3 ms·

The saddest part of the story is that there are two quotes, one from a democrat and one from a republican, and both are falling all over themselves in a rush to

The saddest part of the story is that there are two quotes, one from a democrat and one from a republican, and both are falling all over themselves in a rush to brand a whistleblower as a traitor. The second saddest part of the story is that the person responsible for securing the biggest DWH of all time freely admits that they have no protection against rogue sysadmins, most of whom don't even work for the NSA.

gulfie 13y ago
Those are the senators that have probably said something to someone over a phone that ... that just maybe might get them into trouble if it ever leaked out.
cavilling_elite 13y ago
The "second saddest part" makes me realize why all of the government agencies get C's or less in the NIST tests for securing systems. When the NSA can't even employ their own in-house sysadmins, there is no real hope for defense against political espionage. If Snowden was the first to leak information, who was the first to sell it? The way Snowden describes the access seems like a joke.
- hobs 13y ago
  GREAT POINT. If someone could leak this much information as a sysadmin and do it effectively, how could it have not been sold? The value of such information would be astronomical to other spy agencies who would be opposed to us.
- scarmig 13y ago
  One has to also wonder: how many have sold it before Snowden leaked it? I have a hard time guessing the ratio of people willing to silently sell information versus loud do-gooders, but I have a strong suspicion it is greater than one. And of course one person can sell multiple times...
Amadou 13y ago
Frankly, who Snowden's employer was on paper is irrelevant. There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. Everybody goes through the same vetting process by the same government agency to receive a clearance. If anything, a contractor is going to have additional vetting. As an employer, the federal government is bound by constitutional restrictions that private employers are not. For example suspicion-less drug testing is not a requirement for a clearance (affirmation that you haven't used illegal drugs is a requirement, but actual testing is not). However most private employers are all gung-ho on the drug testing front and do force employees to be tested to whatever level their local state laws permit (there is significant variance by state as to what a private employer can require).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. A government employee might be getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's. A government contractor is, by definition, getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itself because the contract employer is answerable to the government. Most contract employers live and die at the whim of their single customer.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itsel Whistleblowing, sure, generally. Espionage on behalf of a foreign power, probably; espionage on behalf of the company itself... heck, government contractors in non-security related fields not-infrequently expend considerable effort to gather non-public information about their current and potential employers and competitors.
charonn0 13y ago
I found the quotes appalling, though I was not surprised that one of them was from Michelle Bachmann.

gulfie 13y ago

Those are the senators that have probably said something to someone over a phone that ... that just maybe might get them into trouble if it ever leaked out.

cavilling_elite 13y ago

The "second saddest part" makes me realize why all of the government agencies get C's or less in the NIST tests for securing systems. When the NSA can't even employ their own in-house sysadmins, there is no real hope for defense against political espionage. If Snowden was the first to leak information, who was the first to sell it? The way Snowden describes the access seems like a joke.

hobs 13y ago
GREAT POINT. If someone could leak this much information as a sysadmin and do it effectively, how could it have not been sold? The value of such information would be astronomical to other spy agencies who would be opposed to us.
scarmig 13y ago
One has to also wonder: how many have sold it before Snowden leaked it? I have a hard time guessing the ratio of people willing to silently sell information versus loud do-gooders, but I have a strong suspicion it is greater than one. And of course one person can sell multiple times...

Amadou 13y ago

Frankly, who Snowden's employer was on paper is irrelevant. There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. Everybody goes through the same vetting process by the same government agency to receive a clearance. If anything, a contractor is going to have additional vetting. As an employer, the federal government is bound by constitutional restrictions that private employers are not. For example suspicion-less drug testing is not a requirement for a clearance (affirmation that you haven't used illegal drugs is a requirement, but actual testing is not). However most private employers are all gung-ho on the drug testing front and do force employees to be tested to whatever level their local state laws permit (there is significant variance by state as to what a private employer can require).

dragonwriter 13y ago
> There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. A government employee might be getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's. A government contractor is, by definition, getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's.
- Amadou 13y ago
  That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itself because the contract employer is answerable to the government. Most contract employers live and die at the whim of their single customer.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itsel Whistleblowing, sure, generally. Espionage on behalf of a foreign power, probably; espionage on behalf of the company itself... heck, government contractors in non-security related fields not-infrequently expend considerable effort to gather non-public information about their current and potential employers and competitors.

charonn0 13y ago

I found the quotes appalling, though I was not surprised that one of them was from Michelle Bachmann.