Quote:
but in this case Hanlon's Razor seems a closer reachNot sure you get to use Hanlon's Razor against H's proposal, considering yours doesn't pass that test either.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Ivanka Tweets National Security document [kiki]
[ In reply to ]
Not sure you get to use Hanlon's Razor against H's proposal, considering yours doesn't pass that test either.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Re: Ivanka Tweets National Security document [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
slowguy wrote:
patf wrote:
or more accurately she tweet a photo which included the cover of a National Security document on a table in the picture. I'm pretty sure that cover is not confidential.
There's no classification marking on the document cover in the photo, which would typically indicate that this was an unclassified summary or version of the classified document. If it was a classified document, it should have had classification markings on the cover page, even if the cover itself didn't contain classified info. You can google and then download that exact document directly from whitehouse.gov.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/...-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
There's not really a security issue involved here.
As to why she may have gotten rid of the photo; probably because it draws unnecessary criticism.
patf wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patf wrote:
or more accurately she tweet a photo which included the cover of a National Security document on a table in the picture. I'm pretty sure that cover is not confidential.
There's no classification marking on the document cover in the photo, which would typically indicate that this was an unclassified summary or version of the classified document. If it was a classified document, it should have had classification markings on the cover page, even if the cover itself didn't contain classified info. You can google and then download that exact document directly from whitehouse.gov.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/...-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
There's not really a security issue involved here.
As to why she may have gotten rid of the photo; probably because it draws unnecessary criticism.
Had it been a classified document, would the cover being in the picture be an issue? Just curious?
Probably not an actual security violation for the document to appear in a photo, because the cover itself would not have had classified information on it. It would probably be considered a practice contrary to good security, but not a compromise or security violation because no actual classified information would have been compromised. It would be legitimate to ask why she was allowing cameras in an area cleared for and containing classified documents - or maybe why she had a classified document in an area not cleared for classified information; whichever it turned out to be. You could ask why she didn't have the classified document in a folder or something with a cover sheet denoting classification (typically required). You could also ask whether or not the gentleman she was with had opportunity to look at the document for which he probably doesn't have clearance, etc.
Now, it would definitely have been a bigger media/public relations issue, because then it would be seen as carelessness with classified materials, potential ammo for additional criticism, etc. It would have fed more easily into the discussion about clearances in the White House.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)