Slashdot Mirror

And you believe this?

The US has a 3 trillion dollar budget. Even if the Armed forces had 1/3 of that (it doesn't) you would say it can't account (meaning lost or stolen) over 6 years worth of funding.

And you believe your bull$hit? Or is it that you didn't think about what you were reading?

That figure came from a DoD Office of Inspector General report:

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend JV adjustments made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation. The unsupported JV adjustments occurred because OASA(FM&C) and DFAS Indianapolis did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors resulting in JV adjustments, and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting systemgenerated adjustments.

If the DoD can't accurately track where they are spending money today, how do they know they need more money, or if they do, where they need to spend it?

You didn't by any chance get a list of cases that go to the IG and are proceed normally did you?

For example: DoD IG Semiannual Reports

No, I guess not. So the solution to a stove fire is to burn down the kitchen? Rubbish.

Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence

By the way, you did notice that Drake was able to get the program he opposed defunded by Congress, didn't you? Nah, probably not.

Mr. Snowden put himself at great personal risk physically (from "extraordinary rendition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... and the like) and criminally (where he can have his liberty taken from him after some state action) and professionally (hard to work places where the US won't be looking for you).

That is just. What he did was to bring great pressure on the US government to act. 100's of millions of dollars worth of security blown. Years of effort destroyed. He acted against his oath and against his country. There should be very strong repercussions for his actions. It is not a thing he did lightly nor without great thought. I presume that BECAUSE of the physical, criminal and professional danger he thought VERY HARD.

Mr. Snowden acted knowing the dangers, to himself, to his country and to the citizens therein. He believed he had knowledge that others did not, that he had a duty to act as a result and that whatever the consequences to him personally, the good would outweigh the harm. Whether or not you agree that he acted wisely or not is what puts you in the hero / traitor camps. I believe there are gradations between the two. I believe Mr. Snowden falls there.

He is a hero in that he believed that lawmakers were being deceived by the NSA to approve acts that were against the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. He believed that if they really knew what was going on they would stop the NSA from those actions. I believe he was correct: that the NSA was wrong and the authority they acted under was gotten from Congress under false pretenses. That makes Mr. Snowden, in my mind, a hero.

But I am an American with children that I wish to have sleep safely at night. It worries me that a person can do so much damage at such a low level of responsibility. I do not believe every whistleblower is right. I'm not sure it's something we should encourage. Because he did not use the channels already in place (with the Inspector General Act of 1978, Mr. Snowden could have attained the same goals at least in theory. http://www.dodig.mil/Programs/...) he could be considered a criminal. I blame him for not making the attempt.

There is a huge problem with the NSA in this country. Someone had to act. Someone did, in contravention to the law. Mr. Snowden acted by his own reckoning "selflessly." He knew he would pay the price. Thank you Mr. Snowden. You were right. But you can never come home again.

So then you must also know that there are proper channels to file complaints when there is classified information involved. Did Manning use those channels then after getting no where decided to expose wrong doing by releasing classified information to the public.

If the chain of command is implicated in the evidence, and it is, why would he trust the chain of command to "fix" something or take appropriate action? That logic is not complex, and is exactly why whistle blowers have been protected until very recent times.

You don't file those complaints up the chain of command there are different channels that are used, DOD Defense Hotline I could see how you might not know about it, it's only discussed at all security training and semi-annual training on it is required on for a NIPER-net account which manning had. I'm guessing you never worn the uniform or know the job.

Also stop with the lies! Manning did not release anything to the public! Manning and Snowden released to Journalists. This is why journalists were also protected until very recent times.

The journalists are the public quit trying to play semantics, he gave classified information to people who were not briefed to that information.

There is no DOD IG so that one is laughable, as is your next

I'm actually with you on most points but the above quote is flagrantly wrong. The office was formed in 1982. http://www.dodig.mil/

I can't agree more. NG seems willfully incompetent because they make more money with their cost plus contracts that way. The more time they take, and the more inefficient resources they throw at the problem, the more they get paid. I've worked for the top three defense contractors and NG takes the cake for this kind of behavior. I heard more employees there use the phrase "I'm not going to jail for doing this", or "one more time and I'm going to call the Defense Hotline". While the people of NG are some of the hardest working, honest and dedicated people I've ever met, the (mis)management at NG takes the cake for sheer incompetence, as well as overworking and underpaying their employees.

The question is not if the info can be aquired via warrant served to the institution (pts 1 and 2), but if the owner must *also* be notified of the warrant. See http://www.dodig.mil/inspections/IPO/Subpoena/FrequentQuestions.htm The link is military but applies to other cases as well. In the case in the article, the judge said that only the ISP gets served the warrant, and the email account holder doesn't have to be notified at all. So they can look at your email with a warrant and you may never know.

Remember these are military ships...

1. Blind spot in watch cameras.

This was simple, obvious, and cheap to address. This "simple" vulnerability was overlooked creating an excellent attack vector. It doesn't look like it would be too hard to storm the bridge of the ship undetected. I hope they don't have to anchor off the coast of Yemen any time soon.

2. FLIR Equipment not rated for -40 deg (or 125 deg probably)

The DoD Inspector General investigates parts that "do not conform to Original Equipment Manufacturer specifications." The fact that the Coast Guard will not talk to the Inspector General tells me all I need to know.

Perhaps the requirement gets more real when it is stated this way "we might have to deploy to Alaska or the Middle East. We really need our systems to work in these regions. If we loose the ability to maneuver safely in bad weather everybody on the ship might die."

3. Use of non-shielded cable in "secure" communications systems.

Is it so hard to believe that you can eavesdrop on unshielded cables at a reasonable distance? Have you tried Tempest for Eliza to broadcast your mp3s to a radio via an unshielded computer monitor?

I would think that it would be harder to believe that the US could create a chain of underwater microphones to track every ship in the Pacific (SOSUS). I find it even harder to believe that film canisters could be ejected from space parachuting to Earth only to be caught in mid-air by an airplane (Corona). Governments make it their business to do what the other guy considers impossible.

With military grade technology the system is the solution. The mission of the crews is not to compensate for the oversights built into the technology they rely on to survive. Whenever classified information is compromised lives are put at risk. Whenever mission-critical military systems fail lives are put at risk. That is why this is a major problem.

Government employees in their respective acquisition offices (AO) have a retirement to protect. Their fate (in part) is tied to the success of projects they oversee. No AO wants to hear about fundamental problems in the system they are procuring late in the process when schedule and cost are affected (remember, contractors build these systems AT COST + an "award fee"). Besides the design was approved... What happens to the career (and pension) of the government employee who approved the acquisition of a product that didn't meet the WRITTEN NEEDS of the Coast Guard for a NATIONAL SECURITY system? There is incompetence; but there is more fear than incompetence.

Lockheed Martin (in Colorado) has had problems executing their contracts. When an organization is not doing well nobody wants to hear about problems. Lockheed emphasizes "ethics" training (he makes reference to three "ethics" investigations). The purpose of this training and the purpose of the investigations (by anonymous hot-line) is to legally cover the corporation. "Ethical misconduct" can be a federal crime. Just ask Boeing. Lockheed doesn't have anything to loose now that they have extensive data from three investigations covering their liabilities.

and does marquette take no government funding?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marquette+uni versity+site%3Agov

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= Marquette+university+site%3Amil

here's a goody (if old) quick result
http://www.dodig.mil/Inspections/APO/SingleAudit/C OGOVER.htm
in part "Subpart D, Section __.400 of OMB Circular A-133 requires recipients expending more than $25 million a year in Federal awards to have a cognizant agency for audit. "

and marquette is on that list.