AP: Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names

[Redstreak 6,653]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.

If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.

In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto — the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.

The CIA declined to comment.

A U.S. official said the risk of the names of CIA personnel being revealed in this way is "theoretical and probably remains so at this time." The official, who did not have the authority to publicly address the matter, spoke on condition of anonymity and would not elaborate.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said even if any identities were revealed, they might be the names of analysts or midlevel administrators, not undercover operatives.

"I don't think there's any particular vulnerability here," Aftergood said.

Clinton has acknowledged that the email server, set up in the basement of her New York home, was a mistake. But she says she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time of transmission. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, insists the personal server she used was never actually breached.

The AP discovered last year that Clinton's private server was directly connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. A recent State Department inspector general's report indicated the server was temporarily unplugged by a Clinton aide at one point during attacks by hackers, but her campaign has said there's no evidence the server was hacked.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department's poor cybersecurity was identified by its inspector general as a "significant deficiency" that put the department's information at risk. Another State Department inspector general report revealed that hacking attempts forced Clinton off her private email at one point in 2011.

Then in 2014, the State Department's unclassified email system was breached by hackers with links to Russia. They stole an unspecified number of emails. The hack was so deep that State's email system had to be cut off from the internet while experts worked to eliminate the infestation.

Baker points out another instance where Clinton's server might have been hacked.

A March 2, 2009, email warned against State Department officials using Blackberries. Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state, says the "vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries ... considerably outweigh their convenience."

Nine days later, another email states that Clinton approached Boswell and says she "gets" the risk. The email also said: "Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (the diplomatic security office officials) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia."

Clinton traveled to China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea in February 2009.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1a737240cf144c728b45ef64e181f19d/experts-clinton-emails-could-have-compromised-cia-names

[venusfly 17,885]

And I could get hit by a car by crossing a road, yet I'm careful enough to have that not happen to me. Where's the story? There remains no actual proof that her email server was ever breached.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, LG said:

And I could get hit by a car by crossing a road, yet I'm careful enough to have that not happen to me. Where's the story? There remains no actual proof that her email server was ever breached.

There is no story.

This is an article compiling all the information we know, including the official names in Unclassified documents, the ONE potential breach based on circumstantial evidence where Clinton asked someone what this sketchy email was, and vague references to risk as if that's not part of any decision. 

Redstreak is just frantically searching for any article that has relevance to the investigation, even if it contains no brand new information.

How convenient that this article was released the day Sanders nomination became contingent on an unlikely indictment 

The media is ruthless. They know people will eat this up  

[Redstreak 6,653]

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

There is no story.

This is an article compiling all the information we know, including the official names in Unclassified documents, the ONE potential breach based on circumstantial evidence where Clinton asked someone what this sketchy email was, and vague references to risk as if that's not part of any decision. 

Redstreak is just frantically searching for any article that has relevance to the investigation, even if it contains no brand new information.

How convenient that this article was released the day Sanders nomination became contingent on an unlikely indictment 

The media is ruthless. They know people will eat this up  

It's on the front page of r/politics. A two second look. So frantic.

 

Sanders loss doesn't mean Clinton stops having negative publicity. I don't know why you think these things won't be posted  

[Goosey 3,017]

21 minutes ago, LG said:

And I could get hit by a car by crossing a road, yet I'm careful enough to have that not happen to me. Where's the story? There remains no actual proof that her email server was ever breached.

There are allegations.

Some say the Kremlin has her emails.

Do you find it hard to believe? I'd actually be surprised if the Kremlin didn't have them!

 

 

[venusfly 17,885]

Just now, Goosey said:

There are allegations.

Some say the Kremlin has her emails.

Do you find it hard to believe? I'd actually be surprised if the Kremlin didn't have them!

 

 

Guccifer's claims have been highly disregarded by most people, considering he made the allegiations from inside of a prison cell.

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Sanders loss doesn't mean Clinton stops having negative publicity. I don't know why you think these things won't be posted  

He could still win if she's indicted, passes away, et cetera. He could also win if he runs as an independent. They were talking about it on the radio today.

I believe "extraordinary circumstances" was the term they used.

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, LG said:

Guccifer's claims have been highly disregarded by most people, considering he made the allegiations from inside of a prison cell.

And still, I'd be surprised if the Chinese, Russians or someone else didn't have some or all of her unsecured emails. She was the Secretary of State, they would be looking for any weaknesses.

[venusfly 17,885]

Just now, Goosey said:

And still, I'd be surprised if the Chinese, Russians or someone else didn't have some or all of her unsecured emails. She was the Secretary of State, they would be looking for any weaknesses.

Yes however these are assumptions and very bold ones. I will completely agree with you that Hillary is in the wrong if evidence is found of these but after reviews of her servers logs there has been no evidence of a breach.

[Redstreak 6,653]

6 minutes ago, Goosey said:

He could still win if she's indicted, passes away, et cetera. He could also win if he runs as an independent. They were talking about it on the radio today.

I believe "extraordinary circumstances" was the term they used.

He would absolutely not win as a third party. Not only would he get no support from genuine Clinton supporters, but a good portion of his own base would disavow him and view it as desperate and narcissistic. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

There is no story.

This is an article compiling all the information we know, including the official names in Unclassified documents, the ONE potential breach based on circumstantial evidence where Clinton asked someone what this sketchy email was, and vague references to risk as if that's not part of any decision. 

Redstreak is just frantically searching for any article that has relevance to the investigation, even if it contains no brand new information.

How convenient that this article was released the day Sanders nomination became contingent on an unlikely indictment 

The media is ruthless. They know people will eat this up  

This is pathetic. You trashed the other OP for posting this story a week ago because it was from Breitbart, and now that it's posted by the AP the only thing you have left is to trash the OP again. 

26 minutes ago, LG said:

And I could get hit by a car by crossing a road, yet I'm careful enough to have that not happen to me. Where's the story? There remains no actual proof that her email server was ever breached.

The problem is not if the server was breached. The mishandling of classified information, including the names of these CIA operatives, is a f*cking felony. Not IF it falls into the wrong hands, but the mishandling itself. It's a felony. Why are you and @LebaneseDude the only ones who don't understand that. 

If the FBI comes to the conclusion that her (sketchy as hell) private email server could have been responsibly breached like many claim it is, including hackers and security professionals, they will recommend the DoJ indict her. 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

He would absolutely not win as a third party. Not only would he get no support from genuine Clinton supporters, but a good portion of his own base would disavow him and view it as desperate and narcissistic. 

Then he should publicly and enthusiastically endorse Jill Stein.

6 minutes ago, LG said:

Yes however these are assumptions and very bold ones. I will completely agree with you that Hillary is in the wrong if evidence is found of these but after reviews of her servers logs there has been no evidence of a breach.

It doesn't matter if it was breached or not, it's the potential for breaches. Only punishing people if they cause a breach due to improper security is like only punishing drunk drivers if they crash into someone.

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Then he should publicly and enthusiastically endorse Jill Stein.

It doesn't matter if it was breached or not, it's the potential for breaches. Only punishing people if they cause a breach due to improper security is like only punishing drunk drivers if they crash into someone.

Man, I think it's pretty pointless waisting our time trying to explain it to them. Either their too willfully ignorant to understand or their brains just can't comprehend this simple logic. Perfect analogy though. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

This is pathetic. You trashed the other OP for posting this story a week ago because it was from Breitbart, and now that it's posted by the AP the only thing you have left is to trash the OP again. 

Er no I trashed the OP for using Breitbart's conclusion that it warrants an indictment. AP did not state that. It stated the truth. It's all a bunch of ifs which are all entirely valid. I literally stated it is compiling all the information we know, yet again, there is no conclusion because there is none to be had.

What it is however is a rehash of every other article he has put out, just summed into one. 

You're so mad. 

-----

What you also fail to understand is context. She hasn't mishandled them any more than anyone else. Using "private server" is hardly a good metric because there are dozens of ways to mishandle it.

Furthermore the only precedent for an indictment with mishandling is when there is malevolent intent or gross negligence to the point of stupidity (which the defendant argues FOR to avoid being thought malevolent), neither of which apply to this case because the server did have protections and Hillary is not a national enemy.

Let me repeat it for you.

Context.

Degrees of severity.

Precedent.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, MJHolland said:

Man, I think it's pretty pointless waisting our time trying to explain it to them. Either their too willfully ignorant to understand or their brains just can't comprehend this simple logic. Perfect analogy though. 

Hehe no dear your analytic process is so limited in scope that it can't be even taken seriously.