- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Reality Winner shows the NSA has learned nothing from Edward Snowden
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:29 am to Iosh
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:29 am to Iosh
quote:
Clearance shouldn't mean "okay now I can see all the secret stuff everywhere for any reason."
Obama did that with an EO right before he left office. That's a fact.
I'll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to his motives
0
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:29 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Disclaimer: I didn't recognize the acronym so I'm going off Wikipedia. Tell me if it's wrong.
It's extremely rare for a linguist to be limited to translating plain language. She likely needed those acceses to fulfill her PWS requirements.
quote:I'm still not seeing why this would necessitate her access to this document. I can see why scope and applicable documents would maybe require access to info on current shady goings-on in Afghanistan. I don't see how that gets you to RussiaHackingReport.pdf without terrible infosec.
Performance work statement (or PWS) is to summarize the work that needs to be done for a contract (i.e. with the U.S. Department of Defense).
Include at least the following sections for an acquisition: scope; applicable documents; performance requirements/tasks; and, contractor quality assurance.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 11:30 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:33 am to Iosh
She also shows how nuts left wing kooks are
"Being white is terrorism."
"Being white is terrorism."
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:34 am to OchoDedos
When this girl has been in prison for 2-3 years and still is possibly facing 7-8 more, I wonder if shell finally realize how stupid of a cause she threw her life away for
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:37 am to Iosh
quote:
Tell me if it's wrong.
Sorry. Yeah, that's correct.
quote:
I'm still not seeing why this would necessitate her access to this document. I can see why scope and applicable documents would maybe require access to info on current shady goings-on in Afghanistan. I don't see how that gets you to RussiaHackingReport.pdf without terrible infosec.
Linguists often double up as analysts, especially if they're good at it. I don't really want to get too far into that. My point is, it's likely that she needed those accesses to do her job. This is on her. She knew when she received her clearance, and again when she was hired what she was allowed to access. She even signed a stack of documents acknowledging that and the consequences as well.
She certainly knew better than to leak the information. That brings me back to my main point. She abused her clearance.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:39 am to Iosh
quote:That question obviously would apply whether she was a contractor or not.
Why in the everliving frick is a rando translator able to access and print an English document about Russian hacking without having to ask permission from two supervisors?
She doesn't appear to have had a need to know.
If she had a need to know, then obviously, that also doesn't really differentiate between contractor and not
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 11:41 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:46 am to ShortyRob
quote:
That question obviously would apply whether she was a contractor or not.
Correct, and honestly, this works against Iosh's point.
Bureaucracy is a huge issue here. Contractors don't set these policies and rarely enforce them with authority. Hired federal employees, who are often lazy, complacent, or incompetent do.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:50 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I know you're limited in specifics but the specifics kind of matter here, or at least what can be inferred about them from the fact of the leak itself. I'm sure she'd need to know all kinds of stuff about Afghanistan if her job included analysis. But you're talking about "those accesses" as a unitary concept and my entire point is that they shouldn't be. At the very least I would think common sense says segregate them by broad topics (like "Af/Pak" "Syria/Iraq/ISIS" "Russia + clients") and require some kind of formal procedure presenting damn good reasons when someone (especially a low-level someone) needs to access stuff outside their lane.
Linguists often double up as analysts, especially if they're good at it. I don't really want to get too far into that. My point is, it's likely that she needed those accesses to do her job.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 11:52 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:52 am to ShortyRob
I think part of the problem is the word "contractor".
I think for many people, the word indicates something other than what we're actually talking about.
This "contractor" almost certainly worked in an organization full of government civilians and military and was answerable to a government employee be it military or civilian.
That's not the same as "oour construction company is going to contract out building your house to another company and our hands are now off the project."
It's more like, "Hey, our construction company is going to build your house and 2 of the people that will be working on it will be contract construction workers working for OUR management team".
(yes, I know that's not fully descriptive.......I'm trying to use layman language here)
I think for many people, the word indicates something other than what we're actually talking about.
This "contractor" almost certainly worked in an organization full of government civilians and military and was answerable to a government employee be it military or civilian.
That's not the same as "oour construction company is going to contract out building your house to another company and our hands are now off the project."
It's more like, "Hey, our construction company is going to build your house and 2 of the people that will be working on it will be contract construction workers working for OUR management team".
(yes, I know that's not fully descriptive.......I'm trying to use layman language here)
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:54 am to ShortyRob
Oh no, I get that. But the kind of "contractor" relationship you're describing where they're basically indistinguishably mixed in with the regular workforce seems like a wholly unncessary gravy train + extra security risk. If it's all about keeping continuity in the workforce then why not just un-arse some of this money you're paying contractors and directly increase the salaries you pay people as government employees so they don't retire to the airquote-private-airquote sector? Instead of paying a contractor the value of their salaries + profit for management?
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 11:57 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:56 am to Iosh
quote:
You can lock Winner up for a decade but the only way this gets fixed is if you start locking up the management
You start putting 24oz Eastons to the temple and it will curb this.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:59 am to Iosh
quote:
Oh no, I get that. But the kind of "contractor" relationship you're describing where they're basically indistinguishably mixed in with the regular workforce seems like a wholly unncessary gravy train + extra security risk
Theoretically, contract labor has lower overall costs to the USG than DA Civilian labor.
As to security risk. I'm not really sure why one would be a greater risk than the other.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:59 am to Iosh
quote:
But you're talking about "those accesses" as a unitary concept and my entire point is that they shouldn't
Depends on what role someone is in and what mission they're working.
quote:
At the very least I would think common sense says segregate them by broad topics (like "Af/Pak" "Syria/Iraq/ISIS" "Russia + clients") and require some kind of formal procedure presenting damn good reasons when someone (especially a low-level someone) needs to access stuff outside their lane.
It's likely that she worked a national mission. I don't know that, but it wouldn't be surprising. In that case, many of the tools she'd need would give her access to this information.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:12 pm to ShortyRob
I go back to my original point
Forget what one things of Snowden or this chick.
And, I'll add in all the leaks regarding Trump and his team.
Forget what one thinks of the content of the given links. They ALL illustrate a set of problems that seems to be largely ignored.
We have widespread surveillance and even where we don't have direct surveillance, we "incidental" surveillance that can "become" actual surveillance.
When you couple the above with the obvious reality that we apparently aren't really great at keeping people from abusing their access to it, this creates a very concerning environment for the public.
Let's say Snowden didn't feel like leaking to the press. Let's say his preference was to use his access to manipulate people individually or otherwise corrupt activities.
Same for this chick.
Same for the leakers for Trump.
It is relatively clear at this point that the available surveillance/data/content is so damned widespread that it's VERY hard to contain it.
More to the point............it would seem relatively obvious that if the Trump leakers, Snowden and this chick exist...........the "use data to manipulate/for corruption" people exist too. We just don't learn about them because they don't send their shite to the Washington Post.
Frankly, that group is FAR more dangerous.
Forget what one things of Snowden or this chick.
And, I'll add in all the leaks regarding Trump and his team.
Forget what one thinks of the content of the given links. They ALL illustrate a set of problems that seems to be largely ignored.
We have widespread surveillance and even where we don't have direct surveillance, we "incidental" surveillance that can "become" actual surveillance.
When you couple the above with the obvious reality that we apparently aren't really great at keeping people from abusing their access to it, this creates a very concerning environment for the public.
Let's say Snowden didn't feel like leaking to the press. Let's say his preference was to use his access to manipulate people individually or otherwise corrupt activities.
Same for this chick.
Same for the leakers for Trump.
It is relatively clear at this point that the available surveillance/data/content is so damned widespread that it's VERY hard to contain it.
More to the point............it would seem relatively obvious that if the Trump leakers, Snowden and this chick exist...........the "use data to manipulate/for corruption" people exist too. We just don't learn about them because they don't send their shite to the Washington Post.
Frankly, that group is FAR more dangerous.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Let's say Snowden didn't feel like leaking to the press.
Or Russia and China.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Or Russia and China
The substance of my post remains regardless.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:24 pm to Iosh
quote:
What, so someone "retires" and is brought back on as a contractor for probably more money? That seems like a bad reason.
Govt, as well as Civilians, will overpay for certain area's of expertise. There's a guy on here I know that makes serious money as a Comms Contractor for the Army. He's a retired CWO.
But this woman is 25, and was enlisted USAF. I just dont get the lack of screening here. They got lazy and hired someone with a security clearance without doing due diligence.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:25 pm to Iosh
quote:
Had Winner not been in contact with The Intercept on her office computer the field of suspects might never have been discovered.
the intercept burned their source with this leak. Seems odd, as they previously were very anti burning source.
They provided a full color printout of what they received, in addition, they said it came from augusta GA. They also redacted information.
Something is fishy here.
oh, and it was released two days before comey testimony. Rs will use this as their primary questioning line vs. russia/OOJ.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:26 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
But this woman is 25, and was enlisted USAF. I just dont get the lack of screening here. They got lazy and hired someone with a security clearance without doing due diligence.
Well. I'm guessing she was an Intel geek in the Air Force and got out with her TS and got hired.
Ignoring the fact she's a nut job, her resume probably fit the job in question just fine.
<<<<
quote:Not a former CWO but contract work she be good to me.
Govt, as well as Civilians, will overpay for certain area's of expertise. There's a guy on here I know that makes serious money as a Comms Contractor for the Army. He's a retired CWO.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:27 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
They provided a full color printout of what they received, in addition, they said it came from augusta GA. They also redacted information.
That does seem very odd
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News