About Emails In Corporations and Universities

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 12:51pm

Every corporation that I have worked for either as an employee or contractor has the same rules, indeed I have to supply our security protocols to their IT departments.

Rule 1

Company emails are for business use only, it is forbidden to use company email for personal use.

Rule 2

It is strictly forbidden to conduct any company business via private email accounts.

Breaking of these rules is grounds for dismissal

Now I worked in corporate research and data is the bees-knees, our servers were pretty much under constant attack. In global companies the threat is real and frequent. This has been the case for as long as I can remember [15yrs at least], Imperial College and Sheffield Uni where I got various degrees also had similar rules. It is unthinkable that these rules would not be applied to any government department, even that of dog-catcher. In my own little company our server, work stations and data storage are not even connected to the internet, saving a whole lot of money trying to protect them 24/7.

How anyone handling sensitive information does not know these fundamental rules beats me, and they are probably lying if they say they don't.

Just my view on the idiocy being shown by the Clinton Campaign.

Tags:

A Muse

Vote

Comments

Submitted by asterion on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 12:54pm

Of course, those rules are

Of course, those rules are generally loosely enforced. In my experience, it never actually comes up unless an organization is looking for reasons to fire someone.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 1:01pm

Depends upon the nature of the company and which department

you work in but the rules are there for all to see. I would also imagine the Department of State communications would be at least be deemed to be mildly sensitive.

Submitted by neoconned on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 1:31pm

My Employer's Policy

I don't work for a company which is involved in state or military secrets. But... EVERYTHING which enters and leaves the system undergoes scrutiny. Anything I send to myself at home often takes days to arrive, likely so that someone can scan what I send for "sensitive" material. Sometimes, it never arrives at all, meaning that someone decided I didn't need the message I sent and squelched it.

So IF Hillary was given an implied OK for her to do what she did, that would be a sign that the Obama Administration was not taking security seriously, which puts a part of the blame on them. But if Hillary is lying about this (as I believe she is), then it's all on her.

It then falls upon those who still support her over Bernie to do the right thing and change their candidate.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 1:34pm

The only person that seems to have given Clinton permssion

is Clinton

Submitted by Hawkfish on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 3:20pm

Letter writer in the NYT this AM says this is all she needs!

You can't make this stuff up:

The regulations that Hillary Clinton “violated” rested on her own authority as secretary of state. Likewise she should have had the authority to grant exceptions. The failure of the State Department inspector general to comment on this aspect casts a pall over an otherwise well-written report.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 4:27pm

hahahahaha dear gawd and as President she can do wtf

she likes cuz leadershit

Submitted by Haikukitty on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:56pm

That's the important point. If she had used SOS email

for personal business, that would have been fine - everything would have been captured. Instead, she used persoanl email for classified/government business, which is 100% not ok.

When I worked for the university, I used my work email for everything, and I knew they could look at my email if they chose, but really, there wasn't anything there to worry about, and they didn't care about enforcing business only.

Submitted by pfiore8 on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 5:07pm

it's important to understand the e-mails are NOT the issue

it's the SERVER.

—

“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"

Submitted by terriertribe on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 8:39pm

Respectfully Disagreeing in Part

The emails are an issue. Just not this issue. There is more than one stinky thing in this pile.

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

Submitted by pfiore8 on Sat, 05/28/2016 - 4:08am

yes and no

because sent and stored all of her SOS work on her personal server, ALL her e-mails are under scrutiny... even those she claims are "personal" and that's where she's going to get hammered if they find "pay-to-play" in any Clinton Foundation or any personal e-mails ... had she kept her SOS work on a dot.gov server (even sending work related messages via her private e-mail account, they wouldn't be going after her personal e-mails on a personal server... unless of course she was suspected of influence peddling)

despite what she says about them being personal, the equation changed when everything went through one source... that effin' personal private server.

and the IG review was the proverbial nail in the coffin because it confirmed she had NO permission nor was there precedent for having a personal server . . .

—

“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"

Submitted by firemage on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 1:38pm

When i was doing an internship

at Ford Motor, back in 03, I saw a airlocked room with some computers in it, i asked my mentor what that room was for. He told me it was where Ford kept their blueprints and design data, and that the computers in there were not hooked up to any type of external network.

Mind you these are car blueprints, sure some of the stuff was for future models, but half the parts out there could be copied by a fabricator with enough time on their hands, but even back then a company like Ford was putting that type of protection on data.

—

-G

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 1:48pm

I worked in research for GE until a few years ago

Submitted by razorblade on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:04pm

I had to go thru a C3 level

I had to go thru a C3 level clearance from the FBI to work on the Miltary's CHCS medical data systems back in the eighties/nineties.

One would expect someone running a server for the SOS would require at least that level of clearance.

Clinton appointees Sandy Berger and John M. Deutch had to have their security clearances revoked for Unauthorized removal of classified material - you'd think they would have learned.

Submitted by razorblade on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:07pm

On July 19, 2004, it was

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants.[19][20] Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.[21]

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington.[22]

Berger was fined $50,000,[23] sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years.[21][24] The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals,[25] but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.[26]

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)". Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[27][28]

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. ... While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.[29]

Submitted by pfiore8 on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 5:11pm

can you provide link ?

always good practice to add a link to anything you're quoting or citing. thanks.

and wow... i forgot all about that.

—

“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 7:22pm

Should have been shot as a spy!

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:08pm

I go to pretty sensitive sites here in France and yes the rules

to obtain the required security clearances are more than clearly put

Submitted by razorblade on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:08pm

Deutch left the CIA on

Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996[1] and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials designated as unclassified.[clarification needed] In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.[7] President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.[8] Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets, but President Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case against him.[9]

Submitted by LaFeminista on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 2:10pm

obama's pardons are quite something, the whole of the

previous Republican administration springs to mind.

Submitted by Darkrogue on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 4:24pm

Breaking the Silence for you...

LaFem! Have always valued your insight as a lurker over at GOS.

My last contribution there was this: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/1/1478069/-I-m-Just-Not-That-Into....

Cutting to the chase, lest the spike in traffic make them think we really care, here's the core of why I am moving off of my original intent to support $hillary in the GE:

These are not the real deal-breakers for me, though. That ship sailed 7 years ago, even if we only know of it now. That you broke IT protocol that your immediate superior acceded to for your own ‘convenience’ is a firing offense. Let me be clear, the hubris which led you to utilize a private email server on which to conduct the business of the Department of State of the United States would disqualify you from the office to which you aspire, were the Republican Party not a clear-and-present danger to all life on this planet. It makes me question your judgement. It accentuates an air of entitlement little removed from oligarchy. And that’s all before we get to the potential impacts on the ground which necessitate the policies you flouted. All kinds of those potential impacts will hang around neck like an albatross through the fall, should you win the nomination.

I think POTUS knows the FBI will be howling for a grand jury. That's why he has stayed on the sideline so far. The drip, drip, drip of the leaks over the next couple of weeks will take it out of his hands. It's why it is vital that Bernie continue to run hard. A critical mass is forming that will make it impossible for her to continue forward as the nominee. Not even the most devout her sheeple should be able to stomach voting for her as she perp-walks in and out of Federal Court. After the Senator from Vermont puts Drumpf in his place in their debate and holds a 20-30 point lead in their head-to-head, the electability question goes out the window.

Keep the faith, folks! The dawn comes!

Submitted by Exdiplopat on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 6:15pm

From your mouth to God's ear, Darkrogue

From day one of the email controversy, I have known that any lesser Foreign Service Officer discovered conducting highly classified USG business on a private account -- not to mention attempting to set up a private server -- would have had his/her security clearance yanked and would soon have been dismissed for cause and probably prosecuted/jailed.

Double standards hold no appeal....nor does hubris.

—

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." 14th Dalai Lama

Submitted by Hawkfish on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 7:08pm

It's like chess

Most games are lost when someone makes a mistake. The point of Bernies ongoing run is to give Clinton every opportunity to make one. The longer you can stay in the game without making a mistake yourself, the more likely it is you will win. Bernies game is simple, so it is unlikely he will make one. Clinton's is mind bendingly complex because of her past and the tangled web of powerful constituents she owes, which means she will lose eventually. We need to make that happen before the convention because after is too late.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by Slightkc on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 7:34pm

Reading your Comment,

the old story of the Tortoise and the Hare popped into mind. Somehow, I do find it fairly appropriate here..

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 7:17pm

Everywhere I worked too!

Including DoD and USPS. Somehow State is different? Or just different rules for Her Highness?

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by TheMeansAreTheEnd on Sat, 05/28/2016 - 8:35am

Tech companies permit personal use

All the tech companies I ever worked for permit personal use of email and other company equipment (laptops, even copiers), with some caveats. It had to be legal (e.g. respect copyrights) and non-commercial (e.g. it can be for a non-profit organization but not for a profit-making venture). AND it had to not impede usage for real work.

But the rules on securing company confidential information were pretty strict at every tech company I've ever worked for. THAT is the aspect of this to focus on.

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Mon, 05/30/2016 - 7:40am

I would think that State's rules would be more like Defense or

the Postal service's rules than a private tech business' rules. Defense in particular. What's the sense in Defense having strict rules while State's are lax?

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by Slightkc on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 7:51pm

Would you stand emphatic against Hillary?

I'm sorry, but to me she embodies the word "harrier." I can imagine some IT guy trying to tell her "no" and getting a tirade thrown at him.

There is long history of this with this Third Way crew, tho. If you remember, Obama didn't want to give up his Blackberry when he took office. The Blackberry was banned across the Fed until fixes could be installed making them secure, and that took a -lot- of time. I don't know if the people in our office ever did get theirs back.

Hillary lived/lives tied to her Blackberry, too. It had to be updated before she could use it on duty, as well. I don't know if she ever did get it updated, or if she just shuffled it into the office in her purse.

When it comes to anything Hillary objects to... or which might require any type of deprivation or refusal, she blows a gasket and then finds a way around the prohibition. She did it this time, too.

I do wish more emphasis were put on the two separate aspects of this issue. The emails being classified or not running thru a server not on the Fed's NIPR or SIPR nets is one issue.

The second (and more important, IMO) is the hubris to have a separate server installed in her home and not only run a separate email account for State business, but we also have NO idea what was stored on the hard drive in the way of files, etc.

Now, I'll admit the classification aspect of the emails drives me nuts, but I'm not going to fault Clinton for issues with classification. Since Bush was put into the Office, Document Classification has gone bonkers. Re-classifying as "secret" documents that have been and still are in the public domain is nuts. De-classifying, releasing to the public, and then 2 weeks later re-classifying the same document as Secret will drive anyone who has to deal with these on a daily basis to just ignore the classification. But that's something these "Open and Transparent" (ha!) administrations don't understand. Thru their everyday actions of classify/declassify/reclassify they build in a certainty of security breaches - by going against human nature.

But that secret, separate server is another thing altogether. For THAT she should be indicted, charged, and tried for several different charges arising from it use in State business.

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 05/27/2016 - 10:41pm

It's certainly like that in hospitals, and has been since as far

back as I can remember. Even before HIPAA, hospitals took care to keep your private information private and secure from hacks. When I do medical transcription, I work with the company's IT department to set up a virtual private network where I can keep information safe. No company with half a brain and sensitive information would let anyone do what Hill did.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sat, 05/28/2016 - 11:05am

Apparently the DoS did but she ignored them on a vast scale

not only using private emails but a private server to boot