FBI Statement on Clinton Email System

Re:FBI Statement on Clinton Email System by jonwachob91 on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:01PM (#12037330)

I don't know about the exact situation, but plenty of times intelligence has been leaked accidentally. In fact, while I was in Military Intelligence we use to get regular briefings on call such and such number if you hear some dudes at the bar talking about classified information. I've had briefings on what to do if I discover classified material left at a bar. I've had a lot of briefings about classified material being leaked because something happened at a bar... It's a very real issue...

It pretty much boils down to contact FBI CI (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence) or the CI agents on base (if it happened on a military instillation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI Statement on Clinton Email System by Jtsummers on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @12:58PM (#12037827)

And one of the big problems (doesn't seem to be the case here) is where aggregated information is at a higher [EDIT: classification] than individual pieces.

For instance, you can know any two of the following and it might only be FOUO (for official use only):

  When a military deployment will happen
  Where it will be to
  Who will be going

But all three, together, are considered classified. (Trivial case, usually not this small a data set, but this is the concept.)

The result is that someone gets apparently safe information from several sources. They put this into a briefing, or talk about it at the bar. The accumulated information is now considered Confidential (or higher), but was developed entirely from non-Confidential (or higher) sources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI Statement on Clinton Email System by jonwachob91 on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @01:45PM (#12038169)

>>When a military deployment will happen

>>Where it will be to

>>Who will be going

Having all three aggregated is not classified, but it is critical information (AR530-1, para 1-5, section b(2) [1]). An entire deploying unit is given those 3 bits on information, but the entire unit rarely is 100% on security clearances. EXAMPLE: when 2BCT,25ID deployed in 2004 the entire unit was told when they were deploying and for how long, where they were going, and who units/personnel were going; everyone including that fresh 18y/o 11B PVT that graduated BCT 1 week prior were told.

But yes I agree with you on the first statement about information aggregation.

[1]https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar530-1.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI Statement on Clinton Email System by Jtsummers on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @01:52PM (#12038211)

Fair, it was a bad example, just the one that popped into my head. I couldn't remember exactly how it changed when you aggregated those details, but it seemed like a relatively easy example to relate.

[ Parent | on HN ]