5 ms·

..until they come to negotiate their next contract.

krschultz 16y ago
And what then? The FBI uses the Bittorrent archive instead of paying the company? Please. 100% of my work is government contracting, thats not how this works. The only question is whether the FBI will ever use this company again, if the FBI thinks they are incompetent then HBGary is out of work. But if the FBI still believes they are competent then they will get another contract to find more information even if some of that information is already in the public domain. The FBI won't punish them for a criminal action. At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. We still abide by all the rules and you can get in a lot of hot water for talking about something off of Wikileaks that you do not have need-to-know on. It's as if leaks don't exist to the government. You or I, and many companies would take advantage of the situation and just use the publically available information and not pay the PI firm. But this is the government. They operate in a whole different ballgame with a different set of rules. Anyone pointing their finger and laughing hasn't been through the requisition process, the government has thrown good money after bad in much fouler situations than this.
- rhizome 16y ago
  At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. ...as long as you're clear that this is merely company policy and is not actually a point of law.
  - robryan 16y ago
    It's interesting government adopt this approach, seems weird that a government on the other side of the world could be discussing american diplomatic affairs while members of the government in america would be bared unless they are cleared under a classification system that has failed in this case.
  - gcb 16y ago
    They clearly stated it was public before they leaked the documents to begin with.
  - cpenner461 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure this _is_ actually a point of law. Being released via Wikileaks (or similar) does not change the classification of the information released.
    - rhizome 16y ago
      Correct, but classification does not cover regular citizens. The only people who can be prosecuted for revealing classified information are those who have sworn to protect it, i.e. people who have previously agreed to respect the secrecy. It's a covenant.
      - lucasjung 16y ago
        Not true. Classified documents have cover pages explaining that they are classified and warning that you can be prosecuted for distributing classified information even if you haven't made the normal agreements associated with a security clearance. People who do have access, and who have signed the corresponding agreements are open to additional charges as well as pre-emptive extra-legal action for purposes of preventing or investigating security leaks (background investigations, polygraphs, etc.). Actual prosecutions for people without clearance revealing classified information are generally rare because it's usually done as a form of journalism, which brings first ammendment issues into play. That's probably why wikileaks has made such an effort lately to re-cast themselves as a journalistic organization instead of just a clearinghouse for "whistle blowers."
        rhizome 16y ago
        Prosecuting the possession of information without clearance is done so rarely because a conviction on any of the points that touch the act is impossible. The scenario you describe simply doesn't exist, it has nothing to do with journalism, and the onus is on those advocating for the validity of these kinds of prosecutions to distinguish acts from those which AIPAC members had charges dropped in the Franklin case just a few years ago. I'd be interested in hearing about any successful prosecutions, so consider me eager to be proven wrong.
- flashgordon 16y ago
  Touche about governments throwing good money after bad money ( or just bad money after bad money for that matter)... Virtual Case File anybody? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File
- moe 16y ago
  But if the FBI still believes they are competent Excuse me? The FBI can't be that dense, can it?
  - incomethax 16y ago
    It isn't about HBGary being competent or not, its about whether or not they were able to fulfill the letter of their contracted terms. If the FBI believes that the company can still fulfill its contract terms, and in a lot of situations that comes down to providing the requisite documentation showing sufficient protocols in place, then the FBI will continue to work with HBGary. Much greater incompetence has been rewarded by the government bureaucracy than poorly picked passwords.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    The competence of the firms intelligence gathering ability is unrelated to the security of their computer systems. Whether the intelligence gathering was any good is hard to say, unless you take the released documents at face value. Taking something released by Anonymous at face value does not seem like a good strategy.
- thomasz 16y ago
  > At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. We still abide by all the rules and you can get in a lot of hot water for talking about something off of Wikileaks that you do not have need-to-know on. Isn't that a little bit kafkaesque?

And what then? The FBI uses the Bittorrent archive instead of paying the company? Please. 100% of my work is government contracting, thats not how this works. The only question is whether the FBI will ever use this company again, if the FBI thinks they are incompetent then HBGary is out of work. But if the FBI still believes they are competent then they will get another contract to find more information even if some of that information is already in the public domain. The FBI won't punish them for a criminal action. At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. We still abide by all the rules and you can get in a lot of hot water for talking about something off of Wikileaks that you do not have need-to-know on. It's as if leaks don't exist to the government. You or I, and many companies would take advantage of the situation and just use the publically available information and not pay the PI firm. But this is the government. They operate in a whole different ballgame with a different set of rules. Anyone pointing their finger and laughing hasn't been through the requisition process, the government has thrown good money after bad in much fouler situations than this.

rhizome 16y ago
At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. ...as long as you're clear that this is merely company policy and is not actually a point of law.
- robryan 16y ago
  It's interesting government adopt this approach, seems weird that a government on the other side of the world could be discussing american diplomatic affairs while members of the government in america would be bared unless they are cleared under a classification system that has failed in this case.
- gcb 16y ago
  They clearly stated it was public before they leaked the documents to begin with.
- cpenner461 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure this _is_ actually a point of law. Being released via Wikileaks (or similar) does not change the classification of the information released.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    Correct, but classification does not cover regular citizens. The only people who can be prosecuted for revealing classified information are those who have sworn to protect it, i.e. people who have previously agreed to respect the secrecy. It's a covenant.
    - lucasjung 16y ago
      Not true. Classified documents have cover pages explaining that they are classified and warning that you can be prosecuted for distributing classified information even if you haven't made the normal agreements associated with a security clearance. People who do have access, and who have signed the corresponding agreements are open to additional charges as well as pre-emptive extra-legal action for purposes of preventing or investigating security leaks (background investigations, polygraphs, etc.). Actual prosecutions for people without clearance revealing classified information are generally rare because it's usually done as a form of journalism, which brings first ammendment issues into play. That's probably why wikileaks has made such an effort lately to re-cast themselves as a journalistic organization instead of just a clearinghouse for "whistle blowers."
      - rhizome 16y ago
        Prosecuting the possession of information without clearance is done so rarely because a conviction on any of the points that touch the act is impossible. The scenario you describe simply doesn't exist, it has nothing to do with journalism, and the onus is on those advocating for the validity of these kinds of prosecutions to distinguish acts from those which AIPAC members had charges dropped in the Franklin case just a few years ago. I'd be interested in hearing about any successful prosecutions, so consider me eager to be proven wrong.
flashgordon 16y ago
Touche about governments throwing good money after bad money ( or just bad money after bad money for that matter)... Virtual Case File anybody? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File
moe 16y ago
But if the FBI still believes they are competent Excuse me? The FBI can't be that dense, can it?
- incomethax 16y ago
  It isn't about HBGary being competent or not, its about whether or not they were able to fulfill the letter of their contracted terms. If the FBI believes that the company can still fulfill its contract terms, and in a lot of situations that comes down to providing the requisite documentation showing sufficient protocols in place, then the FBI will continue to work with HBGary. Much greater incompetence has been rewarded by the government bureaucracy than poorly picked passwords.
- Confusion 16y ago
  The competence of the firms intelligence gathering ability is unrelated to the security of their computer systems. Whether the intelligence gathering was any good is hard to say, unless you take the released documents at face value. Taking something released by Anonymous at face value does not seem like a good strategy.
thomasz 16y ago
> At my job, just because something leaked through Wikileaks doesn't mean its unclassified. We still abide by all the rules and you can get in a lot of hot water for talking about something off of Wikileaks that you do not have need-to-know on. Isn't that a little bit kafkaesque?