Addendum. Her request to her staff may have had nothing to do with security, per se. We don't know why she asked such; we don't have mind-reading technology. There could be operational convenience reasons that are not security-related. There's a good chance Hanlon's razor applies.
Leaving any classified info in any unsecured location is instant violation, there is No Gray area in the law
That's not true. It's possible that one doesn't know it's classified, and/or that it was an inadvertent accident. As I mentioned elsewhere, H didn't receive proper training, and the markings do resemble those used in legal documents.
Now if somebody is properly trained AND accidentally expose or put-at-risk classified materials, the legal standard is "gross negligence", which is typically a pretty high hurdle. Ordinary accidents by themselves don't usually lead to felonies. Dismissal and fines, perhaps, but probably not jail.
After all, many of the lawmakers would be subject to the very secrecy laws they write, and they don't want to be jailed for their own inadvertent mistakes. Thus, they usually write it up as requiring either "intent" or large-scale repeat screwups.
Being H wasn't properly trained, "gross negligence" probably doesn't qualify. It took a chain of people screwing up incrementally to pull that off (including the training roster manager).
There's also the issue that H was supposed to hand over all work-related emails to the court per subpoena. However, some were inadvertently excluded, considered "personal" by her team. But, there was no evidence they were intentionally excluded, because the later-recovered "excluded" emails didn't contain anything of significance in terms of making a case of "intentional". The lawyers she hired were essentially sloppy in their review process.
To be fair, if the average person had to read roughly 20k emails and sort them ALL properly based on the text, they'd probably screw up a handful. Thus, it's ordinary negligence, not "gross" negligence. A jury is not likely to convict based on a mistake they themselves might make.
Essentially, the laws as written are weak because lawmakers don't want to screw themselves.
If absolutely nothing happened to her Majesty ( Hillary ) for the crap she pulled, how can they possibly make any demands here ?
Just because it's not a felony doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated. We don't want yet more high-level politicians gallivanting around with loose gov't emails.
For one, H was not properly trained on security matters. She somehow missed the class(es). She had a "briefing", but a briefing is not the formal class.
And many legal documents use "(c)" to mean a sequential list (a, b, c, d, etc.). See link below.
I don't know who to blame for her missing the class, but typically I would NOT hold a CEO responsible for mis-managing a security training roster. The head of security should probably be held accountable. They should have a tracking system in place. Jail that guy.
Second, a personal server is not necessarily worse than a hosted service like GMAIL or AOL. I've seen no solid studies saying it is; and H shouldn't be expected to know the tech nitty gritty of that debate anyhow. Her job was diplomacy, not IT. (Quality generally depends on the skill and dedication of the server admins, not the box location.)
Third, usage of an outside email service/server was NOT outright prohibited at the State Department. However, she was technically supposed to get approval for such first. Not getting approval is not a felony since it's a policy manual, not law. I'm sure I violate the letter of our org's policy manual all the time without knowing it.
So...a loony bin financed [by] some random rich dude?
I suspect Mars will be first colonized by cultists/zealots of some kind, similar to how Utah was colonized by Mormons, who didn't get along with their neighbors when they first tried to settle further east. (Both sides point fingers, I won't pick sides here.)
Cultists will fund themselves and accept the risk. "Normal" people would typically not be so motivated.
The unpleasantness was his argument, not mine. I merely addressed it and countered it. He did NOT scientifically prove "cannot be done". If he did, show me the friggen cannot-be-done proof paper.
US inequality and lack of cross-class mobility is embarrassing. If you don't recognize your country's faults, you won't improve. Blind love of country is irrational. (Venezuela got addicted to and burned by oil, something GOP also wants.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's some weird-ass porn
Elon: "Relaaax, it's not like we're doing rocket science here."
Addendum. Her request to her staff may have had nothing to do with security, per se. We don't know why she asked such; we don't have mind-reading technology. There could be operational convenience reasons that are not security-related. There's a good chance Hanlon's razor applies.
Sorry, I don't see the connection with that and security courses.
I agree her request was hypocrisy, but that's not the topic here.
That's not true. It's possible that one doesn't know it's classified, and/or that it was an inadvertent accident. As I mentioned elsewhere, H didn't receive proper training, and the markings do resemble those used in legal documents.
Now if somebody is properly trained AND accidentally expose or put-at-risk classified materials, the legal standard is "gross negligence", which is typically a pretty high hurdle. Ordinary accidents by themselves don't usually lead to felonies. Dismissal and fines, perhaps, but probably not jail.
After all, many of the lawmakers would be subject to the very secrecy laws they write, and they don't want to be jailed for their own inadvertent mistakes. Thus, they usually write it up as requiring either "intent" or large-scale repeat screwups.
Being H wasn't properly trained, "gross negligence" probably doesn't qualify. It took a chain of people screwing up incrementally to pull that off (including the training roster manager).
There's also the issue that H was supposed to hand over all work-related emails to the court per subpoena. However, some were inadvertently excluded, considered "personal" by her team. But, there was no evidence they were intentionally excluded, because the later-recovered "excluded" emails didn't contain anything of significance in terms of making a case of "intentional". The lawyers she hired were essentially sloppy in their review process.
To be fair, if the average person had to read roughly 20k emails and sort them ALL properly based on the text, they'd probably screw up a handful. Thus, it's ordinary negligence, not "gross" negligence. A jury is not likely to convict based on a mistake they themselves might make.
Essentially, the laws as written are weak because lawmakers don't want to screw themselves.
If it doesn't improve communication in its context, either skip it altogether, or qualify it with specifics and details.
I live in a fairly well-populated area, and the choices/service sucks royal rotting eggs. If that's the standard, good luck.
Just because it's not a felony doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated. We don't want yet more high-level politicians gallivanting around with loose gov't emails.
What specific document did she do such with? Name it, please. Vague allegations from Hannity don't count.
Okay, lock them both up. Settled!
Ahh, bipartisanship.
For one, H was not properly trained on security matters. She somehow missed the class(es). She had a "briefing", but a briefing is not the formal class.
And many legal documents use "(c)" to mean a sequential list (a, b, c, d, etc.). See link below.
I don't know who to blame for her missing the class, but typically I would NOT hold a CEO responsible for mis-managing a security training roster. The head of security should probably be held accountable. They should have a tracking system in place. Jail that guy.
Second, a personal server is not necessarily worse than a hosted service like GMAIL or AOL. I've seen no solid studies saying it is; and H shouldn't be expected to know the tech nitty gritty of that debate anyhow. Her job was diplomacy, not IT. (Quality generally depends on the skill and dedication of the server admins, not the box location.)
Third, usage of an outside email service/server was NOT outright prohibited at the State Department. However, she was technically supposed to get approval for such first. Not getting approval is not a felony since it's a policy manual, not law. I'm sure I violate the letter of our org's policy manual all the time without knowing it.
"(c)" example: https://leginfo.legislature.ca....
Yes, we do miss Opportunity.
"It's dry! It's rocky! It's red! It's deserted! We love it!"
Natural Stupidity regulating Artificial Intelligence
Whaddya mean it's fake? I went for a nice simulated drive with a Nigerian Prince in the countryside.
No, that's probably from Quantum Hiring.
Because half of it smells really rotten.
Or ended up only working in a parallel universe. THEY have flying cars and Mr. Fusion because of it, and we don't.
Why call somebody "X the socialist" if they are not pure socialist (or very close to)? That makes no sense to me. Please explain.
Do I smell bigly hypocrisy and/or projection? I thought being polite & PC was made unfashionable by T.
Who specifically insulted the "working class"?
I suspect Mars will be first colonized by cultists/zealots of some kind, similar to how Utah was colonized by Mormons, who didn't get along with their neighbors when they first tried to settle further east. (Both sides point fingers, I won't pick sides here.)
Cultists will fund themselves and accept the risk. "Normal" people would typically not be so motivated.
Even if true, I don't see how it changes my point.
The unpleasantness was his argument, not mine. I merely addressed it and countered it. He did NOT scientifically prove "cannot be done". If he did, show me the friggen cannot-be-done proof paper.
US inequality and lack of cross-class mobility is embarrassing. If you don't recognize your country's faults, you won't improve. Blind love of country is irrational. (Venezuela got addicted to and burned by oil, something GOP also wants.)
When asked why, the Captain replied, "Oh, we just did it for the halibut."