Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 533

The problem with this argument is the FBI's report does not say it was only a sentence or two. It says there were thousands of classified emails, some of which were entire classified documents, markings and all.

No, it didn't. At least Comey's summary says nothing of the sort.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were âoeup-classifiedâ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

And...

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been âoeup-classified.â

Finally...

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

So flat out, unless you are in possession of a different report that indicates Comey made up the summary in whole cloth, you're being dishonest in your claims.

An insightful read: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-forgotten-1957-trial-that-explains-our-countrys-bizarre-whistleblower-laws-213771

Comment Re: It's research... (Score 1) 143

Tee hee! Back in the day, one of the points I made to the old farts was that I had passed the 20 WPM exam and had my K6BP call to show for it, but refused to use the code on the air until the requirement was gone. Nobody spat at me or punched me out, the worst that ever happened was a poor behaving slim using my call and a postcard from the ARRL observer who thouht it was me.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 533

There are "little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified. Right now. Actually in prison.

There are also several that aren't. Administrative punishments are common, depending on the material in question, and the circumstances. In some cases, absolutely nothing was done.

For example, all of the people who accessed the early Wikileaks stuff and those people who accessed the Guardian articles that contained the Snowden material. There was an entire PR campaign directed at Executive Branch Agencies reminding people that "until officially declassified, just because it is published in public doesn't mean you can read it".

I personally contacted DHS regarding multiple "classified spills" surrounding the Wikileaks material being accessed on non-Classified systems and sent around in e-mail. Their answer? "Delete it and remind people not to do that. No, you don't have to destroy you entire MS Exchange storage array."

Under your criteria, hundreds of people would have been put in jail. They weren't and some of that Snowden stuff was SCI/Code word.

The Wikileaks stuff in 2010 was Bradley Manning's leak of, mostly, diplomatic cables -- exactly the type of stuff Clinton was dealing with -- except Clinton's was indirect reference (e-mail about) not full cables. In other words, de minimis.

According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?

You're baiting him. You know the difference, which is Patraeus committed a conscious, direct act in knowingly and intentionally giving classified material to a person who was not authorized to have it. Clearance or not, she didn't have the necessary "need to know".

He also explicitly and directly lied to the FBI investigators by flat out denying he did it. Hillary has been very indirect and there is no indication she every did ANYTHING remotely similar to Patraeus.

There is a significant difference between "here is my notebook loaded with TS/SCI material that you shouldn't see" and, to the FBI, "never happened"; and "received or sent e-mail that may have contained a sentence or two copy-pasted from (95%) Confidential material".

Comment Re:It's research... (Score 3, Informative) 143

WSPR tells you when communication paths are open between two points at a specific frequency and S/N ratio. This is useful but does not span the extent of research that HAARP is directed to. One of the most interesting things about HAARP is that it can incite the formation of radio-reflective regions in the ionosphere. That takes a lot of power.

Slashdot Top Deals

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser

Working...