Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Actually, it is more a matter of "Researcher Fired at NSF After Government Alleges She Lied On Her Routine Background Check." After reading the article, it appears to me that this is a story that bears paying attention to, but is probably not a scandal. The researcher in question did indeed have ties with a questionable organization. Since the article fails to name the two subsidiary organizations of which she was a member it is not possible to dismiss her claim that she was unfamiliar with their ties to the parent organization. On the other hand, the fact that she was a member of two separate groups which were fronts for a third group significantly increases the likelihood she was aware that they were affiliated with the parent group. Especially when you combine that with her knowing members of the group who carried out an attempted robbery of a Brinks' truck, one of them well enough to carry on correspondence with him while he was in jail.
It is still possible that she was unaware of the ties, but by the time she was interviewed for the background checks, she should have been. After all, at that point she spent a significant amount of time corresponding with a member of the group who went to jail for a highly publicized crime related to the organizations of which she had been a member. On the other hand, the article certainly makes it seem like the information against her is somewhat sketchy.
So, explain to me again why I should believe this Administration official when they claim that no private personal information was stolen during this breach? Bear in mind that this official answers to the same people as the IRS officials who claimed that Lois Lerner's emails had been lost due to a hard drive crash, only to admit that backups existed when a judge insisted they testify under oath about exactly what had happened (the judge making it clear that he would hold the specific people who testified accountable for the accuracy of their statements).
At least the LAPD nominally works for the people. A murderous stalker doesn't.
Except of course when that murderous stalker works for the LAPD (or another police department): http://www.philly.com/philly/n...
Bottom line is, when it comes to technology progress, roots are pretty much irrelevant.
Translation: "Why should I learn from the mistakes made in the past? I'll just make them all over again. All in the name of progress."