Obama: The Word 'Classified' Means Whatever We Need It To Mean (techdirt.com)

An anonymous reader writes: During an interview with Fox News, President Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified" when trying to answer questions about an ongoing investigation about Hillary Clinton and her emails. Techdirt writes, "Clinton sent, received and stored classified info on a private email server. But some classified info is more equal than others. It all depends on who has it and how the current administration feels about that person. Clinton playing fast and loose with classified info is subject to an entirely different standard than the large number of whistleblowers the Obama administration has prosecuted over the years." President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country. Obama says, "There's stuff that is really top-secret, and there's stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source." Basically, classification means all things to all people, as long as it allows officials and agencies to control narratives and disrupt public accountability.

Comments

Well, duh

[kschendel]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

The last line of the summary is opinion, probably false, and flamebait. That may be what Fox or Rush Limbaugh are saying, but reasonable people need not repeat it, and it certainly doesn't belong on Slashdot.

A large part of prior discussions on the topic here was that SecState does actually have the power to unilaterally declare some material classified or not -- I believe this applies to material originating in the State Department. So, most people here should already know that there are degrees and nuances to classification, and the details of that matter considerably. I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.

Re:Well, duh

[Z00L00K]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as:
  - Top Secret
  - Secret
  - Restricted
  - Public

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Wat. The thing that people are especially freaking out about are the "SECRET/SAP" emails that went out to/from her server.

I personally don't care (the Espionage Act of 1917 contributed greatly to the downfall of the American Republic - it should be but never can be repealed) but at least understand the controversy.

Re:Well, duh

[Kevin by the Beach]

I agree that this is posturing for a likely "decline to prosecute", just the beginning of the spin cycle.

Equal prosecution under the law isn't in the constitution. (but, maybe it should be)

Re:Well, duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, the outlines of this issue were (surprisingly comprehensively) addressed by a ficticious talking egg in an 1871 children's book:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

First I've heard of this. There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access? Who was the classification authority and when were they classified?

There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.

Re:Well, duh

[AntronArgaiv]

Well, yes, but...

if it's MARKED classified, it shouldn't have gone over her email server. To date, news reports indicate that this happened rarely, perhaps never.

If it WAS marked classified, and those markings were removed, that's a whole 'nother problem, separate and distinct (and far more serious) from Clinton running a private email server.

If it WASN'T marked classified, and should have been, that's also a bigger issue, but one on which reasonable people might differ. So, there should be more latitude if this was the case with a few messages. Reports indicate that re-examination of all the messages indicate that some of them were in this category.

So...did Clinton knowingly and deliberately violate the law? Depends if you want her to have done so or not, because whether a message should have been classified or not seems to be a debatable point. It's hard to see a crime here.

Re:Well, duh

[Pseudonymous Powers]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as: - Top Secret - Secret - Restricted - Public

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

I agree (except for your proposed "default to secret" policy--see below).

If some things are indeed "more secret" than other things at the same level of classification, that means that we don't have enough levels of classification. The exact meaning of each level of secrecy, and which roles will have access to it, should be well-defined and a matter of public record. It sounds from this story like that's not the case, at least in certain officials' imaginations--probably because a lack of clarity lets them do whatever they want, whenever they want, and say it's just a matter of discretion.

Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Or, we could default to "public", because this is a democracy, and we already make more things secret than is healthy.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. And at the TS or S level, you can have an additional layer under the umbrella of "special access program". SAP, whether it's TS or S is that highly classified group Obama was talking about. A few of the email's on Clinton's server were TS/SAP, which is essentially the highest level of classification available. Also, as the TS/SAP emails were apparently about a drone program, the classifying authority would likely be DoD or CIA... not the Dept. of State.

What people don't understand is that this kind of stuff isn't discussed outside of a vault. Computers authorized to even have emails mentioning it have to be classified at the TS/SAP level, and stored in a vault as well. The amount of security needed to store such information is so extreme, that there is no way Clinton didn't know she was in violation of protocol. What she did constitutes negligent handling of classified information, which, along with straight up disclosure as the NDA signed to grant clearance makes no distinction, is punishable by up to 10 years and $10,000 per count where each classified document would be a single count. Even disregarding the whole criminal aspect of it, and the possibility of indictment, I cannot understand how this wouldn't disqualify her purely on her character. If she's playing fast and loose with highly sensitive documents, what other corners will she cut as president, and how will that negatively impact our country and worldwide repuation?

Re:Well, duh

[joshki]

Actually both are felonies. Classification of data does not depend on how it is marked. One might be able to make a reasonable argument that they were not aware of some data being classified if it were marked incorrectly or not at all, but with the magnitude of this problem and her position at the time she does not enjoy the ability to make that argument.

Re:Well, duh

[tripleevenfall]

I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now.

Re: Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

Try to keep up: What did she do, when did she do it, what was the classified information and when, was it marked? Unfortunately, I can't figure out exactly what happened based on all the yelling.

For example, this NPR article says that 84 emails were retroactively classified, some to confidential, some to secret, some to top secret. That's bad. Is that different from someone receiving / sending marked documents? I think so. Do you think it's the same?

Re:Well, duh

[david_thornley]

There's often a tension between security and getting things done, and it's really useful to have some human judgment in the system. Having even finer grades of secrecy will accomplish little except create inefficiency and not address the need.

At some point, you have to give people discretion to get the work of the United States done. There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents, and we can lose more from delaying urgent actions than from mishandling specific classified information.

Thanks to Manning and Snowden, we know what happens when lots of top secret stuff gets dumped into public view, and it's not that bad.

Re:Well, duh

[andyring]

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Re:Well, duh

[amiga3D]

In other words it's only classified if someone like Snowden releases it.

Re: Well, duh

[neoritter]

84 out of 2000+ were retroactively classified. And those 84 were not the 22 that were deemed to highly classified to be released. Also most of the egregious stuff came from other agencies.

Re: Well, duh

[neoritter]

Also, "was it marked" is not relevant, as whether it is or not is irrelevant under the laws and regulations that she signed onto. You are supposed to know what is classified.

Re:Well, duh

[TheCarp]

They are an independent administration that don't need no constitutional powers.

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

This is probably the worst thing I've seen in this discussion that has some factual basis, because it's willful removal of markings.

One of the problems I have with this is that it's not clear sometimes. For example, you said that she 'was having trouble receiving classified information', but the article doesn't say that, it says whether or not it was classified is unknown.

For some reason, people think that I'm trying to defend her, but i'm trying to understand what exactly she did and how bad it was on a scale from 1 to 10. I keep getting the impression that Fox thinks it's a 10 (purposefully handing marked TS/SAP info to the Chinese) and her campaign saying it was a 1 (she got an email that the classified coffee maker was broken). Does it matter? I think so. It doesn't help that people are simply wrong when they say things like the above ('classified information' versus 'sensitive information').

Re: Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

You cannot always know what some other agency is going to deem classified. Yes, the nuclear launch codes are going to be classified. No, the starbucks order is not going to be classified. In the middle is a gray area going from offwhite to damn near black, with some being pretty obviously classified and some almost certainly classified and she should have known it. More importantly, if you write sentence 1 (unclassified by itself) and then write sentence 2 (unclassified by itself), the paragraph can easily be classified at a high level. That's why you have people whose job it is to classify and declassify things.

To date, the things she did that I can tell: 1) received unmarked emails that 'follow' classified documents that the NSA and CIA say should have been classified; 2) told someone to fax a document without sensitive markings (might have been classified, don't know) 3) received and sent out emails that should have been classified regarding the verbal communications between foreign governments and the US government. See here.

I think that the 3 is the worse, because it particularly relates to her job and supposed training. hat is, information told to the government in confidence by foreign governments is the State Dept bread and butter, and so should have been immediately classified and handled properly.

Re:Well, duh

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I agree that this is posturing for a likely "decline to prosecute", just the beginning of the spin cycle.

Equal prosecution under the law isn't in the constitution. (but, maybe it should be)

Pretty much. It is an admission of violation of the law and they are spreading words to minimize it.

Re:Well, duh

[mrchaotica]

If it were anyone but the Left's best hope for the Presidency, she'd be in jail.

Bullshit. Clinton is the Beltway-insider-status-quo's best hope for the Presidency. The Left's best hope for the Presidency is Sanders, and failing to prosecute criminal sociopath Clinton is nothing less than a conscious effort to sabotage him.

Re:Well, duh

[aardvarkjoe]

If it were anyone but the Left's best hope for the Presidency, she'd be in jail.

The left's best hope? Hillary is probably the only possible candidate who could actually lose to Donald Trump. If the Democrats nominated somebody else (and Republicans actually stick with Trump), the Democrats would be essentially guaranteed with the presidency.

Not saying that Hillary is definitely going to lose, but a Clinton/Trump race is going to be a whole lot closer than it would otherwise be.

Re:Well, duh

[operagost]

Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification. If she classified any communications, then they remain so until she officially declassified them. If she classified documents (or someone else did) and she passed them through her vulnerable email server without removing that classification, she is guilty of a violation. Doing otherwise is either lazy or scheming. I'm thinking the former here, because this whole mess started when she didn't want to carry two phones.

Come on, we're mostly IT people here. Do you like it when the CEO unofficially decides that he's above all the rules of the IT department? He'll be the first to fire people when company secrets get out. And this is why we have to demand that MINIMAL accountability to people who are supposed to be highly skilled in their area and honest in their dealings.

Re:Well, duh

[flink]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as:

  - Top Secret

  - Secret

  - Restricted

  - Public

RESTRICTED hasn't been a thing in the US since WWII. There is a CONFIDENTIAL level however. Also, there are many, many other security markings that may be placed on a document, even if it isn't classified, that modify how it may be distributed. You may be also interested to learn that there is no official comprehensive list of all markings and what they mean as each branch or program may designate their own marks that are defined in the Security Classification Guide of the program that is generating the material. See DoD manual 5200.01 for an overview of the widely used marks.

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Treating the information as SECRET means that it may only be transported by courier or over SIPRNet. This is an unreasonable precaution to take for material that is merely sensitive. Also, marking something as SECRET without the proper authority (either as directed by an Original Classification Authority or the material is generated from a previously classified source), is just as much of an issue as improperly stripping marks off of previously classed material.

In general, if something is sensitive but unclassified it is marked (U//FOUO) and may be transmitted encrypted over the internet.

Re:Well, duh

[guises]

Nuance is not how things work on the internet and, increasingly, not how things work in real life. "Trying to understand what all the fuss is about" is tantamount to taking sides, it stems from going to the absolute extreme on a position. Think about that: with one side claiming that she's the devil, the only other option is that she isn't. If you don't buy the idea that everything she does or touches or looks at is tainted and evil, then she can't possibly be as bad as they're saying she is and you are, therefore, disagreeing with them.

In your mind, "not the devil" may still leave a lot of room for negativity, but it firmly places you on the "Hillary Clinton may not necessarily be evil incarnate" side of the political isle.

Re:Well, duh

[joeboomer628]

Executive order 13526 at whitehouse.gov gives a definitive description of classified material and associated markings. Declassification requirements are also described. Opinion: If an item is classified there would be a record of it being subsequently declassified indicating what authority and when the declassification occurred.

Re:Well, duh

[quantaman]

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Apparently “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” translates as "Make a version without the sensitive information and send that over unsecured communications" and is a common and accepted practice.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

My work in the military was in a classified career field. Most of it was Confidential, with occasional Secret classifications, and more commonly (but not mostly) NOFORN.

Much of it was of value only for short periods of time. Some was actually information that could be found publicly, that by itself was not very dangerous, but when combined with other information also sometimes available publicly could be used against our nation with damaging effect.

Some was genuinely in the realm of industrial secrets, and would materially improve the abilities of our adversaries to defeat us in war, which is by itself a good reason to keep some things secret.

Others were more operational in nature, limited duration, and could be described as useful only for a moment. Higher classifications would not yield more protection or security.

To this day I am not yet free to discuss most of my work, though my knowledge is now 19 years out of date. Some of it is still important, and I'm not at liberty to choose what to talk about and what not to. I'm also not sure if I need to notify the government if I intend to travel to Russia or other countries labelled similarly as security risks. But I'm not planning to either.

Multiple levels of classification are just as critical as file permissions in operating systems. Some levels are just useful, others critical to security.

Re:Well, duh

[Attila Dimedici]

You are overlooking that some of the emails that may not have been marked were classified by definition based on where the information they contained came from. A fact which Hillary would have been aware of.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

"There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents"

Yes, but those things are often visible to all, and also actionable. Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

To support the parent, here is the relevant document; the NDA Hillary signed ..

http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...

Enjoy.

Re:Well, duh

[dwillden]

Very flawed understanding of Original Classification Authority: Yes she can declare anything classified by her dept as unclassified, but she has to document the declassification. Unless she can provide the declassification/downgrade records the information was not correctly declassified. She can't declassify without telling anyone because that leaves the information still classified. It must be documented so that someone else then caught with the info can then prove that the data was declassified. OCA isn't a license to do whatever you want, it still has strict procedures and requirements.

Re:Well, duh

[Solandri]

A co-worker at my lab was visiting the Pentagon for a meeting with one of his research sponsors. He visited the restroom at the same time as another guy with a stack of papers in his hand. He said hi and went in a stall, the other guy used a urinal. When he got out of the stall, he noticed the stack of papers on the sink. He called security and turned the papers over. They interviewed him briefly to get a description of the guy. As he was walking to his meeting, he passed by security escorting the guy out of the building, presumably to a waiting police car.

That's what happens and how quickly they happen when you mishandle classified materials. If you're not a favored politician.

Re:Well, duh

[tnk1]

Thanks to Manning and Snowden, we know what happens when lots of top secret stuff gets dumped into public view, and it's not that bad.

You're wrong, it's bad. Just try and do business with Europeans these days. You think there has been no effect on US business interests? Think again. What a gigantic pain the ass this has all been. And we don't we keep private information on our system, unless some doofus on the customer side decides to embed that stuff into a file. I can't even imagine the crap that the people who actually do handle personal data have had to go through.

Re:Well, duh

[tnk1]

Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.

So you actually mean there really is nearly nothing that can be done about it, because you just don't dismiss a senior cabinet secretary for something like this. You cover it up or try and brush it off. Sort of like Obama is doing now, because even after that person is gone, you don't want to deal with the fallout on your administration.

Re:Well, duh

[LynnwoodRooster]

From a legal standpoint, there is classified or not. The degree of classification is irrelevant. Classified information is to be handled in certain ways - from low-level classified information to top secret. Failure with any classified information is the breach, is the illegal activity.

There are multiple grades of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder. But all are murder, and all are illegal and all have penalties associated. Claiming otherwise is simply a "laws for thee and not for me" abrogation of the rule of law.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

"negligent handling" (Section 3, first sentence)

Having it on a unauthorized server is, by definition "negligent", given the nature of some of the information. Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Ignorance is also not an excuse.

But go ahead, and keep repeating talking points handed out by HRC and the rest of the DNC crew

Re: Well, duh

[Rakarra]

Ever since the Democrats 'popped their cherry' by challenging the the definition of 'is'

It was a proper question to ask, because guess what, the 'is' in the question had an implication that wasn't stated. This was after Lewinsky had left the White House and there was no more contact between her and Clinton, meaning that particular affair was over. He was asked the question, is there anything going on between you two? 'No' would have been a technically correct answer because they weren't seeing each other.... anymore. But that wasn't what the question was really trying to get after. What did he mean by "Is?" did he really mean only now, or any time in the past? Does "is" also mean "was?" No surprise those sorts of statements made Mr. Starr pretty suspicious.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" seems pretty obviously a lie, though. Harder to get more direct than that!

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

I was pointing to the NDA linked in my previous comment. Section 3, first sentence ..."negligent handling".

I suggest this as a good read: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/se...

See page #7 (10 in the PDF)

Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt

I'm willing to sit here and have you explain how Hillary's private Email system was set up to follow the procedures she set up, or was supposed to setup.

Specifically

Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or
unauthorized disclosure. It states: “Any person w
ho has knowledge that classified information has
been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s)
shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The problem is, that should COULDN'T have known because she didn't take the precautions needed, which is all that is required to prove negligence.

But what do I know, I'm just spewing Talking Points delivered by who knows who.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

I'll bite. Take a look here: 18 U.S.C. 1924. Her Email server was not authorized location for said material. Those locations are specified.

See also 18 U.S.C. 798. and 50 U.S.C. 421. I would argue that having information meeting these U.S.C codes on her server as "disclosed" (the violation part) being maintained by someone who had all the keys and didn't have the clearance to have access to it. In addition, her lawyers (thumb Drive copy of emails) etc etc etc.

I understand how the law works, I asked you to read the document, which you didn't do, obviously. Again, Negligence is all that is needed to prove guilt. She was negligent.

Thanks

History

[kqc7011]

As Orwell said "but some animals are more equal than others".

Re:History

[CaptainLard]

Perhaps, but classified info is not an animal or a metaphor for communism for that matter. First of all, there are 3 basic levels of classification and then all sorts of compartmentalization and every holder or generator of said classified info gets to decide how it gets handled. It is indeed illegal to mishandle classified info but being charged with a crime for it requires intent. Anything unintentional gets a stern talking to and possibly temporary or permanent revocation of clearance. Everyone gets a second chance unless you sell something to the russians.

In summary, some classified info is indeed more important than the rest so I don't see how Orwell has anything to do with it. Unless you're making the argument that or lives are over because the gov has secrets...which would mean the USA failed somewhere in the mid 1700's.

not surprising

[ganjadude]

that there is a different set of rules for the leaders in the democrat party than there are for the rest of us

Re:not surprising

[bkr1_2k]

It's not just the Democrat party, it's the whole government. I've had a clearance for 25 years and, in many cases, things I was required by law to mark Top Secret with code words could be found in open source information readily. It's almost always about the source of the information when talking "classified" versus "unclassified" not the actual information itself.

The rules haven't changed. The public understanding of the rules needs to change.

Does that mean Clinton doesn't deserve any consequences? No. She most certainly should be held to at least the same standard as every other government employee. Is that going to happen? Not likely.

Ummm....

[Anonymous Coward]

"she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country"

She is running for the presidency, isn't she?

Re:Hilary for Jail 2016!

[ATMAvatar]

Why stop at Hilary? Nearly everyone in DC would serve the country better from a jail cell, be they Democrat or Republican.

He's a goof, but still better than...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified

The guy's a goof, but he's still one step less slimy than the couple that brought you "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

If you like your rule of law, you can keep your rule of law, right?

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[Nidi62]

>> Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified

Well in a way he's right. The government classifies so much that virtually everything has some level of classification. At the lowest levels, it's pretty much all information that you will see in newspapers maybe a few days or weeks later, if not information you can easily find/see for yourself to being with(say the President is flying to London: his exact scheduled arrival time might officially be classified, but if you know what time he took off you can pretty much figure it out). People see "classified" and immediately assume high-level stuff like Delta/DEVGRU's plans to take out ISIS's command structure in Raqqa.

Now, is most of the classified material on Hillary's server lower level stuff? Most likely. But to use a car analogy: there's no "superleaker" laws like there are "superspeeder" ones. All levels of classification are supposed be treated the same way, ie if it's not supposed to be there or you shouldn't have it you don't mess with it.

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the

[Joe_Dragon]

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the rules. Now he needs to pardon his friend Blago.

Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[mi]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Sure. We know very well, that "Classified" may mean any of the restriction levels, most of which are not "super duper".

But it was still illegal (felonious) for Hillary Clinton to mishandle such material — and she knew it. She needs to be charged with the crime and convicted of it. President Obama can then show leniency and pardon her, if he wishes.

And if that costs Democrats the election, so be it — their own fault for giving the nation a choice between a Russia-manipulated crypto-Communist and a this spy-magnet.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[matbury]

The decision whether to prosecute or not shouldn't be left up to Hillary's colleagues. They need an independent judiciary, free from reprisal for prosecuting the rich and powerful. Isn't that supposed to be in the constitution or something?

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[chill]

Not only is that incorrect, in that it quite possibly could be misdemeanor, that is wholly inconsistent with historical precedent on these types of cases.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Obama is acknowledging what is common knowledge and the subject of numerous news articles -- the government grossly overclassifies documents and frequently does it with the sole purpose of saving some politician from embarrassment, which has nothing to do with National Security. Overclassification was named as an issue in the 9/11 Report.

The lesson of the Pentagon Papers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

NY Times Op-Ed in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

President signs law in 2010 to reduce overclassification: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/president-signs-hr-553-reducing-over-classification-act

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[tsqr]

Don't you watch Fox News? Their lawyer guests agreed Clinton didn't break any laws. They said that last month on a program, and to a viewing audience, that is not supportive of the Clinton campaign.

So keep huffing and puffing, maybe something besides gas and poo will eventually come out of there.

Oh, well! If a group of TV pundits say it's OK, that should put the matter to rest.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[scamper_22]

This is it right here.

While I can't relate too well with government level secrecy, as a developer, I have been on numerous 'classified' projects where an NDA applies. Basically... don't talk to anyone outside the project about it.

And I'm sure just like the government, there are different levels of classified.
Heck, I've been on classified projects where someone from marketting already leaked the project and it's public... but we still can't talk about it. Some are secret projects against competitors. Some are to hide a relationship with a vendor.

The sad reality is this. People at my place of work probably take more care with all of our nuanced classified than Clinton took on hers. We would never use a private email server for classified stuff. We would avoid any potential 'shortcuts' we might do for regular projects...

If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

By all accounts Gen. David Petraeus was a straight shooting general who helped reform for the better the counter-insurgency strategy of the US military. He then was elevated to lead the CIA. By several accounts he fell out of favor with the president for arguing against policy changes made by the White House. Then he gets investigated after a suspected cyber security incident, which leads to agents uncovering an affair with his biographer, which leads them to uncover that he gave her his memoir which was classified.

  Petraeus' biographer held a security clearance and there is no reason to believe national security was endangered. Especially not more than allowing classified documents to be sent to an email server in the Clinton's closet was. Looking at the letter of the law, what Clinton did was far more a transgression than what Petraeus did, in both quantity of classified material and the fact that electronic material was far more likely to be hacked and copied.

And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.

Obama has clearly set a double standard and with his pronouncement that national security was not harmed he is trying to influence, interfere and undermine the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[spauldo]

Obama has clearly set a double standard

No, he hasn't. It's the same standard that's always applied to people at that level of power.

Laws don't apply to those in power. They're tools to be used against rivals, or just a way to control those without power. It's been that way ever since laws have existed, and it exists in every form of government. If someone can't get themselves out of trouble, they don't really have power, do they?

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Can you please point me at a source?

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html

Google "clinton fax strip broken classified" for more...

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Rockoon]

Laws don't apply to those in power.

They applied to Nixon..... but not any of the Clintons or Obamas... notice a pattern?

True but Irrelevant

[drinkypoo]

They want us to follow the letter of the law or pay the price, they can do the same. If they don't believe in it, why should we? This is further proof that The President doesn't believe in the law, as if any further were required. Why should we?

Re:True but Irrelevant

[ChrisMaple]

The only difference between George III's Great Britain and George Washington's United States was who pocketed the taxes

<sarcasm> That's why troops are still forcibly housed in private residences in peacetime. </sarcasm>

It is settled

[Anonymous Coward]

Our great Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, has spoken. The issue is settled, the debate must stop. To keep arguing would mean doubting the good faith and wisdom of our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and that would be treasonous at best. I for one accept without condition the Truth as revealed by our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and will never doubt His hallowed and wise words.

I am not and I will never be counted among the malcontents. I can assure this great country and our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, that I will be always faithful and will not hesitate to inform on any traitor expressing dissent and spreading malcontent among the populace.

That explains a lot

[johnlcallaway]

Isn't that his same take on "there's illegal, then there's illegal".

mandatory access control

[mbaGeek]

security wonk rule of thumb:

• "confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
• "secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed if this information leaked
• "top secret" = people could die if this information leaked

• you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...

Re:Varying levels of classified documents

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> difference between Hillary being careless with confidential information and Hillary being careless with top secret information

She was both. At least 22 of her "whoopsies" involved "top secret" information. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420) In that light, Obama essentially said, "There's REAL 'top secret', and then there's BULLSHIT 'top secret' that we only use to make people feel important, and Hillary was only ever trusted with BULLSHIT 'top secret', so let's just go smoke a bowl and forget the type of incident that's ended the careers of dozens of other far more innocent people, m'kay?"

Patraeus

[bhcompy]

I'm sure Patraeus didn't want to hurt the country, either, but it didn't save him from his felony charge and subsequent plea deal.

It is DNC problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a single party issue.
Nixon - Resigned for suggesting using IRS to target political opponents.
(D) Obama - Actually USED the IRS to target political opponents, no issue.

Bernie Madoff - Investment scam making people lose millions, in jail for life.
(D) John Corzine - Lost $600 million, to this day he can't explain where it went, no punishment.

You - Don't pay taxes and IRS will make your life hell.
(D) Geitner, Rangle, Daschle, Clinton - Failed to pay taxes, on purpose, and no punishment.

It is a one party issue on this. Not that the Rs are doing any one any favors, but the outright blatant corruption without any kind of repercussions is from a single party. Hell, Bill Clinton sold missile secrets to China for donations to the DNC, it even went public and was in a Gore presidential debate and nothing happened (illegal sale of classified info, illegal foreign political donations, and on and on)

Yea, it is a single party issue.

My interpretation

[MeNeXT]

she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

she would never do anything to endanger those in power.

If there was an interest to protect the country all he would have to do is respect the US constitution. Now the US has kangaroo courts, secret lists of accused, police asset seizure without court sanctioned warrant, and so on....

The US is just like Russia and China. Whatever is needed to keep those in power in power.

Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

Prosecutorial discretion is a legal principle that predates the Constitution, and exists for many good reasons, not least of which is preventing the needless use of state resources. Similarly, we give discretion to police in their exercise of power, and we give discretion to juries in deciding whether to convict. It may be convenient for your current political agenda to have things be otherwise, but you should probably understand that if there were to be language in the Constitution regarding this subject, it would far more likely preserve this principle than dispose of it. I honestly don't have any idea how this will play out, personally; I'm just here for the show.

Re:Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

And prosecutorial discretion is and has been abused since long before the Constitution was written. Just because it is SOP doesn't make it good. When laws are very, very irregularly enforced, it makes a mockery of the judicial system itself. Of course there should be some leeway, but that doesn't mean that rich and powerful people should get off while poor and working people get hit with the maximum sentence. It also doesn't mean that corporate CEOs should only be fined, while small, non-violent offenders get years in jail, for example for a small drug charge. Laws have always been unevenly enforced to the detriment or regular people, and the benefit of the wealthy. We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling. When laws are applied that unevenly, it is clear the law is being used as a targeted weapon, rather than a rule applied to all of society.

Re:Discretion

[Anonymous Coward]

On my road they lowered the speed limit to 25. Then they set up personalized speed traps for people they're after. They pull over and set up the trap as the person nears, then only point the gun at that one car. As soon as its gone, the cop drives away. Seen it 4 times in the last month and a half (they're after flagged "dangerous drivers" that they track with the states license plate scanners).

Re:Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

There are certainly many problems with the justice system. I'm sure we could spend many happy hours describing and delineating them — you have a good list going already. However, I'm far more interested in your proposal to fix this situation. It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State. Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good. We agree that corruption in all its forms is antithetical to a democracy. I would like to believe that a solution is possible; perhaps you can do me the favor of articulating one.

Re:Discretion

[DarkOx]

It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest

Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good.

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

If the rules governing what classified materials have to be handled what way and when are to complex for follow and so frequently not important enough to peruse violators of the answer is have fewer rules. We should be able to define simple understandable rules for identify documents that MUST be protected as state secrets and what to do with them. Maybe the answer is for the rest is tell people "use your judgment" bad judgment as perceived by your superiors might get you fired but it isn't a crime.

Its just possible we have to many laws.

Re:Discretion

[rickb928]

Several legal principles predate our Constitution, not limited to regal powers and the concept of literal ownership of people.

Which of these should we also tolerate?

Re:Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

First off, reduce the number of laws that pertain to non-violent and victim-less crimes. That would include drug laws, which should be health issues, not legal issues. How many laws are on the books? Obviously too many, and a significant percentage are for behaviors that don't affect society or other citizens. Meanwhile, other activities that severely hurt society are not even against the law (e.g., off-shoring billions of dollars to avoid taxes, increasing the tax burden on everyone else). Further, we have a for-profit prison system that needs to fill beds to make a profit. Right there you clearly have a conflict of interest. So you could also get rid of all for-profit prisons. The are a number of changes that could be made that would reduce the number of people charged, while appling the law much more evenly across society.

Re:Discretion

[Roger Wilcox]

Amen. See Frederic Bastiat's "The Law:" http://bastiat.org/en/the_law....

Written in 1850, it details from a philosophical perspective the rise of law, its presumed purpose, and some strong arguments for indicators that the law has gone bad. Chronic, uneven application of the law is one of the perversions of law he discusses.

Re:Discretion

[phantomfive]

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

For that to happen (and for it to be a good thing), our skill in making precise laws that cover every situation will need to improve significantly. Right now we don't know how to write really good laws, so we make an approximation (at best), and depend on judges and the legal system to do the rest.

Because the weight of the penal system is heavy and powerful, it has severe limitations on what it can do, to prevent people from being convicted wrongly. The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person.

Re:Discretion

[T.E.D.]

We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling

That's the main thing here. Having held a clearance myself, yes those huge legal penalties are a possibility. However, most incidents of mishandling involve a slap on the wrist and a very annoyed security officer who has to do a ton of paperwork. In extreme cases, you might see your clearance revoked, but I've never even seen it come to that. They just have the draconian penalties there so that in cases of true malice, its possible to come down on the miscreant like a ton of bricks. But that's almost never actually done, unless there's an actual case of espionage, or it somehow gets political.

So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician, its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures.

Re:Discretion

[buck-yar]

If the cops can watch people violate a crime, then pick a few people out and enforce the law against those people... then its not really about the issue the law was designed to deter, is it?

Then we arrived at the conclusion that its not about the law at all, and only about an excuse to prosecute selected people

(posted anonymously out of fear of police retaliation)

Re:Discretion

[buck-yar]

Err forgot to click the box. Guess I should pepper my angus

Re:Discretion

[ShanghaiBill]

Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.

Those centuries have included many oppressive governments, which have used "prosecutorial discretion" to a far greater extent than democracies. They prosecute their opponents, while giving their cronies a pass. That is what is happening in China today, as the opponents of Xi Jinping are arrested in the "corruption crackdown". When his brother-in-law was caught in the Panama Papers scandal, hiding billions in overseas accounts, it was not him, but the people trying to raise awareness of the issue that have been arrested or intimidated.

In America, blacks and other minorities are prosecuted for crimes while white people committing near identical crimes are let off with a warning.

Rather than "prosecutorial discretion", we should have clearly written laws, and a minimal number of them. If a crime is not prosecuted, then the decision and the reasoning should be made public, to ensure that the same standard is applied to others.

Re:Discretion

[ScentCone]

So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician

Mostly what we're hearing is calls for the person who was the top security official at State and fourth in line to the presidency to not get off completely unharmed for passing around SAP-level material on a computer she set up in her house in order to avoid FOIA compliance. And if there's some urge to go easy on her because we don't yet have evidence of the Russians or the Chinese plowing around in her mailbox, keep in mind that instead of doing her job and turning over all of her material as she left office, she dragged her feet for YEARS, and had to be subpoenaed. And she destroyed tens of thousands of records without anyone at State being allowed to weigh in on whether or to what degree that included more of the SAP-type stuff that's already been found there.

If Patreus was guilty enough to be criminally convicted, Clinton is far more so. Doesn't have to mean life in prison. But it has to be commensurate with having handled SAP-level stuff on a non-secure home computer, making it available to non-cleared staff, making copies of it on thumb drives for her lawyer to keep in HIS non-secure office, and then serially lying and playing dumb about the whole thing for years to try to make it all go away.

its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures

Exactly. Her entire stay as SoS involved her deliberately - for future political reasons - avoiding normal security procedures, even as she trafficked in some of the most compartmented information that exists.

Good for the goose

[kilfarsnar]

President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

A similar thing happened to me recently. I got a little careless in managing my speed on the highway, but I would never intentionally do anything to endanger other drivers. So citing the President's logic I will not be paying the fine I received. Is that how it works now?

Re:Good for the goose

[david_thornley]

If you were a police officer, I doubt you would have gotten a ticket. If you were a police officer with the lights on, you certainly wouldn't, because you'd be doing it in the course of your official duties. The Secretary of State is at a sufficiently high level to bend the rules in the course of her official duties, because the duties are more important than the rules.

Re:He touched the main issue

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy"

Obama is quite the wordsmith in his own right. That quote is the nicest way I've ever heard anyone say either, "she's so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if she put America in jeopardy," and/or "she's so focused on her own wealth and power that putting America in jeopardy isn't even on her radar when she makes decisions."

yeah right

[JustNiz]

>> she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country ...but she did. Or has "I didn't intentionally mean to..." now become a valid excuse for every illegal activity?

I can't believe that we're still expected to vote for Hilary, I mean since she is clueless enough to do this, do we REALLY want her making key decisions around running the whole country? Hell no.

Actually, the general categories are:

[Salgak1]

Top Secret - data, that, if released, would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security
Secret - same thing, but "serious" damage
Confidential - damage to national security.
For Official Use Only - not classified, but not for public release.

Additionally, there are "caveats" that restrict distribution to certain groups, and Special Access / Compartments (aka SCI) that one needs to be specifically approved for, and briefed into. . .

Oh, my!

[Taco Cowboy]

... I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now ...

When I arrived here (in the US) it was *Heaven*

It was so different from the place I was from

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Couple of decades on, I, an immigrant, starting to feel something wasn't right

I did not know if it was me or if it was the world, but something was not right

More and more I noticed that laws were not followed, more and more I noticed people got off scot free, just because they could (by rank, by money, by connection, or all of the above)

And then we have Obama --- the ultimate antithesis of what America is all about (at least to me)

Law is not law, Constitution is shit, Privacy is a joke, Bill of Rights? Fuck it!

(shaking my head)

I dunno man ... the time I escaped China the laws turned into shit. Everything was fucked up, cars had to stop on green light and proceed on red light because "Red is our color"

I have that feeling - when I went back to China for business trips - that China has been improving - not everything is upside down in China

But when I came back to America ... more things are getting upside down --- culminating in Obama's latest 'words of wisdom'

The other day Obama told us to let Big Brother in if we want online protection (see my submit at
https://slashdot.org/submissio... which Slashdot decides not to publish), and now ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"

What the fuck is that, man?

Is this still the United States of America which I used to know? Or has the US gone total bonker?

Re:Oh, my!

[LynnwoodRooster]

We're slouching towards the China of the 1970s. Meanwhile, they're heading towards the US of the 60s...

Re:Oh, my!

[tburkhol]

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Well, not really. Nixon resigned before he was impeached (ie, he avoided Senate trial), and Ford pardoned him so there never would be a criminal trial. Sure, Nixon lost his job, suffers some disgrace, but he was never prosecuted, let alone convicted. For serious crimes that almost certainly were committed and in which Nixon was almost certainly complicit.

How about the Keating Five, in 1989, who took money from S&L captain Keating to shut down a federal investigation of his bank? Keating got to go to jail for fraud, but those senators? One of them ran for President in 2008.

My point is, let's not pretend that politicians doing whatever the fuck they like, without consequence, is anything particularly new. If you're upset that Obama managed to push through the barely constitutional AHCA, you should be equally upset that Bush managed to push through the barely constitutional PATRIOT act.

If you think this is new, it's either because you've just started paying attention or because the brainwashing is just kicking in

Re:Oh, my!

[Aighearach]

I hear lots of hand-waving, and accusations of illegal actions on the part of the President. Just this one President. I have to say, your story is a load of horseshit.

You don't actually know what crime you think was committed, but you've already got a suspect. Hmmmmmm.....

And you claim Obama said something... really far from what he said. What he said was a basic truism; it isn't even possible to argue against it. Not all "classified" information is of the same importance. That's just a "duh" type of obvious statement, it doesn't translate to "blah blah Big Brother."

You're just another racist making up fake stories.

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure, your list alone may not be much but intelligence works by bringing together a large number of pieces of data to create a full picture.

A marketing intern could do that job better. After all, the source information is not classified.

We all know about Area 51, does not mean emails about it are not classified? Of course not.

In Hillary's case, the State Department staffers sent emails discussing the situation in Afghanistan based on published news articles. The CIA saw the words "Afghanistan" and "drone" in the emails, and retroactively classified them as classified. That's a knee-jerk reaction to non-classified information. Nothing new for the CIA.

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

I realize you're being intentionally obtuse, I think defenders of this are pretty much left with nothing more than that.

I'm not being "intentionally obtuse," I just think classification without context is stupid. If the intelligence agencies had their way, all information would be classified and any discussion of the government would be a felony.

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[Tablizer]

Rich people have better lawyers to find, articulate, and emphasize the vagueness & inconsistency, yes.

Welcome to Inequality.