5 ms·

I’d like to say I’m being glib here, but doesn’t the fact that the NSA gives someone named Reality Winner a clearance kind of put the blame on them for this one

by rcurry 5y ago

I’d like to say I’m being glib here, but doesn’t the fact that the NSA gives someone named Reality Winner a clearance kind of put the blame on them for this one? You hire a flake, you’re gonna have to deal with the fallout.

brutal_chaos_ 5y ago
Maybe their parents were an odd bunch. Should we behave differently towards the person for that? Or, am I talking out my rear because the person changed their name? (In that case, yeah, it's on the NSA).
- rcurry 5y ago
  See, that’s exactly my point. If her parents were an “odd bunch” then that’s exactly the sort of thing that an investigator should flag as a no no in terms of national security roles. If there is even the slightest whiff that someone’s an odd duck then you shouldn’t go there. They did that, and got bit on the ass for it. Simple as that. I don’t think you’re talking out your ass, but I’m a former intelligence puke and I am honestly shocked at how stupid our intelligence agencies have become over the last few decades. For me, it’s just a simple black and white calculus - if you want to keep secrets, you don’t hire flakes. That’s neither here nor there on the moral spectrum, I’m just talking about keeping secrets secret, which is really hard no matter how you slice it.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    this sounds a lot like the rationale given for denying security clearances to LGBT people up through the 90s. there were gay spy rings back in the day, but that's precisely because being gay was blackmailable - if we're allowed to serve openly, it's not a security risk. calling a huge segment of the population "flakes" for matters outside their control, and denying them clearances, isn't just unfair, it's likely contributing to the massive brain drain going on in intelligence. I'm treated a lot better in industry, thank you.
    - rcurry 5y ago
      I'm sorry, but no - a "huge segment the population" does not consist of people with screwy names. The reason for that is that most parents follow cultural / social norms when naming their kids, which reduces friction for their kids as they grow up, go to school, go to work, and so on. In the context of keeping secrets, people that stand out from the crowd are usually more of a liability than not. As Remo says in Goodfellas - why take a chance?
- gweinberg 5y ago
  "Reality Winner: is her "legal name, but I very much doubt it is the name she was born with. I find it very odd that none of the articles I've seen answer this one way or the other.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Following the footnotes in her Wikipedia article, it looks like it actually is her birth name.

by rcurry 5y ago

brutal_chaos_ 5y ago

Maybe their parents were an odd bunch. Should we behave differently towards the person for that? Or, am I talking out my rear because the person changed their name? (In that case, yeah, it's on the NSA).

rcurry 5y ago
See, that’s exactly my point. If her parents were an “odd bunch” then that’s exactly the sort of thing that an investigator should flag as a no no in terms of national security roles. If there is even the slightest whiff that someone’s an odd duck then you shouldn’t go there. They did that, and got bit on the ass for it. Simple as that. I don’t think you’re talking out your ass, but I’m a former intelligence puke and I am honestly shocked at how stupid our intelligence agencies have become over the last few decades. For me, it’s just a simple black and white calculus - if you want to keep secrets, you don’t hire flakes. That’s neither here nor there on the moral spectrum, I’m just talking about keeping secrets secret, which is really hard no matter how you slice it.
- sterlind 5y ago
  this sounds a lot like the rationale given for denying security clearances to LGBT people up through the 90s. there were gay spy rings back in the day, but that's precisely because being gay was blackmailable - if we're allowed to serve openly, it's not a security risk. calling a huge segment of the population "flakes" for matters outside their control, and denying them clearances, isn't just unfair, it's likely contributing to the massive brain drain going on in intelligence. I'm treated a lot better in industry, thank you.
  - rcurry 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but no - a "huge segment the population" does not consist of people with screwy names. The reason for that is that most parents follow cultural / social norms when naming their kids, which reduces friction for their kids as they grow up, go to school, go to work, and so on. In the context of keeping secrets, people that stand out from the crowd are usually more of a liability than not. As Remo says in Goodfellas - why take a chance?
gweinberg 5y ago
"Reality Winner: is her "legal name, but I very much doubt it is the name she was born with. I find it very odd that none of the articles I've seen answer this one way or the other.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Following the footnotes in her Wikipedia article, it looks like it actually is her birth name.