Slashdot Mirror
Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Had 'Forbidden' Internet Connection At the Pentagon, Says Report (businessinsider.com)
According to The New Yorker, President-elect Donald Trump's national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, installed a secret internet connection into his office at the Pentagon even though it was "forbidden." Business Insider reports: The network connection was among other rules the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency broke because he found them to be "stupid," including sometimes sneaking out of a CIA station in Iraq without authorization and sharing classified information with NATO allies without approval, according to The New Yorker. While Flynn -- who was recently tapped to be President-elect Donald Trump's national security adviser -- apparently had his own private connection, the New Yorker profile doesn't provide a clear picture as to why. It's likely his Pentagon office already had an authorized, unclassified connection to the internet called NIPRNet, which is separate from classified networks such as SIPRNet and JWICS, a former DIA analyst told Business Insider. All of those networks are monitored in some way. A separate, unknown network would not have had the same -- or possibly any -- level of monitoring. If it were implemented in secret, it would also not have the same protections from hackers that a known connection would have. It's also possible that Flynn's Pentagon office was known as a SCIF, or sensitive compartmented information facility -- a secure facility in which intelligence can be discussed without fear of it being compromised. Network connections in SCIFs are closely controlled, and outside electronics such as mobile phones are not allowed inside.
Democrats have not only recently rediscovered the virtues of limit government, but also the virtues of following rules?
"His name was James Damore."
That's great! And now we'll even see the US media bring back investigative journalism after an 8 year hiatus.
However, if you think Clinton shouldn't be in jail, then don't act like this guy should be either. You either think both parties should be in jail when they do something corrupt, or you're an asshole.
The network connection was among other rules the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency broke because he found them to be "stupid," including sometimes sneaking out of a CIA station in Iraq without authorization and sharing classified information with NATO allies without approval, ...
If I had a nickel for every rule or person I thought was stupid but had to follow anyway I could retire by now, but, like it or not, that's the job. Sure, at a certain level, it's also your responsibility to point things out and make recommendations, but if they are ignored, declined or overruled then you gotta live with it.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Here's the relevant parts of the summary.
According to ... according to ... apparently ... doesn't provide a clear picture as to why... It's likely ... or possibly ... If ... It's also possible ...
Everything else in the summary is conjecture.
lucm, indeed.
Democrats have not only recently rediscovered the virtues of limit government, but also the virtues of following rules?
There are some serious machiavellian games afoot to prevent people from understanding how powerful technology is. The situation is this- Neither this instance (as far as I can tell from the summary), nor Hillary Clinton's home email server were things that surprised anyone with any technical proficiency. The powers that be understand better than the masses just how powerful each and every mobile phone and personal computer are along with the internet. Hillary blew it I think when it was discovered that amongst the thousands of emails she was reluctant to release for records keeping purposes, were thousands related to her work that were legally required to be archived by the state, and not withheld. If she had done a more perfect job of seperating the two sets, she wouldn't have been as damaged by the issue. This case however (again, just from the summary) doesn't appear to have any justifiable corner case for the existence of this non-organizational IT subversion. However just as Trump gets away with 'post-truth' flip-flops and such, I don't see his support base as being terribly bothered by this style breach of national IT security by 'one of their own'. Hypocrisy- Jesus taught me to get used to it.
Those paying attention knew that Colin Powell had done something similar long ago. I explained that in comments way back here with many sources I don't want to retype. So in that vein, if Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn really did this, then by all means, drop the hammer on him, Hillary, and Powell in accordance with the rules.
For as many people who worry about Russian hackers, we should really hammer the self-important luddites who insist on compromising our government's opsec.
And no, I won't excuse this kind of nonsense from anyone. I don't care what team he's on, he should play be the rules, and you can see above that I said the same damned thing about Powell weeks ago. I do wonder, though--does anyone know if they bothered to report on the doc showing Colin Powell doing this?
A secret network in the Pentagon? And no one would notice its existence, much less its installation? This one doesn't pass the laugh test.
It seems Trumps new advisor is willing to call out stupid rules and even refuse to follow them (no idea if these were laws or internal policy). He seems to have done this stuff during the presidencies of Bush and Obama, and eventually got fired but not criminally prosecuted. I'm not familiar enough with the rules he broke to know whether they are laws, nor whether they are stupid. But he does seem like a good match for Trump.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
You seem to be under the impression that by "us" I meant democrats instead of everyone other than Trump's cronies.
The rule of law applies to us and not them. Just like a King before Magna Carta.
I see that Putin's trolls have made it out again for this story.
One rule for them and another for us.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
I stole this Sig
Just how hypocritical/stupid do you have to be to nominate someone who blatantly compromised security at the DOD after the Republican House spent years hounding Hillary Clinton about email security as the Secretary of State?
Your question implies that you don't understand the nature of time. When event A happens before event B, normal humans have the ability to evaluate event B by remembering what happened during event A. You seem unable to grasp this concept.
On a more personal note, do you identify more with NAZI propaganda or KKK propaganda?
Why is Snark Required?
How about pardon for Edward Snowden?
He actually did something useful.
And Republicans have learned that those national security rules they spent three years screaming about really aren't all that important.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Tom Cotton to start House investigations into General Flynn.
You are welcome on my lawn.
> Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
Not just irrelevant, it's literally contradictory. If you have intent, it wasn't negligence and vice versa.
So saying that you'd only prosecute someone for intentional negligence is essentially saying if (intent and (not intent)) { prosecute } which of course cannot possibly reach the 'prosecute' under any circumstances.
Naturally, this matches the results observed.
You could, you know, just skip the stories that don't interest you? That's worked for me since the Chips&Dips era, old-timer.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
One rule for them and another for us.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Hillary using e-mail wasn't the problem. It was her setting up an insecure private MS Exchange server in order to avoid oversight from the government or public (via FOIA requests) and to make her willful destruction of evidence so much easier.
I love how people try to downplay this as if it was an "accidental" slip and a trivial oversight on her part. Flynn is obviously a douche as well who needs his ass kicked.
Oh.... almost forgot.... FUCK YOUR PARTISAN BULLSHIT!
Dude, read a fucking dictionary. "fake news" does not simply mean news you don't like, reflects badly on your tribe or hurts your precious feelings. If means fake. As in did not actually happen. Like Obama not being a US citizen, or pizzagate or that quote about Trump saying he'd run as a republican because republicans are idiots. All those are fake because they're about things which never happened.
Actual news you don't like which might actually challenge some blindly held misconceptions of yours is not fake.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So...an article by Business Insider, which relies on an article in the New Yorker, wherein a reporter makes these claims.
No proof, no official findings, no investigations, just, "he told me" from a reporter and magazine that are unquestionably anti-everything that is not Democrat.
This shows all the hallmarks of Fake News as they have been explained to us by the media.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.