Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday October 25 2019, @07:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the buttery-males dept.

White House kicks infosec team to curb in IT office shakeup

An internal White House memo published today by Axios reveals that recent changes to the information operations and security organizations there have left the security team in tumult, with many members headed for the door. And the chief of the White House's computer network defense branch—who wrote the memo after submitting his resignation—warned that the White House was likely headed toward another network compromise and theft of data.

The White House Office of the Chief Information Security Officer was set up after the 2014 breach of an unclassified White House network by Russian intelligence—a breach discovered by a friendly foreign government. But in a July reorganization, the OCISO was dissolved and its duties placed under the White House Office of the Chief Information Officer, led by CIO Ben Pauwels and Director of White House IT Roger L. Stone. Stone was pulled from the ranks of the National Security Council where he was deputy senior director for resilience policy. (Stone is not related to indicted Republican political consultant Roger J. Stone.)

[...] "It is my express opinion that the remaining incumbent OCISO staff is being systematically targeted for removal from the Office of Administration," departing White House network defense branch chief Dimitrios Vastakis wrote in the memo. The security team had seen incentive pay revoked, scope of duties cut, and access to systems and facilities reduced, Vastakis noted. Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked. "In addition, habitually being hostile to incumbent OCISO staff has become a staple tactic for the new leadership... it has forced the majority of [senior civil servant] OCISO staff to resign."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:49PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:49PM (#911718)

    Pompeo has no interest in shielding Hillary from accusations of wrongdoing

    And why would you assume anyone in DC gets to a position of power without being blackmailed from multiple angles?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:56PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:56PM (#911721)

    And why would you assume anyone in DC gets to a position of power without being blackmailed from multiple angles?

    Do you have any evidence that Pompeo was blackmailed to come to the "proper" conclusion regarding Hilary's emails? From my "angle", it appears that this is entirely your assumption.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:27PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:27PM (#911736)

      You have evidence he isn't blackmailed? The default assumption is that everyone who gets into power is blackmailed. You stay in power by blackmailing the people who blackmailed you. Do you not understand how the world works?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:44PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:44PM (#911746)

        Do you not understand how the world works?

        Yes, I understand how the world works. I also understand how to have a logical argument in good faith. You made the claim that Pompeo is being blackmailed to come to a certain conclusion regarding Hilary's emails; you have the burden to prove it. If you want to convince me, you will need to produce some evidence, which I have asked for. So far, you haven't provided any.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:51PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:51PM (#911752)

          No, I really don't have the burden to prove it. That they are all blackmailing each other to survive is a first principle you need to accept to understand how the world works.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:55PM (#911758)

            So, I feel very safe in assuming you have no evidence to back up your claim. May I take my victory lap now?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:15PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:15PM (#911773)

              The evidence is that he is in power. I don't need any more.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:21PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:21PM (#911805)

                In that case, I am going to assume that you are a troll on Putin's payroll. The evidence is that you are here, desperately trying to defend the indefensible. I don't need any more.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday October 25 2019, @09:19PM (2 children)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 25 2019, @09:19PM (#911871) Journal

          The real answer is that one needs to accept varying levels of uncertainty. To decide on the available evidence either that he was or wasn't blackmailed is clear bias. To assert that "nobody gets into a position of power without being blackmailed multiple ways" is probable paranoia unless there is evidence that has not been displayed.

          My *assumption* (which is without certainty) is that Hillary broke several rules in the handling of email, but didn't do (i.e. wasn't responsible for) anything major, and that many others have been shown to be breaking those same rules.

          FWIW, the rules clearly stated that those emails were to be on an official server. Also the official server was less secure than the one she used. And there's no evidence that I've encountered that she sent anything classified over that server, or received anything more than confidential (and I'm not sure about that). The news coverage I've read has been it's usual honest and thorough self, so my picture is rather foggy. Anyway to blame someone for receiving something unsolicited is a bit strange, though if I understand the laws it's the legal standard.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @12:19AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @12:19AM (#911928)

            And there's no evidence that I've encountered that she sent anything classified over that server, or received anything more than confidential (and I'm not sure about that).

            Where did you look? Because this is what Comey announced in 2016:

            Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

            For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

            https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system [fbi.gov]

            He originally called it "grossly negligent", but then changed the wording because that meant it was illegal:

            Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with
            FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s
            handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,”
            but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would
            bring a case based on the facts developed in the
            Midyear investigation. Over the course of the next 2
            months, Comey’s draft statement underwent various
            language changes, including the following:

            The description of Clinton’s handling of
            classified information was changed from
            “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;”

            A statement that the sheer volume of
            information classified as Secret supported an
            inference of gross negligence was removed and
            replaced with a statement that the classified
            information they discovered was “especially
            concerning because all of these emails were
            housed on servers not supported by full-time
            staff”;

            A statement that the FBI assessed that it was
            “reasonably likely” that hostile actors gained
            access to Clinton’s private email server was
            changed to “possible.” The statement also
            acknowledged that the FBI investigation and its
            forensic analysis did not find evidence that
            Clinton’s email server systems were
            compromised; and

            A paragraph summarizing the factors that led
            the FBI to assess that it was possible that
            hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was
            added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s
            use of her private email for an exchange with
            then President Obama while in the territory of a
            foreign adversary. This reference later was
            changed to “another senior government
            official,” and ultimately was omitted.

            Each version of the statement criticized Clinton’s
            handling of classified information. Comey told us that
            he included criticism of former Secretary Clinton’s
            uncharged conduct because “unusual transparency...was
            necessary for an unprecedented situation,” and that
            such transparency “was the best chance we had of
            having the American people have confidence that the
            justice system works[.]”

            https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download [justice.gov]

            So obviously you are unfamiliar with any of the basic facts of this situation. I would recommend reading that OIG report in full. Lots of hints about stuff we have yet to see come to light in there.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @01:31AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @01:31AM (#911947)

            Here is a good summary of part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag [youtube.com]