After reading this article a second time, I noticed that it's crafted to suggest the suspect had stolen software. The evidence given in the article only admits the suspect had documents, some of them classified, at his home. To suggest that many computers and code was found at a programmers home is quite ridiculous. Late in the article, the F.B.I "suspects" that he may have stolen code. What this article lacks in evidence, it makes up in sensationalism.
N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
121–130 of 148 posts
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point taken. You're correct on all points. Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home, not least because it's clear the discussions were being undertaken as part of her official duties. Taking documents home is a lot more ambiguous as to intent.
> Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home It is identical. He is being accused of moving classified information to unauthorised locations. She moved information to unauthorised locations. She literally had people send classified information to the basement of her home. Plus I'd argue that sending classified information to an insecure server is a far…
>to an insecure server
Email is insecure regardless of who owns the server or where it's located. The government's own position is that emails in transit are postcards, not letters, and emails at rest are abandoned property, not personal papers and effects.
On the scale of how bad this is, plain old email on a private dedicated server is a 10/10, but plain old email on an @state.gov server would have been at least a 9/10. From an "endangering national security" perspective, we should be equally angry about everyone who used the official State email server for classified information.
It's not just information disclosure. Imagine the lulz to be had from the fact that the Security of State can't distinguish between an email from the President and any idiot who knows how to forge a FROM header.
Also, that time when it turned out that the State Department let the Russians have RCE on its email server for more than a year [1].
[1] http://gizmodo.com/state-dept-just-shut-off-part-of-email-sy...
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#123What constitutes a "secret arrest", as mentioned in this article? Jose Padilla was arrested and initially held without notice to his family or attorney. Is that what this arrest is like? What proportion of the arrests in the US are "secret"? When the families of the prisoners are told, are they sometimes bound by court orders not to disclose the arrests?
I'm guessing it just means the indictment is sealed, and maybe (but probably not) that the accused and their counsel are under some kind of gag order. There's no statute or authority or even articles at ACLU or in law journals I can find that suggest that federal law enforcement can detain US citizens without counsel in "secret arrests", or, for that matter, suspend habeas. Obviously: they can do that. But it's a ver…
good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...
... under the NDAA "an American citizen can be detained forever without trial, while the allegations against you go uncontested because you have no right to see them"
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#124What constitutes a "secret arrest", as mentioned in this article? Jose Padilla was arrested and initially held without notice to his family or attorney. Is that what this arrest is like? What proportion of the arrests in the US are "secret"? When the families of the prisoners are told, are they sometimes bound by court orders not to disclose the arrests?
I also wondered about that. Why would you "secretly" arrest anyone? And here I thought a critical component of due process is that we don't detain people without charging them with a crime, which is necessarily an open process. But what do I know? I'm just a schmuck who happens to believe normal people can read and interpret the constitution on their own.
> But what do I know? I'm just a schmuck who happens to believe normal people can read and interpret the constitution on their own.
To be fair, what if two people did that and disagreed?
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can say what is scarier for another person.
What's the difference than someone saying it is scarier? This reasoning "only people who are X can say what it's like to be X" makes no logical sense.
"Needles are scary."
Well, actually... no, I don't find needles scary.
To be scared is an emotional response, and you can't really tell pother people what their emotions are.
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#126What constitutes a "secret arrest", as mentioned in this article? Jose Padilla was arrested and initially held without notice to his family or attorney. Is that what this arrest is like? What proportion of the arrests in the US are "secret"? When the families of the prisoners are told, are they sometimes bound by court orders not to disclose the arrests?
It is legally an indefinite detention pending formal charges, but due to the nature of "indefinite," those charges never have to actually exist. It performed under section 1021 of the original National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012), which has been upheld as constitutional by an appellate court, a ruling which the supreme court declined to subsequently hear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
This is not a detention under the NDAA. This case has nothing to do with the NDAA. Further, Obama's signing statement of that law stated that his Administration believed such provision to be unnecessary and unconstitutional:
"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
Hedges v. Obama did not affirm the constitutionality of that law, but rather that that plaintiff did not have a sufficient interest in that provision in order to ensure that they would present the best case that can be made, which is important because US Court's follow precedent. If you'd like to read more, look for the constitutional requirement of Standing.
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#127Want to see something really scary??? Here's his house: https://www.google.com/maps/place/7+Harvard+Rd,+Glen+Burnie,...
Want to see something totally common: google image search for the address:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=4%20harvard%20road%...
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Discussing classified matters through an insecure method is a far cry from physically taking documents home It is identical. He is being accused of moving classified information to unauthorised locations. She moved information to unauthorised locations. She literally had people send classified information to the basement of her home. Plus I'd argue that sending classified information to an insecure server is a far…
>to an insecure server Email is insecure regardless of who owns the server or where it's located. The government's own position is that emails in transit are postcards, not letters, and emails at rest are abandoned property, not personal papers and effects. On the scale of how bad this is, plain old email on a private dedicated server is a 10/10, but plain old email on an @state.gov server would have been at least a…
Not sure what your argument is. Yes, all email is insecure. That's why it should have been transmitted over exactly zero email systems ever. Instead it was transmitted not only over email, but a remarkably insecure email whose existence was predicated by a desire to evade FOIA.
She's either remarkably inept, or remarkably shady (or both). I'm saying this all with the legitimate desire for her to win, and I'll be voting for her myself, but good lord at least be intellectually honest about what's happening.
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make any sense. You will have attack cyber weapons, but at the same time you risk that your enemies can use the same weapon against the infrastructure you are there to protect. Collecting attack weapons, but letting your defense rot is a strategy which might work in computer games.
You seem to be implying they're doing something else?
Who do you mean with "they" and what is "something"?
Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing it just means the indictment is sealed, and maybe (but probably not) that the accused and their counsel are under some kind of gag order. There's no statute or authority or even articles at ACLU or in law journals I can find that suggest that federal law enforcement can detain US citizens without counsel in "secret arrests", or, for that matter, suspend habeas. Obviously: they can do that. But it's a ver…
good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization... ... under the NDAA "an American citizen can be detained forever without trial, while the allegations against you go uncontested because you have no right to see them"
The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.