Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy United States

NSA Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets (nytimes.com) 101

Posted by msmash from the we-are-all-snowdens dept.
The New York Times, citing senior law enforcement and intelligence officials, reports today that the FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor in recent weeks (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source). The newspaper adds that the FBI is currently investigating whether the contractor (identified as male) stole and disclosed highly classified computer codes developed to "hack into the networks of foreign governments." From the report: The theft raises the embarrassing prospect that for the second time in three years an insider has managed to steal highly damaging secret information from the N.S.A. In 2013, Edward J. Snowden, who was also a contractor for the agency, took a vast trove of documents that were later passed to journalists, exposing N.S.A. surveillance programs in the United States and abroad. The information believed stolen by this contractor -- who like Mr. Snowden worked for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, which is responsible for building and operating many of the agency's most sensitive cyberoperations -- appears to be different in nature from Mr. Snowden's theft.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets More

NSA Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

Comments Filter:

  • (identified as male) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Whew, for a minute there I was afraid we had a rogue Apache attack helicopter!

    This guy sounds like a true patriot assisting the American people.

    • for instance, ex-military, which presumably would be copacetic with maintaining operational security. anybody with bingo-number resumes can qualify as a contractor, able to take a higher bid with no remorse.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )
        It's very, very difficult to get rid of non-performers who are protected by both civil service laws and their union. Using contractors gives the government more control, not less.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by plopez ( 54068 )

          Not really. You have to negotiate a deal with the contracting house as well. Trying to deal with non-perfomant contractors in my experience is a nightmare. Depending on the contract it could end up with your company having to "buy out" the contract or having the contractor replaced with a, just as bad, replacement contractor. Or go through a long and drawn out remediation process.

          It's as bad as dealing with a dysfunctional union contract.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        No bid contractors are sold as adding private sector ability and ingenuity to the US gov and mil.
        It has become very profitable to get clearance and then sell services back to the US gov at any cost in times of need.
        Tools, software, hardware, support, language skills, interrogations skills, medical devices, food, energy, crypto, design.
        The other part is the US can then talk about the easy option to ramp up support from the private sector allowing for some very fast results. Most of that action ends up in

  • Will the consulting firm take the heat? and will this force them to move more people in house?

  • EQGRP? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CODiNE ( 27417 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:18PM (#53018259) Homepage

    Is this someone being nailed for the Equation Group code leak? Or something else?

  • How? Try to email them to himself via Yahoo?

  • Oh noes11!!!!! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Now we cant act all indignant when Russia hacks US!!!

  • So... here's the thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:30PM (#53018349)

    Assuming this is a genuine crook -- stealing secrets and selling them or disclosing them to private parties... foreign/domestic/whatever. Then arresting him is pretty much the expected course of action.

    The interesting angle to me at least, is that it really skewers the idea that Snowden put us at risk. For me, the biggest counter argument to that has always been 'if Snowden could do it so could others'. The fact that Snowden did it altruistically and gave the information to the public means we know about it; how many others have been doing it, that haven't been caught, that have been disclosing it to foreign governments, selling it, etc.

    Now we have some real proof of what really should have been obvious -- that yeah, other people have been doing it too. All the "secrets" Snodwn revealed to the public, and in the process our 'adversaries' ...so what?? They probably already had it from their own pet NSA employees & contractors. It would be foolish to assume they didn't.

    • Assuming this is a genuine crook

      He is a crook whether he's doing it for moral or financial reasons. He's not using the legitimate channels available to bring the issue to the surface. I realize it's not as easy as it sounds but it certainly more politically correct and less harmful to government.

      IMO Snowden could also have used a different approach. Chopping down the tree when there's 1 bad branch is overkill. That's the ONLY reason I only ever partially agreed with what Snowden did. We expect our government to follow due process, we shou

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by vux984 ( 928602 )

        He is a crook whether he's doing it for moral or financial reasons.

        While I agree that one has committed a criminal act either way, the decision whether justice is served by punishing that act depends a lot on the circumstances around it, including the motive.

        My usage of the word 'crook' is to suggest a person with antisocial / selfish motives. Snowden committed a criminal act but I don't think he's crook. This guy... I don't know his motive. But if he's disclosing to private parties... odds are its selfish. Either that or its blackmail... which is a whole other issue.

      • "He's not using the legitimate channels available to bring the issue to the surface."

        Come on now, this black ops shit. You know just as well as anybody else those channels don't really go anywhere.

        • Come on now, this black ops shit

          By that standard you're ok with anybody under any circumstance to bypass the system. You are setting a very dangerous precedence.

          Until someone can prove the proper channels cannot work the proper channels should at bare minimum looked at. Snowden didn't even look to see what options were available.

      • Re:So... here's the thing (Score:4, Informative)

        by ShaunC ( 203807 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @02:50PM (#53018883)

        He's not using the legitimate channels available to bring the issue to the surface.

        Why don't you go ask William Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis how using the "legitimate channels" works out.

        • Why don't you go ask William Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis how using the "legitimate channels" works out.

          I'm very familiar with these individuals. Explain to me how they used PROPER channels to limit damage to government and NSA programs.

    • Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't they both be guilty of revealing state secrets? Just because Johnny threw rocks off a freeway overpass, does that mean it's ok for you to throw rocks off an overpass, even if it's for the explicit purpose of demonstrating to the public how easy it is to throw rocks off of overpasses? I remember a couple decades ago a local reporter ran a story where he registered at multiple precincts and voted in each one (tearing up his unmarked ballot on camera before droppi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vux984 ( 928602 )

        I remember a couple decades ago a local reporter ran a story where he registered at multiple precincts and voted in each one (tearing up his unmarked ballot on camera before dropping it in each box so they wouldn't be counted), just to demonstrate how easy it was. He still got a few months in jail for voting fraud.

        And you think that was right, and just, and served the ideals of society?

        What if instead of a couple months in jail, it was successive life sentences? What if it had just been a few dozen hours community service? Or a suspended sentence?

        You want to convict Snowden, and give him a couple months in jail; I'm sure few of his supporters would even raise much of a stink over that.

        Just because Johnny threw rocks off a freeway overpass, does that mean it's ok for you to throw rocks off an overpass, even if it's for the explicit purpose of demonstrating to the public how easy it is to throw rocks off of overpasses?

        That's a non sequitur.

        Does anybody really need an object lesson in how easy it is to throw rocks from overpasses? Is that a secret hid

      • Almost (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Snowden did the right thing because the oversight is not/was not working. I agree that he should be held accountable for his actions, and I'm pretty sure he does also. The concern he had in seeking asylum is that he could not get a fair trial in the US, which I also agree with.

        In other words, past where you said "I think Snowden did the morally right thing." there should not have been a "but".

  • There can only be one Snowden. Everyone else is a pretender.

  • Not much bias in this article (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Theft."

    "Stole."

    I can't get out of my mind the fact that these words are being (mis)used in exactly the same way as when the RIAA and its kind lie about lost profits and bribe legislators. A story told with such heavy bias makes it difficult to take it or its authors seriously.

    • "Theft of secrets" seems correct to me, as once you divulge the information against their wishes it is no longer a secret. The information may still be there, but its secrecy is not.

      • "Theft of secrets" seems correct to me, as once you divulge the information against their wishes it is no longer a secret. The information may still be there, but its secrecy is not.

        Actually, that's an interesting point. By the same measure, the NSA stole the metadata of American citizens' communications for a few years.

  • Wait (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 )

    the contractor (identified as male) stole

    I thought we had to be concerned with how the contract identifies zis self. I am still trying to get with the program here.

  • "codes" is an exclusively Indian usage. And it's fairly harsh on the ears of any non-Indian programmers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Actually, I've heard the term used in my distant past by some old timers. They referred to programs as codes. And as many of these were highly classified. DoD contractors had not yet begun outsourcing top secret work to India, Russia, and China, so it was an American usage.

      • And as many of these were highly classified. DoD contractors had not yet begun outsourcing top secret work to India

        The "codes" was part of the article summary by slashdot. It was not part of the quote. In other words, it was written by whoever submitted the story to Slashdot. So this:

        it was an American usage.

        does not follow from the slashdot submission. Oh, and it's was never used by oldtimes. It is exclusively Indian. And it is very new. I think "Codechef" was the 1st place I saw it. And you don't have to believe it, but it won't change the fact that it sounds very harsh to the ears of all other English speakers.

      • Just to follow up, I just looked through the NYTimes article itself, and no "codes" does not appear in it. "Computer code" does. And while "code" is singular, "computer code" is always taken to be plural. So "codes" sounds just as harsh as "maths" to a North American English speaker (even though "maths" has sipped its way into British usage).

  • The information believed stolen by this contractor — who like Mr. Snowden worked for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, which is responsible for building and operating many of the agency’s most sensitive cyberoperations — appears to be different in nature from Mr. Snowden’s theft.

    All we really know is that this guy got busted before he could act. It saddens me to write this but the FBI giving their word about the matter doesn't mean it's the truth because Comey has destroyed the FBI's credibility. :(

    • You've never been able to believe anything the FBI says, it's not a new thing. Though this case is yet another example that you don't talk to the FBI without lawyers! The guy admitted he knew he wasn't supposed to have the data, that's going to add YEARS to his sentence because his conduct is now willful which is a sentence multiplier in sentencing.

      DON'T TALK TO THE FEDS. Say one word, LAWYER.

  • I wish more people and companies were concerned about security so that we could start taking a serious look into solving the problem. Unfortunately everybody jumps on the latest and greatest instead of considering how terribly insecure any of it is. Facebook, Microsoft Widows, and even GNU/Linux are all great examples.

    What we need to do is start thinking smaller. Instead of jumping on that quad core 16GB ram system maybe we should think about what we can actually achieve with fewer resources and standardize

  • Wasn't he doing his job to lie, cheat, and steal?

    And ignore the US Constitution and spy on American citizens without a specific court order and warrant?

  • The government seems to have the same accountants my company does...effectively paying twice for an employee but coming out ahead because OpEx.

    Why in the world would the government hire contractors to work in the intelligence agencies? Even if they have their clearances, etc. you exercise less control over a contractor than you would your own employee. I saw a post above saying GS workers can't be fired and the government can't pay talented people enough -- I'd be tempted to take the "can't be fired" with a

    • Why in the world would the government hire contractors to work in the intelligence agencies?

      The government loves contractors because it provides someone else to blame when the shit hits the fan. It's like keeping a scapegoat on retainer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      They run the collect it all systems that connect into the private sector. They know the jargon and terms that allow them to pass effortlessly back into the big US brands and telcos undercover or as part of a gov team.
      Re "Hiring contractors to work on sensitive material doesn't make too much sense to me."
      That policy is driven by political contacts, no bids and legal teams. If access to the private sector is not granted, access is demanded by politics and the need for creating local jobs.
      Re "bump up a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      The government has even more control over contractors than it does over it's own employees (who they can never seem to get rid of when there's incompetence)...I've been on both sides for 40 years now...there's no "grain of salt" necessary. Go look up how often, government employees are laid off, or fired, and get back with us. A contractor can be dumped very easily. Contractors are hired to do jobs that the Feds can't, and that's typically because highly skilled employees typically go for better paying j

  • Come on, guys. It's just copyright infringement, and he hadn't even distributed.
    --
    I am serious sometimes but I'm not very good at it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close