Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   US responds to Edward Snowden revelations by implementing internal checks and hardware changes to prohibit external drives on ... nah, just kidding. It was way easier to strip 100,000 workers of security clearances they need to do their jobs   (techdirt.com ) divider line 44
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1462 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2014 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-08-19 11:34:27 AM  
I don't see that particular problem in the article at all, subby. They did strip people of clearance, but there is no indication that they particularly needed it.
 
2014-08-19 11:41:28 AM  
There's a notion in Info Security of least privileges.  If these people don't need that access to do their jobs, they shouldn't have it.
 
2014-08-19 11:47:34 AM  
That's 100,000 fewer people who can read your emails and watch you masturbate.  Why are you upset about that?
 
2014-08-19 01:45:05 PM  
Not seeing this as a problem. Too many people had security clearances that were beyond what they needed. This corrects that. Why am I supposed to be upset?
 
2014-08-19 02:12:58 PM  

DeaH: Not seeing this as a problem. Too many people had security clearances that were beyond what they needed. This corrects that. Why am I supposed to be upset?


Because all information everywhere should be accessable at all times. Except subby's info. That's private.
 
2014-08-19 02:48:19 PM  

James!: That's 100,000 fewer people who can read your emails and watch you masturbate.  Why are you upset about that?


Because it's the only way I can get people to watch me masturbate. :(
 
2014-08-19 02:49:01 PM  
I see no problem with their reducing employee clearance levels in its own right, but it doesn't even begin to address the core problem.
 
2014-08-19 02:52:26 PM  
How many of these people worked for Booz Allen Hamilton?
 
2014-08-19 02:54:00 PM  
Good. You know they could do both subby. In fact it usually goes together.
 
2014-08-19 02:54:47 PM  

China White Tea: I see no problem with their reducing employee clearance levels in its own right, but it doesn't even begin to address the core problem.


Do you know they have done nothing to address those issues?
 
2014-08-19 02:58:17 PM  
Way too many people are involved in the national security game these days. I'd say booting 100,000 of them is no more than just a modestly good start.
 
2014-08-19 02:59:23 PM  

James!: That's 100,000 fewer people who can read your emails and watch you masturbate.  Why are you upset about that?


i.imgur.com

He will always watch.
 
2014-08-19 02:59:29 PM  
Good. Security clearance should only be given to true believers; we can't risk giving letting anyone who might care more about the rights of the American public know what our security agencies are up to.
 
2014-08-19 02:59:35 PM  

Corvus: China White Tea: I see no problem with their reducing employee clearance levels in its own right, but it doesn't even begin to address the core problem.

Do you know they have done nothing to address those issues?


When keeping programs secret from the American public is half the issue in the first place, addressing the problem in secret doesn't fix it.
 
2014-08-19 03:11:38 PM  
only The Owners need clearances.   the rest of you get back to work.
 
2014-08-19 03:15:15 PM  
Still don't understand how it was a 'revelation'. Got to be one dumb shiat to be surprised.
 
2014-08-19 03:15:25 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Good. Security clearance should only be given to true believers; we can't risk giving letting anyone who might care more about the rights of the American public know what our security agencies are up to.



yea, 99.999% of the Nation is not on a need to know basis where Freedumb is concerned.
 
2014-08-19 03:16:05 PM  
I see they didn't link to any proof of their claim of 100,000. Where did they get this number? I have a hard time believing it.
 
2014-08-19 03:16:53 PM  

gshepnyc: Way too many people are involved in the national security game these days. I'd say booting 100,000 of them is no more than just a modestly good start.



and the CONgress members should be among those folks being booted.  they are not on a need to know basis.  wink.
 
2014-08-19 03:19:14 PM  
We've mentioned things in the past like former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden "jokingly" talking about how he'd like to put Snowden on a "kill list".


Likewise, Mr. Hayden.   ya' prick.  imagine that, a Turd in the CIA.
 
2014-08-19 03:21:52 PM  
http://youtu.be/aI9Gj7YfBVk

How I'll always see this Snowden thing.

"HERE ARE ALL THE SEEK-RITS!"
 
2014-08-19 03:27:21 PM  

MindStalker: I see they didn't link to any proof of their claim of 100,000. Where did they get this number? I have a hard time believing it.



it sounds better than 100,001 does.
 
2014-08-19 03:32:38 PM  

birdboy2000: Corvus: China White Tea: I see no problem with their reducing employee clearance levels in its own right, but it doesn't even begin to address the core problem.

Do you know they have done nothing to address those issues?

When keeping programs secret from the American public is half the issue in the first place, addressing the problem in secret doesn't fix it.


*rolls eyes* this is why nothing ever gets resolved. Because of this "No matter what gets done it's not good enough!!" mentality people like you have. Why should any one bother to address concerns  when someone who tries is then told at every turn that it's not good enough and is responded with hyperbolic generalized platitudes.
 
2014-08-19 03:38:43 PM  
Serious many of you are just as bad as those who use the excuse of terrorism  for over bearing security.

If for a second you'd stop repeating feel good idealistic platitudes and instead trying to have an actually discussion on the actual details (instead of most of the made up BS I see said) that would help to need to be changed something would actually get done.

But instead you want to be uncompromising and cast everyone in a black or white light and and not get any real change.

Both sides of this issue are both idealist farking retards and it's impossible to have any real constructive conversation.
 
2014-08-19 03:39:12 PM  

James!: That's 100,000 fewer people who can read your emails and watch you masturbate.  Why are you upset about that?


In order to masturbate, I need to believe there are 100,000 people watching me.
 
2014-08-19 03:40:09 PM  

Corvus: birdboy2000: Corvus: China White Tea: I see no problem with their reducing employee clearance levels in its own right, but it doesn't even begin to address the core problem.

Do you know they have done nothing to address those issues?

When keeping programs secret from the American public is half the issue in the first place, addressing the problem in secret doesn't fix it.

*rolls eyes* this is why nothing ever gets resolved. Because of this "No matter what gets done it's not good enough!!" mentality people like you have. Why should any one bother to address concerns  when someone who tries is then told at every turn that it's not good enough and is responded with hyperbolic generalized platitudes.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-19 03:48:01 PM  
Assuming this is even true, if a clearance was needed to do their jobs, they'd still have them. Also, many of those clearances may not have been "lost" but expired and just not been renewed. That's what happened to mine. I was off to another project and didn't need the clearance I had on the old one so when renewal time came I didn't bother going thru the hoops. And good riddance; having those things is a pain in the ass anyway.
 
2014-08-19 03:49:52 PM  
What do you folks reckon the odds are that Subby works for a defense contractor who requires all their staff have a security clearance?
 
2014-08-19 03:52:21 PM  

MindStalker: I see they didn't link to any proof of their claim of 100,000. Where did they get this number? I have a hard time believing it.


the article seems to be a ripoff of: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/08/meet-man-leading-snowden-da m age-investigation/91631/
One crisp action taken following agency auditing after Snowden's exposure: 100,000 fewer people have security clearances than did a year ago, Evanina said. "That's a lot."

Bill Evanina is the National Counterintelligence Executive.

There is not enough info to tell if the 100,000 is intelligence clearances or just the run of the mill clearances for people who work on classified projects (i.e.much of military hardware and systems) that shouldn't sell blueprints but are not in any position to spy or have access to much else than their project.

I would guess the latter which really isn't a kick to the intelligence complex.
 
2014-08-19 03:57:50 PM  

Target Builder: What do you folks reckon the odds are that Subby works for a defense contractor who requires all their staff have a security clearance?


Which is asinine in it's own right. It's expensive to get a clearance processed, and most of the time unnecessary for people to have one because they aren't working on secret stuff anyway. I've seen postings where they want the Natural Resources Specialist (basically the base's person that makes sure projects aren't going to ruin wetlands or extinct some rare species) requires a clearance. I can't think of any circumstance where one would be required to do that job (having done that job myself) on a normal base. Sure, maybe at Area 51 you might need one, but at the Air Force Base that has planes landing along with commercial jets next to a large city?  Not so much.
 
2014-08-19 03:59:21 PM  
It's probably just a turf war based on "If I can make your project fail because all of a sudden your guys don't have what they need to produce, then I win." and "It's a win win for everyone. Anything to slow down the process. Contractors can have a job forever, and I can hire even more."
 
2014-08-19 04:00:43 PM  
Can't wait to hear about how blame shifts, with conservatives complaining about the most transparent administration in history not being some mythical level of transparent.
 
2014-08-19 04:31:12 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Good. Security clearance should only be given to true believers; we can't risk giving letting anyone who might care more about the rights of the American public know what our security agencies are up to.


You made me rethink my Weeners to this. Thanks! I still think we have way too many people inside that bubble (it's almost Stasi-like) but I hadn't considered the point of view you expressed.

Sorry to sound reasonable and like I learned something from someone on Fark, so to make up for that... up yours, I guess.
 
2014-08-19 04:52:29 PM  
I had no idea having a job with the federal government was right enshrined in the Constitution. The process for vetting candidates is flawed. Time to fix it.
 
2014-08-19 07:25:48 PM  
At a division of a large federal agency that I consulted at there were 25+ Feds and another dozen contractors that had root access to all their servers.  The Chinese spent more time on the server farm than U.S. citizens did.
 
2014-08-19 07:56:52 PM  

Corvus: Serious many of you are just as bad as those who use the excuse of terrorism  for over bearing security.

If for a second you'd stop repeating feel good idealistic platitudes and instead trying to have an actually discussion on the actual details (instead of most of the made up BS I see said) that would help to need to be changed something would actually get done.

But instead you want to be uncompromising and cast everyone in a black or white light and and not get any real change.

Both sides of this issue are both idealist farking retards and it's impossible to have any real constructive conversation.


The real problem is that national security requires some information be classified. If a program this heavily classified becomes controversial, you end up with a situation where no discussion without classified information is informed enough to be useful, but revealing it, no matter how much it might justify and validate the program, can essentially kill the program anyway.

Worst of all, the above is indistinguishable from tyranny.
 
2014-08-19 07:58:46 PM  

jjorsett: Assuming this is even true, if a clearance was needed to do their jobs, they'd still have them. Also, many of those clearances may not have been "lost" but expired and just not been renewed. That's what happened to mine. I was off to another project and didn't need the clearance I had on the old one so when renewal time came I didn't bother going thru the hoops. And good riddance; having those things is a pain in the ass anyway.


The only thing I miss about my clearance are the nifty conversations you can have about interesting issues. Just about everything else about clearances is, as you say, a pain in the ass.

/Heaven help you if you create classified information.
 
2014-08-20 02:14:52 AM  

Corvus: Serious many of you are just as bad as those who use the excuse of terrorism  for over bearing security.

If for a second you'd stop repeating feel good idealistic platitudes and instead trying to have an actually discussion on the actual details (instead of most of the made up BS I see said) that would help to need to be changed something would actually get done.

But instead you want to be uncompromising and cast everyone in a black or white light and and not get any real change.

Both sides of this issue are both idealist farking retards and it's impossible to have any real constructive conversation.


Careful now.  You're going to be ridiculed and shouted at.  It's Fark, after all, where the way to progress is comprised of ridiculing everyone and everything, and shouting down anyone who disagrees.
 
2014-08-20 07:59:23 AM  
This is not surprising. Haphazardly leaking and releasing classified info makes it more secret in the future. The network Manning used to leak diplatic cables was opened up post 9/11 due to concerns about info sharing. Now that access is again more limited.
 
2014-08-20 08:04:57 AM  
FSM forbid they do something about the abuses Snowden revealed.
 
2014-08-20 08:06:56 AM  

Corvus: Serious many of you are just as bad as those who use the excuse of terrorism  for over bearing security.

If for a second you'd stop repeating feel good idealistic platitudes and instead trying to have an actually discussion on the actual details (instead of most of the made up BS I see said) that would help to need to be changed something would actually get done.

But instead you want to be uncompromising and cast everyone in a black or white light and and not get any real change.

Both sides of this issue are both idealist farking retards and it's impossible to have any real constructive conversation.


So vote ++++++++name redacted; revelation prohibited under penalty of law++++++++++
 
2014-08-20 09:02:50 AM  
It won't, however, stop them from mass spying on Americans, including their own oversight committee.
 
2014-08-20 02:06:44 PM  
If you don't need it to do your job, you don't need it.

Exactly. DOD security policy has been lackluster and stuck in the 90s for way too long. This is just a matter of solving that.
 
2014-08-20 03:12:42 PM  

vharshyde: If you don't need it to do your job, you don't need it.

Exactly. DOD security policy has been lackluster and stuck in the 90s for way too long. This is just a matter of solving that.


Some positions do need a universal need to know (at the secret level) - no path of examination is closed to a mentat if it helps them do their job.

But far too many people have far too many clearances. I'm not sure why you would even WANT it, except for an immature desire to be part of the club.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report