Saturday, June 10, 2017
Leakers inside NSA, is the background check process working?
After the cases of Manning, Snowden, and now Winner one wonders about such people managed to get and hold a clearance. Is the background check now that sloppy or are they getting let through on purpose. Either way, it's worrisome.
My avatar is taken from a favorite scene in the TV series "Supernatural". I may not be one of the Four Horsemen, but I play one in most combat games... :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Hard to dig out radical moles like them, how would you? You could check their social media posts, but often people use untraceable usernames or make their facebook posts private. The names you give them as references aren't going to slam you as a radical, otherwise you would not list them. And especially if you've had clearances already, you tend to get a green light. You might look like a Winner and pass all the gates, but in Reality you are a treasonous deep state radical trying to harm national security.
Did the leaked document reveal methods?
Did the leaked document reveal sources?
"Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
You get to retake the annual security refresher, 7:33 am.
Winner served in the US Air Force for six years and had a Top Secret clearance. She was stationed at Fort Meade, home of the NSA. Snowden served in the US Army, as did Manning.
The one striking common denominator is all three where in their mid-20s when they leaked classified information after getting their TSCs in their early 20s.
It may be that background investigations need to take a much more detailed look at those under 30. Granting a high level security clearance to "kids" in their early 20s while in the military and renewing them under the assumption that they see the world the same in their later post-service years, may be the error.
People evolve. Just because someone gets a clearance today does not guarantee they will not violate it tomorrow.
It is well known in the OPM investigative service that reinvestigations are much more lenient than initial investigations. They shouldn't be.
Well actually they should be, but maybe not so lenient that you get a free pass if you were a cleared military person. Someone who's had a clearance for years and has not caused any problems, is a lower risk than an unknown person who has never been cleared. And, if you have a clearance, your history prior to 5 years ago is already known, whereas the new person may have decades to be investigated. Maybe there should be an age limit, since all these problems have been caused by young and dumb individuals. Unless you're active military, you have to be 30 or older to get a Q-level clearance?
Unless you're active military, you have to be 30 or older to get a Q-level clearance?
June 10, 2017 at 6:50 PM
Winner was active military. Politically incorrect to say so, but I've known more military folk with "sketchy" backgrounds and attitudes than scientists or bureaucrats.
It's just a symptom of how large the intelligence community has become. As the IC expands and starts to dominate our government and society, like the old KGB in the Soviet Union, it's going to have these problems. It needs more surveillance of US citizens, more polygraphs, and probably a gulag type sentencing procedure if it is going to continue to expand at this rate.
Its the liberals. They lack the toughness to lose and carry on. If they don't get their way they rebel or kill. Laws only apply if you like them. It is childish and why strong men and women are not liberal.
The government needs to work on retention for cleared employees. Higher pay, better benefits, and a new culture. Slow down the turnover. Less turnover means a statistically lower chance of introducing new "problems". Why did they need a 20 something in that position? Perhaps they sent the senior people into early retirement to "save money".
June 14, 2017 at 9:13 PM said...
Its the liberals. They lack the toughness to lose and carry on. If they don't get their way they rebel or kill. Laws only apply if you like them.
In fact, in the late 1700s they actually rebelled against their King and tried to set up their own little country. Sad.
There were no liberals in the late 1700's, everyone was a gun-toting racist who valued individual freedoms and hated big government. Check your history books, or return your mail-order degree.
June 18, 2017 at 12:17 PM
Your posting is out of line - no attacks or denigrating words about other posters.
How about "I believe you are misguided and wrong, and I don't share your opinion." Is that denigrating? (Hint: "to deny the importance or validity of" - M-W 2nd definition.)
Second question: Why do you care if it's not about you? Your "rule" is simply incompatible with an anonymous blog.
The rewording is acceptable. The original quip about mail-order degree was what triggered my warning.
Why do I care? The posters here, including you are the guests of the blog. As such they deserve a measure of respect. Name-calling, rude speech, and other offensive behavior drives away visitors - eventually killing any forum where such activity is allowed to fester. Finally, I don't like bullying, putting another person down in order to make themselves feel good.
Despite the innuendo some have made, I don't kill postings based in my personal likes or dislikes of the topic. Blog activity logs can back me up on that. My job is to moderate, make sure that things run smoothly and with a measure of civil behavior. I don't care what your opinions are, just show some maturity.
I don't like bullying, putting another person down in order to make themselves feel good.
June 19, 2017 at 2:16 PM
Pity that you don't recognize that is exactly what you are doing.
I don't care what your opinions are...
June 19, 2017 at 2:16 PM
Yep, says it all.
Post a Comment