Slashdot Mirror
Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sites
eldavojohn writes "You may recall the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is by releasing a document with redactions intact. Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document (e.g. Cryptome and Wikileaks). In a letter to the DHS (PDF), Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in Section 114 of Title 49, United States Code, and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?' King is the representative who announcing a probe into Wikileaks after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released."
This is a dangerous road to go down.
It's kinda hard to put back, if there are criminal charges to be involved, it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
Corrupt Republicans, like usual, are trying to prevent their constituents from having the actual information about the farce of security that is the TSA. Corrupt republicans feel that security through stupidity is the best way for the country, they fully support the destruction of libertarian ideals and those who support freedom.
Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:
You do not own the internet. You do not control the internet. You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels, via a lawful request, that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving. Man up to this, and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial, or god only knows what else you're planning.
Sincerely,
A Whole Lot of Patriots
P.S. Those badges look like something out of a cereal box. Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you'd expect from a first year graphic design student. Or use psychic paper. Your choice.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I would think posting words would be covered under free speach. I doubt they are copyrighted. Plus with the internet you can host outside the USA. But I guess that didn't work for The Pirate Bay so who knows.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
I know transparency terrifies you & your ilk, but I hope you get a clue & leave Wikileaks alone.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Ah yes, security by obscurity, that always works.
"The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness." ~ Nikos Kazantzaki
Of course, this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sources
If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age, you're just not doing it right.
I've never known a politician to be thick or outdated, so I'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights. They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet.
My webcomic
Suppressing the exposure is not the solution. It just means any future such leaks will be distributed "below the radar". In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required. Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure. As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.
Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we don't know it happened.
Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
(of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy, but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency.)
Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties, but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs.
shutdown -r apocalypse now
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.
How are the web sites at fault? The TSA gave them the information. If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.
The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?
I find being offended by me offensive.
When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?
You're a jerk, Dent. FWIW, there is a difference between a reputable organization publishing these, where the address, employees, and funders are all known, and some anonymous group. If you want media shield protections, announce yourself, and retain counsel to ensure it.
Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.
To me, it sounds like they are saying "B- B- But they're doing something wrong, surely we can lock them up or something". In other words, "I don't know what law they're breaking, but I don't like what they're doing so find one that applies and enforce it." And that, even to someone who doesn't really buy into all the police state fears that go on around here, is a bit scary.
I am not from USA and don't know how large the variety is inside your parties (probably quite large as everyone has to choose one of two options). However, why would a liberal politician choose the republican party?
Aren't republicans against gay marriage, drug legalization*, legalizing prostitution*, women's right to abortion and pretty much every other thing that has ever been debated on the "liberal-conservative" axis?
Not trying to bash republicans here (though it might be clear that I wouldn't vote for them were I to live in USA, I acknowledge that some people disagree and the party is no doubt good for them) but I really am interested in why would they be called liberals.
(*I know many or most democrats are against that too, yes)
The problem doesn't get fixed, instead the whistle-blower gets to be treated as a criminal.
WOW! Pass the message: the U.S. isn't intent on fixing problems, instead they're intent on suppressing free speech!
Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety. For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.
It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.
Palm trees and 8
Seems to me that the Congress ought to be more concerned about the levels of security and training maintained by the TSA than with sites that replicate publicly available information. Sounds to me that in addition to firing the redactor of the document for incompetence, several heads should roll in their IT, security and training organizations.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
The grammar in the OP's quote was correct, it is in the present-perfect tense. Read it again without [sic] in the middle and it will sound fine:
How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
Link for reference: http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm
I don't think Congress will ever understand the nature of the internet...
Vote for the party that failed in a two-front war! They're just as bad as the Dems, amirite?
Blar.
You are correct.
Only the person(s) covered by a security clearance that disclosed the information are the ones liable, as they signed the documents agreeing to be bound by the rules/laws governing the handling of such classified material.
A person receiving such disclosed material (a third party), is under no obligation to protect or otherwise not distribute the information. Oh, sure, they could turn the material over to the authorities and turn the person in, yeap.
This all sounds to me like certain members of the government are afraid that somethings they do not want disclosed are going to be, and all hell is going to break loose as a result.
I know from reading data about past disclosures, that the security classification system is used and abused to *deny* information to the people that should know what the heck is going on in this country, namely its citizens.
From the summary:
How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration...
Why was the sic added to this statement? I'm not an English major but I don't find that sentence to use any archaic or incorrect spellings nor do I find the grammar to be wrong.
Why don't they say anything about going after news agencies that reposted the documents? Or is that a battle they don't want to fight? I don't get it.
Dude, where's my packet?
More heads inside TSA need to roll. Don't punish the citizens for wanting to know WTF their security theater troop is doing to protect them.
Blar.
So if a government agency sent a printed press release out with Post-It notes stuck over sensitive bits, would they be surprised if someone pulled off the Post-Its and read what was underneath?
So, Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to, you want it investigated.
I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks? Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about?
I first learned about the leak on CNN. They may have not showed the text on TV (I did not look on their site for it), but they sure talked about some of the contents and now I know that if I have a prosthetic leg I can bring, say, some maple syrup from Canada. If Wikileaks is hosting the content, so is CNN, and FOX, and....
Just don't let anyone talk about it.
Obscurity is not a substitute for security. But people forget that it *is* a very useful supplement to security in many cases. By all mean publish the plans to the safe, but don't tell people where you put the safe, that serves no purpose. Likewise, if you have a method or technique that you already know is flawed but have not found a way to remedy, keeping the badguys in the dark longer is a good thing. However the real point of this story is that people who really need to know better don't realize leaks are unrecoverable once they hit the internet. The letter seems to hint that they suspect there is nothing to be done at this point, but they aren't sure. Maybe a class on such topics would be useful. Wouldn't it be nice if all legislators used the time they weren't in session to educate themselves on such things?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
By having one wikileaks in a place not covered by US laws and another covered by US laws. What is the law for placing subdomains with a separate hosting provider broad by the way? Lets say us.wikileaks.org was hosted in France and www.wikileaks.org was hosted in the USA?
Another option might be to place a wikileaks on Freenet, and simply place references to the content on the wikileaks website.
This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.
Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document
Why don't you ask what steps are being taken to make us trust our politicians and corporations so that sites like Wikileaks become moot?
Hint: Going after Wikileaks et al. ain't one of those steps and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the purpose of the first amendment or the ephemeral nature of the internet...
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
And there I was, thinking I was funny:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&cid=30363244
And now they're doing it.
Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity? Back in the days, before the whole "civilization" nonsense, fuckers like these wouldn't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there is a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...you prosecute others because they laugh at you?
You know what’s great about this?
1. That way, they won’t ever learn from it, and continue to make stuff available for us.
2. Since they can by definition never remove it from the Internet, once it’s out in the public, their chase will never stop.
The stuff is already floating though the P2P nets. Just wait until someone creates a distributed Wikileaks site inside a darknet. Try to shut that down! ^^
I hope they get even more arrogant, and start putting their whole database in the open, with a redaction system based on black rectangles. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The genie is out of the bottle on this one. The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating. The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience. The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review. It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience. If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns. A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
A majority of that party are RINOs, then. Maybe the small-government members should leave that party and join a small-government party instead. Like it or not, when I think "Republican," I think of people who want a larger, more expensive, more powerful, more authoritative, more FDR/LBJ-esque style federal government than their chief rival in the voting booth.
These people aren't even the fringes of the Republican party; they had a president recently, and his proposals were overwhelmingly supported (by voting on bills) by a strong, near-but-not-quite-unanimity of members in the House and Senate. All of your big guys are liberals. Saying that the Republicans who believe that government (and not just any government, but the federal government) knows what is best for everyone, are Republicans "in name only" is like saying Halo was published by Microsoft "in name only" but was really published by a small Mac gaming company, Bungie.
Wake up, people who use the word "RINO." Conservative Republicans (e.g. fringes like Ron Paul) are the actual Republicans In Name Only. You are members of a party who thinks the Democrats are too timid and slow-moving about making America more Soviet-like. You are members of the party that the "tea baggers" are really complaining about but are too afraid to admit. You are members of a party who would repeal the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments if they could, and also want to subvert the 2nd amendment too, but don't have the balls to actually speak out against that right.
Why do they all want this? One reason is that the bigger and more distant (Washington DC vs state) the government, the more easily to hide corruption. The other reason is that they're scared and want Nanny to save them. Sure, the Democrats do it too, but at least it's to a lesser degree, and without the hypocrisy.
I know that not knowing a law does not protect from not being prosecuted under it, but isn't there some provision that if you cannot know that you break the law (e.g. because, say, you don't even know that distribution of the information is not allowed) you cannot be prosecuted? I know it applies to buying stolen merchandize in good faith, it also applies to distributing information that someone else broke an NDA for (say I'm under an NDA to not give out information, break it and tell it to you and you publish it), why is this supposedly different?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I will not fly in a commercial flight until TSA is dismantled. The 9/11 attacks did not warrant federal intrusion into air security. You may disagree, but that's fine. I will continue to vote with my dollars as I see fit. I'd rather drive several days than go through airport security.
Please, please mail to your representatives a copy of the United States Constitution.
They clearly need one to refer to when this legislation ceoms before them for consideration.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I don't get it.
Why would action be taken against the sites with the document and not the person who was responsible for sanitizing the document before putting it out there for the world to see?
Then there may be no way to determine who and from where someone posted the content.
On the other side: oppressive regimes are likely to block sites like this to begin with, if they could access through for example Freenet, blocking the content from the citizens is likely much harder. This include content like in these cases where information is about supposed free countries.
--
9/11 - Also known as the day US helped overthrow the Democracy in Chile inserting the dictator Pinochet as head of state.
I work in IT as do many here. There are a number of reasons this could have happened that have nothing to do with incompetence of the IT department. As for training it can be difficult to find time and or money to train employees, and many don't pay attention anyway. I would hesitate to suggest firing a bunch of people without knowing the details first. If no one gave that person proper training then it really isn't their fault. If they were trained and ignored the training then it is. Was that person even in the IT dept? Maybe they were just a normal office worker and they have a simple way to upload requested documents (CMS type of system). Maybe the administration didn't want to spend the money on training or didn't have money for training. I'm not saying that no one should be held responsible, I'm just saying that you need to know the whole story before saying who should be fired, if anyone.
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
The net effect of this affair will be to burnish the reputations of these particular Congresscritters in their districts as "patriots". (Does that word have any meaning anymore in this country?) Not much else.
It's 100% grandstanding, and they know it. And anyone who observes US politics should know it.
Someone will catch hell for the leak, if they haven't already. But otherwise, this will have the consequences of most other bullshit: None.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Congratulations to Wikileaks! You know you're doing something right when the authorities are scared!
Oh yeah, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear."
Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
Messrs. Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY):
Bite me.
Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way, you being our duly elected representatives and all.
Wait ... no, I don't. I mean that really meanly, viciously, pettily.
Bite me.
Yes, that's about it.
Hell, it's even used and abused to intentionally deny information to people such as the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc. by those who bow down to that which is the Military-Industrial Complex.
How do you think shit gets done and then the rest of them who are to blame, can cry, "No prior knowledge!" (Plausible Deniability), and say it with a straight face?
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
If Wikileaks is hosted outside of the US, then I suspect there is very little the US government can do about it, short of calling in an air strike. And while I'd expect GW might have considered that option, I'm pretty sure Obama isn't that stupid.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The pager data was released long after 9/11. Did the interceptor wait for the expiration of some statute of limitations?
Curiously nobody has suggested that they're acting correctly.
"Secret" information has been leaked. Sources on the internet are hosting that leaked information. It's perfectly sensible and legitimate to ask how that information can be suppressed, and whether legal action is (or should be made) possible against those that disseminate it.
The answer is obviously that it'll be extremely difficult (and for certain types of information, impossible), but I would expect people in their position to at least ask the question.
Whether the information should be suppressed, and the extent and severity of the actions appropriate to suppressing it are irrelevant to the main point. Should they implement new laws and start arresting and extraditing foreign nationals, seizing foreign servers and invading/bombing foreign countries (as has already happened) then quite rightly they should be criticised, but merely asking what can be done is appropriate and proportionate.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.
I should think that would be obvious. It's just yet-another thing to bitch about for the party who had their asses handed to them by the electorate in the last two elections. Having failed when it comes to properly running the country, and having continued to put forth the same failed ideas (tax breaks for the wealthy, privatizing critical military and security functions, etc.) they are reduced to bitching and, wherever the can, obstructing the party that was elected to clean up their fucking mess.
Win2k source code. Let me know if you can find any (comments don't count).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You mean they don't want us knowing what they are doing? Surely, you jest, sir! On the other hand, to use their oft repeated mantra, "If you have nothing to hide, then it won't matter, will it?" So which will it be? Openness or secrecy?
when we encounter something like this on slashdot, we say, "Im an independent you insensitive clod!"
note: this method invalid for the following descriptors: scientologist, creationist, comcast executive
Good people go to bed earlier.
I don't think that the government can copyright documents. They can declare them Top Secret, Classified or give them some other security designation that means general dissemination of the document could land you in hot water. However, in this case, the TSA themselves posted the document. They just drew some black boxes over the redacted parts, not realizing that PDFs don't care about black boxes. So it isn't WikiLeaks' fault that the information is out there. They didn't hack into the TSA's systems and make this document public. The TSA made the document public. Now the genie is out of the bottle and you can't just cram it back in.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case.
You're off on a bit of a tangent, the document was released publicly with "redacted" statements that were not actually redacted. I would argue that it was improperly released intact, and that's not the fault of wiki-leaks.
Hell, it's even used and abused to intentionally deny information to people such as the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc. by those who bow down to that which is the Military-Industrial Complex.
How do you think shit gets done and then the rest of them who are to blame, can cry, "No prior knowledge!" (Plausible Deniability), and say it with a straight face?
All classified material is authorized by the president(who can pass that authority on to others with limitations). By definition, the current POTUS has access to ALL US classified material at all times.
They try to crack down on people illegally downloading on the internet but it is very difficult because there is so many places to monitor. Every time they do succeed in shutting down a site which is very hard because they are often in places where the u.s. can't infiltrate unless declaring war. Obviously they don't want to got this far and at this point its not that important. So they will most likely just complain a lot and not really do much to change the situation but make it a bit harder on leaks. http://jonk1234.storeblogs.com/
Because the US cares about borders and others countries laws.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Wikileaks is run in cooperation with the US intelligence apparatus. It will not be shut down. This investigation will just go away.
There are procedures in place when it comes to releasing classified or confidential documents, not following the procedures will get you into serious trouble regardless of whether you did it on purpose or not. My basic point was that if the document is confidential or classified, it was released improperly and the people who made the mistake face consequences.
Even if the document is marked top secret, the good people at wikileaks are (I believe and someone else has backed me up) not liable unless they hold a security clearance (not to mention the fact the wikileaks isn't hosted in the US, but I digress). If the document isn't marked as classified or confidential, then the situation is even more clear cut in favor of Wikileaks, since it is going to be very difficult to say what law they could possibly be breaking.
I don't know about you, but it was cogent and didn't do any inflamatory remarks intended to draw flames to him.
The truth of the matter is, the parent post here might just be closer to the truth than many would like to own up to. I don't wholly agree with the "bigots and warmongers" remark as I can't verify that- but there's been a shift not unlike what was described in the post towards something I wouldn't want to be a part of within the current makeup of the Republican party.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Secret information is only secret if it stays that way. Once the cat is out of the bag there is no putting it back as (un)fortunate as it may be for the secret holders there is no working around reality.
All shutting down crytome/wikileaks will do is prevent millions of disinterested but curious folks from downloading the same information bad actors already have obtained through other means. Its a political formulation not a reality based concideration which in fact improves anyones (Excluding job security of the fuckups who are cought red-handed of course) security.
The TSA document was distributed to how many people? How much of it is then distributed to "GED honor students"? To even suggest terrorists are helped by the release of such material is to admit the material is flawed in the first instance. It only helps the bad guys when the maximum amount of light does not shine brightly on the weakest link of any security protocol. Security by obscurity is as foolish and unworkable in the real world as it is in the computer world.
In terms of the pager leaks...WTF do you expect broadcasting one-way messages out in the clear? Again if you have something important to say for crying out loud don't use a one-way pager system as your pager might not receive the signal and you can count on your advasaries getting the message loud and clear.
More importantly than any of that is the effect on the media which relies on leaks for critical reporting. Any country without a truely free press is doomed to drown in incompetence, corruption and censorship.
Thank you Barbera Streisand! I was going to let this one go, but now I'm going to download and keep a copy.
See that "Preview" button?
You are missing the whole point, a government agent working FOR the TSA LEGALLY posted the document online, it was legally available to all. The fact that it was not supposed to be available to all is irrelevant. It was just incompetently censored. Anyone with a high school education (average computer knowledge) could have removed the censoring. This "cryptome must be punished" is being pursued purely for revenge. The government was embarrassed so someone must pay.
Don't think for an instant that the terrorists don't have people that could figure this stuff out. Do you really want people to be afraid to publish these stupidities so EVERYONE knows, or would you prefer only the terrorists know? Remember the government has shown, time and time again, that it will not listen to this kind of information if its privately put forth that they did something stupid. Publicity usually forces them to correct the problem instead of just ignoring it.
It is my (not so humble) opinion that if anyone gets punished it should be to government worker that posted the document, not Cryptome, and certainly not the American people.
I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about this road being dangerous. Can you post your source of proof to Wikileak?
What can they do ... nothing
... priceless.
I work in IT as do many here...I'm not saying that no one should be held responsible, I'm just saying that you need to know the whole story before saying who should be fired, if anyone.
I totally agree. Let's have a thorough investigation—and then fire the entire TSA.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Hah. I would recommend you search google for the DHS copyright policy.
Yes, there is one.
Don't ask how I know.
Also, the law includes FOUO/SSI material, it just has rarely been used on the scale the DHS does. It should be noted, though (having actually looked at the leaked document) that whomever was redacting the document really should be fired. (And likely will be.) Everything outside of the red boxes was INTENTIONALLY released into the wild, towards a targeted audience, but still publicly released. The information in the redacted portions is laughable, and easily learned by observation of a working checkpoint. I would have expected significantly more of the document to have been redacted. The actual damage (beyond the "tarnishing" of TSA's already atrocious media image) is not truly significant. The document is over a year and 9 months old, and has very likely already undergone changes. (This also neglects the exemptions, special circumstances, and just general variability from one airport to another, without mentioning the wide variance in individual viewpoints on how to implement the guidelines.)
You are correct.
Only the person(s) covered by a security clearance that disclosed the information are the ones liable, as they signed the documents agreeing to be bound by the rules/laws governing the handling of such classified material.
Then let's give the TSA traitor a fair trial and hang 'em.
So are these exploitive Congresscritters, anything for 5 minutes TV time!
Its not quite as cut and dry as your making it out to be
You fools! Stop wasting your time debating liberty and freedom of speech.
This is clearly a cunning plan. Now the terrorists think they know which nationalities are not checked and how to beat the scanners they will swarm into the country. However, super intelligent TSA operatives will spot them a mile away and arrest the lot.
I guess the plan was too good; you all bought into it.
It's the only way that makes sense.
Isn't this the same crowd that is always saying "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"??
Since they are now trying so hard to hide things one has to wonder what they have to fear.
I think my sig is particularly relevant in situation like this.
For those not logged in;
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge,
for in their hearts the dream themselves your Master."
(yes it is a paraphrase from SMAC)
I think one of the things those in power fear the most is an educated population.
# start conspiracy theory
This would explain why education budgets are some of the first to get trimmed or looted and why things like "no child left behind" seem to be designed to fail. Keep the population ignorant and distracted and the government can get away almost anything. This would explain why the US educational system has gone from one of the best to almost dead last in the world.
# end conspiracy theory
There is, in fact, a technical term for these legislators:
Douchebags.
Nope its worse. They are saying that "you made us look bad so we're going to put you in jail." They don't think about the Constitution or your freedoms, they are a bunch of fascist thugs.
What does the department of homeland security have to do with prosecuting people hosting the document?
There are two political parties ALWAYS under ANY system. Those parties are as follows: 1) "For the Status Quo/Those In Power", 2) "For those who do not currently have power". Once party two succeeds in taking power from party 1, the roles reverse. Plain and simple. Classic case of HAVES vs HAVE NOTS. It always has been and always will be this way. Naturally, you will choose to align yourself with whichever party is fighting for you. So, if you are part of the power-structure and/or are mostly benefitting from it, you will be aligned with 1. If, on the other hand, you do not feel you are getting enough benefit, you will be aligned with 2. It's that simple. There really is nothing else to consider.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
why do you think there are so many laws that you need someone to advocate on your behalf when you go to court? it's obviously so that the state can always keep you at the disadvantage of having broken their laws giving them the moral high ground for their injustice. (i know a lot of you will say but i dont' break laws, yea you do, who here always drives the speed limit? how about sodomy? there are a lot of illegal things that aren't enforced. i've had this conversation irl several times.
Sadly though, no one is apparently interested in the answers to those questions...
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
You know what I never seem to see getting leaked?
Serious intel. Like the names of RL Seals and CIA operatives. Names of prisoners, locations of forward bases and code names for those missions. We never seem to hear about leaks of THAT sort of thing. For example, there's a lot of code names for stuff that if it hit the news, people of this nation would literally shit themselves on the spot, right where they're standing. It really is that scary.
But that sort of thing never seems to find it's way out.
I can tell you from experience, its not protected any better? I saw a LOT of mistakes made with material that probably shouldn't have existed outside of a SCF. But like I said, none of it makes it out.
What DOES make it out-with alarming regularity-is the stuff that will destroy America if it is allowed to go unknown, unseen and unchallenged.
So. Here we have oodles and oodles of juicy, scary, genuine intel that would feed the media for the better part of a month as people begin to understand just how deep in the shit our government/military really is... ...and stuff like this is all that comes up?
There's something odd about that. And I'm not sure how to put it into words as to what it means. For America, but also for humanity in general.
But I do know that it makes me feel good inside.
And the only reason that the primary method of providing healthcare is insurance is because of government tax laws for businesses.
Other modernized countries have either government-guaranteed private health insurance (insurers not allowed to refuse customers) or they just have an all-government system, and it is really not breaking their banks.
There is a problem with people who have chronic, recurring problems. The thing is, at that point that person is essentially a charity case - whether it's charity through higher premiums everyone else pays or through a government mandate, they are someone who costs more to keep alive than they will produce with their life. The insurance model breaks down.
No, that does not break the insurance model. Risk analysis is about figuring how many people need to be charged what to pay for everybody, and averaging out costs, informed by probability theory. Some losses are part of the model. Quantifying them is the challenge. Eliminating losses from insurance is fraud, because if insurance pays for no losses then insurance provides no value.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Of course he does, but that doesn't mean he's made aware that it even exists until well after the fact.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.