There were 81 e-mail chains from her server that should have been marked as classified because they contained classified information (and thus shouldn't have been sent over unclassified e-mail). Quite a few outlets have made the mistake of conflating being marked as classified with containing classified information. The thehill.com article links to another article using the phrase 'Twenty-two emails in eight different chains of messages were [marked as top secret]', but the article they link to says 'The Obama administration will entirely withhold 22 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server because they have been classified as “top secret,”...'.

The point of classification markings is to unambiguously identify that the document contains classified information, what parts are classified and how to protect it. If it's not marked as such, there's the possibility that the recipient(s) won't realize that there's classified information in it. The most likely reason that the e-mails with classified information were sent in the first place was most likely that the sender didn't realize that the information was classified, or there might be differences in opinion between multiple government organizations as to whether a particular is classified or to what degree it is classified. An example is drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen - according to CIA that information is classified, but you could read about it in the newspapers.

Based on the description from factcheck.org, I was able to find two of e-mails with the (C) portion marks: [2],[3] Note that [3] was not redacted because it was classified, but rather due to FOIA exemption (you can see that everything after the (C) was left unredacted). [2] was redacted on account of both containing confidential information in the last paragraph as well as FOIA exemption.

[1] https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... (page 20)

[2] http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs...

[3] http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs...

From the LNMP GitHub page:

This script is written using the shell, in order to quickly deployLEMP/LAMP/LNMP/LNMPA(Linux, Nginx/Tengine/OpenResty, MySQL in a production environment/MariaDB/Percona, PHP), applicable to CentOS 5~7(including redhat), Debian 6~8, Ubuntu 12~15 of 32 and 64.

https://github.com/lj2007331/lnmp

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politics/paris-attacks-terrori...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/paris-attack-pla...

(c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/tea-party-taxes-and-wh...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11186020

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9663447

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9663378

Nobody does that anymore. You're instead using a tool that someone else made, and either that tool or the other person is handling all of the hard work. Tools definitely can be regulated - I need a license to drive; I need to register my car; I need to go through a background check to own a gun; I can own a gun, but if I misuse it I go to jail; felons can't purchase guns legally; I can't buy a nuclear weapon or the fissile material needed to make own.

The questions that policymakers are fumbling through right now are things like "how (if at all) do we regulate tools and the companies that make/distribute them if those tools allow people evade law enforcement?"

Secondly, you're using the actions taken by a domestic law enforcement agency more than half a century ago as evidence that a foreign intelligence agency is going to blackmail Americans, neglecting the difference in missions between the two agencies, the changes in legal authorities since the 60s, the fact that multiple generations of Americans with differing cultural values have come into and left government service, etc.

Thirdly, calling someone ignorant is an insult. I'd suggest consulting the forum guidelines linked at the bottom of the page.

You've just highlighted why the average American is scared of terrorists but not the NSA: 3000 people did die on 9/11. There is no evidence of the NSA targeting Americans, or nudging/sabotaging/blackmailing them.

The military could easily storm Washington DC, topple the government, execute every Congressman, impose martial law and announce the start of a new regime under the sole authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You'd have to be pretty nuts to worry that's actually going to happen.

Also, referring to people who disagree with you as ignorant isn't generally the best way to change their minds.

This is a myth that keeps getting repeated. The US government didn't revoke his passport leaving him stranded in Russia, they revoked his passport the day before he left Hong Kong [1]. He traveled to Russia on what turned out to be an invalid travel document issued by the Ecuadorian embassy in London [2] (same one that Julian Assange is holed up in).

He was allowed by the Chinese to flee from a place that had an extradition treaty with the US and wound up in a place that doesn't. He put himself there. Honestly, the "It's the American government's fault I'm in Russia" argument that Snowden and his close supporters have been peddling isn't really much of an argument when it effectively translates to "If it weren't for the US government I'd be in Cuba or Ecuador right now."

> Also worth noting that the crimes Snowden has been charged with are two counts of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed just after the US entered WWI.

I keep seeing this argument being brought up, too. The age of a particular law has no impact on whether or not someone should be accountable for breaking it. If that were the case, I could quite literally get away with murder.

[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-nsa-leaker-snowdens...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-...

I have better odds of getting shot by a government agent than being spied on, and I generally manage to get through my day without worrying that I'll die at the hands of the US government. I think that's probably the biggest reason that so few people outside of HN/Reddit/etc. care about Snowden leaks. I can find plenty of people that are upset about police brutality, and there's lots of discussion about implementing body cameras, discrimination in law enforcement, etc. because I can find new, documented evidence of someone getting shot by a cop every other week. It's still not at the level where I worry that I'm going to get shot by a cop. Snowden showed potential for abuse, not actual abuse. That's why "I have nothing to hide" persists.

[1] The source document for the LOVEINT stories (not linked from either of those articles) is https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_let...

If you're going to change people's minds with that argument, you need to be able to demonstrate that people's data is being routinely searched without just cause and/or police are routinely abusing the fruits of those searches.

The folks over at Lawfare had a much different breakdown of the issue: https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-do-conservatives-suddenly-so...

Relevant quote:

Was the activity properly disclosed to the intelligence committees? Actually, NSA’s behavior with respect to Israel appears to have been briefed to Congress, as one would hope. “Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees” (emphasis added).