secthrowaway

12 ms·

1.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
> I'm getting close to believing that starting any online service in the United States is unethical, because of what it will do to its users. Let me know what country you can start an online service in that doesn't also have a
2.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
It might be waived in the event of an imminent action. Sort it out after the threat of the action is over.
3.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
Are you also similarly upset about the activities of the BND, MAD, BfV and the LfVs that operate out of your own country?
4.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
> That said, "US selectors" shouldn't return the results that they do in the first place. Determining if a "selector" is tied to a U.S. person is actually a very subtle and very hard problem. Let's take a ph
5.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
Did the possibility ever cross your mind that the fake accounts and users are simply an attempt by a very small fringe group to bulk up their numbers and look like a more legitimate political concern?
6.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
Outside of magical unicorns, what kind of unicorn should guard things? I'm afraid automated systems don't offer either the coverage or the flexibility to provide what you think should be provided.
7.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
> Yes, but you don't copy all communications to try and find the astonishingly small number from the most closed-off country in the world. What would your collection proposal be then? You can't determine data of interest until
8.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
> He just bought it retail. There was a great interview of Kim Jong-Il's sushi chef awhile back, the way he gets ingredients is the chef makes trips abroad to foreign markets and buys whatever he needs from wherever, presumably payi
9.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
pera: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911100 > Really? why should anyone trust in anything coming from the NSA when you are systematically lying again and again? why should we listen to anything you say when histor
10.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
md224: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911261 > Anyone who defends the NSA on the grounds that it only targets those who are worthy of targeting needs to convince me that another COINTELPRO will never happen. I wou
11.
by secthrowaway 13y ago
I can confirm much of this article. (A couple years ago I provided some comments here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3296691 ) There's lots of condemnation of the poster, and the NSA practices and some of the murk
12.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
You actually can't handle classified data, or derive something from classified data, that doesn't automatically classify the derived work (a report, or some such) at at least the same level. To not do that risks releasing the information an
13.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
I'm assuming you aren't actually asking me to prove a negative. If a reading of NISPOM doesn't clarify it for you, then there's really nothing more I can say that will persuade you from your conspiracy theory. http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_cl
14.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Why not? Provide your own numbers as an estimate. You can get a clearance at 18, and people live into their 70s and 80s pretty regularly. The 4.2 million with a clearance are not the same ones that had a clearance 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 etc
15.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Yes, close personal contacts with people from unfriendly countries can be a problem. However, I do know people with clearances who are from several countries the U.S. is not particularly friendly with. Quite often it could be that the inv
16.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Right, often they are simply used to indicate when a line of questioning is stressing out the subject and to continue on that line.
17.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
And the corollary, just because people have access to sensitive information means they know all of the sensitive information. "Well I have a clearance and can tell you this is how it is" is probably the mark of somebody who just wants to
18.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Right, my out-of-the-ass estimate is probably very conservative. It's probably an even lower ratio in reality, 1:10, 1:15 maybe?
19.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Right. As to specific compartments and SAPs, I wouldn't have any idea what the number is (by design). I've worked on SAP programs that had 3 people on them. Some of the larger compartments probably have hundreds of thousands read into them.
20.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
I'm actually surprised by this. I work with a ton of people with foreign born wives (many not even green carded yet) -- soldiers tend to marry where they are first stationed. Also, I work with plenty of people with TS/SCIs who have used dru
21.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
All fair questions (I don't know why the down votes for you)! "You said that there is no level strictly above Top Secret (just comparmentalizations within that). Is there any actual evidence for that? (I mean, non-classified evidence; I'm n
22.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Well...it can be conflicting. At the Secret level, you tend to have access to much wider ranging information than in a SAP. A person working Intelligence in Japan for example, might also have access to information about Lithuania at that
23.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Most of the work environments are pretty boring big-corp style stuff, except there's more locks on the doors and often you don't get any windows because people are stupid and open the blinds letting the world see what they're doing on their
24.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Yeah, that model is more or less what's in use. Except the real-world version is a bit more complicated and messier (and more confusing). But the principle is all the same. Read goes down, write goes up. You can move information down only
25.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Yes. And they also know that too many secrets makes a country militarily weaker. An example scenario, a intelligence professional comes across information that pertains to a plot to kill his co-worker that was collected in a way that is hig
26.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
I've answered this elsewhere already, but spin the question around: Could you explain how it doesn't make sense to you? It seems obvious on its face to anybody who's ever withheld any information from anybody else.
27.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how things become classified. see previous comment here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298594 Keep in mind that there are probably north of 1 in 150 Americans with current acce
28.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
I don't disagree with your fundamental point, but I think you misunderstand how things become classified. It's always either a) due to how the information was collected b) something derived (citing) a piece of classified information. So a
29.
by secthrowaway 15y ago
Thought I'd make a throw away and tip in as there are lots of people here who've never had a clearance and don't really understand what it's all about (I've had one for more than a decade). I'll try and answer some questions in the threads