5 ms·

[flagged]

by dmbche 2y ago

[flagged]

genewitch 2y ago
Security clearances being marked on documents as worthless because the government has told employees to "just pick" a specific cleatance from the dropdown, even for things like "lunch meeting Tomorrow". The clearance people were told to use is "never to be cleared" - meaning it's intractable. It was abused, so I don't buy the legal argument. Put another way, if everything is top secret, nothing is.
- dmbche 2y ago
  [flagged]
rayiner 2y ago
There’s nothing concrete in that article, just hand waving from people trying to keep their jobs. Who needed what clearance and didn’t have it?
- dmbche 2y ago
  In the BBC article? I don't know or care as I'm not a party in this situation. It is evident from the BBC article that restricted data was shared unlawfully with Musk and that they are asked to delete the data. What will you do with the name of the person? Prosecute them? You're welcome to look online yourself for answers for your questions - or chat with a competent lawyer, they'll be happy to help you sort it out
  - psychlops 2y ago
    > It is evident from the BBC article It is claimed from the BBC article. Even the shopped judge doesn't know if it is or isn't until the hearing next week.
losvedir 2y ago
rayiner is a lawyer, I believe with experience in and around DC and government agencies. I always appreciate his takes because they're often counter to call it the HN zeitgeist.
- dmbche 2y ago
  Why's he asking me then?
  - diggan 2y ago
    They're asking you to clarify your argument, obviously. You say some federal law has been broken, they're asking you to specify which federal law you claim has been broken. It isn't rocket science.
    - dmbche 2y ago
      Alright, I'll break it down. A lawyer would charge you a lot to explain this to you you know? What he asked is not currently public. It will be made public during the hearing. A US federal judge (Not some random guy) is acting in accordance with being aware of a federal crime. (It's actually many more than one judge and one crime but let's keep it simple) I'm comfortable with trusting a US judges read on the situation a priori. You could argue that it will be overturned and thus nothing illegal happened, which would techbically be correct. All talk about this is hypothetical, especially here in the deep comment section of some website. As I said, what are you going to do with this information? So - this is a "gotcha" question, not asking for genuine clarification. As if random citizens should have an encyclopedic recall to all laws. For more, ask a laywer
buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

[flagged]

by dmbche 2y ago

[flagged]

Security clearances being marked on documents as worthless because the government has told employees to "just pick" a specific cleatance from the dropdown, even for things like "lunch meeting Tomorrow". The clearance people were told to use is "never to be cleared" - meaning it's intractable. It was abused, so I don't buy the legal argument. Put another way, if everything is top secret, nothing is.

dmbche 2y ago
[flagged]

rayiner 2y ago

There’s nothing concrete in that article, just hand waving from people trying to keep their jobs. Who needed what clearance and didn’t have it?

dmbche 2y ago
In the BBC article? I don't know or care as I'm not a party in this situation. It is evident from the BBC article that restricted data was shared unlawfully with Musk and that they are asked to delete the data. What will you do with the name of the person? Prosecute them? You're welcome to look online yourself for answers for your questions - or chat with a competent lawyer, they'll be happy to help you sort it out
- psychlops 2y ago
  > It is evident from the BBC article It is claimed from the BBC article. Even the shopped judge doesn't know if it is or isn't until the hearing next week.

losvedir 2y ago

rayiner is a lawyer, I believe with experience in and around DC and government agencies. I always appreciate his takes because they're often counter to call it the HN zeitgeist.

dmbche 2y ago
Why's he asking me then?
- diggan 2y ago
  They're asking you to clarify your argument, obviously. You say some federal law has been broken, they're asking you to specify which federal law you claim has been broken. It isn't rocket science.
  - dmbche 2y ago
    Alright, I'll break it down. A lawyer would charge you a lot to explain this to you you know? What he asked is not currently public. It will be made public during the hearing. A US federal judge (Not some random guy) is acting in accordance with being aware of a federal crime. (It's actually many more than one judge and one crime but let's keep it simple) I'm comfortable with trusting a US judges read on the situation a priori. You could argue that it will be overturned and thus nothing illegal happened, which would techbically be correct. All talk about this is hypothetical, especially here in the deep comment section of some website. As I said, what are you going to do with this information? So - this is a "gotcha" question, not asking for genuine clarification. As if random citizens should have an encyclopedic recall to all laws. For more, ask a laywer

buzzerbetrayed 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]