Is it me or is FBI director wrong in saying Hillary should have known better?

[haele]

38. All information can be classified according the the federal government.

The following information is "classified" according to government regulations:
Personal Identification Information - along with the SSNs (which everyone agrees is critically sensitive and should never be in email), phone numbers (including cell phone and work phone numbers), addresses (not only home and work, but travel lodging and work addresses), other email or social networking accounts, and birthdays.
And quite a lot of this information is already in the various federal employee's signatures on their unclassified emails, or in social network accounts, etc...

HIPPA medical information (including scheduled appointments or announcements of medical status, like pregnancies or future procedures that may affect one's work schedule...),

NOFORN (No foreign dissemination) or FOUO (For Official Use Only) information -
Work or Duty Schedules
Federal scheduled events (exercises, inspections or audits, and public affairs events)
Cost information on federal purchases, training, or operational expenses.
Contract and "Manpower" information.

And a multitude of other data which can be used in aggregate that might create harm to individuals, operations or security within the United States. All these things are classified.

I've seen a base volleyball team schedule classified FOUO (for official use only) because - well, I guess someone could take the volleyball roster, the schedule, and the duty station watch-bill and determine one person's activity on a certain date, and exploit that information for some reason or another.

And yet, I can Google a lot of low-level classified FOUO information from my home computer.

So, when Comey talks about careless transmission of classified information over an unsecured system, pretty near every federal employee, including Comey himself, is guilty of breaking that particular rule. All network systems have security breakdowns as part of the normal cycle of use and maintenance; if there is an interface - even if it's a disk or a USB port - or more than one user on a system, there is a security risk that can be exploited. That's why there's always security upgrades being pushed on even the classified servers on networks and there's firewalls and disabled functionality on government and associated (i.e., private or individual) networks that connect to a government network.


There are only two situations that need to be addressed with the "Clinton Email Scandal".
There are rules for setting up and securing private servers, telework, or use of non-government servers. If those rules are being followed, and permission is present, there is no problem with using a private or a non-government server.
There are rules for use of email and transmission of data over "unclassified" service. Even so-called classified (low-level classified; like PII, HIPPA, NOFORN, FOUO) information might be sent, so long as there are sufficient encryption and certification protocols in place on the network being used. If those rules are being followed and permission to transmit is present, again, there is no problem.

There are all sorts of problems with email, access, and data transmission on all networks that in inherent in the technology and with people in general. Security is evolutionary; there have been hundreds of changes in types of risks, protocols, mitigation processes as they have been discovered. When researching IT from 2010, security procedures and data handling had changed radically since then; some of what was allowable then would be a termination offence now.

So how hard do we want to bring the hammer down on someone for operating within the system when almost all the issues had become issues after the fact (as it were). If Clinton's IT people fixed security issues as soon as they were aware (or made aware) of a risk, again, it should not be an issue. If it had been lax enough for a criminal charge, then she and her IT people should be made responsible.

Whatever problems I have with Ms. Clinton, it's not with what has been determined from her email and server usage. Those are measurable. She's either "guilty" or "not guilty" of whatever the charges would be. No more actionable misuse was found than could be found on any other government employee or contractor network.

Comey's editorializing. Which is just as inappropriate as sending classified FOUO email on an unclassified server.

Haele