If she'll send me that 30,000 bucks she so clumsily tried to hide, I'd become her advocate.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
The USB ports on all the desktop and laptop computers at my company (private sector tech) are all electronically software disabled for 99.99% of the company. You need VP approval for an exemption if you require use of thumbdrive, it is assigned to you with an electronic tracker. They know where ever you plug in, and knew before the lock down if you were using your usb ports.

That the government computers, especially ones containing top secret information, were not similarly locked down and controlled is a level of incompetence beyond belief.

A friend/neighbor was a software engineer who worked for one of the DoD think tanks. Every morning TWO people would have to go into the lab together, enter by security code, TWO would have to open the safe in the secured lab, take out the demountable hard drive, put it in the computer, then go to work. If during the day one had to go to the restroom, they would have to put the drive back in the safe, lock it, exit the lab, which was locked, then go pee. Then reverse the process to start their software work again.

Thanks Zero Hedge!

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
The USB ports on all the desktop and laptop computers at my company (private sector tech) are all electronically software disabled for 99.99% of the company. You need VP approval for an exemption if you require use of thumbdrive, it is assigned to you with an electronic tracker. They know where ever you plug in, and knew before the lock down if you were using your usb ports.

That the government computers, especially ones containing top secret information, were not similarly locked down and controlled is a level of incompetence beyond belief.

A friend/neighbor was a software engineer who worked for one of the DoD think tanks. Every morning TWO people would have to go into the lab together, enter by security code, TWO would have to open the safe in the secured lab, take out the demountable hard drive, put it in the computer, then go to work. If during the day one had to go to the restroom, they would have to put the drive back in the safe, lock it, exit the lab, which was locked, then go pee. Then reverse the process to start their software work again.

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.

Why not? That's pretty standard two-person control.

quote:

...then go pee.

quote:

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.

There's another protocol for #2.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

...then go pee.

quote:

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.

There's another protocol for #2.

One hand washes the other?



.

I wonder if all of the other people leaking documents to the media are freaking out

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I wonder if all of the other people leaking documents to the media are freaking out

I hope so.



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I wonder if all of the other people leaking documents to the media are freaking out

I hope so.

Probably not, they're terribly overconfident.

quote:

she reportedly said: ‘Go nuclear with the press – because that’s how Manning got out’ apparently in reference to the recent release of military intelligence leaker, Chelsea Manning.

This is just one more reason not to pardon or commute the sentence of that little twink.

Thanks again, Bam! Just keep fucking the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

A friend/neighbor was a software engineer who worked for one of the DoD think tanks. Every morning TWO people would have to go into the lab together, enter by security code, TWO would have to open the safe in the secured lab, take out the demountable hard drive, put it in the computer, then go to work. If during the day one had to go to the restroom, they would have to put the drive back in the safe, lock it, exit the lab, which was locked, then go pee. Then reverse the process to start their software work again.

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.[/QUOTE]

You can get the data without a problem, just need a rope, disk, knife and some laser security deflectors, ya just got to be quiet





Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar0xLps7WSY

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
Probably not, they're terribly overconfident.

Overconfidence or panic: either one works well for making stupid mistakes.



.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
The USB ports on all the desktop and laptop computers at my company (private sector tech) are all electronically software disabled for 99.99% of the company. You need VP approval for an exemption if you require use of thumbdrive, it is assigned to you with an electronic tracker. They know where ever you plug in, and knew before the lock down if you were using your usb ports.

That the government computers, especially ones containing top secret information, were not similarly locked down and controlled is a level of incompetence beyond belief.

A friend/neighbor was a software engineer who worked for one of the DoD think tanks. Every morning TWO people would have to go into the lab together, enter by security code, TWO would have to open the safe in the secured lab, take out the demountable hard drive, put it in the computer, then go to work. If during the day one had to go to the restroom, they would have to put the drive back in the safe, lock it, exit the lab, which was locked, then go pee. Then reverse the process to start their software work again.

Interesting story - but doesn't really sound legit.

I know a dozen other people who worked for the same firm, I was CFO for a firm that did classified work for them. One of their managers became CEO of our firm. I can assure you the story is legit.

Andrew Napolitano thinks she's a true blue American patriot

Last weekend, the FBI arrested an employee of a corporation in Augusta, Georgia, that had a contract with the National Security Agency and charged her with espionage. Espionage occurs when someone who has been entrusted to safeguard state secrets fails to do so. In this case, the government alleges that the person to whom state secrets had been entrusted is 25-year-old Reality Leigh Winner, who had a top-secret national security clearance.

The government claims that Winner downloaded and printed a top-secret NSA report, removed the printed version of the report from her employer’s premises, and then mailed it to The Intercept, a highly regarded international media outlet that exposes government wrongdoing.

The government says it learned of this when folks from The Intercept called the NSA and told agents what they had received and what they planned to publish. After hearing agents describe the potential harm to their work if the full report were to be released, The Intercept agreed to redact certain portions, though it published the bulk of the report.

The report is startling, as it reveals that the NSA discovered that Russian hackers in late October and early November 2016 planted cookies (attractive, uniquely tailored links) into the websites of 122 American city and county clerks responsible for counting ballots in the presidential election. This means that if any employee of those clerks’ offices clicked onto any cookie, the hackers had access to -- and thus the ability to interfere with -- the tabulation of votes. This NSA report is at sharp odds with the denials of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election made last year by President Barack Obama and made last week by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and it is profoundly more detailed and alarming than anything the federal government has thus far revealed.

Doesn’t the American public have the right to know what the Russians did in the election? Is it necessarily criminal to make such things public? Isn’t the NSA supposed to protect us from foreign hackers who are attempting to interfere with the core American electoral process -- the election of the president -- and not keep us in the dark if it fails to do so?

Here is the back story.

I have argued since 2013, when we first learned from the Edward Snowden revelations that the NSA has gathered too much data about too many innocent people since 2005, that it does so in violation of the Constitution and federal law and that it suffers from information overload -- meaning it has more raw data than it has resources to examine in a timely and effective manner.

The result of all this is liberty lost -- as innocents have their privacy invaded and, as we know, sometimes even revealed to the public for political purposes -- and our safety compromised, since the NSA repeatedly discovers that it had all relevant communications of killers before the killings but does not connect the dots until too late, as in Boston, San Bernardino and Orlando; and the same can be said for our British partners in Manchester and London during the past two weeks.

The stated purpose of all this suspicionless bulk spying on all of us all the time is to keep us safe. Yet we know that the NSA has failed at that, and we know from a recent judicial condemnation of the NSA that it has failed to protect our liberties. Now we know that it has failed to protect our presidential election.

Is it a crime to reveal what the FBI says Winner revealed? In a word, yes. Yet I argue for understanding the full picture here. If she did as the FBI alleges, she committed a violation of federal law. However, it appears she did not do so for petty, political, financial or venal reasons; rather, she may have done so for the American people to know that the spies who have failed us would keep us ignorant and vulnerable.

Can The Intercept be prosecuted for revealing top-secret material to the public? In a word, no. The Supreme Court made clear in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971 that a media entity may freely publish matters that are material to the public interest, notwithstanding the source of the matters or the behavior of the source that delivered the matters to it. This is grounded in the essence of personal liberty in a free society. In matters of material interest to the public, the public’s right to know what the government is doing or has failed to do constitutionally trumps the government’s right to secrecy.

Where does all this leave us? Reality Winner may very well be a patriot who risked her career and freedom to warn the American public of what the government was afraid to acknowledge -- that mass spying keeps us neither safe nor free.

No doubt the government doesn’t see it that way. This case has embarrassed the government, and she will most likely be prosecuted.

I hope the judge in her case lets her lawyers argue that because we live in perilous times, the people are entitled to know what the government does and fails to do in our names to address the peril so we can change the government when it fails.

The remedy for the revelation of truth should consist in the truth's ability to flourish in the marketplace of ideas rather than in the punishment of the revealer.

The core principle of democracy is that the people have consented to the government. When the government keeps vital secrets from us -- particularly secrets that embarrass it, secrets that cause us to view it differently, secrets of failure -- we end up with a government that we do not know or trust. And one that ultimately lacks our consent.


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Andrew Napolitano thinks she's a true blue American patriot ...Reality Winner may very well be a patriot who risked her career and freedom to warn the American public of what the government was afraid to acknowledge -- that mass spying keeps us neither safe nor free....

Somehow the label of an American Patriot doesn't mesh with "I am white, I am cute, I will braid my hair and cry in court, hide my $30K, I want to burn down the White House, I love ISIS . . . "

Maybe Napolitano has too much cannabis in his system.

It's called "Espionage", asshole.

Wether the public has a right to know is immaterial as long as it is classified. He should know this. Want to share it with the public? Have the OCA change or remove the classification.

As far as Rosie, who cares? She obviously dosen't care too much if she only donated $1K. She's just trying to get her name in the news. Rosie would probably call Ethel Rosenberg a patriot too (and Benedict Arnold).

As far as the USB being "unlocked", all the .gov computers I have used have the ports locked down. This does not mean you cannot physically insert a drive, you can, but you won't be able to transfer any data to it unless it is an authorized drive issued to you. Her's obviously wasn't, hence they knew about it and it is highly doubtful she got any info that way. She dosen't seem too sophisticated so the easyist way for her to remove classed material is exactly the way she did it - print it and smuggle the copy out. She is definitely not in the same league as others, the kind who can set up their own server to remove and transmit classified material.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Andrew Napolitano thinks she's a true blue American patriot

I was just about to post this article.

I think Napolitano gives this stupid woman way too much credit. Her motivation seems very clear to me. She didn't do this for the benefit of the country or the American people as a whole. She did this out of pure malice and hatred for President Trump. Quite the contrary to his assumption, she hates America and wanted to harm her.

Rot in hell, loser.