NSA Employee Leaked Classified Cyber Intel, Charged With Espionage (nextgov.com) 69
A former National Security Agency employee was arrested on Wednesday for spying on the U.S. government on behalf of a foreign government. Nextgov reports: Jareh Sebastian Dalke, 30, was arrested in Denver, Colorado after allegedly committing three separate violations of the Espionage Act. Law enforcement allege that the violations were committed between August and September of 2022, after he worked as a information systems security designer at the agency earlier that summer. Dalke allegedly used an encrypted email account to leak sensitive and classified documents he obtained while working at the NSA to an individual who claimed to have worked for a foreign government.
The individual who received the documents was later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent. Dalke was arrested in September upon arriving at the location where he and the undercover agent agreed to exchange documentation for $85,000 in compensation. "Dalke told that individual that he had taken highly sensitive information relating to foreign targeting of U.S. systems, and information on U.S. cyber operations, among other topics," the press release from the Department of Justice reads. "To prove he had access to sensitive information, Dalke transmitted excerpts of three classified documents to the undercover FBI agent. Each excerpt contained classification markings." "Should Dalke be found guilty, his sentence could include the dealth penalty or any term of years up to life imprisonment," notes the report.
The individual who received the documents was later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent. Dalke was arrested in September upon arriving at the location where he and the undercover agent agreed to exchange documentation for $85,000 in compensation. "Dalke told that individual that he had taken highly sensitive information relating to foreign targeting of U.S. systems, and information on U.S. cyber operations, among other topics," the press release from the Department of Justice reads. "To prove he had access to sensitive information, Dalke transmitted excerpts of three classified documents to the undercover FBI agent. Each excerpt contained classification markings." "Should Dalke be found guilty, his sentence could include the dealth penalty or any term of years up to life imprisonment," notes the report.
There are no ... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was a Sting Operation (Score:1)
A failed attempt is still a crime (Score:2)
It was a thought crime. He didn't actually leak anything to a foreign government. He just thought he did.
No it was an actual crime. He just failed at it. One is still guilty for the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they're dogs [google.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
catch people who already committed a crime
They have different priorities*. Specifically, to stop intelligence from leaking out. Once the crime has been committed, the serious damage has been done. And punishment does little to stop future infractions. The little people who actually do the leaking are expendable as far as foreign intelligence is concerned..
You applied for and received a security clearance. That implies a higher standard of care with the information you have been entrusted with than that of the general public. The process of securin
Two others in a separate incident (Score:4, Interesting)
A husband and wife who were medical professionals within the Army are charged with conspiring to provide [cnn.com] the Russian government with personal medical records from the US government and military.
It appears the wife was motivated by patriotism toward Russia while the husband contemplated volunteering for the Russian army after it invaded Ukraine, but said he lacked combat experience. Not that the current crop [9cache.com] of 300K conscripts have any combat experience [9cache.com] which would stop them from being sent to the frontline.
Also, for those keeping track, Russian telegram channels are in a tizzy over the impending collapse of the Lyman pocket [twitter.com] and the loss of thousands of experienced Russian troops.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter what gender? All bringing "trans" does is try go create some positive feedback for the traitor. Doesn't matter what they got under the hood, a crime is a crime, and someone committing it needs to be tried for what they did, not what they are.
Now, if this were an issue of the charges being fake just to persecute... different story. However, why add stupid bias to conflate what might be a cut and dried case?
I'm all in for supporting trans people but it does seem a 'notable' fact about them that isn't being reported much. I actually had to go back to a contemporary buzzfeed article to confirm it wasn't some weird rumour [buzzfeednews.com].
It's also notable that they were a male to female who apparently started identifying as male again (which is pretty rare).
Re: (Score:1)
Does it matter what gender? All bringing "trans" does is try go create some positive feedback for the traitor.
They wear it on their sleeves themselves. If it doesn't get mentioned that'd be bad reporting.
It's a strange complaint to make. Since "gender" is part of "identity" (if nothing else, certainly according to adherents), and "being trans" is all about making everybody else treat you different than before you went "trans", yes, yes it matters insofar as it belongs with the "this gets mentioned" set of data.
Moreso since the US has a "right to know" stance, so full name gets mentioned in the news. It'd be str
Re: (Score:2)
the pronouns thing
The pronouns thing is simple. A group has the right to label itself whatever it wants. A group does not have the right to define how other groups label themselves. For example LGBTQ+ has no more right to impose a label on heterosexuals happy with their birth gender as "cis" than such heterosexuals have the right to impose a label on any branch of the LGBTQ+ tree. Each group gets to pick their own labels.
If someone responds to a pronoun question with "hetero", "straight male", etc you don't get to correct
Re: (Score:2)
A person gets to be called whatever they want, unless the other person considers it an offensive label. Then they get to ignore the pronoun. For example a person embraces a slur to take away its power, uses that slur as their pronoun. It may be ignored.
Similar story with trying to correct someone else's pronou
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's interesting that the CNN article you linked to didn't mention that the "wife" is the first ever "trans" Army officer. Since just a couple of stories down points out the first woman to be elected as secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, it's only fair that we also note the first trans Army officer, who also is also the first trans traitor.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Not a problem. We'll make sure when Christians are selling secrets to foreign governments it will be pointed out.
See how dumb that sounds?
Re: (Score:2)
That makes her subterfuge all the more strange. Does she know what they do to trans people in Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How dare you refer to Trump that way!
Snowden? (Score:4, Interesting)
How come the FBI didn't catch Snowden trying to exchange information for cash?
Is it because he handed over data to a trusted journalist in the best interest of the public instead of money?
Re: (Score:2)
How come the FBI didn't catch Snowden trying to exchange information for cash?
Simple: Because Snowden has an actual clue how things work and never tried to do that. Anybody willing to pay for secret documents on the Internet is going to be part of a trap.
The guy from the story is a moron. Probably also worthless as a "information systems security designer". I wonder whether they specifically hired him so they could tempt him and then produce a nice "success". Would not be the first time US "law" enforcement has done that.
Re: Snowden? (Score:1)
When he first went to the press he was suspected of another info leak. It looked like the data he outed was gathered after he was suspected but still technically worked there. The press angle bought him a few weeks until they could not keep him out of court any longer....then skee-saddle....! Blah blah fair trial whatever....
Re: Snowden? (Score:2)
There's lots of room to fuck up without trying to sell secrets to a foreign government, and Snowden fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How'd he fuck up? It's not clear he would have been found out if he hadn't revealed himself.
He revealed classified info that the enemy (al-Qaeda types) would later read. That's a f'up know as aiding the enemy. Its quite the enhancement to legal charges.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand when Snowden was in the NSA, the security system was shit.
I imagine they have made some changes since, hence the reason they caught this guy so soon.
Snowden did not have best public interest in mind (Score:1)
How come the FBI didn't catch Snowden trying to exchange information for cash? Is it because he handed over data to a trusted journalist in the best interest of the public instead of money?
No, Snowden did not have the best public interest in mind. If he had, he would have gone a whistleblower path that did NOT involve releasing classified information that the enemy would in fact read. He in fact provided aid to the enemy. That harms the public. What he should have done was approach a friendly member of the US House or Senate and inform them and then have his journalist friend "leak" to the public that a member of the intelligence community has approached Congress as a whistleblower, revealing
Re: (Score:1)
Snowden had the example of what happened to Thomas Drake. Drake had previously tried to go down that whistleblower path and was charged with the espionage act and faced life ruination for his trouble, narrowly escaping prison.
Snowded risked a lot, and sacrificed, to prove that James "least untruthful" Clapper was lying. Whatever 'harm' to the public or 'aid to the enemey' there was is purely imagined by likewise dishonest actors.
The same disingenuous scumbags that called people conspiracy theorists for beli
Re: (Score:1)
Snowden had the example of what happened to Thomas Drake. Drake had previously tried to go down that whistleblower path and was charged with the espionage act ...
Because Drake, like Snowden, released information to a journalist. That is not whistleblowing. The only things journalists should hear is that an member of the intelligence community approached Congress as a whistleblower over illegal spying on American citizens. That is the story you want to get to the public. Not intelligence community documents. The latter takes you off the whistleblow path.
... now call Snowden a traitor for providing the actual proof
No, for making internal documents public. Including the ability of the enemy to read the documents. That is aid to
Draken and Snowden == heroic patriots (Score:1)
Yes and without evidence, people like you can simply lie and deny that any wrongdoing took place. That is why Drake released unclassified information to the journalists, because the people are the ultimate authority when their constitutional rights are being brazenly violated and congress is too complicit, complacent, or corrupt to do anything about it.
"the enemy" for the jackboots and authoritarians in this story is the informed public.
Draken and Snowden, releases read by Al-Qaeda (Score:2)
Yes and without evidence ...
No, there is evidence that al-Qaeda types read the information released. So no, not heroes, they chose paths that provided aid to the enemy.
That is why Drake released unclassified information to the journalists, ...
Snowden did not, he released classified, failed at redaction at times, and his documents were read by the enemy.. One example:
"the exposure of intelligence activity against al-Qaeda"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And being unclassified does not mean the enemy was not aided. Its is big business to collect, analyze and report on unclassified information, corporati
Easy Solution (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why didn't he declassify the documents simply by thinking about it with his 6D chess brain, not that he every had classified documents in the first place, or tried to overflow an election purely because he didn't win!
Re: (Score:2)
Because he didn't have the authority to declassify the documents that a sitting president has?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Trump was president when he removed the documents, legally and officially. What does claims of the stolen election have to do with that? Is your claim that Trump removed the classified documents from the White House after Biden started inhabiting it? I wasn't aware that he was accused of breaking into the White House and stealing classified records, please provide some kind of documentation of that claim, as I would love to read about Trump scaling the White House fence dressed all in black, and snea
Re: (Score:1)
What Mr. Anonymous Coward is referring to is that there is no evidence of any kind that President Former Guy ever declassified anything, his lawyers have never made this argument in any court filings, and this defense only appeared long after President Former Guy ceased being President. Also, 18 former administration officials, including 2 chiefs of staffs and 1 national security adviser have told the media no such magic system existed.
Even if we assume the magic declassification spell was used successfully
Entrapment? (Score:1)
Who contacted who?
Re: (Score:2)
Providing the opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. It doesn't matter who contacted who.
Re: Entrapment? (Score:2)
It might not be entrapment in the US. But offering someone money to commit a crime, then arresting them for committing that crime would be illegal and the evidence would definitely be inadmissible in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
When will Agent Orange be behind bars ? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Interestingly they didn't wait for almost two years to get him and say he risks death !
And justice for all... who can afford it !!!
The USA, just like my own country, is a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
No intent to distribute, and no actual distribution. At least no evidence of such.
Taking documents is waaaay different from taking documents and trying to sell them.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the NSA will look through every phrase in every document to see if foreign governments learned anything from Cheetolini, but that's gonna take time. It's almost like two superficially similar situations can actually be radically different.
Espionage vs leaking (Score:1)
At the plebe level they call it espionage. At the congressional level and up, they call it leaking. Funny how the term used determines the outcome...
So cheaply? (Score:2)
From a cursory search of job listings, "information systems security designer" is a job description that should push you at least a touch over $100k/year; and it's one you won't even be considered for unless you've got the combination of clearance and at least the appearance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He is fundraising $1 million per day off of this. It's almost like it's a deliberate ploy to vacuum cash from the MAGA rubes more effectively.
Traitors should be dealt with harshly (Score:1)
Sounds familiar... (Score:1)