|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 07 2017 01:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:
If she used her work email, it is as simple as that. She was toast from the moment she used her work email. I wonder if her using her work email made the intercept doubt the validity or something? If she was basically committing legal suicide (can't help but wonder if this was intentional?), then it kind of makes sense. I would generally assume that a XXX@nsa.gov email that isn't spoofed is from a legitimate employee, at the very least. The story to get busted for, just isn't particularly interesting. The fuck was she thinking?
She's a young idiot who has had her head filled with all sorts of bullshit propaganda by the US media. And she's going to pay a very heavy price for her error.
|
On June 07 2017 01:20 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
Trump, breaking down divisions between the parties through sheer force of fear and instability. It also really shows why the USA needs a viable third party and a reform to the voting system. If mainstream Democrats can find common cause with neo-cons, 'moderate' Republicans and center-right politicians in Europe, then they are probably not capable of representing the left on important issues (economy, climate, foreign policy) where left and center diverge. Even France's two-step voting process would be way better than the current one.
Election reform is important, but i don't think the two step system would solve the problem voting on the federal level. That type of reform would need to come from the states. They decide how they elect their representatives and senators. I think California is trying something like that.
|
|
|
just another case of play stupid games win stupid prizes. she couldn't have ever thought this would go any other way.
@XDaunt, in what way do you think the media influenced her decision making? from a layman this seems like an odd non sequitur.
regardless, leaking something so inconsequential, there's just no justifying this kind of stupidity.
@SB where do you even find these tweets? i mean there's logic that can be followed but why am i reading tweets from harry potter character.
|
On June 07 2017 01:16 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 01:10 Logo wrote:On June 07 2017 01:07 Nevuk wrote:
My impression is that she would have been caught within the week or so due to her incompetence with using her work computer. Being caught within the day was definitely the intercept's fault. Yeah mine too, which is still a big misstep for the Intercept but I feel like everyone saying, "Oh no one is going to leak to the Intercept again!" are overblowing it and/or have ulterior motives (like Wikileaks probably being mad they didn't get the leak). The intercept was pretty bad, most places agree, and its their second time burning a source like this. They're not getting any more leaks from US people. + Show Spoiler +
Just in case anybody thought the Intercept was alone in this, the New York Times also has screwed up on the past. Put a black box over the name, underlying text was free to copy/paste.
|
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
They're lucky it was just some pointless bullshit. Or perhaps it was a test, if they're not fully incompetent. Someone who changes their name to a troll name should definitely be a red flag that I can't explain why it wasn't caught.
|
On June 07 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of government employees or contractors with some sort of security clearance. That's why I never believe any stories about "harm to the United States", because if China or Russia want this information they need to only compromise one person, they need only one source. None of this information can possibly be new to them. I don't generally have a very positive view of the intelligence community, but it would surprise me if China's / Russia's were incapable of this.
But of course "harm to the US" usually means: evidence of government negligence / criminality coming to light. I bet if you exposed evidence that the USA government is controlled by Russian agents you could be arrested by this same government for harming the nation, which used to sound like a fictional story but it's getting increasingly less far-fetched. (though I'm highly skeptical of the collusion stories myself)
|
Canada13410 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of government employees or contractors with some sort of security clearance. That's why I never believe any stories about "harm to the United States", because if China or Russia want this information they need to only compromise one person, they need only one source. None of this information can possibly be new to them. I don't generally have a very positive view of the intelligence community, but it would surprise me if China's / Russia's were incapable of this. But of course "harm to the US" usually means: evidence of government negligence / criminality coming to light. I bet if you exposed evidence that the USA government is controlled by Russian agents you could be arrested by this same government for harming the nation, which used to sound like a fictional story but it's getting increasingly less far-fetched. (though I'm highly skeptical of the collusion stories myself)
Thats why there are varying levels of security clearance and access and extensive background checks.
If someone falls through the checks and gets a clearance they shouldn't have that falls on the state. There is a LOT that goes into making sure you aren't blackmailable, and the more sensitive the info the more they obscure you and the cleaner you need to be.
|
On June 07 2017 00:28 xDaunt wrote:The problem with these articles is that they are premised on "hacking the election," which is an intentionally bullshit conflation of literally hacking the vote and using hacking methods to conduct opposition research.
If by conducting opposition research you mean conducting a public opinion influence campaign, then yes.
|
On June 07 2017 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 00:28 xDaunt wrote:The problem with these articles is that they are premised on "hacking the election," which is an intentionally bullshit conflation of literally hacking the vote and using hacking methods to conduct opposition research. If by conducting opposition research you mean conducting a public opinion influence campaign, then yes.
Opposition research by illegally obtaining the information. But the info that was leaked also cited attempts phish companies that handled electronic voting. And these were targeted phishing attempts.
|
People like to think that "hacking an election" is literally going into the computers and changing the numbers that come out. If Russia were to actually interfere with the election, they would never be so stupid as to influence it in such a directly track-able fashion. If it turns out they had a hand in how things went down, it's going to be something indirect, such as influencing the public through a campaign of disinformation.
|
On June 07 2017 02:00 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 01:56 Grumbels wrote:On June 07 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of government employees or contractors with some sort of security clearance. That's why I never believe any stories about "harm to the United States", because if China or Russia want this information they need to only compromise one person, they need only one source. None of this information can possibly be new to them. I don't generally have a very positive view of the intelligence community, but it would surprise me if China's / Russia's were incapable of this. But of course "harm to the US" usually means: evidence of government negligence / criminality coming to light. I bet if you exposed evidence that the USA government is controlled by Russian agents you could be arrested by this same government for harming the nation, which used to sound like a fictional story but it's getting increasingly less far-fetched. (though I'm highly skeptical of the collusion stories myself) Thats why there are varying levels of security clearance and access and extensive background checks. If someone falls through the checks and gets a clearance they shouldn't have that falls on the state. There is a LOT that goes into making sure you aren't blackmailable, and the more sensitive the info the more they obscure you and the cleaner you need to be.
For perspective, the form for application for a clearance could be found here: https://www.thebalance.com/sf-86-security-clearance-questionaire-4058541
NSA employees, AFAIK, all need Top Secret, the highest level of clearance. With how much blood they suck through the process, they should catch fools like Winner.
|
Canada13410 Posts
Is there really a cap out at TS? Are you sure there aren't classifications within TS?
Because in Canada there are at least two levels of TS clearance
https://www.csis.gc.ca/scrtscrnng/index-en.php
As defined in Treasury Board Secretariat’s Standard on Security Screening, there are three levels of security clearances, each of which requires CSIS security screening: Secret (Level II), Top Secret (Level III), and Top Secret Enhanced (Level III). The level of security clearance required by a position is determined by the need for access to classified information or assets in the performance of duties associated with employment or contractual work.
|
Canada13410 Posts
In other news:
This is getting ridiculous
|
On June 07 2017 01:34 brian wrote:
just another case of play stupid games win stupid prizes. she couldn't have ever thought this would go any other way.
@XDaunt, in what way do you think the media influenced her decision making? from a layman this seems like an odd non sequitur.
With all of the glorification of leaks and rabid anti-Trump sentiment floating around in the media, I'm sure that she thought that she was a hero and doing good for the cause by showing this stuff to the press. She was one more warrior in the crusade against the great Russian puppet.
|
On June 07 2017 02:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:00 ZeromuS wrote:On June 07 2017 01:56 Grumbels wrote:On June 07 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of government employees or contractors with some sort of security clearance. That's why I never believe any stories about "harm to the United States", because if China or Russia want this information they need to only compromise one person, they need only one source. None of this information can possibly be new to them. I don't generally have a very positive view of the intelligence community, but it would surprise me if China's / Russia's were incapable of this. But of course "harm to the US" usually means: evidence of government negligence / criminality coming to light. I bet if you exposed evidence that the USA government is controlled by Russian agents you could be arrested by this same government for harming the nation, which used to sound like a fictional story but it's getting increasingly less far-fetched. (though I'm highly skeptical of the collusion stories myself) Thats why there are varying levels of security clearance and access and extensive background checks. If someone falls through the checks and gets a clearance they shouldn't have that falls on the state. There is a LOT that goes into making sure you aren't blackmailable, and the more sensitive the info the more they obscure you and the cleaner you need to be. For perspective, the form for application for a clearance could be found here: https://www.thebalance.com/sf-86-security-clearance-questionaire-4058541NSA employees, AFAIK, all need Top Secret, the highest level of clearance. With how much blood they suck through the process, they should catch fools like Winner.
They didn't catch Kushner in his lies about meetings with the Russians.
|
On June 07 2017 02:09 ZeromuS wrote:Is there really a cap out at TS? Are you sure there aren't classifications within TS? Because in Canada there are at least two levels of TS clearance https://www.csis.gc.ca/scrtscrnng/index-en.phpShow nested quote +As defined in Treasury Board Secretariat’s Standard on Security Screening, there are three levels of security clearances, each of which requires CSIS security screening: Secret (Level II), Top Secret (Level III), and Top Secret Enhanced (Level III). The level of security clearance required by a position is determined by the need for access to classified information or assets in the performance of duties associated with employment or contractual work.
There are further classifications, but speaking very broadly, TS is the highest general level of clearance. NSA employees need some additional clearance for data access since that's their job. Also special access programs like what Hillary compromised by being incompetent.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 07 2017 02:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 07 2017 02:00 ZeromuS wrote:On June 07 2017 01:56 Grumbels wrote:On June 07 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Some blame lies with whatever idiot gave her a Top Secret clearance. They should focus more effort on weeding those kinds of people out rather than on not having phone numbers that you can call them back on when you need to talk to someone at the NSA.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of government employees or contractors with some sort of security clearance. That's why I never believe any stories about "harm to the United States", because if China or Russia want this information they need to only compromise one person, they need only one source. None of this information can possibly be new to them. I don't generally have a very positive view of the intelligence community, but it would surprise me if China's / Russia's were incapable of this. But of course "harm to the US" usually means: evidence of government negligence / criminality coming to light. I bet if you exposed evidence that the USA government is controlled by Russian agents you could be arrested by this same government for harming the nation, which used to sound like a fictional story but it's getting increasingly less far-fetched. (though I'm highly skeptical of the collusion stories myself) Thats why there are varying levels of security clearance and access and extensive background checks. If someone falls through the checks and gets a clearance they shouldn't have that falls on the state. There is a LOT that goes into making sure you aren't blackmailable, and the more sensitive the info the more they obscure you and the cleaner you need to be. For perspective, the form for application for a clearance could be found here: https://www.thebalance.com/sf-86-security-clearance-questionaire-4058541NSA employees, AFAIK, all need Top Secret, the highest level of clearance. With how much blood they suck through the process, they should catch fools like Winner. They didn't catch Kushner in his lies about meetings with the Russians.
President's son in law and loyal crony is, I'm sure you understand, a special circumstance.
|
Shit is going to get real awkward if they turn to Iran and ask "Hey, can we be friends now?"
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 07 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:Shit is going to get real awkward if they turn to Iran and ask "Hey, can we be friends now?"
Qatar and Iran as friends? Could happen but highly unlikely to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
