Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIA, FBI Launch Manhunt For WikiLeaks Source (cbsnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the looking-for-leakers dept.

An anonymous reader quotes CBS: CBS News has learned that a manhunt is underway for a traitor inside the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and FBI are conducting a joint investigation into one of the worst security breaches in CIA history, which exposed thousands of top-secret documents that described CIA tools used to penetrate smartphones, smart televisions and computer systems. Sources familiar with the investigation say it is looking for an insider -- either a CIA employee or contractor -- who had physical access to the material... Much of the material was classified and stored in a highly secure section of the intelligence agency, but sources say hundreds of people would have had access to the material. Investigators are going through those names.
Homeland security expert Michael Greenberger told one CBS station that "My best guest is that when this is all said and done we're going to find out that this was done by a contractor, not by an employee of the CIA."

15 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should look for someone that believes in the US Constitution as it was written, not re-interpreted. That'll be their boy. Someone appalled at how the CIA has been allowed to run amok and trample all over the freedoms guaranteed by that document.

    1. Re: Patriot by fortfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't it funny how so many iriginalists lose their principles when it comes to the fourth, fourteenth and first amendments?

    2. Re:Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So find someone that believes you have no privacy since the constitution does not ever say privacy. Reading in privacy rights is "reinterpreting" the document. Expanding the listed classifications is "reinterpreting" it.

      As the most originalist Justice, Justice Thomas, has said (dissent quoted in full),

      "I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

      Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1."

      So do you have privacy rights to computer data? Not by the words in the constitution. The framers wouldn't have known anything about computers or metadata or things like that. It's impossible that you can prove their intent to cover those things. We read them in, because they appear to fit the listed classifications. But that doesn't mean the framers intended to cover those things only that we think that they would have covered those things. That's either modified originalism (they didn't know about these things, but they would agree with me therefore they intended that), living constitution (these things appear to create a general right to privacy, so it does), or psychic powers like clairvoyance to speak with the framers who are dead.

      People need to get over themselves. All interpretation of the constitution requires guessing or interpretation. The framers didn't agree on everything while they were alive, so I doubt any of us could come up with some super M-Theory of constitutional interpretation that all the framers would agree with. To, me, the 4th Amendment appears to create a general right of privacy, but Justice Thomas is right. There is no privacy clause in the constitution. Reading one in means either I can either base my argument on appeal to authority (the framers agree with me even though I can't prove it), or that I think the works grant a right of privacy, or I'm psychic.

      I'm psychic.

    3. Re:Patriot by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no privacy clause in the constitution.

      That's because Thomas, like Scalia, is an idiot. They both claimed to be "originalists" which, if they were to follow that meaning, would clearly mean the right to privacy which is covered under the 9th Amendment. The one which says, "We can't list every single right the people have so we're making this catch-all amendment to cover things. Just because we don't list it in this document doesn't mean you don't have it."

      When the crown was routinely going through people's correspondence, or barging into homes and seeing what was there, how could one not understand the Founding Fathers wanted the people to both be secure in their homes and possessions as well as have the right to privacy in their lives?

      The Constitution is a restriction on the government over the people. To not grasp that one's privacy is inherent in that limitation renders ones intelligence in doubt.

    4. Re:Patriot by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The biggest Traitors to the United States are on the Supreme Court, in the White House, and in Congress. Everyone who has exposed their sabotage to the Constitution is a Patriot and an American hero.

  2. The administration has won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In less than a decade, we've gone from identifying people as "whistleblowers" to labelling them as "traitors" in the mainstream news.

    The war on truth has been lost. We are all defeated.

    1. Re: The administration has won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Political talk radio and a certain sexual predator that used to be a pundit on Fox News have doing so for decades. The Trump administration is the result of their crap for the last 30 years.

  3. Are we posting talking heads BS now then? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> (random dude) told (podunk affiliate) that "My...guess is...(something)."

    So...the talking heads get quoted now too? What's the point of including this speculation?

  4. Re:Contractor .. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    “A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem”

  5. Logic and Reason, or lack thereof by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 4th in particular is intended to protect Citizens, not protect the Government. The First amendment gives rights to whistle blowers, and as with the latter not to give protection to the Government. The 14th ensures that a State can not supersede the Federal Constitutional protections, so not relevant to the topic really.

    The problem with people like you who belittle the Constitution as written, and who belittle people who believe that it was intended as written, is that you ignore all of the history that goes with the Constitution. You can find all of the wisdom in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers (the latter not being what most people believe either). You must have a delusional belief that Government intrusion and abuse of power is something the founders never saw or thought about. As with the Federalist papers and the Constitution, history in this regard is your enemy. England was paying for information, paying informants, paying propagandists, jailing and killing people who spoke out publicly against the Crown's control, etc... The only difference between today and then is the medium, the methods and purposes are the same.

    Your cute little pet names don't sway the arguments or change history.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re: Logic and Reason, or lack thereof by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that you think there is a difference between protecting the citizens and the government (of the people, for the people, and by the people) shows how far off the rails we have gone. When the Constitution it's followed properly there is no difference. The fact that we often have to choose which is the now disparate groups is the problem in its entirety.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Logic and Reason, or lack thereof by mattmarlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. There is just a provision blocking the creation of a government run church, e.g. the founders didn't want a Church of the USA and in the same amendment, another provision preventing the government from interfering with citizens practicing religion.....afterall, many of the original colonists left Europe/England because of state run churches like the Church of England forced people to become members or prohibited the practice of other religions. These colonists were still very supportive of government and the church working in tandem, and religious values being imposed via law, and expected prayer to happen at school. They just wanted to be able to choose the religion and not have forced membership or have government interfere with their religion.

      The fact that most American Citizens believe the constitution meant something completely different is more a result of who controls the instruction at public schools than the actual truth.

  6. Yet another ignorant troll by s.petry · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, except for that idiotic electoral college

    Once again, a leftist/communist/progressive demonstrating a complete irrational ignorance of history. The reason for the Senate and Electoral college is to protect against tyranny by a minority of states with a higher population against a majority of states with less population. Why do you idiots continue to repeat propaganda when it's so easily disproved? Crack a damn history book instead of smoking it!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  7. Glad by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad I don't work there. Witch hunts suck.

  8. Re:I've got 15 mod points ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck you.

    A traitor is one who commits treason.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.