After reading the article, I went to read the State Department briefing from yesterday. At yesterday's SD briefing it was said that someone, not necessarily the ambassador, used private email some of the time and it indicated that they were backing it up on the state.gov account. It also said that Kennedy used a state.gov email account.
This is actually be very different in scope from HRC EXCLUSIVELY using an account on a private server and having a significant portion of the email not backed up on SD accounts - until more than 2 years after she was out of office after the SD demanded it.
One thing that is fair to say in HRC's favor is that the rules on email evolved over time as it became a dominant mode of communication. At worst, she took advantage of the lack of clear, explicit rules to run her email entirely outside of the government.
Kerry asked the IG to look at the current practices, identify problems and identify changes to the guidelines needed which was a good first step. They seem to be making a serious effort to establish clear procedures and are investigating to insure they are followed. This will be an important SD management legacy.
Here are the comments from yesterday's briefing:
QUESTION: The State IG’s report on Ambassador Kennedy and her staff’s email traffic, and some of private accounts being used for business.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So let me get to this. So what you saw was the Office of the Inspector General released their report of an inspection of the diplomatic work being conducted by our mission in Japan. And as the report reflects, that mission has significantly advanced U.S. interests in Japan and enhanced our wide-ranging collaboration with the Japanese Government, under the leadership of Ambassador Kennedy and her team.
And our partnership with Japan has never been stronger, which we believe – Secretary Kerry believes is testimony to the mission’s success, and again to Ambassador Kennedy’s leadership. Now, this is a result of a routine inspection which the inspector general conducts on embassies all around the world, and the goal is to do this every five years working closely with embassy personnel to identify areas for improvement. We consider these inspections to be really good, valuable management tools to help us get better at what we do. So we appreciate the hard work that the IG goes into these reports; we appreciate the feedback, the very honest, candid, forthright look at how our embassies are performing. And again, I think if you read the entire report, you’ll see that the mission in Japan is working very hard, very ably to advance our interests there in Japan.
Now, you asked about the emails. I know, I was going to get to it, but I wanted to make sure that it was clear what this was and where it was coming from. We did note comments by the IG related to the use of commercial email by some personnel at the embassy there – at the mission in Japan. And in accordance with department policy, the mission requires the use of official email accounts to conduct official business whenever possible. So – and no different to what we said before, the use of private email is allowed for some government purposes as long as certain rules are followed. The mission –again, this I think is clear in the report – periodically reminds employees of the importance of following these rules. And they include ensuring that certain types of protected information are not transmitted in non-official channels and that records sent or received on private email accounts are preserved as required.
QUESTION: But I believe some sensitive information – not classified, sensitive information – was part of that email traffic.
MR KIRBY: I think the inspection report annotated that that was a potential issue, and I think I would also add that the mission in Japan is implementing all the recommendations, including the recommendations with respect to email traffic, as we speak. I mean, they’re – they’ve taken the inspection report very seriously, as we would expect them to, and they’re implementing all those recommendations.
QUESTION: Can I – you said that the use of private email is allowed for some government purposes as long as certain rules are followed.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: What are those some government purposes that this is allowed for?
MR KIRBY: The rules are – and I can get you the whole list. I didn’t bring them up here. But it’s if you can make sure that the traffic is being preserved and recorded inside the government system as soon as practical, if not copying your government account on it when you send it; if you can’t do that for some reason – the system’s down or whatever – that you make sure you preserve it and then get it saved inside the government system.
It is not prohibited to use private email. It is discouraged, obviously, and we recognize there are instances when there may be no other choice, as long as the records are being preserved and recorded.
QUESTION: Okay. That explains what the rule is, but it doesn’t say it’s allowed – it doesn’t explain what the “some government purposes” are. Is it any government purpose as long as it doesn’t --
MR KIRBY: No. No, I wouldn’t say that. I mean, obviously, you need to be mindful when you’re on a private email account of the sensitivity of information that may or may not be transmitted.
QUESTION: So just a couple more things that’ll be quick. Is there any indication that Ambassador Kennedy violated the rules for using a private email account?
MR KIRBY: No, no.
QUESTION: There’s --
MR KIRBY: She uses an official email address for official business.
QUESTION: All right. So there’s no indication – does that mean that there is no indication you’re aware of from what the IG found that there was anything other – any classified information that was transmitted?
MR KIRBY: No, none at all.
QUESTION: And it’s your understanding, then, that even – that even before the OIG went in and made its recommendations or one recommendation about this, that they were proper – these emails that the ambassador and her staff were sending on their private accounts were being archived?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have that level of specificity, Matt, but what I can tell you is that they are implementing all the recommendations that the IG found, to include to make sure that they are completely in compliance with that policy. I have no indications that uniformly they were not before the IG.
QUESTION: Okay. But you said that there was no indication that they were – that they had broken any of the rules, so that would suggest that they were being properly archived. But now I think what you’re saying is you’re not sure --
MR KIRBY: I can’t speak for every --
QUESTION: -- that they – if were or if that’s happening now.
MR KIRBY: I can’t speak for every email that was sent or received before the IG got there. What I can tell you is that the ambassador did not violate department policy in the use of her email, but as the report noted, that there were other members of the staff who used private email. So I don’t want to speak for everybody, but I can tell you that the ambassador did not violate department policy.
QUESTION: And then the last thing I have – this is not a question of her operating some kind of a private server with its – this is – is that correct, or is it?
MR KIRBY: No. It is correct that it’s not
QUESTION: So this is, in other words, using a commercial – a Gmail account --
MR KIRBY: A commercial email account.
QUESTION: -- a Yahoo account.
MR KIRBY: Something akin to that. I don’t know exactly what she used, but it was not a private server.
QUESTION: Do you know the reason why she used a private server? Was there --
MR KIRBY: She didn’t use a private server.
QUESTION: It wasn’t a private --
QUESTION: I mean – sorry.
MR KIRBY: She didn’t use a private server. I can only tell you what the IG found was that there were some members of the staff who used a private email account for some purposes. And again, I think it’s important to remind everybody that it’s not prohibited to do that as long as the records are being preserved and recorded. And as I answered to Matt, we’ve seen no indication that Ambassador Kennedy violated any department policy with respect to her email practices. And she does use, has used, continues to use, a government email account for her official business.
Yes.
QUESTION: Apart from the preservation issue, though, the OIG report also talks about potential security risks, including data loss, hacking, phishing, things of that nature. Is the State Department confident that the employees who used personal email accounts for business mitigated those risks appropriately?
MR KIRBY: What we – what we’re confident is that they’re taking the findings of the IG seriously and implementing all their recommendations. I think it’s – we’re also comfortable in the fact that we have here at Main State worked hard to make sure that everybody that works in the State Department here or around the world understands the risks inherent in using email accounts that are outside the system. I think we’re all cognizant of that.
There are times when you have to rely on a private email account because maybe the system’s down, but I think what we ask and what we expect is that everybody will understand the risks inherent in that. And that’s why we don’t want them to rely solely on a private email account to conduct business. It really should only be used very, very sparingly and as carefully as possible, and then, again, make arrangements to have all that stuff preserved and saved and recorded.
QUESTION: Do you know – I’ve got two very brief ones more on this. One, the recommendation that this was under, Recommendation 46, is for some reason redacted. Can you explain why the recommendation for the embassy to fix what seemed – would seem to be a relatively easy thing to fix – one, don’t use a private email account for official business; and two, if you do it, make sure it’s – you’re doing it – you’re using it not for classified information and you’re storing it properly. Why would that be redacted?
MR KIRBY: I’d point you to the IG. I mean, this is their inspection report which they made public. And they are, as you know, an independent --
QUESTION: They didn’t make the recommendation public. And it would seem to me the recommendation would be fairly obvious. I realize this is not your report; it’s the IG’s, so I’ll ask them as well.
MR KIRBY: Yes. At --
QUESTION: But it just strikes me as a bit odd that a recommendation to fix something which seems to be pretty obvious would be redacted.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d point you to the IG to speak to that.
QUESTION: All right. And then the last thing is: Are you aware – has the IG been asked by the Secretary as part of its overall – his request for the overall review, have they been asked to look at this at each embassy when they do these kinds of inspections? Is this something that’s going to be coming up in – as we see these IG reports released for embassies in Brunei or Brasilia or wherever --
MR KIRBY: Well, this is part --
QUESTION: -- that there is going to be a section about – not necessarily that something has – is wrong, but that there’s going to be a section that they’re going to look at the use or potential use of commercial email for official business?
MR KIRBY: I’m aware of no specific tasking to the IG with respect to that. I would point you to the IG to speak to the tasking they’ve been given by the Secretary and how they’re going to execute it. But I’m not aware of any specific tasking by the Secretary to do an embassy-by-embassy look on this particular issue.
Again, so two things. One, the Secretary did ask the IG to go take a look at our communication practices here to determine what, if anything, we can do broadly better. And they’re still doing that work. And then again, I think it’s important to remind that Main State here has put out policies with respect to the use of private email, and our expectation is that everybody wherever they are – here in Washington, D.C. or around the world – have digested that memo and that policy and will execute it.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/08/246316.htm#JAPAN
= new reply since forum marked as read
