Don't apologize - factcheck.org is right; thehill.com is wrong. Just go back to the original FBI report here:[1]. None of the e-mails were properly marked; three e-mails chains consisting of eight individual messages had at least one paragraph marked with a (C), but no header, footer, other portion marks, etc. to indicate classification. The content of two of those e-mail chains were determined to be unclassified based on current classification guidance.
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.
This is an installation banner, as in: "You've successfully installed LNMP"
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.
CNN and the Washington Post both reported that WhatsApp and Telegram were found on several of the Paris attackers' phones, but that the content wasn't able to be recovered.
(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.
'public gathering' is perhaps intentionally ambiguous
the other disjunct: in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public; led me to interpret 'public gathering' as bagley-keene(o) does
> 11122.5. (a) As used in this article, “meeting” includes any congregation of a majority of the
members of a state body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the state body to which it pertains.
Absolutely. If a business is offering services that a customer is using to commit a crime, the police wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't go down and ask for logs.
You're conflating a raid with "asking for logs." If the police only asked the exit node operator if they had any logs there would hardly be any objection.
Probably about as much as you see from him on the subject of Russia and China. The Intercept is about as unbiased as Fox News - lots of criticism directed towards the US and its allies, silence on every other country.
1: Greenwald is an American so the actions of the US government are relevant to him and his readers.
2: Greenwald is a lawyer, trained in US law, therefore the actions of the US Government vis-a-vis US Law is a suitable topic for him to cover.
3. China and Russia have been oppressing their people and their peoples rights for a long time. Neither have a constitution that is supposed to enshrine the rights of the citizens. SO there isnt much of a story there i.e. russians have no constitutional right to privacy, when that privacy is invaded by the state because the state has enacted laws that allow it to do that, there is no story. Plus even if there were there are probably russina lawyers and journal;ists who would be more knowledgeable on the subject and could bring it to the awareness of their russian readers. I doubt many russian media watchers read a lot of greenwald.
4. The US sells itself as the land of the free, so their hypocrisy makes the story worthwhile/interesting. China and Russia have never really hidden the fact that they will spy on anyone and everyone that they can. US says "we are your friends" and then spies on everyone regardless of their status as friend or foe.
But you know handy to throw in a straw man argument to try and deflect attention away from the US government and make the journalist the bad guy in this situation.
> China and Russia have been oppressing their people and their peoples rights for a long time. Neither have a constitution that is supposed to enshrine the rights of the citizens.
I find it an interesting puzzle that the U.S. constitution is so well-respected that people routinely win court cases (and invalidate legislation) by asserting rights under it, while in China apparently the idea that the constitution should substantively constrain the government is considered naive and harmful.
He's a journalist living in Brazil who gave speeches to their hovernment about US's abuse of them in terms of spying. Now, what about the country he lives in?
> China and Russia have been oppressing their people and their peoples rights for a long time. Neither have a constitution that is supposed to enshrine the rights of the citizens. SO there isnt much of a story there
Counterpoint: If something goes without saying for long enough, people stop knowing it, because they never hear it.
The "drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp" model of news reporting is indefensible. Let it go long enough and you end up with a large population of belligerently uninformed people, like we have now, who think the United States is the most violent, oppressive, and brutal government in the world, and that Americans have no human rights. This has real world consequences of an increase in relative political power and legitimacy for genuinely oppressive states.
Im not saying that it's right but it is not Greenwald's fault that this is happening an blaming him for it is essentially trying to discredit what he has brought to light because of what he has not covered. If that isnt a trick straight out of the CIA/NSA handbook then I dont know what is.
Identifying bias or double standards is journalism 101. Spies do that too given they have to collect information too. Yet, wondering about a guy who ran off with the Snowden leaks on his own for selfish gain... even to Schneier's surprise... isnt CIA/NSA propaganda. It's a legitimate concern about his motives and/or moral high ground he tries to leverage in debates.
A gaping "backdoor" already exists in the form of the software update mechanism. By the same logic you're using, Apple can't keep their source code and signing key secure forever, which would be a much worse leak than them losing control of a modified iOS that would let someone brute force a PIN for a phone in their physical possession without the phone being wiped.
This is more like the FBI asking the storage unit owner to turn off the security system that he installed that incinerates the contents of the storage unit when someone tries to pick the lock, but only on the unit that the FBI has a warrant to search. The storage unit owner then responds that although he could put an off switch on that particular unit, it's an outrage and sets a horrible precedent that the police should ever ask him to turn off his security incinerator.
By that same logic, Apple's source code and software update key could eventually leak, too, which would have even worse effect. The FBI is handing the phone over to Apple to apply the modification, not asking Apple to them the means to do it themselves. If Apple was really worried about this leaking, they could just delete it when they're done (though it would be more work for them to recreate it next time the FBI comes with a warrant to search another iPhone).
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...