Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Had 'Forbidden' Internet Connection At the Pentagon, Says Report (businessinsider.com) 314
According to The New Yorker, President-elect Donald Trump's national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, installed a secret internet connection into his office at the Pentagon even though it was "forbidden." Business Insider reports: The network connection was among other rules the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency broke because he found them to be "stupid," including sometimes sneaking out of a CIA station in Iraq without authorization and sharing classified information with NATO allies without approval, according to The New Yorker. While Flynn -- who was recently tapped to be President-elect Donald Trump's national security adviser -- apparently had his own private connection, the New Yorker profile doesn't provide a clear picture as to why. It's likely his Pentagon office already had an authorized, unclassified connection to the internet called NIPRNet, which is separate from classified networks such as SIPRNet and JWICS, a former DIA analyst told Business Insider. All of those networks are monitored in some way. A separate, unknown network would not have had the same -- or possibly any -- level of monitoring. If it were implemented in secret, it would also not have the same protections from hackers that a known connection would have. It's also possible that Flynn's Pentagon office was known as a SCIF, or sensitive compartmented information facility -- a secure facility in which intelligence can be discussed without fear of it being compromised. Network connections in SCIFs are closely controlled, and outside electronics such as mobile phones are not allowed inside.
Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:5, Funny)
We sure can trust this choice better than the one Ms. Clinton would have made.
BTW, I have some bridges for sale...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great! And now we'll even see the US media bring back investigative journalism after an 8 year hiatus.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Pentagon's internet connection is anything like the one at my "big corporate" office, you can get better connection through your phone's 4G, much better. The General's office might not have had 4G service, so he just ordered a hardline.
Fake News? (Score:5, Insightful)
So...an article by Business Insider, which relies on an article in the New Yorker, wherein a reporter makes these claims.
No proof, no official findings, no investigations, just, "he told me" from a reporter and magazine that are unquestionably anti-everything that is not Democrat.
This shows all the hallmarks of Fake News as they have been explained to us by the media.
Re: (Score:3)
> That's great! And now we'll even see the US media bring back investigative journalism after an 8 year hiatus.
Wolf Blitzer is suddenly going to discover what a SCIF is, and all the rules and regulations that go along with it.
Anderson Cooper is going to run a story on why it is important to safeguard classified information, and why network security is paramount.
Rachel Maddow will wax poetic about not allowing unsecured devices anywhere near any form of classified data.
The media will run an uninterrupted
Re: (Score:3)
The media will run an uninterrupted series of negative opinion pieces disguised as news for the next 4 years.
Don't forget the clumsily disguised contempt shared among them like nervous laughter.
The kind of contempt passive-aggressives fall into when things don't go their way. The kind child psychologists can see directly through that serves as a signal for them to dig deeper.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess even Putin would have beaten Hillary if he was allowed to for US president.
Re:Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:4, Funny)
And I'm done Putin up with the likes of you!
Re:Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:5, Funny)
There ya go, Russian to judgement...
Hypocrisy- Jesus taught me to get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats have not only recently rediscovered the virtues of limit government, but also the virtues of following rules?
There are some serious machiavellian games afoot to prevent people from understanding how powerful technology is. The situation is this- Neither this instance (as far as I can tell from the summary), nor Hillary Clinton's home email server were things that surprised anyone with any technical proficiency. The powers that be understand better than the masses just how powerful each and every mobile phone and personal computer are along with the internet. Hillary blew it I think when it was discovered that amongst the thousands of emails she was reluctant to release for records keeping purposes, were thousands related to her work that were legally required to be archived by the state, and not withheld. If she had done a more perfect job of seperating the two sets, she wouldn't have been as damaged by the issue. This case however (again, just from the summary) doesn't appear to have any justifiable corner case for the existence of this non-organizational IT subversion. However just as Trump gets away with 'post-truth' flip-flops and such, I don't see his support base as being terribly bothered by this style breach of national IT security by 'one of their own'. Hypocrisy- Jesus taught me to get used to it.
This isn't even the first Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
Those paying attention knew that Colin Powell had done something similar long ago. I explained that in comments way back here [slashdot.org] with many sources I don't want to retype. So in that vein, if Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn really did this, then by all means, drop the hammer on him, Hillary, and Powell in accordance with the rules.
For as many people who worry about Russian hackers, we should really hammer the self-important luddites who insist on compromising our government's opsec.
And no, I won't excuse this kind of nonsense from anyone. I don't care what team he's on, he should play be the rules, and you can see above that I said the same damned thing about Powell weeks ago. I do wonder, though--does anyone know if they bothered to report on the doc showing Colin Powell doing this?
Re: (Score:3)
If you prosecute everyone who breaks the rules, they'll get more creative at writing loopholes into their rules for them to wiggle through.
Rules and policies are for the masses, when you rise to a certain level, you're at the level of the rule makers. Should they follow their own rules? Absolutely. Will they? Never. Force them to and they'll just re-write the rules to make it easier to re-write the rules as needed.
Re: (Score:3)
So, Trump administration.
Re: (Score:3)
If you prosecute everyone who breaks the rules, they'll get more creative at writing loopholes into their rules for them to wiggle through.
It's not necessary to prosecute them; they've been discovered to have violated the provisions of their signed statement agreeing to the provisions regarding electronic security. Revoke their clearances. At which point they're no longer eligible for any government post that requires a security clearance... or any position with a civilian government contractor that requires a security clearance.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Democrats have not only recently rediscovered the virtues of limit government, but also the virtues of following rules?
Precisely! We had Patraeus convicted, there is a 4 star general who went to jail, and a sailor who went to jail for taking photos in a sub, even though it wasn't explicitly against the rules. Now we have Trump say that he doesn't want to hurt the Clintons - they are 'good people'. It would be one thing if he said it's not a top priority - he'd be right then - but to say that he doesn't want anything to happen to them? Leave that to Sessions and the Justice Department.
But yeah, if Trump wants to give t
Re: Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:2, Insightful)
How about pardon for Edward Snowden?
He actually did something useful.
Re: (Score:2)
You are seriously the guy who was talking about treason elsewhere and you wrote THAT!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, given the way that Obama has been cozying up to America's enemies, like Iran, ...
As opposed to our "friends" like Saudi Arabia, who just want us to supply them as they champion *their* brand of Islamic fundamentalism in the ongoing tussle between Sunni and Shia, right?
This just provides evidence that you're very shortsighted, and that Obama is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the 9/11 mob--all Iranians, right?
Re:Nice to see we'll be in better hands (Score:5, Insightful)
And Republicans have learned that those national security rules they spent three years screaming about really aren't all that important.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Tom Cotton to start House investigations into General Flynn.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't claim to be a Republican but you can scroll up the page and find my post saying that everyone should be held to the same standard, including Colin Powell, who appears to have largely escaped notice for doing pretty much the same thing this guy did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as he didn't install an email server on his illegal internet connection, I'm sure state secrets were safe and sound.
Reading TFA, this guy seems to be perfectly in line with typical Trump philosphy of believing he knows better than what all the experts say.
Let me tell you a story about NIPRnet (Score:5, Interesting)
I was called in to help debug a problem with a server running on the NIPR. It seemed several out of every 100 TCP connections it made to the Internet failed inexplicably. An application level retry would immediately succeed but if you let the original TCP socket retry it kept on failing to connect.
So I investigated and it turned out about 2% of TCP -source- ports in the ephemeral range were blocked. Any TCP packet using those originating ports simply failed to arrive at the other side.
So, tracked down the firewall admin at Pearl and she explained that yes, they blocked those ports because they were commonly used by malware. Ports like 1234.
Okay, so even if I buy that that's reasonable, it would only apply to TCP -destination- ports, not TCP source ports. Went back and forth, back and forth. Eventually gave up and hacked the server to avoid the filtered TCP source ports.
And that level of incompetence is why I totally understand anyone who wants a direct Internet connection.
Then again, as someone involved in the Intelligence community he might just have wanted a commercial connection whose IP address wasn't associated with the military for some of his communications. You know, basic opsec.
Re:Let me tell you a story about NIPRnet (Score:5, Interesting)
Auditors grade the state department's unclassified email system every year. By all reports, Clinton's email server was substantially more secure.
She was careless with classified information, I don't cheer that, but I absolutely cheer her choice to use her own, better secured email server for routine unclassified communication. And I roar with delight that she was willing to buck the bureaucracy doing it when nearly every other politician knuckles under to what the bureaucrats tell them they must do.
One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Interesting)
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's way more telling that democrats actually care about security... when it's not a democrat in the spotlight.
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Insightful)
The rule of law applies to us and not them. Just like a King before Magna Carta.
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how hypocritical/stupid do you have to be to nominate someone who blatantly compromised security at the DOD after the Republican House spent years hounding Hillary Clinton about email security as the Secretary of State?
Your question implies that you don't understand the nature of time. When event A happens before event B, normal humans have the ability to evaluate event B by remembering what happened during event A. You seem unable to grasp this concept.
On a more personal note, do you identify more with NAZI propaganda or KKK propaganda?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you lock them up.
No cleverness here, just the good old fashioned "born to rule" bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you are missing the bit where this was a SCIF. Look it up.
This might be considered to be just a bit worse.
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you might be forgetting the bit where Hillary allowed her housekeeper--who isn't even a citizen, let alone cleared--into the SCIF in her home.
Face it: they're "both" corrupt as a three-week-old fish.
Flynn is paid speaker for Russia Today (Score:5, Informative)
He's a pro-Russian General who ignores the advice of his intelligence people. He's visited Russia repeatedly, sometimes on official duty (e.g. give intelligence briefings), other times not. He was a paid speaker for RT, and insists there's nothing wrong with that.
He has this weird view on Iran, which is a Russia's allied puppet in the region. Iran is totally evil, and yet Russia is good, and proposes choices which would drive Iran further towards Russia.
He once suggested giving access to 5 eyes surveillance to Russia to help fight the threat of Islamic extremism. At the time he was pushing a book, but he's since talked up the Russian alliance as means of tackling muslim extremism since, even after being appointed by Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/
And wants to undermine NATO:
"FLYNN: It’s like NATO. Why do three-quarters of NATO [countries] get away with not paying anything? They have to pay their bills. We’ve done a lot, for the better part of half a century, for these countries."
None of them pay *nothing*, they pay their NATO funding, quite a few have low defense spending which is presumably what he's complaining about in a 'Fox News' sort of hyperbole way, e.g. Germany only spends 1.2% of GDP on defense, France 1.8% of GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is an incredibly weird view on Iran, that country that executed all the communists they could find and anyone connected to Russia they could find just after the revolution. It has been tense ever since despite the fall of the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going historical why not go to UK and Russia invading Iran during WW2(supposedly to keep Iranian oil out of Nazi hands though the nearest German territory was 1000s of miles away). Or even earlier lets talk about Iranian-Greek relations because Alexander. Or something more recent all the help Iran gave to the US forces going into Afghanistan after their common enemy Al Qaeda or the bad relations between Iraq and Iran though now they are besties. Nations change alliances as needed per their nation
Re: (Score:2)
The people involved with that in Iran are not only still alive but still in charge (despite advanced age).
Consider that before "correcting" something that was not wrong in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Mossadegh died in 1967. I imagine all the CIA/MI6 folks who overthrew him are now safely beyond accountability.
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Insightful)
One rule for them and another for us.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you think the FBI had any say whatsoever in the decision to prosecute shows just how fucking little you know about US law enforcement. Loretta Lynch was the one who would choose whether to prosecute.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
Depends on the level of classification. Clinton had some documents on her server with very high levels of classification and which she didn't have the authority to declassify because they didn't come from the State Department (satellite images, human intelligence reports).
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:4, Insightful)
> Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
Not just irrelevant, it's literally contradictory. If you have intent, it wasn't negligence and vice versa.
So saying that you'd only prosecute someone for intentional negligence is essentially saying if (intent and (not intent)) { prosecute } which of course cannot possibly reach the 'prosecute' under any circumstances.
Naturally, this matches the results observed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
No, there's good reason to think stuff got shared with Huma and Hillary's lawyers, among others. It's in the docs the FBI released.
Regarding the alleged lack of intent, you can find a good summary here [youtube.com] going over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One rule for them and another for us (Score:5, Insightful)
One rule for them and another for us.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Hillary using e-mail wasn't the problem. It was her setting up an insecure private MS Exchange server in order to avoid oversight from the government or public (via FOIA requests) and to make her willful destruction of evidence so much easier.
I love how people try to downplay this as if it was an "accidental" slip and a trivial oversight on her part. Flynn is obviously a douche as well who needs his ass kicked.
Oh.... almost forgot.... FUCK YOUR PARTISAN BULLSHIT!
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton's email server was not within the laws and policies at the time, it was, however, consistent with what previous administrations had done before those policies were added.
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently don't understand what "at the time" means. AC apparently does. Next?
Re: (Score:2)
Then he and Clinton can share a cell (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if you think Clinton shouldn't be in jail, then don't act like this guy should be either. You either think both parties should be in jail when they do something corrupt, or you're an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Preaching to the choir. (Score:5, Insightful)
The network connection was among other rules the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency broke because he found them to be "stupid," including sometimes sneaking out of a CIA station in Iraq without authorization and sharing classified information with NATO allies without approval, ...
If I had a nickel for every rule or person I thought was stupid but had to follow anyway I could retire by now, but, like it or not, that's the job. Sure, at a certain level, it's also your responsibility to point things out and make recommendations, but if they are ignored, declined or overruled then you gotta live with it.
Not fake news at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the relevant parts of the summary.
According to ... according to ... apparently ... doesn't provide a clear picture as to why... It's likely ... or possibly ... If ... It's also possible ...
Everything else in the summary is conjecture.
Re:Not fake news at all. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, like this gem from the New Yorker article:
Islam is not a religion, Flynn and Ledeen wrote, but a political ideology bent on destroying Judeo-Christian civilization. Flynn began saying that he had been fired because President Obama disagreed with his views on terrorism and wanted to hide the growth of ISIS. I haven't found anyone yet who heard him say this while he was still in the military. In the past, I've asked Flynn directly about this claim; he has told me that he doesn't have any proof -- it's just something he feels was true.
Wow! Much insight. So truthful.
Or this as well:
The lifelong intelligence officer, who once valued tips gleaned from tribal reporters, has become a ready tweeter of hackneyed conspiracy theories. He reposts the vitriol of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim commentators. "Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL," he tweeted in February, linking to a false claim that Islam wants eighty per cent of humanity enslaved or exterminated.
So yeah, I can see how it's all conjecture when it comes straight from the guy's mouth or his own postings. Complete fabrications. Nothing but fake news.
Fake news about 'Islamophobia' (Score:2)
The 'Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL' is something that's easy to trace back, having done it so often since 9/11. It's the term 'Islamophobia'. Whenever anybody says anything against either Islam or Muslims, they are accused of being 'Islamophobes', which is the term used for anti-Muslim bigots.
And here is what the rebuttal is. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Like if one is scared of a butterfly or a spider, that's a phobia, since those 2 things are harmless. But if one is scared of a scorpi
Re: (Score:3)
And here is what the rebuttal is. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Like if one is scared of a butterfly or a spider, that's a phobia, since those 2 things are harmless.
You know some spiders actually have a really nasty bite, right? Also:
Since 9/11, there have been close to 30,000 jihadist attacks worldwide - be it the 7/7 attacks in London,
An average of 6 people per year have been killed by terrorists in the UK, 52 since 2007. If you think fear of terrorists is justified, you should be fuckin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good god, man. The world is not a video game.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, 80% is completely bogus. it's not 80%, it's to kill or enslave whoever isn't a Muslim.
It's even more strict than that. In order to be spared, a country must be part of "the House of Islam" (Dar al-islam), which is defined by 3 rules:
1. Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.
2. The country should be ruled by a Muslim government
3. It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries.
Everything else is heathens.
There are lesser targets (like Dar al-Dawa, pro-Muslim countries that don't match the 3 rules) but they're also slated for extermination if they don't become proper Muslim countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The only Dar al-Islam region in recent history was Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. Anything else was at best al-Dawa.
O
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so hard to understand that just because a religion or an interpretation of it in theory requires a violent act doesn't mean all followers actually follow through? This speaks more about bigotry.
What speaks more about bigotry is how liberals will get their panties in a bunch when someone mentions jihadist mass murderers, as if acknowledging the problem is the same as not making the difference between "normal muslims" and radicals.
Here's real numbers for you. Around the world, there are roughly 75 million muslims that condone and/or support terrorist activities. It's a small percentage (there's around 1.5 billion muslims total) but there's no other religion with such a massive following of fanatics.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything else in the summary is conjecture.
Sure, you just have to follow the lead to the source. [newyorker.com]
Flynn broke rules he thought were stupid. He once told me about a period he spent assigned to a C.I.A. station in Iraq, when he would sometimes sneak out of the compound without the “insane” required approval from C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia. He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden. There was also the time he gave classified information to nato allies without approval, an incident which prompted an investigation, and a warning from superiors. During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is bullshit!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me.
So this is information the reporter collected from sources which include Flynn himself. The question is if you believe the reporter and if you do, do you believe sources like Flynn.
Re: (Score:2)
Flynn broke rules he thought were stupid. He once told me about a period he spent assigned to a C.I.A. station in Iraq, when he would sometimes sneak out of the compound without the “insane” required approval from C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia. He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden. There was also the time he gave classified information to nato allies without approval, an incident which prompted an investigation, and a warning from superiors. During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is bullshit!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me.
So this is information the reporter collected from sources which include Flynn himself.
In this quote, replace "Flynn" with "Jack Bauer" or "Carrie Mathison" and tell me it truly sounds like incompetence.
Mavericks and people who thrive in large, heavily hierarchical organizations without losing their free will are awesome. I mean, maybe this Flynn guy is some kind of idiot but that's not something that is clearly established in that article. If anything he sounds like someone I would have loved to work with.
Re:Not fake news at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual article is much more straight forward. Note these lines:
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
he gave classified information to NATO allies without approval
There's nothing ambiguous there. But while I think it's unlikely he damaged national security with his flouting of the rules, the following paragraph is more disconcerting.
Flynn was one of the few high-ranking officers who disdained the Army’s culture of conformity. But McChrystal also knew he had to protect Flynn from that same culture. He “boxed him in,” someone who had worked with both men told me last week, by encouraging Flynn to keep his outbursts in check and surrounding him with subordinates who would challenge the unsubstantiated theories he tended to indulge.
And then there's this:
His subordinates started a list of what they called “Flynn facts,” things he would say that weren’t true, like when he asserted that three-quarters of all new cell phones were bought by Africans or, later, that Iran had killed more Americans than Al Qaeda.
This is the man who will be advising our president on issues pertaining to national security. A man who indulges in unsubstantiated theories .
Re: (Score:2)
Its kinda stunning that (most) of the GOP is going along with a wholesale appointment of incompetence.
He doesn't owe them. They did not help him get elected, at all. So at the moment they have no leverage whatsoever. Later there will be some quid pro quo going on because they will need each other, but in the meantime he's a kid in a candy store and he's picking people who won't prevent him from Making America Great Again.
How? (Score:2)
I doubt it was a wired network. I suspect that an unauthorized hardware line would be very difficult to install unnoticed. Probably wireless Internet over a cellular network. Which raises the question: How does someone operate a cellular phone/modem/router in a SCIF without getting caught by periodic RF scans?
Politics aside: I'm going to call bullshit on this until someone has a reasonable idea as to how it was done.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the intelligence leaks... I assume there is more to the story on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it was a wired network. I suspect that an unauthorized hardware line would be very difficult to install unnoticed. Probably wireless Internet over a cellular network. Which raises the question: How does someone operate a cellular phone/modem/router in a SCIF without getting caught by periodic RF scans?
Politics aside: I'm going to call bullshit on this until someone has a reasonable idea as to how it was done.
Or maybe vpn proxy services magically work from within the super secure monitored networks. If he had to go to extraordinary lengths to make it work, you might reasonably be suspicious as to what was so important to keep from the prying eyes of the US government. I hear being chums with Russia is the new thing in incoming executive branch leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
By shouting at the "little people" who turn up to complain about him violating the rules I suspect. I've heard about similar things and an MP getting transferred and the case dropped when he uncovered something like this.
GENERALS.... (Score:2)
Do exactly what their rank can handle.
It's Begun (Score:2)
Build the fence! Drain the pond! Lock her in a room and complement her!
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
A secret network in the Pentagon? And no one would notice its existence, much less its installation? This one doesn't pass the laugh test.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's far worse if he actually did do what he said.
Trump picks advisor willing to call rules stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems Trumps new advisor is willing to call out stupid rules and even refuse to follow them (no idea if these were laws or internal policy). He seems to have done this stuff during the presidencies of Bush and Obama, and eventually got fired but not criminally prosecuted. I'm not familiar enough with the rules he broke to know whether they are laws, nor whether they are stupid. But he does seem like a good match for Trump.
I'm out (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't vote for Trump... but I'm tired of seeing this drivel on Slashdot.
I've been here a LONG time (~15 years). I've seen tons of _crap_ come through this site in that time... but this stupid political stuff takes the absolute cake.
This is supposed to be a damn technology site! I come here to get away from the normal news cycle and talk about technology with others who are interested in it.
I hate to give it up... but I'm out for now. I'm sure I'll check back in a few months... but maybe not.
Bye guys, it's been fun (mostly).
(Cue people telling me I won't be missed... which I won't be)
Re:I'm out (Score:5, Insightful)
You could, you know, just skip the stories that don't interest you? That's worked for me since the Chips&Dips era, old-timer.
If he broke the law... (Score:2)
Contemplating the meaning of "classified". (Score:2)
Ever wonder just what those 100 emails with classified information might have contained? How it would have destroyed our country if those secrets had been compromised?
Take a look other classified information that has leaked. What you see are the things our own government is required to tell us, but won't, and if not that, then things that make politicians and bureaucrats look bad.
No, the state department does not get OPSEC, OPLAN, or SCI materials. They get stuff like whose diplomats are vulnerable to being
Ah.. but was there INTENT? (Score:2)
Maybe he didn't mean to do it.
After all, if you don't intend to jeopardize national security, you're still in the clear.
Cut the guy a break, can't we? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Bullshit (Score:3)
He "installed a forbidden internet connection" in the FUCKING PENTAGON? Excuse me? Either he had his very own cat6 ran through the building just for him, in secret (fucking impossible) or he tethered his fucking smartphone (big fucking deal.) Talk about a tempest in a teapot.
Re: (Score:2)
More Fake News. Somehow a military officer violated security rules by the dozen with impunity. I wonder who their "source" is? Putin?
Re:Slashdot keeps running anti trump articles (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, read a fucking dictionary. "fake news" does not simply mean news you don't like, reflects badly on your tribe or hurts your precious feelings. If means fake. As in did not actually happen. Like Obama not being a US citizen, or pizzagate or that quote about Trump saying he'd run as a republican because republicans are idiots. All those are fake because they're about things which never happened.
Actual news you don't like which might actually challenge some blindly held misconceptions of yours is not fake.
Re: (Score:3)
The Bubble [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They still can't get over that Trump has won. I love it! Cry babies gonna cry.
/. is an international safe space for pro-Hilary crybabies, so please keep your micro-aggression out of here, or at least send trigger warnings before you post such things
Re:Slashdot keeps running anti trump articles (Score:5, Informative)
More like a safe space for hordes of ACs who can't make up their minds whether their stiffies are for Trump or Putin, you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Details about this conjecture would be interesting to hear, indeed. I wonder how they handle cable TV feeds there.
Re:Nobody noticed... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously? He had a non-DoD internet connection installed in his office at The Pentagon, and nobody noticed.
What happened? Some guy in a Comcast van showed up to do the install and security just waved them on thru to do whatever they felt like?
No chance. The comcast guy would install the connection point on the far side of the building from his office and he'd have to buy an extra long ethernet cable and string it through doors or over the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for all we know it was noticed or it might even have been a DoD connection and no one ever told him.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton didn't go to jail for insecure email sending top secret material?
Then I don't know why I should care anyone was using insecure internet at the pentagon.
Either you have laws or you don't When you say that you laws don't apply then why should anyone care when they are broken by anyone else?
If you send Clinton to jail, then I can start caring about what someone does wth an insecure internet connection at the pentagon, which I would say is treason if we are actually starting to enforce laws.
Until Clinton goes to jail, I see no reason for anyone to treat the law with any respect whatsoever.
Whatever happened to the Constitution specifying "innocent until proven guilty"?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would someone who wants any action that annoys a man that they wish could act as a King and thus declared treason give a shit about the Constitution? Look at his other posts. Bring back King George all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
She was proven guilty, the FBI said so. They just said it was too much trouble to prosecute her.
Whatever happened to "punishment for being found guilty".
When did she get a trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution, had the evidence carefully examined, and got a decision made based on that?
For that matter, when did the FBI ever say she was guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Coney gave a long speech detailing exactly how she broke the law then concluded it by saying that the FBI recommended no charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Coney gave a long speech detailing exactly how she broke the law then concluded it by saying that the FBI recommended no charges.
How, exactly, did she break the law? (Not a bait question, seriously, I honestly want to hear what you think she did illegally)
Re: (Score:3)
Comey (not "Coney") gave a long speech *alleging* that HC may have broken the law. Unless and until she is actually charged and actually faces trial, that's all it is. *Alleged*.
Quoth the law of the land, no less.
Mitt Happens - the choke artist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Logic fail. "Wrong" != "Fake".