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 Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked.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."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:44PM (7 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
Where did you look? Because this is what Comey announced in 2016:
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:
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
Here is a good summary of part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag [youtube.com]