NSA Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets (nytimes.com)

The New York Times, citing senior law enforcement and intelligence officials, reports today that the FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor in recent weeks (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source). The newspaper adds that the FBI is currently investigating whether the contractor (identified as male) stole and disclosed highly classified computer codes developed to "hack into the networks of foreign governments." From the report: The theft raises the embarrassing prospect that for the second time in three years an insider has managed to steal highly damaging secret information from the N.S.A. In 2013, Edward J. Snowden, who was also a contractor for the agency, took a vast trove of documents that were later passed to journalists, exposing N.S.A. surveillance programs in the United States and abroad. The information believed stolen by this contractor -- who like Mr. Snowden worked for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, which is responsible for building and operating many of the agency's most sensitive cyberoperations -- appears to be different in nature from Mr. Snowden's theft.

Comments

EQGRP?

[CODiNE]

Is this someone being nailed for the Equation Group code leak? Or something else?

No and No

[HBI]

BAH doesn't do clearance investigations - the USG does through the Defense Security Service (DSS). Blaming the contractor is BS. The contractor cuts paychecks, handles vacation and health benefits, does the hiring and firing based on USG guidance, and sets business hours based on USG guidance. The rest is the USG - the contracting officer is in control, and after that the functional USG lead directing the effort.

This is a useful dodge for the USG appointees (aka civilian employees) to avoid personal responsibility for what is their failure. Having the USG hire the people as civilians would make sure of two things:

a. The best qualified would avoid the jobs like the plague due to low pay.
b. You'd get a lot of transferees and priority placements from elsewhere in the USG with inadequate qualifications, but qualifying for the job due to time in service or veterans preferences.

So that's why both answers are no.

So... here's the thing

[vux984]

Assuming this is a genuine crook -- stealing secrets and selling them or disclosing them to private parties... foreign/domestic/whatever. Then arresting him is pretty much the expected course of action.

The interesting angle to me at least, is that it really skewers the idea that Snowden put us at risk. For me, the biggest counter argument to that has always been 'if Snowden could do it so could others'. The fact that Snowden did it altruistically and gave the information to the public means we know about it; how many others have been doing it, that haven't been caught, that have been disclosing it to foreign governments, selling it, etc.

Now we have some real proof of what really should have been obvious -- that yeah, other people have been doing it too. All the "secrets" Snodwn revealed to the public, and in the process our 'adversaries' ...so what?? They probably already had it from their own pet NSA employees & contractors. It would be foolish to assume they didn't.

Re:So... here's the thing

[vux984]

He is a crook whether he's doing it for moral or financial reasons.

While I agree that one has committed a criminal act either way, the decision whether justice is served by punishing that act depends a lot on the circumstances around it, including the motive.

My usage of the word 'crook' is to suggest a person with antisocial / selfish motives. Snowden committed a criminal act but I don't think he's crook. This guy... I don't know his motive. But if he's disclosing to private parties... odds are its selfish. Either that or its blackmail... which is a whole other issue.

Re:So... here's the thing

[bfpierce]

"He's not using the legitimate channels available to bring the issue to the surface."

Come on now, this black ops shit. You know just as well as anybody else those channels don't really go anywhere.

Re:So... here's the thing

[ShaunC]

He's not using the legitimate channels available to bring the issue to the surface.

Why don't you go ask William Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis how using the "legitimate channels" works out.

Not much bias in this article

[Anonymous Coward]

"Theft."

"Stole."

I can't get out of my mind the fact that these words are being (mis)used in exactly the same way as when the RIAA and its kind lie about lost profits and bribe legislators. A story told with such heavy bias makes it difficult to take it or its authors seriously.

Re:Not much bias in this article

[Reason58]

"Theft of secrets" seems correct to me, as once you divulge the information against their wishes it is no longer a secret. The information may still be there, but its secrecy is not.

Re: Third Time Actually

[jackspenn]

I'm sure the FBI will add an intent clause not included in the law, just like it did with Hillary Clinton. So this contractor has nothing to worry about. It is not like there are different standards for the politically connected and everyone else.

Re:why don't they just add permanent staff?

[plopez]

Not really. You have to negotiate a deal with the contracting house as well. Trying to deal with non-perfomant contractors in my experience is a nightmare. Depending on the contract it could end up with your company having to "buy out" the contract or having the contractor replaced with a, just as bad, replacement contractor. Or go through a long and drawn out remediation process.

It's as bad as dealing with a dysfunctional union contract.

Re: Third Time Actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

Sorry, the law REQUIRES intent to distribute as the third test of crime.
Here we thought you knew what you are talking about.