Slashdot Mirror
Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead
seven of five writes One man is dead and another severely injured after a shootout at one of the main gates of the National Security Agency located at Fort Meade, Maryland. Two men dressed as women attempted to 'penetrate' the entry point with their vehicle when a shootout occurred, officials said. The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.
Being dressed as women has nothing to do with putting 'penetration' in quotes, unless there is some sort of joke I'm missing. Why is it in quotes?
So in some abstract sense I can see why the NSA could be considered a valid target in some contexts.
But, honestly, trying to gate crash an Army base and then getting into a shooting match with the guards ... well, that's a special kind of stupid.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Because nerds hate the NSA for spying on them.
Funnily enough the "bad guys" in this situation become a very fuzzy argument.
Pretty sure this is just "The Americans" fan fiction...
It's the dead level of dead, obviously.
It lies between "pretty dead" and "extra dead".
Why is this here?
Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.
It is quoting what the officials said.
Its like done and "done done". We may want to adjust our definition of "done" and "dead" in our next retrospective.
And only seriously injured but didn't seriously seriously injure the second.
FTA
" An NSA police officer shot one of the people dead dead and seriously injured the second."
Apparently the culprit was shot double-dead /.
Nerds love zombie stories, hence it is on
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Until Dr. Charles Luther h@xx0rs your self-driving car and makes it crash through the gates at a military base.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Outbrain raised its cut of the clickbait revenue on them, so they had to lay off the proofreader.
You'd think they would have seen this coming.
>The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.
How can they know this so quickly ? I thought terrorist was a label for persons using violence for political motives. Even if these people were not foreigners wouldn't anybody using violence against the NSA likely be motivated by politics ? Unless this was an angry employee (workplace violence) or some April fools prank that went horribly wrong...
So the scale goes:
Mostly dead- Slightly alive.
Pretty dead- Don't expect them at poker night next friday.
Dead dead- Attempted to invade the NSA.
All dead- Go through their pockets and look for loose change.
Extra dead- Now that's just excessive. I mean really, what possessed you to just keep going like that?
Un dead- Well congratulations. You killed it so hard it went far past Dead on the Life-Death scale and looped around to the other side.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Has Barbara Hudson posted today?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Attacking the government in such a fashion gives them an excuse to seize more power.
No its pretty easy, they were in disguise trying to pass a bad guys checkpoint....
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well, there's "almost dead", which Miracle Max can still cure, as opposed to "all dead" when all that's left is search their pockets for loose change.
Then there is "mostly dead" which you can have all day and still foil the plan of your adversaries.
It seems to me that the poor saps who tried to invade the NSA went from "mostly dead" to "almost dead" to "all dead" in very short succession. Thus they are a special class of "dead dead".
Double-plus dead, now another visit from Minitrue for you.
"Lost time is not found again."
It's "living dead" not "un dead" - the zombie lobby will be up in arms at that non-PC language.
Actually maybe that's what the article is claiming. The living dead zombies were attacking the NSA but they are now dead dead since luckily an agent on duty new to aim for the head.
"The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism."
WOW! Seriously. This is great news. I just figured EVERYTHING was ALWAYS called "terrorism" now. Is someone finally figuring out that if everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism? Do we no longer need to invoke the boogeyman every time something bad happens? Oh happy day.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Then just tell the MPs that they will want civilians jobs as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
subtle, but funny. for the lack of mod points.. =/
The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.
In other words, it's only terrorism when it suits our political agenda to call it that.
Loading...
The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.
Yes it is. The NSA are, by definition, terrorists. They use fear (read: "terror") to incite their political beliefs and control the population.
It doesn't take a foreign government funding a team of trolls to fill a small page with angry comments about the NSA
They tried to breach one of the most secure locations in the world by crashing an SUV into the gates. If they even had a "plan" going in, I'd imagine it was made with crayons and construction paper. Maybe a couple toilet paper tubes and some elmer's glue if they decided to get extra fancy.
The NSA probably couldn't get a bead on the attackers, because they were wearing tin foil hats.
But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I'm so sorry I read these comments, as retired DOD it's starting to become apparent that while we were trying to protect the people and homeland of this country, it seems now we've been trying to protect morons who cheer for the destruction of personnel engaged in this endeavor.
Stop watching TV.
No, not quite.
Because nerds hate the NSA for spying on ordinary, law abiding citizens and completely missing the dumb fucks that are the real problem.
Hmm, last time I saw this it was drunk soldiers coming back to the wrong gate after a night on the town in the 80s.
Funnily enough, you didn't read the title of the post you replied to.
Because exercising freedom of speech makes one an Enemy Of The State, right?
Have gnu, will travel.
Crashing through a gate where there's a guy armed with a machine gun is a really good way to get shot, a lot. It annoys the guy with the machine gun, and he has a tendency to shoot things that annoy him. And he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either. The last thing to go through your head, I mean, before bullets, would probably be "Wow, those are really some high quality bullets that guy is shooting me with!" I seem to recall that this sort of thing was fairly common back in the 70's and 80's with the hippies trying to disrupt the SAC air force bases. We seem to be having a spike in the crazy/stupid lately, where people seem to think that if you go crashing through a gate with a guy with a machine gun, they'll be nice to you or something. Nope. Not the case at all.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them?
Hint: not everything you see on NCIS or CSI:Wherever actually works like it dos on TV.
Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?
It can definitely help to be able follow the trail after someone does something especially awful - sometimes bad guys actually have accomplices.
But more to the point in this case: reports are that the vehicle they used was stolen, along with its license plates.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The men who allegedly attempted to trespass on government property did not shoot back.
Well, duh, Crash the gates of a capital district military base and you won't live long enough to get a chance to shoot back.
By "agent", perhaps you're thinking of the CIA. The NSA doesn't have agents, only analysts and various other white-collar workers. Their charter is to gather and analyze information for other branches of government (such as the CIA), not to act on it themselves.
That said, as I understand the news, the death was actually of one of the attackers. In any event, this gives me an opportunity to climb on my soapbox about something that's been bothering me a lot lately.
[begin soapbox]
Why do we celebrate the deaths of "innocents" so frequently lately? An NSA employee could be a manager, an analyst, a security guard, a janitor, or many other types of employee. Do each and every one of those human beings deserve to die because of actions you disagree with that were taken by the organization as a whole?
Coincidentally, I read today about some grisly testimony from the Boston Marathon bombing of innocents who lost their lives or were seriously wounded. This mentality of "any person who belongs to a group I don't like deserves to die" may seem appealing at first, but it becomes less so when you realize that you probably also fit into some group that someone else disagree with.
Or, to paraphrase John Kennedy, "Ich bin ein infidel".
[end soapbox]
According to a CNN article, they were leaving the secure area, not entering. A quote from an official said they failed to follow proper safe EXITING procedures. Another major news site said that a gun and cocaine were found in the vehicle. It's a large complex and a lot of people live in it. Sounds like drugs were being ferried in or out, and it didn't have anything to do with the NSA or secrets.
Better known as 318230.
Foreign governments?
Surely you must have noticed all the bad press the NSA has gotten lately with the Snowden leaks.
Even the most patriotic American might be disturbed upon learning that a trusted government agency has been illegally spying on American citizens for years.
Frankly I'm surprised that you seem to be standing up for the NSA. That takes some guts.
Because everyone is the good guy in their own eyes. Even the worst oppressive dictators don't view themselves as oppressive dictators - they are just trying to do the best for their people, and if the people don't see it that way then they need to be controlled for their long-term benefit. Also because even the most corrupt organisation is composed largely of people just doing their job - they don't particually want to work for the evil empire, but they have bills to pay just like everyone else.
But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?
The historical database of license plate sightings is a terrific source of circumstantial evidence against people suspected of wrongdoing.
eg: your wife turns up dead. You renewed her life insurance policy a month ago. Three weeks ago, your car made several visits to "the bad part of town," possibly while you were at a murder-for-hire meeting. Nevermind that your insurance policy renews every February, and that a water main break diverted your commute.
Many things look suspicious once suspicion is upon you: the concern with a vast trove of location and communication history is that it is more likely to be twisted to make an honest man look corrupt than it is to find a criminal before he acts.
Why is this here?
Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.
Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.
Or quite possibly the NSA had the needle of necessary information buried in a gigantic hay stack of useless dreck. In this case, if you know absolutely everything then you effectively know nothing.
Because everyone is the good guy in their own eyes. Even the worst oppressive dictators don't view themselves as oppressive dictators - they are just trying to do the best for their people,
If you think that Saddam or Bennito or Idi or Fidel thought they were doing the best for their people, you are sadly mistaken. They knew what they were doing, and they knew who the intended beneficiaries were.
> NSA doesn't spy on nerds, they care about the real world, not Minecraft.
So you mean World of Warcraft?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Saddam was a good guy, look at what the Iraqi savages are doing without his iron fist to moderate them; Civil wars, Sunni and Shia murdering each other all the time while both agree to equally murder Christian minority. You may say that Saddam was a blood-lusting dictator, but he was the leader this region needed. Iraq under Saddam was peaceful and tolerant of other believes. Justice was cruel, but somewhat just if you understand the context.
Coincidentally, I ran across an interesting Wikipedia article on self-deception the other day. It's always been interesting to me to ponder to what extent characters such as the ones you name are acting morally within "morality" as they define it, or if they're purely wielding power for its own sake. I suspect that it's a little of both in nearly every case. For example, I just saw part of an old interview with the late founder of Singapore, who more-or-less said that he was "trying to do the best for his people" along the lines expressed higher above.
The ISIS caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a more recent example. I suspect that he at least partly genuinely believes that all the terrible things that ISIS does are "moral" and "right". Of course, he probably also enjoys the power and takes smug satisfaction every time he watches one of the resulting propaganda videos of some act that the vast majority of other human beings on the planet would instinctively see as immoral.
All that is distinct from pure psychopathy, which does not involve any consideration of morality because the true psychopath's mind doesn't work that way.
Conversely it might exhonerate you entirely because once its established you were driving you have an alibi for your movements the entire way.
One has to do something pretty messed up to piss those people off.
And another thing, with all the target practice; NSA missed? Or was the other cross dresser that stunning?
Actually it was cross dressing locals. I wonder what it says about the places NSA staff go to eat out?
If you think that Saddam or Bennito or Idi or Fidel thought they were doing the best for their people, you are sadly mistaken.
They just had a narrower definition of "their people" than you seem to be using.
DoubleTap!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What I can't figure out is why they though dressing in drag would help whatever they were doing. If you don't have the right credentials, being a woman is not going to help, and being a really suspiciously manly woman will help even less. Unless your face is personally known to them all you are doing is risking drawing even more scrutiny on yourself for literally no benefit.
I don't get it
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Ed snowden is the new snake.
FTFY^2
I think we can all agree that Bush and Rumsfeld were the worst thing that happened to Iraqis.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
There's a big difference between dead and dead dead. Only dead is slightly alive. With dead dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
The NSA aren't bad guys or good guys. They simply are. A wrench is neither bad nor good it's just a tool to remove a bolt or nut. The NSA is a tool used to spy on and analyze people and organizations that are considered a threat by the US government. If they do things that aren't legal you can bet someone very high in the US government authorized it. Probably at the very top.
I think that would depend on exactly what you said.
No, because that's not how it works.
It's not exculpatory if your car is elsewhere at the time in question, as you may not be driving it, so the prosecutor can ignore it, but if it shows you are at the right location at the time in question, then it is strong circumstantial evidence that you are guilty.
And remember, the concept that there is no reason/benefit for a prosecutor to imprison an innocent person is entirely false. Prosecutors/district attorneys are ONLY hired/voted in/given raises/promoted by prosecuting people and having them convicted. Any time or effort spent on a so-called "innocent" person is entirely wasted [same with police]. Once you are a suspect, they are extremely motivated to make sure you remain the suspect and are convicted.
Also, there is remarkably little downside for them to convict an innocent person. If the person's lawyer eventually gets the conviction overturned, that typically is years and years later, and evidence of who did what is easily lost or misplaced, people have moved on to other jobs or other cities. Normally, the city will pay some token amount and it's over. Only the MOST egregious case of frame job will result in some kind of penalty for the prosecutor or police officer.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
To respond to your soapbox, I refer you to Clerks:
Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
Randal: Like when?
Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
Dante: Whose house was it?
Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
Dante: Based on personal politics.
Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
Randal: No way!
Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
(source)
I'm not trying to say that everyone working for the NSA should be killed, but any NSA employee who hasn't quit their job since Snowden is on morally dubious ground at best, regardless of whether they're part of the elite hacking team, a security guard, a janitor, or a roofer.
Likewise, ISIS views all infidels as being on morally dubious grounds. They've beheaded a few Westerners to serve as an example, presumably in an effort to improve the morality of both the specific Westerners in question (who, admittedly did nothing immoral whatsoever after losing their heads), as well as infidels as a whole.
However, I can't say that my own morality has improved much as a result of those beheadings - either in terms of my own personal values or the values of ISIS. Do you happen to be an infidel, like me? If so, maybe the ISIS beheadings of the few random Westerners that ISIS happened to get a hold of have had a better effect on your morality than they've had on mine. Those folks mostly were aid workers, but maybe they would have become Death Star roofers in the future if given half a chance.
Anyway, I sometimes wonder who died and left ISIS in charge of morality. Likewise for Edward Snowden. Don't we all have some form of morality that someone else would regard as dubious?
(BTW, maybe we should amend Godwin's Law to include ISIS. ;-)
Man what are we talking about here? Torture? Murder? Genocide? Or just spying? Because that's what the NSA does. It spies on people and analyzes the information they glean. You really want to equate that to death camps? I know there are some case where torture did occur and certainly anyone who tortured someone should know that even if ordered by higher authority that is not something you can do. Tapping someones phone without a warrant? Not so much.
haha, godwins law might indeed need updating. ;)
I totally am not an infidel! May his noodly appendage strike down any who think I am!
You do make a good point and I did see it the first time around, I was mostly kinda sorta just playing devils advocate. I do totally agree with you that celebrating the killing of innocents (or, indeed, anyone) is not something that should happen. For example, my first reaction when I heard that Osama Bin Laden was killed was: "No trial huh?", and I found the images of people celebrating sickening. I'm no fan of the man, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that everybody has a right to trial and due process. Hell, even the Nazis got trials. And now we're firmly in godwin's territory!
I guess it comes down to the good old "what is truth" question really. IMHO my opinion is right, and I do believe that anyone still working at the NSA should quit their job and go do something less morally questionable (like prostitution or selling drugs). But that's just my (correct) opinion, and I wouldn't advocate killing any of those people, or indeed doing anything to them other than dismantling their employer via due process or trying to convince them to quit their jobs. I didn't take philosophy, so I don't know if there is any "universal morality" which really does apply everywhere. It would seem to me that not killing people over beliefs should be a universally-accepted kind of thing. But then I tend to have high expectations. Maybe we can get a philosophy-type person to chime in?
As I said, you do raise a good point and I commend you for wondering such things, if only there were a couple of billion more like you.
Mostly, though, I just wanted to quote clerks, it seemed appropriate ;)