The New York Times also posted the letter from the former secretary of state’s lawyer David E. Kendall to House Chairman Trey Gowdy. Excerpt below:
There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the firstname.lastname@example.org account. During the fall of 2014, Secretary Clinton’s legal representatives reviewed her email@example.com account for the time period from January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013. After the review was completed to identify and provide to the Department of State all of the Secretary’s work-related and potentially work-related emails, the Secretary chose not to keep her non-record personal e-mails and asked that her account (which was no longer in active use) be set to retain only the most recent 60 days of e-mail. To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the Secretary’s IT support that no e-mails from firstname.lastname@example.org for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.
Page 8 of this 9-page document includes a letter from the State Department’s Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy:
We understand that Secretary Clinton would like to continue to retain copies of the documents to assist her in responding to congressional and related inquiries regarding the documents and her tenure as head of the Department. The Department has consulted with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and believes that permitting Secretary Clinton continued access to the documents is in the public interest as it will help promote informed discussion.
Accordingly, Secretary Clinton may retain copies of the documents provided that: access is limited to Secretary Clinton and those directly assisting her in responding to such inquiries; steps are taken to safeguard the documents against loss or unauthorized access; the documents are not released without written authorization by the Department; and there is agreement to return the documents to the Department upon request. Additionally, following counsel, we ask that, to the extent the documents are stored electronically, they continue to be preserved in their electronic format. In the event that State Department reviewers determine that any document or documents is/are classified, additional steps will be required to safeguard and protect the information.
The entire Kendall-Gowdy letter is available to read here.
Because it’s Friday, there is also this item from Gawker and ProPublica adding a stranger twist to this email saga.
Secret spy network funneled intelligence about crisis in Libya directly to Sec State Clinton’s private email account http://t.co/eMHBfYpV4y — ChrisHerter’s BowTie (@ColdWarBowTie) March 27, 2015
In related news, remember when Michael Schmidt broke the NYT story about Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email account during her entire tenure as Secretary of State? That was on March 2. On March 25, Secretary Kerry finally asked the Office of Inspector General to review email and record retention at his agency. The letter Secretary Kerry sent to IG Steve Linick is available to read here (pdf).
Kerry asks IG for review of State’s email & records policies, but does not seek specific focus on Clinton’s practices http://t.co/1Lvtv2Vy06
Marc Perkel who runs a spam filtering service has an interesting addition to the Clinton email saga, something to do with what happens to emails that go through a spam filtering service. But he also wrote this:
But – and this is a very important point – is HOW the emails were turned over. She printed each one out on paper one by one and handed over boxes of paper with the email printed. Thus those email can’t be searched electronically. So if someone wants all emails to some individual or emails about a subject then someone has to hand search these emails and they are likely to miss something.
It would have been far easier to copy all the emails onto a thumb drive and hand that over to the State Department where they could be electronically imported into the system and electronically searchable like all the other emails are. But she chose to go to great trouble to deliberately make things difficult for the State Department to process those emails. And that indicates an act of bad faith. She’s just giving all of us the virtual finger.
This from a a guy who writes that if Clinton is the candidate, he “would still vote for her in the general election over any Republican.”
When asked why these documents were not provided to State in electronic format for better searchability, the official spox said, “Well, there is some long precedent here for how this is done.” I don’t know what kind of precedent she is talking about. Has anyone ever had to produce 55,000 pages of emails before from a private email server? How do you search that? Control+D for smart not?
This is basically 110 reams of paper at 500 sheets per ream, or 11 bales of paper. And if the Clinton folks instead used a thumb drive for these 55,000 pages of email, it probably could have spared a tree or two!
Reseed’s strategy is prevention and remediation — not only can we curb deforestation by encouraging consumers and retailers to adopt e-receipts, but we can also reverse some of the damage with the money saved. Forgoing 55,000 receipts can spare an entire tree, and it only takes a dollar in donations for Reseed to plant a tree.
The ACLU writes that the politics swirling around the Clinton email scandal obscure real problems:
As the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has documented at length, various Bush White House officials used Republican National Committee accounts to communicate with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in what would become the scandal over the hiring and firing of United States attorneys that the Department of Justice later found to be the inappropriately politicized.
The decision by Secretary Clinton to use “clintonemail.com” exclusively for official business disregards these historical examples. Unfortunately, officials can face the strong temptation to hide official business out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. And as the new retention rules recognize, that’s unacceptable for our democracy.
On March 17, twelve open government organizations also wrote a letter to Secretary Kerry and David S. Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States asking that the Clinton emails containing federal records be transferred to the Department of State in their original electronic form:
Because it is of the utmost importance that all of former Secretary Clinton’s emails are properly preserved and transferred back to the State Department for accountability and historical record purposes, we are asking that you verify that Secretary Clinton’s emails containing federal records are transferred to the Department of State in their original electronic form, so that all such emails may be accessible pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The Archivist and State Department are authorized by the Federal Records Act to seek the recovery of records that may have been improperly removed, and the task of determining which emails constitute federal records should not be left solely to Mrs. Clinton’s personal aides. Rather, the Archivist and State Department should oversee the process to ensure its independence and objectivity. To the extent that it is ascertained that any record emails were deleted, they should be retrieved if technically possible.
The letter available online here (pdf) was signed by Cause of Action, Defending Dissent Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MuckRock, National Coalition for History, National Security Archive, National Security Counselors, OpenTheGovernment.org, Pirate Times, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Society of Professional Journalists and The Sunlight Foundation.
Dan Metcalfe spent more than thirty years working at the U.S. Department of Justice where he served from 1981 to 2007 as director of the Office of Information and Privacy. He was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the FOIA throughout the entire executive branch. He now teaches secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law. His deconstruction of the former secretary of state’s explanation on her exclusive use of private email is probably the best one we’ve seen so far. There is also an analysis here from the National Security Archive.
Below is an excerpt from the op-ed piece Mr. Metcalfe wrote for Politico:
[T]here is the compounding fact that Secretary Clinton did not merely use a personal email account; she used one that atypically operated solely through her own personal email server, which she evidently had installed in her home. This meant that, unlike the multitudes who use a Gmail account, for instance, she was able to keep her communications entirely “in house,” even more deeply within her personal control. No “cloud” for posterity, or chance of Google receiving a congressional subpoena—not for her. No potentially pesky “metadata” surrounding her communications or detailed server logs to complicate things. And absolutely no practical constraint on her ability to dispose of any official email of “hers,” for any reason, at any time, entirely on her own. Bluntly put, when this unique records regime was established, somebody was asleep at the switch, at either the State Department or the National Archives and Records Administration (which oversees compliance with the Federal Records Act)—or both.
[…] as Secretary Clinton might like to claim personal “credit” for this successful scheme when talking with her friends about it within the privacy of her own home—perhaps while leaning against her private Internet server in her basement—the fact is that she didn’t invent this form of law circumvention; she just uniquely refined it. Yes, it was the Bush administration—specifically, the White House Office of Administration in concert with Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee—that likewise succeeded with wholesale email diversion back in the pre-smartphone days of freewheeling Blackberry usage.
Unfortunately for all of us, the competition for perverse “honors” in the world of circumventing both the letter and the spirit of federal records laws is indeed quite stiff.
Then there’s this guy who in 1994 was a 22 year old who worked as a computer programmer for a company called Information Management Consultants tasked with sorting through presidential docs in 1993. He wondered if the Clinton team included technical wizards who designed a flawless keyword search when combing through her emails:
If so, she should release technical documentation of the search algorithm, the test procedure, and the test results — assuming they tested it. Without that information, we have no basis for sharing Hillary Clinton’s “absolute confidence” that the State Department has received all her work-related email communication.
Hey, wouldn’t it be nice to know who should get a large medal for being asleep at the switch at the State Department on this? Asleep at the switch doesn’t sound very good but perhaps it is a kinder version for whatever it was that happened at HST.
A few years back, the State Department’s Family Liaison Office established the Global Employment Initiative (GEI) to help Foreign Service family members with career development and exploration of employment opportunities while posted overseas. The program employs Global Employment Advisors (GEAs) reportedly to provide on-site job coaching sessions, training workshops, and career development services at no cost to family members. They also “offer networking assistance, information regarding volunteer projects, and support family members’ efforts to engage in the local economy.”
Our overall experience with this initiative was not at all impressive. A locally hired U.S. citizen got the GEI advisor gig at post and spouses interested in networking and finding jobs got on a meet and greet with a couple American companies operating in the host country. But not a single EFM ended up with a job at post or a career plan through GEI.
There is, of course, the advantage of hiring a local U.S. citizen as GEI advisor, presuming that the individual already has an existing local network and need not have to build one from scratch. But it also has a disadvantage of hiring someone who has no idea how the system works. And that’s how you get a GEI advisor telling an EFM to make handicrafts for sale on Etsy. Because obviously, if you’re an EFM entrepreneur, the Foreign Affairs Manual does not have anything but lots of recommendations for you!
Blog comment: State’s so-called “global employment initiative” is a complete joke (well, except that nobody’s laughing about it). After two assignments I have *never* heard of someone who got a job through GEI. The only thing our regional GEI person ever said that made any sense was “State Department does not owe you a job.” Of course, I never said it did, but that was irrelevant as she then segued into telling me to start a cooking blog or make hand-woven baskets to sell on Etsy.
Image via FAMER, November 2014 (pdf) (click for larger view)
We wanted to learn more about this initiative, its funding, its results. How effective is it in assisting Foreign Service spouses overseas. How many GEI advisors have been hired to-date since its creation? How many spouses have been helped by the initiative in finding jobs, starting a business, developing career plans, etc. We also wanted to know what is the annual budget for this initiative, and if the return justify the investment. We’ve reached out to the GEI office at the State Department last week but we have not heard anything back to-date.
If you have a personal experience with the Global Employment Initiative — if you’ve found a job, started a business, created a successful career plan, or able to develop a career through GEI while posted overseas, let us hear from you in the comments section or send us an email. We will have a follow-up post if we have enough response.
In related news, State/FLO would like to explore ways to connect family members with professional telework opportunities and is conducting a survey until the end of March to determine the skills, education and experience of family members in the Foreign Service:
The Family Liaison Office (FLO) is investigating ways to connect interested family members with professional telework opportunities. To do this, we need current statistics on the education, skills, and experience of our Foreign Service family members. The questions were developed with input from the Associates of the American Foreign Service Worldwide (AAFSW), the non-profit Foreign Service community organization. FLO will use this information to more effectively communicate with companies and organizations about the advantages of hiring talented mobile professionals. Your responses are anonymous and the survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete.
We understand that the FLO intends to use this information to “more effectively communicate with companies and organizations about the advantages of hiring talented mobile professionals.” We wanted to know if this outreach includes hiring managers at the State Department and/or USAID, and other federal agencies for telework opportunities. We’ve asked but have not heard a response to this specific question.
Why were we asking?
If the State Department is trying to impress “companies and organizations” to take advantage of hiring talented mobile professionals who are Foreign Service members, but the agency itself will not hire them to take advantage of their talent — well, what message does that say?
They’re smashingly great, hire them to telework for you because we won’t?
I’m not sure what kind of well wishes we should send out for a successful Friday the 13th planned outage. We hope your server paths do not cross with cyber black cats today? The State Department put out an announcement today that it’s Internet-linked systems will go on a planned outage.
As a part of the Department of State’s ongoing effort to ensure the integrity of our unclassified networks against cyber attacks, the Department is implementing improvements to the security of its main unclassified network during a short, planned outage of some internet-linked systems.
The Department continues to closely monitor and respond to activity of concern on our unclassified network. Such activity is something we take very seriously. There has been no compromise of any of the Department’s classified systems, nor of our core financial, consular, and human resource systems.
The recent increase in news reports regarding cyber incidents reflects that the Department is among a growing list of public institutions and private industries facing an increasing number of sophisticated cyber threats.
We are leading a team of dedicated experts from other agencies and the private sector that are working around the clock to protect the Department’s data. We are simultaneously implementing a strategy to harden the Department’s infrastructure to better protect its data not only today and tomorrow, but well into the future.
The Washington Examiner reported last month that log-in credentials for an estimated 30,000 State Department employees had to be replaced after unidentified hackers breached the agency’s unclassified communications network in November 2014. In February, “three people familiar with the investigation” told the Wall Street Journal that three months after the State Department confirmed hackers breached its unclassified email system, the government still hasn’t been able to evict them from the department’s network.
We understand it was a real headache but it wasn’t the login credentials that required replacement. Find those black cats and get them out of there!
State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told CNN that since the inspector general is independent from the department “they will have to speak to the timing and details of releasing this report, which they control.”
So we asked the IG and we’re told that “the timing of the release of this report (ISP-I-15-15) was purely coincidental to the recent email issue.”
State/OIG did a review (pdf) of the Department’s State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and Record Email in Washington, DC, between January 24 and March 15, 2014. According to the OIG, in 2013, Department employees created 41,749 record emails. These statistics are similar to numbers from 2011, when Department employees created 61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent. Department officials have noted that many emails that qualify as records are not being saved as record emails.
Below are the highlights of the OIG review:
A 2009 upgrade in the Department of State’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department of State employees have not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve “record emails.” In 2011, employees created 61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent. Employees created 41,749 record emails in 2013.
Record email usage varies widely across bureaus and missions. The Bureau of Administration needs to exercise central oversight of the use of the record email function.
Some employees do not create record emails because they do not want to make the email available in searches or fear that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.
System designers in the Bureau of Information Resource Management need more understanding and knowledge of the needs of their customers to make the system more useful. A new procedure for monitoring the needs of customers would facilitate making those adjustments.
Additional details from the OIG report:
The need for official records
The Department of State (Department) and its employees need official records for many purposes: reference in conducting ongoing operations; orientation of successors; defending the U.S. Government’s position in disputes or misunderstandings; holding individuals accountable; recording policies, practices, and accomplishments; responding to congressional and other enquiries; and documenting U.S. diplomatic history. Record preservation is particularly important in the Department because Foreign Service officers rotate into new positions every 2 or 3 years. Federal law requires departments, agencies, and their employees to create records of their more significant actions and to preserve records according to Governmentwide standards.
Who has responsibility for the preservation of official records?
Every employee in the Department has the responsibility of preserving emails that should be retained as official records.3 The Office of Information Programs and Services in the Bureau of Administration’s Office of Global Information Services (A/GIS/IPS) is responsible for the Department’s records management program, including providing guidance on the preservation of records for the Department and ensuring compliance. IRM administers the enterprise email system, including SMART, and therefore provides the technical infrastructure for sending and receiving emails and preserving some as record email.
What constitute official records?
If an employee puts down on paper or in electronic form information about “the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government,” the information may be appropriate for preservation and therefore a record according to law, whether or not the author recognizes this fact. Whether the written information creates a record is a matter of content, not form. Federal statutes, regulations, presidential executive orders, the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), Department notices, cables, and the SMART Messaging Guidebook contain the criteria for creating and maintaining official records and associated employee responsibilities.
Which email messages should be saved as records?
According to Department guidance referenced above, email messages should be saved as records if they document the formulation and execution of basic policies and actions or important meetings; if they facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in office; if they help Department officials answer congressional questions; or if they protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the government or persons the government’s actions directly affect. Guidance also provides a series of questions prompting employees to consider whether the information should be shared, whether the successor would find the email helpful, whether it is an email that would ordinarily be saved in the employee’s own records, whether it contains historically important information, whether it preserves the employee’s position on an issue, or whether it documents important actions that affect financial or legal rights of the government or the public.
The OIG report notes that it has previously examined the Department’s records management, including electronic records management, in its 2012 inspection of A/GIS/IPS. OIG found that A/GIS/IPS was not meeting statutory and regulatory records management requirements because, although the office developed policy and issued guidance on records management, it did not ensure proper implementation, monitor performance, or enforce compliance. OIG also noted that, although SMART users can save emails as records using the record email function, they save only a fraction of the numbers sent. OIG recommended that the Bureau of Administration implement a plan to increase the number of record emails saved in SMART.
That was in 2012.
The OIG team also found that “several major conditions impede the use of record emails: an absence of centralized oversight; a lack of understanding and knowledge of record-keeping requirements; a reluctance to use record email because of possible consequences; a lack of understanding of SMART features; and impediments in the software that prevent easy use.”
To show how misunderstood is the requirement to save record emails, see the following chart. The U.S. Embassy in Hanoi had 993 record emails compared to US Embassy Islamabad that only had 121 record emails preserved. The US Consulate General in Guangzhou had 2 record emails while USCG Ho Chi Minh City had 539. It looks like the US Embassy in Singapore with 1,047 record emails had the highest record emails preserved in 2013. The frontline posts like Baghdad had 303, Kabul had 61, Sana’a had 142 and Tripoli had 10 record emails in 2013. The only explanation here is that the folks in Singapore had a better understanding of record email requirements than the folks in our frontline posts. Given that the turn-over of personnel at these frontline posts is more frequent, this can have consequential outcome not just in the public’s right to know but in continuity of operations.
Again, via the OIG:
Many inspections of embassies and bureaus have found that the use of SMART and the record email function are poorly understood. This lack of understanding is one of the principal causes of the failure of U.S. embassies to use record email more often. The inspections show that many employees do not know what types of emails should be saved as record emails. The employees typically need more and clearer guidance and more training. OIG has made formal and informal recommendations to increase the use of record email, to write and distribute formal embassy or bureau guidance on record email, and to arrange for training.
Excerpt from the transcript of Hillary Clinton’s remarks on the email controversy swirling about via Time’s @ZekeJMiller:
There are four things I want the public to know.
First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.
Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.
Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.
Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.
Fourth, I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.
I am very proud of the work that I and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state, and I look forward to people being able to see that for themselves.
Again, looking back, it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.
The Clinton folks have also released a Q&A on her email use:
So if we tell over 70,000 employees that they should secure their email accounts and “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts,” then we go off and use our own private non-government email, what leadership message are we sending out to the troops? Follow what I say not what I do?
The secretary of state is the highest classifying authority at the State Department. Since she did not have a state.gov account, does this mean, she never sent/receive any classified material via email in the entirety of her tenure at the State Department? If so, was there a specific person who routinely checked classified email and cable traffic intended for the secretary of state?
BREAKING: Clinton says she never sent classified material on personal email as secretary of state.
The podium heads insist that there is no restriction in use of private emails. Never mind that this is exclusive use of private emails. If a junior diplomat or IT specialist sets-up his/her own email server to conduct government business at the home backyard shed in Northern Virginia, do you think Diplomatic Security would not be after him or her? Would he/she even gets tenured by the Tenuring Board despite systems management practices contrary to published guidelines? If the answer is “yes,” we’d really like to know how this works. For ordinary people.
And then there’s this — if there were a hundred people at State that the then secretary of state regularly sent emails to, was there not a single one who said, “wait a minute’ this might not be such a great idea?
Yesterday, we did a snapshot of the FOIA operation in FY2014 based on the State Department’s annual reporting.
The following excerpt extracted from Making the Grade, Access to Information Scorecard 2015 (pdf) originally published by the Center for Effective Government. To support their work, please check them out here.
A building block of American democracy is the idea that citizens have a right to information
about how their government works and what it does in their name. An informed citizenry is a key component of a healthy democracy. And without detailed information about what government does, citizens can’t hold their elected and appointed officials accountable for their actions.
These values were codified into law in 1966 with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This law gives anyone a right to request information from government agencies
and requires agencies to promptly provide that information unless disclosure would harm a “specifically protected interest” established by law; protecting the personal privacy rights of individuals is one such interest. Over the years, millions of citizens have benefitted from the law’s disclosure of information about the safety of consumer products, environmental health risks in their communities, and public spending.
This is the second year the Center for Effective Government has conducted an in-depth analysis of FOIA implementation for the 15 federal agencies that together received over 90 percent of all the freedom of information requests in 2012 and 2013 (the most recent years for which data is available).
Image from Center for Effective Government
The Department of State score (37 percent) was particularly dismal. While its website is a bright spot for the agency (with a solid 80 percent on that sub-score), its 23 percent processing score is completely out of line with any other agency’s performance.
The State Department was the only agency in the scorecard whose rules do not require staff to notify requesters when processing is delayed, even though this is mandated by law.
While 65 percent of its requests were simple, only eight percent were processed within the required 20 days. The State Department had the second-largest request backlog and the third-lowest rate of fully-granted requests. Only 51 percent of requests were granted in full or in part at the State Department. The agency also had the longest average processing time for appeals – 540 days, or roughly a year and a half – and the second-largest backlog of appeals.
The State Department has multiple automated information systems. All employees, including locally employed staff and contractors (apparently with the exception of Secretary Clinton and who knows how many others), have state.gov email addresses for use in their unclassified workstations. But not everyone has classified access and in some places, you have to go to a controlled location just to read your classified email. Here is a quick description from publicly available documents:
OpenNet is the Department’s internal network (intranet), which provides access to Department-specific Web pages, email, and other resources.
ClassNet is the Department’s worldwide national security information computer network and may carry information classified at or below the Secret level.
SMART-SBU or just “SMART” replaces existing Department of State unclassified email and cable systems with a Microsoft Outlook-based system.
SMART-C is the Classified State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset
No one “scans” emails for classified material?
The real question seems to be — well, if all her email communication was conducted through a private email server — how can we be sure that no classified and sensitive information were transmitted using her private email account? We can’t, how can we?
However, for ordinary employees with badges and logins, an Information System Security Officer (ISSO) has “read access to the employee’s mailbox to ensure that no messages contain classification levels higher than that allowed on the authorized information system” (see 12 FAM 640-pdf). Which seems to indicate that ISSOs as a matter of course, “scan” State Department electronic mailboxes and files to ensure that there are no material there beyond “Sensitive But Unclassified” in the unclass system, for example.
Moving on to fumigation
Anyways — remember the WikiLeaks fallout? At that time, federal employees and contractors who believe they may have inadvertently accessed or downloaded classified or sensitive information on computers that access the web via non-classified government systems, or without prior authorization, were told to contact their information security offices for assistance.
If the unthinkable does happen, their unclassified computers required the equivalent of um… let’s say, digital “fumigation.” But who does that for private email servers?
The office that handles FOIA requests is the Office of Information Programs and Services (A/GIS/IPS/RL) under the Bureau of Administration. The Department also has its own chief information officer. Can we please have the State Department’s IT and FOIA experts talk about this from the podium? Please, please, please, pretty please, this is getting more painful to watch every day.
In related news — when you see reports that US embassies have been cited multiple times by State/OIG for use of “personal email folders,” we suggest you take a deep breath.That’s not/not the same as the use of personal private emails like Yahoo or Gmail. What those OIG reports are probably referring to are the personal storage folders, also known as .pst files in Microsoft Outlook on the employees’ hard disk drives. Why would you want to save your emails in the personal folders of your computer?
Because a .pst file is kept on your computer, it is not subject to mailbox size limits on the mail server. By moving items to a .pst file on your computer, you can free up storage space in the mailbox on your mail server.
Just because you have classification authority, must you?
Below is an excerpt from the State Department Classification Guide | January 2005, Edition 1 (pdf via the Federation of American Scientists)
High Level Correspondence. This includes letters, diplomatic notes or memoranda or other reports of telephone or face-to-face conversations involving foreign chiefs of state or government, cabinet-level officials or comparable level figures, e.g., leaders of opposition parties. It should be presumed that this type of information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL, though the actual level of classification will depend upon the sensitivity of the contained information and classification normally assigned by the U.S. to this category of information. Information from senior officials shall normally be assigned a classification duration of at least ten years. Some subjects, such as cooperation on matters affecting third countries, or negotiation of secret agreements, would merit original classification for up to 25 years.
(a) In the Department of State authority for original classification of information as ‘‘Top Secret’’ may be exercised only by the Secretary of State and those officials delegated this authority in writing, by position or by name, by the Secretary or the DAS/ CDC, as the senior official, on the basis of their frequent need to exercise such authority.
But why would the USG’s classification guide or classification authority even apply to an email server that apparently is not owned nor physically possessed or maintained by the State Department?
No one is coming out of this smelling like roses
The 67th secretary of state exclusively used private email during her entire tenure at the State Department. She left the State Department on February 1, 2013. The official word is that in October 2014 — to improve record-keeping or something — the State Department “reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they had,” Secretary Clinton reportedly sent back “55,000 pages of documents to the State Department very shortly” after the letter was sent to her. “She was the only former Secretary of State who sent documents back in to this request,” said Ms. Harf. This storyline is not even walking quite straight anymore according to the NYT’s follow-up report of March 5.
What appears clear is that the USG cannot possibly know the answer to the endless questions surrounding these emails since it does not have possession of the private email server used in the conduct of official business. But somebody must know how this set-up came to be in 2009. What originated this, what security, if any were put in placed?
As if we don’t have enough disturbing news … have you seen this?
Federal judge rules this week that a group can only #FOIA e-mails held by a gov agency, not director’s private emails http://t.co/mwYKI6iyqk
In related news, the National Security Archive filed suit against the State Department this week under the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of the last 700 transcripts of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s telephone calls (telcons). The Archive’s appeal of State’s withholding dates back to 2007.
The 56th secretary of state had reportedly removed the telcons, along with his memcons and office files, from the State Department when he left office at the end of 1976. According to the FOIA-released declassification guide for the State Department “information that still requires protection beyond 25 years should be classified for only as long as considered necessary to protect the national security.”
But … but …it’s been almost 40 years, heeeellloo!
Where are we again? Oh, utterly distressed by this whole thing.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you say whether you will wait until the review of all 55,000 pages is done before you release any, or will you look at one and say, “Okay, this one is okay,” and then turn it over?
MS. PSAKI: I would not anticipate we release page by page, but I don’t have any prediction for how the process will run at this point in terms of the public release.
QUESTION: And did you ever get the answer – and I – you may have, I don’t know; and I apologize because I wasn’t here – whether these were handed – were given to you by her office electronically or in paper?
MS. PSAKI: In paper.
QUESTION: So they pulled up a backloader or something into the – (laughter) – I mean, what did they come in with, a truck full of – 55,000 pages is a lot, so —
MS. PSAKI: That is a lot, yes.
QUESTION: So I’m just curious, were they boxed up? Were they – are they just all jumbled together? Are they in order of date or by topic?
MS. PSAKI: There were several boxes back —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: 55,000 pages, several boxes? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: That is quite a few boxes, which speaks to – it did cover – these do cover the span of her time at the State Department. In terms of what the boxes look like or the order, I don’t have that level of detail.
QUESTION: Okay. But I mean, you believe – and you’re taking them at their word that they separated out all of the emails from her private account that are business related, and that that 55,000 pages is the universe but – and you think that they’ve been cooperative. So that would imply that you don’t think that they just dumped them in all in a box willy-nilly – or boxes – and gave them to you.
I mean, how exactly is this review going about? Is it chronological? Are you just picking up a box – or whoever’s doing it – just picking up one box here and going through this? I’m just wondering if there’s any order or system to —
MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand your questions. Because this is just underway – obviously, this is new as of last week, as you just outlined in your question – I don’t have anything at this point to outline in terms of the order of the process. If there’s more details, I’m sure we can share those.
QUESTION: I believe the question came up last week about whether IRM, your Information Resources Management people, or DS had taken a look at the arrangements that she had at her home in Chappaqua and determined that they were okay and not – that they met standards for not being compromised.
MS. PSAKI: It did come up last week. I don’t have any update on that at this point.