Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Service Personnel Data Stolen
BStrunk writes "I was reading the news this morning on Reuters, when I stumbled across this article:
U.S. Service Personnel Personal Data Stolen
In the article, an official violated policy by taking the detailed personal information of thousands of active and reserve troops to his personal home, storing it on a personal computer, that was later stolen. In an age where domestic phone calls are monitored, a government employee was allowed to walk out of a government installation with the data on thousands of American citizens to store on an insecure personal computer? Doesn't that seem strange to you? This is a real failure, in my opinion, in government protection of its citizens. Layers of encryption and protected access was successfully bypassed to make the theft of this information as simple as stealing a home pc.
Now, not only do service personnel currently serving have to worry about IEDs and being fired upon, but they are now subject to possible identity theft. A real failure. After this, how could one have faith enough to serve an inept institution?"
You could at least post the update that the Vet's are now suing the VA.
The information is not classified, it's Official Use Only, which is a form of protected information. Personell records are usually, in part, execmt from freedom of information act requests, so they may enjoy a slightly higher level of protection than ordinary OUO.
However, nearly every govenrment computer in existence includiung laptops has gobs of OUO information on it. It's not encrypted because it's not that sort of information. It's just controlled dissemination. That does not mean it might be harmless to release it but it's way below classified.
It is not alarming the people occasionally accdentally disseminate or lose control of OUO. Employees are simply expcted not to do so wilfully or wantonly or carelessly. Its even permissible to share OUO with people outside the governemnt if the employee thinks it would be useful to do so. The fact that OUO was taken home is not a big deal.
In this case the only big distinctions are the massive quantity of the information, and the fact that it's personell records which do have higher levels of protection. Apparently it was also policy not to take these home.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Its a device used to keep from getting pregnant. In the late 80's, there was an IED for OIL program that the UN started with limited success. Since then, the country has had a glut of birth control so much so that inventive terrorists have discovered a way to turn them into cheap and effective weaponry. This is why the military has upped its recruiting of pre-teen girls to combat this menace.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
After this, how could one have faith enough to serve an inept institution?
Why do we need all the editorializing in the blurb?
You must be new here.
that most folks who go in the military don't do it to "serve an inept institution" or to serve an insitiution of any kind. Those who are serving for ideological reasons (even if "patriotism" only plays a small part in the decision) believe they're serving the country as a whole and the ideals it stands for. That's why we say "serving our country" not "serving the military."
Everyone who has been in the service knows that there are always a few idiots up in the higher levels of the chain of command. Also that the civilian employees of the DoD aren't always interested in looking out for the interests of the military personnel that they are supposed to be serving. Dealing with the civilian DoD folks was a constant frustration during my time at Fort Bragg. Not that those folks are all bad, but the service they gave me when I was in the 82nd was second only to the service I get from the DMV -- surly and uncooperative.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I agree, rants and opinions belong in posts, informative summaries belong on the main page. I don't go to slashdot to get raved at by someone who doesn't understand the difference.
That being said, I agree this was a failure, but not of the U.S. governemnt. This was a failure by the analyist who didn't feel it manditory to follow the rules. Every good sercurity measure begins and ends with trust. The Office of Veteran Affairs was betrayed just the same as everyone else in this instance.
Not keeping records of servicemen's personal data secure is a good deed?
Fuck, I sure hope so. I hope he got fired twice somehow in a bizarre star-trek-ian causality loop. Anyone who would keep confidential data on a computer in a physically insecure location without encrypting it is a fucking moron. Fuck him in his working-at-home ear.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the entire federal government got failing grades on their infosec security report card. Are you really okay with that? By making excuses for idiots who cannot see their way to actually protecting confidential data, you are part of the problem.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually this is the best thing that could have happened. A complete failure in a system, potential for identity theft, and involving current/past service men/women. I am one of those by the way.
Why is this the best thing? Cause when troops are involved national pride actually works and things get done. People will flip out over this and they will finally fix it. Think of the children is first followed quickly by think of the troops. Now maybe they'll put the responsibility where it belongs. Squarely on the shoulders of those companies that deal with credit. Then I'll stop getting those calls for the new service that protects my credit and it only costs $14.95 a month. Make that free and actually go after these thieves instead of what they do now.
"how could one have faith enough to serve an inept institution?"
./ editors have enough of the spin and editorializing - especially when its egregiously wrong as it is in this case. How about getting an editor with some military background instad of the usual suspects? A little bit if diversity might help ./ avoid posters like the originator who completely misses the point of the article and instead tries to spin it politically (point is veterans records were taken via a moron breaking security at the VA, not some anti-military screed that the OP tries to spin it into).
I didnt serve the Army - I served *IN* the Army.
What I served was the American People, through their elected Commander in Chief, and the primary focus of the Oath I and others swear is:
to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States
Second error bythe OP is the "institution" that lost the data was not the military per-se but the Veterans Administration, a cabinet level office that is seperate fromthe Army, Navy, Airforce, marines and Coast Guard,m etc.
When will
There Plenty of libertarian geek veterns out there who post here regularly - Rob, grab one and add some diversity to the editorial clique.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I call shenanigans on your BS. You can't pin this down on just the VA. As a former member of the military who worked in HQ MC and the Pentagon, I can assure you that given the proper motivation of any worker, this information could be leaked/stolen/sold.
In this case the fault was negligence. The laptop should have had an encrypted hard drive. The consultant should not have taken the data home. But if the consultant shouldn't have taken the data home, why was he given a laptop? There were many mistakes made in this process, and those same mistakes are made throughout the government and private sector. The VA has no special claim on incompetence.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Now, not only do service personnel currently serving have to worry about IEDs and being fired upon, but they are now subject to possible identity theft. A real failure. After this, how could one have faith enough to serve an inept institution?"
I'm in Iraq right now. Yes, we have to deal with IED's and being fired upon. And yes, having to worry about this isn't all that great either. But that has absolutely nothing to do with "serving an inept institution" as you call it. We don't serve an institution. We serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. I serve in the Army, and I don't think that the Army is inept. This isn't a failure of the US Army as a whole, but it was due to the indiscretionary act of one person. He violated OPSEC (Operational Security) and he had no business taking sensitive information into his personal computer. This is HIS fault, and I hope he gets prosecuted to the fullest possible extent under the UCMJ. So please, like the parent said, no editioralization is necessary. We serve because we took an oath. We serve because we are professionals. We serve because words like Loyalty, Honor, Duty and Courage mean something to us. It doesn't mean that it means nothing to a civilian. But I hate it when people assume we are nothing but mindless drones. I, personally, try to keep politics away from the military. Which is why I don't endorse any side of political debate, when speaking as a soldier. I'm here to do a job, and I'm here as a professional.
Sorry for going so far off-topic.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like