Comment by specialp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by specialp | Hacker News Reader

I understand that is is very inconvenient to use the channels provided to transmit confidential information, but that goes with the job. It is also probably inconvenient to have a massive physical security detail follow you everywhere as well but that is also necessary as a high profile government official.

Securing mobile communications on a massive scale according to SCI government specifications does not happen overnight, and is not very easy. So unfortunately she has to use the channels provided, however clunky they are. I am sure Mrs. Clinton wouldn't hop into her car to visit a friend without gathering a full security detail. Yes this curtails her life, and yes it is inconvenient, but it is necessary just like securing her communications is!

It is like if I were working for a large bank, and I put in a back door VPN to the network since their VPN client only works on Windows, and I want to use Linux. Sure more convenient for me, but it is not my place to subvert security for my own personal convenience.

Not everything Secretary Clinton did was TS/SCI. The common practice is an Android device[0] that is approved to SECRET only. This would suffice for general email and messaging.

My understanding is that President Obama's blackberry [1] isn't really a mobile device as configured. This blackberry device connects to the a custom secure base station [2] or picocell, that follows him around just like the Football[3], when outside certain vehicles.

Another factor is that TS/SCI access is restricted by location. eg. AF1 or the Presidential vehicle.

I'm not sure the Secretary of State would have a full time [*24/7] detail, although as former First Lady, Sec. Clinton would have a Secret Service detail which is funded separately.

It would be more likely that the NSA offered a different solution and State Dept. bureaucrat balked at the cost involved, especially something like following senior staff around with a football.

[0] http://www.boeing.com/defense/boeing-black/index.page

[1] http://www.technologytell.com/gadgets/156930/yes-president-o...

[2] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-obamas-blackbe...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

Edit: 24/7 detail at home. On official trips, the Secretary of State would have a security detail as commented by carboncopy below.

The Secretary of State has a full-featured security detail [1]. While on foreign missions, this includes a motorcade with armored vehicles (flown in by DSS beforehand), surveillance teams, and security augmentees from U.S. Embassies nearby [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service

[2] Personal experience (sorry)

Not disagreeing about DSS. The part I'm not sure of is if DSS follows the secretary 24/7 at home. It would be questionable if they would detail someone to follow the secretary 24/7 just to support a TS/SCI blackberry.

I don't know why this comment was downvoted without explanation, because your point is correct: as a public servant, one is expected to live up to and follow the rules and laws dictated for that position.

Security is something you never need until you need it the most.

Security is something you never need until you need it the most.

Yeah, we get that part. But it isn't about secure, or not secure.

It's that she (or more specifically Donald Reid, her secure information technology coordinator) was never provided a legitimate explanation as to why this technology was available for the POTUS -- and for her predecessor -- but not for her. So it's understandable that they felt dissed.

As a public servant, "I felt dissed" is certainly no reason for me to break the law. I expect better, both from the Secretary of State and from the President of the United States.

Oh, I agree. There's no defense for her going for a backchannel device in response.

Just that arguably, the NSA has a legal obligation to at least attempt to properly coordinate with the Executive Branch when it comes to perfectly reasonable-seeming requests (as this request appears to have been, from the outset).

Which they apparently did not do in this case, for some reason. So the legal aspects of that matter should be looked into, also.

Feeling dissed, is one thing, but subverting the process is another. The explanation given was that scaling the Blackberry that the POTUS was given was unmanageable. Whether that is a fair explanation or not we do not know. Even if it were not a fair explanation, does that give Mrs. Clinton the right to basically backdoor the whole process?

Feeling dissed, is one thing, but subverting the process is another.

Agreed - I definitely do not condone her going rogue in response.

My message is simply: if the NSA can't (or won't) reasonably coordinate with the 2nd most important office holder in the Executive Branch, on what should be a perfectly tractable issue... then we have to wonder whose interests they're serving, exactly.

The explanation given was that scaling the Blackberry that the POTUS was given was unmanageable.

Actually what they said was quite different.

How about you look at Hillary's own statement and actions in terms of other people breaking laws or regulations when they didn't feel like following them. Then, you'll see why some of us want her held accountable too. ;)

Besides, it wasn't all or nothing: she had several options available that she just didn't like. Security people's decisions sucked and should probably get them fired as chris_wot said. Yet, she did have options before creating the third that was a national security risk and illegal. I'm just saying no double standards here: apply her standards to her.

I definitely don't see any justification for the actions she ultimately took in this situation.

I'm just saying that it appears there may have been multiple points of failure, in this fiasco.

Yeah I agree on that. Several problems here.

Yes they were given a legitimate, real explanation. Quoting another comment here:

> [Approval] wasn't withdrawn for Clinton, it was withdrawn for the devices themselves. The NSA decided the potential consequences for a baseband compromise within a SCIF was too high risk.

That's what the poster of that comment surmises to have happened.

However, that information is not contained in the AT article. We can't just assume that's what the Clintons were told. And going by the article, that's not the explanation they were given.

Let's keep in mind that the definition of security here is controlled by an organization that had an adjunct contractor able to leak many documents.

> one is expected to live up to and follow the rules and laws dictated for that position.

One is also expected to do a certain job, and if the security regulations are impeding your job, then which do you really think will take precedent?

>I understand that is is very inconvenient to use the channels provided to transmit confidential information, but that goes with the job. It is also probably inconvenient to have a massive physical security detail follow you everywhere as well but that is also necessary as a high profile government official. ... I am sure Mrs. Clinton wouldn't hop into her car to visit a friend without gathering a full security detail. Yes this curtails her life, and yes it is inconvenient, but it is necessary just like securing her communications is!

Semi-OT, the president does exactly that in 24 season 3: there was an episode where he just decides, on a moments notice, to duck out (nearly) by himself to go visit a friend in a rich neighborhood and come back, and it's all over in 30 minutes. Really broke immersion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com