February 2, 2016
OPEN SOURCE IT ALL:
The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained (Max Fisher, January 29, 2016, Vox)
A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive -- more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" -- that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent." [...]Even John Bolton, a senior Bush official who often championed executive secrecy, once complained, "If there is anyone who fully understands our 'system' for protecting classified information, I have yet to meet him."The problem was not so much secrecy itself as bureaucratic disarray; something that contains no obviously sensitive information might nonetheless be reflexively classified, or might be classified because the information at some point passed through someone or something that also handles classified information. Or maybe the information is banal but it was later wrapped into a report or document that is itself classified for different reasons. [...]As an example of how silly this can get, State Department employees are banned from reading WikiLeaks cables or articles that quote them, as the cables include classified information. So the people responsible for guiding American foreign policy are barred from reading foreign policy coverage that you and I may access freely. Virtually no one in the State Department likes this policy, by the way, but it is a product of the government's larger, and largely broken, system of assigning and dealing with classifications.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 2, 2016 1:38 PM