Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

P2P Network Exposes Obama's Safehouse Location

Posted by timothy on from the this-is-an-unsecured-channel-please-acknowledge dept.

Lucas123 writes "The location of the safe house used in times of emergency for the First Family was leaked on a LimeWire file-sharing network recently, a fact revealed today to members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Along with the safe house location, the LimeWire networks also disclosed presidential motorcade routes, as well as sensitive but unclassified document that listed details on every nuclear facility in the country. Now lawmakers are considering a bill to ban P2P use on government, contractor networks."

52 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by GofG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it had been leaked by uploading it to a server, would they ban the ftp protocol?

    --
    GFA/M/S d-- s: a--- C++++ UBL++$ P+ L+++ !E- W++ N+ !o K- w--- !O !M !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5- X+ R tv@ b++ DI++++ D+ G
    1. Re:Wow by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Suprise: lawmakers are once again clueless when it comes to technical issues that have been around for less than 100 years.

      The real question is who is advising them so poorly?

    2. Re:Wow by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a stupid employee who has access to your tax records (if you pay the corporation I work for to do your taxes). Here's why I need File transfer and web access.

      1. I do returns for the normal US income tax, all 50 states and some odder locations (territories, other nations). I send these electronically most times, but some locations still require paper filing. I would need copies of both all the forms and each year's instructions, going back at least 4 years for the Federal individual taxes, and longer for corporate taxes and some others. I guess I could keep copies of all those forms in office for the occasional use, instead of downloading them only for the rare instances they are needed - However, we'd have to literally buy the grocery stores in the same malls as our typical offices to make those 'back rooms' big enough to store all that. There's a reason why Federal forms sometimes have numbers like 9737-F, or Schedule M3 (version for form 1120, hispanic).

      2. I research stock basis for customers about 50 times a year - it's incredible how many people don't know what they paid for the stock they just sold. I also have to occasionally determine what the property tax rate in some particular city or county of some other state is, find an employer ID number for one of over three thousand day care centers in our area, get a copy of someone's W-2 from an employer that only posts them through an online aggregator.
            I could probably keep updated local tax tables for 140,000+ locations without the net, but there's a turnover of about 250 new daycare businesses a year in the area I am responsible for, and the average phone contact with one of those results in some idiot who thinks what I am asking for is their sacred duty to protect from me the 'social engineer', instead of something they are legally required to add to their yearly statements to their customers. Being able to get those from the state's website saves us maybe a hundred hours a year and greatly improves chances of our clients managing to file on time.
            Take away the net for daycare contact, and you have two choices. Draconian enforcement of the laws about providing records on time, with all the escalating penalties maximized until any mom and pop business that doesn't bother to learn and follow all the regs is savagely and swiftly driven out of business, or my company and all our competitors raise the fees for filing a child care credit by about 200$ a form.

      3. I sort and handle records by SSN, something I personally don't trust when most businesses do it to me and wish I could avoid asking for with my clients. But, in this case, there is no other way for me to do it - I have to collect and give people's SSNs to the government on the forms, so I might as well use them for internal tracking as well. I see all sorts of other data, i.e. bank account numbers for people paying the IRS by direct withdrawal or getting back by direct deposit at the very least, or prescription numbers for controlled painkillers when I prepare some people's schedule As, and recording any of that that isn't absolutlely required or keeping it after it's been used would be even riskier than purging it from the databases after use and keeping the SSNs. I still have to hand carry many documents rather than fax them, even though a lot of federal or state agencies are a lot looser with security than we are and I see faxes into the office that break all sorts of rules.

      I need web access to do my job, but that required access is so broad there is no policy you could write to limit that web access that wouldn't hurt some of my clients. I have had to get copies of 1099-MISC's for exotic dancers, Breakdowns of employee related expenses from Game designing companies, and even look at a person's home office over a webcam before. The first year we set a policy that prohibited adult sites, game sites, or webcams, I had to request five exemptions and it would have been higher but most of the customers were willing to go to some trouble to put returns on hold and wait till they hand carried forms instead. Probably most preparers in my district had two or three such problems minimum. We still have a policy, but the exemptions system makes it pretty much swiss cheese.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  2. ban the man by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We must ban everything that we don't understand until we can feel safe again.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:ban the man by dirtyhippie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congress's reaction is predictable and hilarious, but to be fair, they are only talking about banning P2P use on government computers. I don't have a problem with that. If you are working on government contracts, you should probably have a seperate computer from where you keep your music, porn, etc.

    2. Re:ban the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree 100%. I don't bring my laptop where I keep my pr0n, music and run my P2P apps, this should be common sense for anyone and this should be twice as apparent for someone working for the gov't.

      If I was allowed to have mod points I would have modded you up.

    3. Re:ban the man by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Informative
      You say this as a joke, but that's what members of congress are actually talking about. FTFA:

      Towns [House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns, (D-N.Y.)] said that the file-sharing industry's promises to self-regulate itself had clearly failed. "Specific examples of recent LimeWire leaks range from appalling to shocking," Towns said. "As far as I am concerned, the days of self-regulation should be over for the file-sharing industry."

      Saying "the days of self-regulation should be over" is congresscritterspeak for "we're about to regulate another industry", which in this case would be a) bad, b) useless, and c) undeserved. Bad because it would stymie technical development in the US, and useless because said development would then simply take place elsewhere in the world. Undeserved, because Limewire did not attempt to spread US government secrets. Their software was simply the mechanism by which some idiot (presumably a government-employed idiot, but that would be redundant) knowingly or unknowingly loosed this material into the wild.

      Other members want the issue investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and law enforcement authorities. They said that the continued failure by companies such as LimeWire to take more proactive steps to stop inadvertent file-sharing is tantamount to enabling illegal activity resulting from the data leaks.

      And how do they propose that Limewire prevent sharers from sharing government secrets? By sending someone to each Limewire installation to make sure the luser configured it correctly? To the power-grabbing, meglomaniacal nanny state committee-rats in congress, here's an idea: clean your own house first. Clamp down on those with the poor judgment to run p2p sharing apps on systems that have sensitive data. Is there a rule against it? No? Make one. Yes? Enforce it. Hell, ban p2p on all govt systems, sensitive or not, and enforce it like the matter of national security it is.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:ban the man by KronosReaver · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps the Internet can just ban the Government instead...

      It would be a WIN - WIN Situation

    5. Re:ban the man by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the power-grabbing, meglomaniacal nanny state committee-rats in congress, here's an idea: clean your own house first.

      You're completely discounting the possibility that this data was planted on LimeWire by the government expressly in order to give them this exact leverage.

      Those files could be completely false, for all we know.

      People that take action based on this allegation alone are dumb, dumb, dumb.

    6. Re:ban the man by sbeckstead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He can go to a computer on the proper network and download it just like the military has to do now. There are darn few uses for P2P that can't be handled better by something else.

      --
      Why bother
    7. Re:ban the man by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. As long as this doesn't turn into a "P2P is bad, we must ban it from the internet tubes" kind of deal I have NO problem with the government madating what can and can't be on your work machine if they are paying your check. This is just common sense, just as no admin with a brain would allow someone to run Kazaa or Limewire on the corporate Intranet. But placing rules (along with penalties) for using an unauthorized application when dealing with high level clearance materials just seems like basic security.

      They probably are simply dealing with laws written before the Internet and therefor have no rules against it. And with the government rules and procedures are king.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:ban the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I work for a defense contractor. We have sensitive government data on our networks because of the nature of the work we do, and the only thing we're allowed to do to the internet is make http and https connections through a heavily firewalled and restrictive proxy, so that not only we can't leak stuff out on purpose with filesharing software, but so that commercial software can't phone home and give away something it shouldn't even by accident. Not to mentioned that we sign an NDA when we hire on that explicitly says we (individual employees) will not leak stuff out or through carelessness allow stuff to be leaked out. In my opinion whoever leaked this stuff out onto limewire probably broke several federal laws already on the books and might be looking at jail time.

    9. Re:ban the man by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      some idiot (presumably a government-employed idiot, but that would be redundant)

      As an idiot, I take offense at the notion that I am on the same level as a government employee!

      --
      My webcomic
    10. Re:ban the man by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work with military ... stuff. When we have a classified or higher document, it doesn't go on our normal computers, like the one I'm using now. It goes on The Secret Computer, which is in its own room, on no networks, and it requires a key, a passcard, and supervision. Things like USB are locked out. It's a secure station. You can't hack it because there's no access to the device. Social Engineering won't work that well because you've got to be vetted every 5 years to maintain your access. Plus, we're all psychologically tested, have credit checks, and are generally very well looked after.

      That is for that rare slice of documentation that is classified and is allowed on a computer. It's a nightmare to get a copy of a classified document -- do you think they would allow you to just hit "print" and get a second (or hundredth) copy? These files are very often (and yes, it's 2009) paper only, sent via special channels. You don't just email Secret documents off to whomever has a .mil email address. Generic workstation + classified document = security violation = jail.

      Now, the WHOLE ARTICLE IS BULLSHIT

      IT IS A PRESS RELEASE BY A COMPANY THAT STANDS TO MAKE MONEY FROM A MONITORING CONTRACT

      Things like the nuclear document are just bullshit. If it's sensitive, it's Classified. If it's not sensitive, it's not. The End. If it was sensitive and improperly declassified, then that's a Monumental Fuckup. You can't say "oh noes nukelar secrets on lemonwire! give us teh monitoring contract!" What are the details, mailing addresses?

      (Note for the pedantic: I'm using "Classified" as an umbrella term for anything that requires a security clearance because I didn't feel like typing out the various levels of document classification over and over again.)

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    11. Re:ban the man by davester666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, I use Transmission on MacOS X as my bittorrent client, and from my understanding of how bittorrent works (just having used bittorrent clients, not having examined the actual protocol at all), you can't accidentally 'share' files on your computer. You have to explicitly create a torrent file for the said file/folder, send it to somebody else or post it somewhere, and then leave your bittorrent client software open and running to be able to transfer your own files to others.

      Other protocols automatically and/or fairly easily will share some/all files/folders on your local computer with everyone (or with some kind of permission structure) without needing the end-user to explicitly upload/send anything to other people.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:ban the man by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

      My apologies. That was truly insensitive of me.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    13. Re:ban the man by Bovius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People that take action based on this allegation alone are afraid.

      Fixed that for you. The USA's policies these days are driven primary by blind, largely irrational fear. Although I suppose that could be transliterated into stupidity.

      The sad truth is that we have plenty of incompetent people to perform these kinds of blunders without the need for shadow organizations to orchestrate them. Anyone in the government with a will to exact more control over the public has their arms more than full of these kinds of stories.

    14. Re:ban the man by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well there is some distinction here... government contractors are not government employees. Just because the city contracts me to redesign their sewers doesn't mean they dictate what will be run on my office machines unless they are going to supply machines exclusively for that use.

    15. Re:ban the man by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personal information is not 'classified', but it is 'sensitive'; so yes it can be the case where data is sensitive but not classified.

      You're right on about the press release thing though...my thoughts exactly. When I read "and previously reported the Presidential Helo plans were found online" and other similar things. Maybe we want to look at this company that just *happens* to keep finding things online that help it out business wise. (yes I know the helo plans were traced specifically but just saying the idea isn't terribly far fetched).

      And the other thing about the article "it's not easy to prevent users from installing P2P software". Oh really? last time I checked even 'XP Home' prevented you from installing stuff without an admin password. If users are installing their own programs...you've already got serious problems.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    16. Re:ban the man by tchuladdiass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they can mandate appropriate data protection procedures for anything that you work on for them. Usually they will point to a standardized security policy and say that you have to pass an audit that meets that policy.

    17. Re:ban the man by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Key word is "contracts". If I contract you, I can make all sorts of crazy demands. This happens all the time in the Real World(tm). And can include preventing you from discussing things with third parties. Or requiring certain specific standards including what software you use to design the sewers. As long as there are consideration, there is a pretty wide range of things that are binding in a contract. Of course crazy demands generally reduce the quality of the contract or increase the amount of money necessary to find a taker.

      And while generally legal, being overly specific about terms that don't matter is a great way for a bureaucracy to waste money and a tremendous amount of time.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    18. Re:ban the man by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, there's a file-sharing "industry" now?

    19. Re:ban the man by Leebert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have NO problem with the government madating what can and can't be on your work machine if they are paying your check. This is just common sense, just as no admin with a brain would allow someone to run Kazaa or Limewire on the corporate Intranet.

      I work at a government site. Said government site has extended such bans to BitTorrent, Skype, etc. Which are technically peer to peer. But have perfectly legitimate uses.

      Existing security controls should already note the lack of business necessity of things like Kazaa or Limewire. No need for additional regulations, which are always poorly written and blanket mis-interpreted (or worse, ignored due to infeasability).

    20. Re:ban the man by davidphogan74 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A blanket ban on all P2P programs is still overkill, and not at all necessary. Bittorrent programs are P2P by definition, but you're not going to accidentally share a file with them any more than you're going to accidentally install Linux because of them.

    21. Re:ban the man by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, if the P2P SW manages to tunnel through using http, you're back on square 1. I know, I know, you have a super duper deep-packet-sniffing sure-fire 100% secure proxy. Uh Huh. Sure.

    22. Re:ban the man by TheCabal · · Score: 2, Informative

      You sir, are wrong. You have startling amount of misinformation on sensitive document handling. You scare me.

      There is no "Classified or higher". It is either classified or it is not. "Classified" is not a classification.

      Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is unclassified but considered sensitive, and an official incident is filed when there is possibility that PII has been disclosed. There is also Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI), which by definition is unclassified but sensitive and subject to the Atomic Energy Act. Plus there is FOUO, SBU and CUI- all "unclassified", but considered sensitive.

      If the document was declassified, then there will be a paper trail as to who declassified it an when. Should be easy since there are few people in the document chain that can legally declassify documents.

    23. Re:ban the man by Missing_dc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work for a defense contractor as well, and I help clean up/secure data spills frequently. Despite the NDA and high level clearances these guys had to prove they were bland enough to get, they are never punished for the spills. I've seen spills that have affected and inconvenienced a thousand employees, as we confiscate their BBs and PCs and they get to sit and wait while we get new ones prepared, the responsible party never gets punished and sometimes thinks it is funny. I have asked people to leave my office because I could not stand their presence any more. If you are going to laugh about creating tons of work for me and my team, you will be the among the last people to get back up and running. Add to it that the IA peeps(security) are usually not computer savvy and you get situations where they want to confiscate our BES and mail servers, and we have to fight tooth and nail to keep them.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    24. Re:ban the man by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then ban it on any machine with sensitive information. Any machine that needs to push P2P information just can't have sensitive information. QED.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  3. Not this again... by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its not P2P in itself that is wrong. It is the use. The leaked information could have wound up on a website, blog, or FTP server, and I'm almost sure nobody would be saying that those technologies should be banned.

    1. Re:Not this again... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still, unless there's some strange and compelling business need, no big business should be allowing employees to run Limewire at work IMO. Especially on government machines with sensitive information. Some P2P may be useful for business purposes. But Limewire?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Not this again... by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue isn't the P2P per say, it's the fact that many P2P programs make it easy to accidentally mark files for uploading that you don't mean to. A lazy/stupid/uninformed user stands a decent chance of sharing information without even realizing it, I remember trying to explain that to someone in my family way back when Napster was big, that they were sharing all of their documents out over the network because that is where they happened to store their downloaded files and they had marked the folder as one to share, not realizing that it would share files other than those they had downloaded.

      Any program that can upload user documents without the user having knowledge of it shouldn't be used on any kind of sensitive system. In my mind, bit torrent is relatively safe from this, since it requires the user to create a torrent and make it available, not the kind of thing that is going to happen accidentally.

  4. its already banned on all government networks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    whatever network administrator lets limewire traffic outside of the firewall needs tossed

    1. Re:its already banned on all government networks? by Major+Blud · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man, the jokes are going to start pouring in:

      "Now that's government transparency"

      "After exposing the location of the vice-presidential bunker earlier this year, Joe Biden also forgot to uninstall Limewire from his netbook"

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  5. Encryption? by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the leaked data was so sensitive, shouldn't it have been encrypted, or at the very, very least, password-protected? That seems like a no-brainer.

  6. Information wants to be free by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Information wants to be free.

    Especially high-value information.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  7. And? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Biden has already told the press the secret location of the VP's emergency bunker.

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:And? by Lazlo+Woodbine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Years after BBC broadcast it to the world.

  8. Before everyone jumps to the defense of P2P... by jpstanle · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What business do P2P file sharing apps have one government and contractor computers? While I'm sure many will rightfully point out the security through obscurity is rarely effective, and this information could have been leaked through any number of less sexy protocols like FTP, P2P file sharing has no business on government and contractor networks (BTW, when I say contractor networks, I'm referring to those that may contain sensitive or classified information). P2P apps are certainly the most common and available means of inadvertently turning a client node into a wide-open file server.

    These are not commercial ISPs or home PCs we're talking about here. These are tax-payer financed networks. What business do these users have using tax-payer owned resources for downloading music/movies/etc. whether they are copyrighted or not? If you're not going to control the software installed on these workstations, at the very least the network traffic rules should not allow for this kind of outgoing traffic on client nodes.

  9. PsyOps by bloobamator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or it could be good old disinformation. It's hard to believe that the Fed's firewalls allow P2P traffic.

    --
    "Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
  10. LimeWire is to Blame by atomic_bomberman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How could LimeWire let this happen? This is just as bad as fork and knife manufacturers who fail to keep fat, dumb people from eating too much.

    1. Re:LimeWire is to Blame by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is just as bad as fork and knife manufacturers who fail to keep fat, dumb people from eating too much.

      But they make their products pointy expressly to discourage people from using them!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  11. Not just those in the goverment are stupid... by sherpajohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard a "security focal" in a large helpdesk group once tell us that mp3 files were "illegal" and anyone caught with them would be charged and fired.

    --

    Going on means going far
    Going far means returning
    1. Re:Not just those in the goverment are stupid... by swilde23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I worked for the Computer Science department of the state run university where I live, and we sent out an email that sounded something like that... of course, it occurred on the first day of the fourth month. But it was rather amazing how many concerned emails we got in response.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
  12. Two points... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. I was blocking Limewire (and Kazaa, etc.) traffic for clients with substantially less security exposure for years and years. Most P2P networks are just hives of viruses, malware, exploits, illict file sharing, and worse. My clients pretty much expected it. Of course, blocking Webshots gots people a little hot, but they get over it.

    2. Any bets that the actual culprit was a security wonk, figuring they were smarter than the rest of the world? Very few of the 'security' folk I've worked with actually practiced what they preached. And most either wandered from job to job, or lasted only until the first noticeable breach. One of my former clients made the news a few months ago, because someone was putting USB keys into their corporate servers. Even the PKI repository. Apparently they thought a free utility they got from a friend at a user group was really useful. Not.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. I one were deliberately trying to discredit P2P... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...one couldn't find a better way to do it than this.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  14. BAN VERBAL COMMUNICATION! by popsensation · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lets ban all means in which people communicate, or at least have the government moderate it. MUAHHAHAHAH

  15. Come on Obama... by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...surely you've got the cash to just buy the tunes.

  16. Lights, Cameras, Lies by JackSpratts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they could have fabricated similar testimony 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year ago (you pick). oh wait, they did. meanwhile harddrives, laptops and usb drives keep wandering away with impunity & multi gigabytes of really sensitive data. god forbid you encrypt. much easier blame p2p on the house floor in front of the bright lights of the very media cartels who create this artificial drama.

  17. Re:Wow what a kneejerk. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are not banning P2P they are banning running it on government PCs and contractors PCs.
    Frankly any company that allowed it's employees to put Limewire on a work PC shouldn't be a government contractor.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  18. Already controlled for by KiboMaster · · Score: 2, Informative
    Someone should introduce Congress to the FISMA act of 2002, which mandates that federal agencies control for this kind of stuff. As part of my work at the DoD I occasionally audit non military systems. In the past this has included systems for the IRS, DHS and FBI. All of them are required to comply with FISMA regulations, specifically NIST 800-53. The relevant section, Appendix F Section SA-6 page F-222 (or page 293, for those reading the PDF) states:

    The organization controls and documents the use of publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing technology to ensure that this capability is not used for the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of copyrighted work.

    Now, I realize that's highly generic, but it's up to the organizational unit to write some sort of policy around the guidance. If they aren't able to do that, they're not in compliance with FISMA and the GAO should rightly be sticking a rather large boot up their ass.

    --

    "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
    -- Ernest Hemingway

  19. baby and bath water by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some leaks are good though, and necessary for maintenance of a free Republic. They are last ditch efforts by someone who is aware of "clear and present danger" when all else has failed to affect honesty and following the law in whatever bailiwick this person is working in, and usually the leakers are anything but traitors, they can be overwhelming patriots helping to expose the real bad guys and bad stuff. They can help expose government lies and corruption, when the official channels (all the way to *the very top*) are themselves completely corrupt, making any other effort doomed to failure.

        Here's a prime example. This leak was a *really big deal* for my boomer generation and certainly did some good, long range/historically speaking.

  20. You've got to be kidding me. by jsalbre · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're joking, right?

    Almost every computer that handles classified information for the DoD is connected to a network. Not the Internet of course, but SIPRNET or one of the 30 or so other classified networks, depending on classification level and other considerations. I don't recall ever needing "a key, a passcard, and supervision" to access any of them, just a user name and password, like every other computer.

    Damn near nothing is paper only anymore, and any time I needed a copy of a document I clicked the "print" button in Word or Acrobat, walked over to the printer and grabbed it. And yep, I can email them too! Only to accounts on the same network of course, and I am ultimately responsible for determining whether or not the recepient has the appropriate clearance and need to know, but it's that simple.

    Lots of things are sensitve but unclassified (also known as SBU).

    I hate calling people out like this, but you're spouting lots of FUD. You're either intentionally lying about how things work, or you've never had any contact with anything classified and are rattling off garbage that you either made up or pulled from some crappy novel.

    --
    Jeremy http://alucinari.net