5 ms·
It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or o
by rdl 13y ago
It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered.
Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, but it's not cheap. (You can also potentially keep the person under observation the whole time, but given the purported Chuck Norris powers of Bruce Schneier, that seems insufficient.)
- fit2rule 13y ago>It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Infruriating Hog-wash! This security theatre is baloney, and it is the Great Wall, itself .. erected precisely to allow the Security Classes to control their mignons. SCIF's? Why are they even necessary in the first place, in a society that prides itself on Freedom Dogma? This is not democracy - this is tyranny! If a private citizen cannot have a safe conversation with people who represent them, then you do not have representation but total interference. The American Super-Security State has definitely usurped the basic principles of democracy from its true owners.
- rdl 13y agoI think you missed the part where he had the conversation anyway, in a regular room. The procedures for handling classified information, especially SCI and ECI, are there to protect from foreign intelligence services. i.e. people doing exactly the shit NSA is accused/documented of doing to foreign governments.
- fit2rule 13y agoI think you missed the point that I asked: why is there no secure facilities specifically for the purpose of citizen/representative conversation? Is it only the privileged elite military class that get the fun toys? I think it is ..
- rdl 13y agoThere are different levels of "secure". Citizens rarely have possession of TS/SCI or TS/ECI information without possessing a valid TS/SSBI and SAP access for that material, and when they do possess that material without the authorization, their intent is rarely to testify before Congress about that material. A normal secured room (which is also swept for bugs, is kept physically secured by the Capitol Police, etc.) is perfectly adequate for normal secure communications between citizens and elected officials.
- fit2rule 13y agoI care not a single bit for the Security Theatre in your TLA soup - the point yet remains: why are citizens not allowed to communicate secretly with their representatives with the same degree of certainty as their military? Hmm ..
- taybin 13y agoBecause they don't have to. He suggested the use of the room for their sake, not his own.
- fit2rule 13y agoOf course they have to.. Schneier is monitored everywhere he goes!
- Crito 13y agoBy who, by the people that he is talking to? I sure hope the people he is talking to are 'monitoring' him while he talks to them. It would be a waste of time if they didn't pay attention.
- fit2rule 13y agoIf the NSA are about to take a big hit in Congress because some Congress members were educated on the actual reality, having advance notions of the nature of the enlightenment of those Congress members would help the NSA prepare a position policy for handling the issue. Do you not understand that there is nothing honorable about this agency, and this infrastructure? At all? The system is entirely corrupt, corruptible, and absolutely functional as a tool for political power. This is not the time to be milquetoast on the devices we are discovering are being used, indiscriminately, with World-changing powers, by people who were not authorized to do so by the democracy that allowed them the luxury of doing such things, for a living. These people have constructed their own private search engine - consisting of EVERYONE ELSES DATA. Anyone who cares about the society our children will inherit, must act to promote the destruction of this heinous info-apparat! Before, indeed: it is too late. There are but 3 small tigers in between the free democratic society and totalitarian fascist state, and those tigers are made of paper, electrons, and gasoline ..
- strathmeyer 13y agoI'm not sure if you understand. Bruce knows the top secret information because he read it in the leaks. The government officials can lose their security clearance for admitting to discussing top secret things with him.
- snowwrestler 13y agoNot members of Congress.
- rdl 13y agoThey are clearly in the direct performance of their lawful duties. It is like a counterintelligence professional talking to a suspect and learning what he knows. Plus, Congress is called out in the Constitution as special, due to situations like this.
- gaadd33 13y agoHow many sitting congressmen have ever lost their security clearance? It seems like the decision reached in Gravel v. United States totally contradicts what you say.
- phaus 13y agoYou don't need all of that to be escorted on a single occasion. It really wouldn't be difficult at all to sanitize a conference room. People aren't likely leaving piles of classified documents on the table between meetings and if they are they need to have their own clearances suspended.
- rdl 13y agoI'm explicitly allowing for Schneier being a "special" person, and not escortable into a secured space, as he is a technical expert and in close and continuing contact with some people with lots of very hated stuff, specifically in loving leaking classified info. A normal person would be a lot more escortable. It is mostly up to your facility security officer and organizational policies; I don't know how the legislative branch handles any of this.