Did the leaker(s) sign the same Standard Form 312 I and every other government employee with access to classified information did?
Please take note of Paragraph 3:
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Also, please note paragraph 4:
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United StatesCode, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence IdentitiesProtection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right toprosecute me for any statutory violation.
It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.
I was eighteen, living a few miles north of Olympia on Puget
Sound, sleeping off a night of partying. I came downstairs about ten a.m. and my parents asked me if I'd heard "it."
Heard what, I asked?
St. Helens erupted they told me, sometime between 8 and 9 that morning.
Nope - I didn't hear it. It's hard to hear anything when you're passed out.
It was a a week or two before we saw any of the ash. Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick on the other side of the Cascades got buried though.
Seven years later I visted the Mount St. Helens National Monument for the first time. The blast area, where the "experts" had said it would take 100 hundred years for any form of life to return to, was already covered with low brush and Douglas Fir saplings.
I live in Florida these days. I put the Volcanocam on my Google page. Now I watch the sun light up the crater in the mornings - or sometimes I don't. You know how the weather is in the Pacfic Northwest. ..
"Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance."
I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.
Here's the key difference. I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are our enemies, not criminals.
Again, I believe we are at war. We can debate about who started it some other time. Right now we have to defend ourselves against an enemy that has shown it has no qualms about using whatever means are available to attack us. If that means we have to temporarily suspend some of our rights to ensure our survivial, then I'm all for it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done it.
Uh, it has already happened. There was an article just a week ago (posted here on/. I believe) about a teen girl who has been charged with posession of copyrighted material (i.e. music files) she downloaded using a P2P network. Look it up.
Did the NSA discover this person's illegal activity and pass it on to the RIAA's lawyers?
Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.
Agreed - seatbelt should be an individual's choice. And I also agree that using seatbelt laws as a pretext for searching for other possible violations of the law is not a good thing - if you're violating the law somehow.
The real issue is what do we consider a violation of the law and what do we consider an unreasonable search? Although the Bill of Rights guarantees a citizen against unreasonable searches I don't think was ever meant to be used as a loophole by criminals to protect them from prosecution. I believe it was meant to prevent the government using searches as a tool of political oppression (btw, IANAL or a Constitutional scholar, but I'm sure one of the above will correct me if I'm wrong).
Monitoring communication for intelligence about our enemies' (and yes, people who fly planes into buildings and call for our deaths are our enemies) plans is not unreasonable in my opinion. And if you're a U.S. citizen who supports the enemies of the nation, then I believe you have forfeited your rights.
The bottom line though is that, like seatbelt laws, we as citizens have every opportunity to challenge our government and change those laws if we can get enough of our fellow citizens to act with us by electing representatives who support whatever cause we believe in. We choose to live with seat belt laws for a number of reasons: because we believe they save lives, because we believe they keep health insurance costs down, or because we believe (wrongly) that we are powerless to change them.
The fact that we can't get enough of our fellow citizens to join us is not proof that we are becoming a totalitarian society. It is proof of our failure to garner enough support to our cause.
This is about combating those who want to kill us, "us" meaning you and me and every other non-believing infidel.
I understand the "slippery slope" argument and also believe that the NSA will not be issuing warrants to arrest college students for downloading pirated music and movies anytime soon.
Whether we want to admit it or not, we are at war. We certainly didn't declare it, and we could argue for the rest of our lives about who started it, but the simple fact is there is a growing number of people who think it is their divine destiny to destroy western civilization as we know it and they'll use any and all means available to them, including exploiting our own conceits.
. . . if we're too busy protecting the "rights" of those who advocate the use of violence to destroy it?
Seriously - I doubt the NSA is interested in the nasty-grams we send our lovers, or if we advocate the use of free software, or if we're opposed to condo developers.
What they are interested in is traffic that indicates a threat to our nation, i.e. the violent overthrow of government and any act that may further that cause, such as flying airplanes into heavily populated buildings.
I know we all love to get our panties in a bunch about "Big Brother," but can anyone name a U.S. citizen prosecuted for communicating an opinion (that is, in a legal way that did not create a public disturbance)? If the U.S. was the totalitarian hell-hole some people like to think it is, me thinks we'd all be living in fear of a knock at the door in the middle of the night.
And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.
Sorry - that's two words. I'll release the patch in a month or two.
Installing Ubuntu 5.10 vs. FreeBSD 6.0
on
Beginning Ubuntu Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I recently installed Ubuntu 5.10 and FreeBSD 6.0 for use as a simple C development platform for a networking class I'm taking.
I was pleasantly suprised at how easy the Ubuntu installation went. Still not quite as simple as a Windows XP install, but a damn sight easier than FreeBSD 6.0 (I have also installed FreeBSD 4.x in the past), and (are you listening FreeBSDer's?) Xorg configured itself CORRECTLY the FIRST TIME without requiring any hand-editing of.confg files. The Ubuntu Gnome desktop looks fantastic right out of the box.
FreeBSD is still a great product for servers and CLI warriors, but setting up an acceptable Gnome or KDE desktop is still beyond the capabilities of semi-literate geek-wannabes like me.
Thanks Ubuntu - if anybody knocks off Windows, it will be you guys, because you understand the secret to reaching more users is to make the experience as painless as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice doggy. . . (I hope).
Prosecute the leakers.
They signed the non-disclosure agreement. They broke the law.
Let's see how committed they are to their "principles" with a jail-term hanging over their head.
Did the leaker(s) sign the same Standard Form 312 I and every other government employee with access to classified information did?
Please take note of Paragraph 3:
Also, please note paragraph 4:
It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.
It was a Sunday.
I was eighteen, living a few miles north of Olympia on Puget Sound, sleeping off a night of partying. I came downstairs about ten a.m. and my parents asked me if I'd heard "it."
Heard what, I asked?
St. Helens erupted they told me, sometime between 8 and 9 that morning.
Nope - I didn't hear it. It's hard to hear anything when you're passed out.
It was a a week or two before we saw any of the ash. Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick on the other side of the Cascades got buried though.
Seven years later I visted the Mount St. Helens National Monument for the first time. The blast area, where the "experts" had said it would take 100 hundred years for any form of life to return to, was already covered with low brush and Douglas Fir saplings.
I live in Florida these days. I put the Volcanocam on my Google page. Now I watch the sun light up the crater in the mornings - or sometimes I don't. You know how the weather is in the Pacfic Northwest. . .
FTFS: But they are amateurs on everything security related.
Exactly - because only amatuers would force their customers to use cscript as part of the patching process.
M$ and Firefox manage to release security patches that install themselves. Why can't/won't Oracle do the same?
Maybe it's job security for that abortion known as MetaLink.
Or maybe it's so these clowns can charge Oracle's customers $1000 an hour to not fix anything.
Make sure you charge them a proper consulting rate, or they won't think they're getting their money's worth. . .
I found the Ubuntu Absolute Beginner Talk forum friendly and helpful
They should call The Tax Lady!
. . . before he turned my parent's 1974 XJ-12 into a bulldozer.
"Heinekin? Pabst Blue Ribbon m*ther f*cker!"
Except that Copernicus was threatened by the Establishment for presenting a radical idea.
Now we have the Establishment embracing radical ideas wholesale and threatening anyone who dares dissent.
Huh.
"Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance."
Like in a Looney Tunes cartoon?
[Hardware engineering]. . ."debugging" usually involves a soldering iron.
And smoke. Don't forget the smoke.
Sometimes fire too.
I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.
Here's the key difference. I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are our enemies, not criminals.
Again, I believe we are at war. We can debate about who started it some other time. Right now we have to defend ourselves against an enemy that has shown it has no qualms about using whatever means are available to attack us. If that means we have to temporarily suspend some of our rights to ensure our survivial, then I'm all for it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done it.
We're all gonna die, no way to avoid it.
If we don't kill ourselves, Nature will do the job for us.
Accept this fact and start living every day like its your last.
And, yes, I did reach middle age not long ago.
Why do you ask?
Uh, it has already happened. There was an article just a week ago (posted here on /. I believe) about a teen girl who has been charged with posession of copyrighted material (i.e. music files) she downloaded using a P2P network. Look it up.
Did the NSA discover this person's illegal activity and pass it on to the RIAA's lawyers?
No.
Don't believe me? You go look it up.
Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.
Agreed - seatbelt should be an individual's choice. And I also agree that using seatbelt laws as a pretext for searching for other possible violations of the law is not a good thing - if you're violating the law somehow.
The real issue is what do we consider a violation of the law and what do we consider an unreasonable search? Although the Bill of Rights guarantees a citizen against unreasonable searches I don't think was ever meant to be used as a loophole by criminals to protect them from prosecution. I believe it was meant to prevent the government using searches as a tool of political oppression (btw, IANAL or a Constitutional scholar, but I'm sure one of the above will correct me if I'm wrong).
Monitoring communication for intelligence about our enemies' (and yes, people who fly planes into buildings and call for our deaths are our enemies) plans is not unreasonable in my opinion. And if you're a U.S. citizen who supports the enemies of the nation, then I believe you have forfeited your rights.
The bottom line though is that, like seatbelt laws, we as citizens have every opportunity to challenge our government and change those laws if we can get enough of our fellow citizens to act with us by electing representatives who support whatever cause we believe in. We choose to live with seat belt laws for a number of reasons: because we believe they save lives, because we believe they keep health insurance costs down, or because we believe (wrongly) that we are powerless to change them.
The fact that we can't get enough of our fellow citizens to join us is not proof that we are becoming a totalitarian society. It is proof of our failure to garner enough support to our cause.
This isn't about "convicting criminals."
This is about combating those who want to kill us, "us" meaning you and me and every other non-believing infidel.
I understand the "slippery slope" argument and also believe that the NSA will not be issuing warrants to arrest college students for downloading pirated music and movies anytime soon.
Whether we want to admit it or not, we are at war. We certainly didn't declare it, and we could argue for the rest of our lives about who started it, but the simple fact is there is a growing number of people who think it is their divine destiny to destroy western civilization as we know it and they'll use any and all means available to them, including exploiting our own conceits.
. . . if we're too busy protecting the "rights" of those who advocate the use of violence to destroy it?
Seriously - I doubt the NSA is interested in the nasty-grams we send our lovers, or if we advocate the use of free software, or if we're opposed to condo developers.
What they are interested in is traffic that indicates a threat to our nation, i.e. the violent overthrow of government and any act that may further that cause, such as flying airplanes into heavily populated buildings.
I know we all love to get our panties in a bunch about "Big Brother," but can anyone name a U.S. citizen prosecuted for communicating an opinion (that is, in a legal way that did not create a public disturbance)? If the U.S. was the totalitarian hell-hole some people like to think it is, me thinks we'd all be living in fear of a knock at the door in the middle of the night.
And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.
the HAL 9000!
Aren't we all supposed to be eating Soylent Green by now?
. . . you only needed access under your parents' bed to view Dad's pr0n.
Now you need to hack his password.
Hell No.
Sorry - that's two words. I'll release the patch in a month or two.
I recently installed Ubuntu 5.10 and FreeBSD 6.0 for use as a simple C development platform for a networking class I'm taking.
I was pleasantly suprised at how easy the Ubuntu installation went. Still not quite as simple as a Windows XP install, but a damn sight easier than FreeBSD 6.0 (I have also installed FreeBSD 4.x in the past), and (are you listening FreeBSDer's?) Xorg configured itself CORRECTLY the FIRST TIME without requiring any hand-editing of .confg files. The Ubuntu Gnome desktop looks fantastic right out of the box.
FreeBSD is still a great product for servers and CLI warriors, but setting up an acceptable Gnome or KDE desktop is still beyond the capabilities of semi-literate geek-wannabes like me.
Thanks Ubuntu - if anybody knocks off Windows, it will be you guys, because you understand the secret to reaching more users is to make the experience as painless as possible.
. . . just make up endless conspiracy theories about evil corporations and the "Right" candidates.
How the hell did this rant get accepted. I thought /. was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters," not "Spew for Suckers. Crap We Make Up."