I absolutely agree that protecting classified information by whatever rules are in place is of primary importance.
However, we've all seen dysfunctional organizations. So I'm also sympathetic to someone trying to get work done and ignoring soft guidelines in favor of an institutionally accepted interpretation that's conducive to accomplishing the job. And unsympathetic to telling someone at the time "we really should do that, but everyone does this" and than raking them over the coals from a future armchair that we were shocked (!) that they didn't following all guidelines.
Show me a successful, highly-productive individual's records and I'll show you somewhere they forgot to cross a t.
Except we're not talking about "soft guidelines" or simple recommendations but actual laws:
* Executive Order 13526 - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-...
* 18 U.S. Code § 793 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
* The 2009 Federal Records Act
* (probably) The Freedom of Information Act
in addition to a classified information non-disclosure agreement:
* https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C...
http://www.govexec.com/insights/state-internal-workplace-com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-experience-...
So, if it's some poor functionary at the bottom of state, his ass is out on the street if his phone comes into the classified area. Some spillage can sometimes be met with a slap on the wrist, but there's very little chance that you'll get off easy after bringing a microphone/GPS/camera/networked/mass storage device in to secure areas.
Most of the NSA people are free to buy Huawei Nexus 6p (although I'll bet there's some statistically significant disinclination) because their phones should never be interfacing with any of the information they use in their work.
Honest mistakes happen all the time. If you're lucky, your hand is slapped and people move along. But it is possible to have your clearance revoked - like Sandy Berger - or even serve prison time for purposeful malfeasance or disregard for the rules.
And this isn't a new thing... remember how when Obama took office everyone talked about securing his Blackberry - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html?_... ?
> While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama’s initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president — and those corresponding with him — agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.