as Chief of Mission and raised questions about his objectivity,” the OIG reported.

For example, when Gration decided that morale was low, he created his own survey to find out why. When the answer turned out to be him, “he told embassy employees that senior officers had done a bad job of explaining his objectives,” the OIG team reported. “He subsequently sought—but did not obtain—access to individual survey responses that would have violated the anonymity of the respondents.”

Gration also attempted to have a monument to the victims of the 1998 Nairobi embassy bombing altered without State Department approval, and using government funds. He frequently railed against Washington and encouraged staff not to follow administration policy directives.

At the end of the day, it would seem, Gration was just a high-maintenance user with feelings of entitlement that went far beyond those associated with his responsibilities. But, as with Clinton, Gration was the boss—and the boss got what the boss wanted.

GreenGoo wrote:Rip, have you read if the emails were encrypted at least? Either in transit or on the system, or both? I haven't been following closely and I don't actually know the details of what was where and what went through what.

Hillary Clinton wrote:QUESTION: Madam Secretary, two quick follow ups. You mentioned the server. That's one of the distinctions here.

This wasn't Gmail or Yahoo or something. This was a server that you owned. Is that appropriate? Is it -- was there any precedent for it? Did you clear it with any State Department security officials? And do they have -- did they have full access to it when you were secretary?

CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.

So, I think that the -- the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.

GreenGoo wrote: So there are a couple of ways of protecting data:

the file itself is encrypted (as your example).
The file system is encrypted (so just accessing the harddrive requires authentication)
the file is sent as clear text through an encryption tunnel (which results in something sorta like the first way, but with technical differences).

GreenGoo wrote: How do modern diplomats communication, if not through the internet?

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the TCP/IP protocols in a 'completely secure' environment".[1] It also provides services such as hypertext document access and electronic mail. As such, SIPRNet is the DoD's classified version of the civilian Internet.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: From what I gather from friends/colleagues with U.S. security clearance, anything classified can only be decrypted by the person or persons the e-mail was sent to; the decryption can only be done by the person’s PIV card (an ID badge that must be displayed at all times and is used to sign in to the person’s computer).