Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Nothing to see. (Score 1) 741

"I'd ask the same thing about Condeleeza but I actually believe that about her, after all she was in the NSA. "
Condeleeza Rice was never in the NSA. Your arguments lose serious credibility if you can't differentiate between the National Security Agency (the intelligence agency) and the National Security Advisor (the person who advises the president on national security issues, including but not limited to, intelligence matters, who has no authority over any of the Intelligence Community)

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 1) 261

I'm not accusing her of a crime. I'm accusing her of either incompetence or horrible judgement, given her position as one of the few Original Classification Authorities in the executive branch ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... SecState is the first Department mentioned. ). She should have known better. Maybe she did know better, but chose not to do better - that'd be worse.

Further, she was expected (one could even say "ordered by the President") to take Classification Training annually: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... section 1.3d:
"All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. " You can't argue that she was unfamiliar with this issue.

Even more, as a former FLOTUS, as a former Senator, and ESPECIALLY as Secretary of State (analogous to a Foreign Minister in other countries), she should CERTAINLY expected that her communications would be a primary target by foreign adversaries. She had high-level conversations with advisers, communications with/about other foreign leaders and diplomats, national policy issues, internal State Department policy issues. We already know the NSA is interested in this kind of stuff for other countries (most recently the shit with Israel) ; pretty much everyone else would love to have this information on the US as well. We're all self-important geeks here who think the NSA is watching all of us as we play video games and post on Slashdot and Reddit. How can anyone give a pass to a Secretary of State, who has real, LEGIT reasons to suspect she'd be targeted?

And then there were the political games she's been playing in the aftermath, instead of handing shit over, lawyering up and taking her lumps if necessary, and moving on. If it cost her an opportunity at the Presidency, oh well, that's what accountability at that level means; its not as if she didn't have POTUS aspirations back then. The world knew it. (More of a reason to suspect she'd be targetted by other intel services, actualy). Instead, she avoided having to turn stuff over as long as possible, tried deleting stuff, hand-selected things to turn over, plays this stupid shrugging game, insults our intelligence by saying "“It was on property guarded by the Secret Service and there were no security breaches. So I think that the use of that server certainly proved to be effective and secure.”". (Yes, she said that. http://www.wired.com/2015/03/h... )

Even if every single email she had on there was born and legitimately unclassified, they were at very least sensitive. And a bunch of unclassified things can be considered classified in aggregate. "(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information." (from one of the Executive Order links above as well)

So incompetence or bad judgement: I don't know which. Criminality aside, there are other very strong reasons for her to NOT be a leading candidate for presidency. The same reasons Trump shouldn't be a leading candidate either, actually: Character and judgement.

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 4, Informative) 261

I posted this link elsewhere but:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

The whole thing is interesting and relevent, but in particular:

"(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable."

Rarely or not, she should have had annual training, and to dodge this is to say that a person who reaches that level of government has no responsibility to uphold the more "mundane" things of their job.

A person who dodges this responsibility is not fit to lead others who are held to the same responsibility (the entire Executive branch)

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 2) 261

Someone gets it. Also, as an Original Classification Authority (In fact, the first Department head mentioned in the Executive Order that defines who OCAs are (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority) ), she should have had specific training and a very good understanding of this stuff. ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

Fron the second link:
"((d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. "

Comment Re: Do users really care? (Score 1) 278

Rejecting people who disagree with you is a bad thing. Taken to an extreme, you have Kim Jong *. But even in normal western society, just because someone doesn't match 100% with what you believe doesn't make them a bad person, or not worth your time. Maybe there are intelligent people who have come to *their* set of opinions and principles because they grew up in a different environment, or have different priorities. Maybe some of these people can challenge your set of principles; maybe you can change their mind on a few things, maybe they can change yours.

Without the possibility of that back and forth, you end up with Congress.

Comment Lived in Italy for 3 years... my perspective (Score 1) 88

There was a perception (voiced to me by at least one Vineyard owner and one hotel owner) that their competitors were writing bad reviews in an effort to hurt each others businesses. Even in 2010/2011, the vineyard guy was hoping Tripadvisor would be outlawed.

We laughed and drank our wine, but this article doesn't surprise me in the least.

Comment Re:But that's not all Snowden did... (Score 3, Insightful) 348

Apparently in your worldview, news organizations are unbiased and don't have any ulterior motives like "ratings" and "click conversions" and "sell books" and "scoop the other news organization" and their own political agenda. ABC News, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and Fox News are all equivalent and will all publish the same items with the same unbiased coverage.

Manning and Snowden did a massive data dump to organizations who will publish anything to get eyeballs. Slow news day? Lets pull out another one of these millions of documents, because outrage at the NSA sells and wins awards.

Comment Re:Missing the point (Score 1) 668

I've never been against ACA. I have always supported the idea.

However, calling House efforts to block it unconstitutional is not true at all. Budgets MUST come from the House, according to the Constitution. Yes, the Senate can amend, but that's not the point right now - the point is the constitutionality of the House putting forward bills that don't fund something they agree with. The House was given the "power of the purse" a long time ago, which allows them to choose what to fund and what not to fund. This is all part of the series of checks and balances, and has been executed before - once to effectively end the Vietnam War. The reason the House was chosen is because it theoretically is more representative of the will of the American people - it has a higher resolution (more representatives) and a faster refresh rate (2 year terms); therefore, the intent was to give fiduciary power to the part of Congress that is closest to the people. (Yes, gerrymandering is an issue in practice, but that's the result of trying to game the system.)

Here's a great article that discusses this: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/hand-off-my-purse-why-money-bills-originate-in-the-house

So, for better or worse, it is decidedly NOT unconstitutional for the House to push for an appropriations budget that doesn't fund ACA. This is how it works as laid out in the blueprint of the countries government. Calling foul when you don't get everything you want isn't the way to go about it.

Holding the entire government hostage is the responsibility of BOTH parts of Congress, and both parties. Personally, I think that everyone sitting in office should be voted out as soon as possible. I don't care if the balance of power doesn't shift... I want future Congresses to see that playing ultra-partisan games won't be tolerated and has consequences. Big Boy rules there.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...