Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the intelligence-matters dept.

A federal contractor was arrested in August for unlawful retention of classified documents:

A federal contractor suspected of leaking powerful National Security Agency hacking tools has been arrested and charged with stealing classified information from the U.S. government, according to court records and a law enforcement official familiar with the case. Harold Thomas Martin III, 51, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, was charged with theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, authorities said. He was arrested in August after investigators searched his home in Glen Burnie, Md., and found documents and digital information stored on various devices that contained highly classified information, authorities said. The breadth of the damage Martin is alleged to have caused was not immediately clear, though officials alleged some of the documents he took home "could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States." Investigators are probing whether Martin was responsible for an apparent leak that led to a cache of NSA hacking tools appearing online in August, according to an official familiar with the case.

From the US DoJ release:

A criminal complaint has been filed charging Harold Thomas Martin III, age 51, of Glen Burnie, Maryland, with theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials by a government employee or contractor. According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Martin was a contractor with the federal government and had a top secret national security clearance. Martin was arrested late on August 27, 2016. The complaint was filed on August 29, 2016, and unsealed today.

Also at The New York Times , NBC, PBS, the Baltimore Sun .


Original Submission

Related Stories

NSA Contractor Accused of "Stealing" Terabytes of Information, Charged Under Espionage Act 33 comments

Federal prosecutors have charged former NSA contractor Harold T. Martin III under the Espionage Act:

Harold T. Martin III is expected to appear at a federal courthouse in Baltimore on Friday for a hearing to consider whether he should remain in U.S. custody, as prosecutors announced in a court filing that they plan to file Espionage Act charges against him.

The FBI is investigating whether Martin may have transferred six bankers boxes' worth of paper documents and 50,000 gigabytes of electronic materials to anyone else, according to documents filed Thursday. So far, investigators said they have not found any connection to a foreign power. Martin's public defenders, James Wyda and Deborah Boardman, have said that he presents no flight risk and that "there's no evidence he intended to betray his country."

Martin, a former Navy reservist, has been in federal custody since late August. That's when FBI agents executed search warrants at his suburban Maryland home, uncovering what they describe as "overwhelming" proof he mishandled classified information. Among the materials they found: the personal information of government employees and a top-secret document "regarding specific operational plans against a known enemy of the United States and its allies," according to the court filing.

The trove of information reportedly includes hacking tools that were recently offered for sale by a group that calls itself The Shadow Brokers.

12-page court filing: United States of America v. Harold T. Martin, III

Previously:
NSA Contractor Harold Martin III Arrested
Probe of Leaked U.S. NSA Hacking Tools Examines Operative's ‘Mistake’


Original Submission

The Shadow Brokers Identify Hundreds of Targets Allegedly Hacked by the NSA 5 comments

The Shadow Brokers are back, and they have a treat for you:

"TheShadowBrokers is having special trick or treat for Amerikanskis tonight," said the Monday morning post, which was signed by the same encryption key used in the August posts. "Many missions into your networks is/was coming from these ip addresses." Monday's leak came as former NSA contractor Harold Thomas Martin III remains in federal custody on charges that he hoarded an astounding 50 terabytes of data in his suburban Maryland home. Much of the data included highly classified information such as the names of US intelligence officers and highly sensitive methods behind intelligence operations. Martin came to the attention of investigators looking into the Shadow Brokers' August leak. Anonymous people with knowledge of the investigation say they don't know what connection, if any, Martin has to the group or the leaks.

[...] According to analyses from researchers here and here, Monday's dump contains 352 distinct IP addresses and 306 domain names that purportedly have been hacked by the NSA. The timestamps included in the leak indicate that the servers were targeted between August 22, 2000 and August 18, 2010. The addresses include 32 .edu domains and nine .gov domains. In all, the targets were located in 49 countries, with the top 10 being China, Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany, India, Taiwan, Mexico, Italy, and Russia. Vitali Kremez, a senior intelligence analyst at security firm Flashpoint, also provides useful analysis here. [...] Other purported NSA tools discussed in Monday's dump have names including DEWDROP, INCISION, JACKLADDER, ORANGUTAN, PATCHICILLIN, RETICULUM, SIDETRACK, AND STOCSURGEON. Little is immediately known about the tools, but the specter that they may be implants or exploits belonging to the NSA is understandably generating intrigue in both security and intelligence circles.

Previously:

"The Shadow Brokers" Claim to Have Hacked NSA
NSA 'Shadow Brokers' Hack Shows SpyWar With Kremlin is Turning Hot
Cisco Begins Patching an NSA Exploit Released by the Shadow Brokers
Probe of Leaked U.S. NSA Hacking Tools Examines Operative's 'Mistake'
NSA Contractor Harold Martin III Arrested
NSA Contractor Accused of "Stealing" Terabytes of Information, Charged Under Espionage Act


Original Submission

Former NSA Contractor Harold Martin Indicted 24 comments

Days after the Washington Post reported on the hoarding of Tailored Access Operations tools by Harold T. Martin III, a federal grand jury has indicted the former NSA contractor:

A federal grand jury has indicted a former National Security Agency contractor on 20 counts of willful retention of national defense information.

According to prosecutors, Harold "Hal" Martin took a slew of highly classified documents out of secure facilities and kept them at his home and in his car. Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that among those materials, Martin is alleged to have taken 75 percent of the hacking tools that were part of the Tailored Access Operations, an elite hacking unit within NSA.

The indictment outlines 20 specific documents that he is accused of having taken, including "a March 2014 NSA leadership briefing outlining the development and future plans for a specific NSA organization."

Previously: NSA Contractor Harold Martin III Arrested
NSA Contractor Accused of "Stealing" Terabytes of Information, Charged Under Espionage Act
The Shadow Brokers Identify Hundreds of Targets Allegedly Hacked by the NSA


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: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:51AM

    He should have just told them his last name was Clinton. Bam. No prosecution.

    --
    We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:08AM (#410972)

      He didnt intend to do it.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:36AM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:36AM (#410989) Journal

        Yes, and as we all know, intent totally doesn't matter. Murder and manslaughter are the exact same thing

        18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
        doesn't say anything along the lines of:

        Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

        I'm so surprised by such a blatant Clinton false-equivalency post!

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @10:23AM

          False-equivalency? You poor, naive Monkey. How many potential witnesses against her need to die in suspicious circumstances before your red pill kicks in do you think?

          --
          We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:15PM (#411056)

            Jesus fucking christ, you too?
            Fuck, I didn't realize my opinion of you could go any lower.

            And this, from the guy who used to brag about how smart he was [theregister.co.uk] because it took great intelligence to break out of the internet echo chamber.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:40AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:40AM (#411052) Journal

      Exactly, all he had to say was that he was, "extremely careless."

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:29PM (#411063)

        You've got to be pretty dense to not see the difference between the two. Really dense. Or just ignorant. This is more in line with a Snowden than a Clinton. The interesting question here is determining what his intentions were with the material.

        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:57PM

          by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:57PM (#411090)

          In that case, we should throw him a ticker tape parade for being a hero.

          Clinton must be stopped at virtually any cost. I wouldn't recommend assassination because that's a bit overboard, but the woman represents an existential threat to America as we know it. Trump is a dumby, but she's shown a complete lack of remorse or even comprehension about any of the things she's done wrong. And it's a rather long list with serious consequences. Trump isn't much better, but most of it can be expected of just about any business person managing a large enterprise.

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Thexalon on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:01PM

            by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:01PM (#411153) Homepage

            I wouldn't recommend assassination because that's a bit overboard, but the woman represents an existential threat to America as we know it.

            Please explain exactly what Hillary can do as president that she couldn't have blackmailed Bill into doing in, say, 1995. Or, if she wasn't willing to risk it then, in 2000 when Gore had already lost and Bill could do whatever he wanted without facing any repercussions (e.g. pardoning Marc Rich).

            That's where most of the Clinton conspiracy theories break down: If Hillary Clinton was going to do something terrible, she could have done it fairly easily in the 1990's. Compare that to spending 8 years slumming it in the Senate, then losing to Obama and spending 4 more years running around playing diplomat, and then having to win an election. Oh, and since according to most Clinton conspiracy theories she can and does commit murder with impunity, why didn't she simply take out the 4 people ahead of her in the presidential succession when she was Secretary of State?

            --
            If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:50PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:50PM (#411176) Journal

              You're working from a model that assumes that the Clintons are the ones who are orchestrating the conspiracy. They aren't. It's more accurate to liken them to consiglieri to the Oligarchy/Powers That Be/Masters of the Universe/Deep State/UniParty/Lizard People. They don't have grand plans or strategies of their own, because they spend most of their time working out how to make a quick buck. The oligarchs, for their part, do not have pro-active grand plans or strategies because they spend most of their time trying to figure out how to co-opt or snuff out any challenges to their status quo. Players like the Clintons are tools they use for that purpose.

              As far as cover-ups the Clintons might be involved in, they're not the ones figuring out the cover-ups. They surround themselves with amoral lackies who work that sort of thing out. Bill Clinton had Vernon Jordan, Donna Brazile, and others like them. (George W. Bush had Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others, to give you an example from the Republicans.)

              It is theoretically possible for a President of the United States to thwart the Oligarchs, but that President would almost have to come from that stratum and have no fear of them. Teddy Roosevelt is the only example who comes to mind, and his term in office, which he wound up in by accident, set the Masters of the Universe back a full century. It's only now that they have recovered the absolute power they enjoyed before, and they stand poised to use it to put an end to the yearning of the American people for freedom once and for all.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:34PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:34PM (#411168) Journal

            The trouble with assassinating Hillary is that Wall Street would just put up another stooge. They're the real power, and they don't care who's carrying the water for them.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:56PM

              by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:56PM (#411225)

              The problem with it is that assassinating people for political reasons is an extremely dangerous proposition. There's 310m-ish people in the US and probably 3m-ish of them are psychopaths that would assassinate the President given cause and the chance. There's no way that the Secret Service could protect against that many if assassination becomes an acceptable or even tolerated process.

              The other thing though is that Tim Kaine is just as rotten to the core as she is and would almost certainly continue her policies and probably have more ammunition out of respect for the dead.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:55PM (#411524)

            Trump isn't much better, but most of it can be expected of just about any business person managing a large enterprise.

            I really don't understand this argument. Trump is roughly as bad as Clinton, but it's okay because other people are just as bad? WTF? You're argument would then hold for Clinton as well: "She may be evil but it can be expected of her, Trump, most large business managers, and miscellaneous other sociopaths and narcissist, so, yeah, no problem voting for any of them."

            You might want consider what's really driving your decisions or at least generate better rationalizations.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:31PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:31PM (#411165) Journal

          Of course it's more in line with Snowden than Clinton, but why not avail himself of the Clinton defense? After all, if we had Rule of Law then the precedent set with her ought to obtain for all subsequent cases involving classified material, shouldn't it? Let's also consider the scale and scope of her mishandling vs. his--he had access to less classified material than she because she was SECRETARY OF STATE, you know, one of the top five members of any administration in terms of importance? So his was by far the lesser crime, unless you mean to argue that she set up her email server on accident when it tumbled out of her purse and against all laws of probability connected and configured itself with her exact email credentials? Because surely if she can use that excuse to escape culpability for the greater crime, then surely he could use it to escape culpability for the lesser crime?

          Of course, if you can't see that then perhaps your accusation of density and/or ignorance is better directed at a mirror.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:37PM (#411130)

      > He should have just told them his last name was Clinton. Bam. No prosecution.

      He should have just told them his last name was Petraeus.

      Clinton received unsolicited, unmarked classified materials from a civilian who probably got them from the CIA.
      Petraeus (director of the CIA) deliberately took marked classified materials from classified systems and deliberately gave them to a civilian for his own benefit (to get his dick wet in the woman writing his hagiography).

      Petraeus was charged, but he got a hand-slap — 2 years probation and a $100K fine (the prosecution only asked for a $50K fine).

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:52PM

        unsolicited

        [Citation Needed]

        unmarked

        Liar.

        --
        We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:02PM (#411183)

          > [Citation Needed]

          Prove it was solicited.

          > > unmarked
          > Liar.

          Will it make a difference if I prove it to you?
          Your reactionary bubble is so well fortified that facts don't matter.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:38PM

            This isn't a court of law, the burden is on you to prove your bestie is not a criminal and that we should vote for her. You know, like you keep demanding of her opposition.

            Yes. And you're going to do this, how? Hack the DOJ since they haven't released them and will likely never release the classified ones? Oh, are you wanting me to take the word of the guys who refused to prosecute her despite enough evidence to have her in prison for life?

            Reactionary? Really? Get an insult that's not from the 1800s.

            --
            We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:23PM (#411256)

              > This isn't a court of law, the burden is on you to prove your bestie is not a criminal and that we should vote for her. You know, like you keep demanding of her opposition.

              This isn't about voting for her. This is about you slurping up the bullshit and then calling it the truth.

              > And you're going to do this, how? Hack the DOJ since they haven't released them and will likely never release the classified ones?

              If you are so sure it can't be proven, put your money where your mouth is.
              If I prove it, you commit to never posting about clinton's emails ever again.
              Chicken? Yeah, I thought so. Coward.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @10:37AM

                Oh, I'm sorry I've gone with a preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a shadow of doubt. Wait, no, I'm not.

                If you had proof you'd have posted it by now. At this point you're just trying to draw this out so people might not see you as the stooge you are.

                --
                We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @12:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @12:15PM (#411439)

                  The reason I haven't posted it yet is because I want you to put your money where your bullshit slurping mouth is. I am fucking tired of posting proof and having it be ignored and then the fucktard goes around repeating the same bullshit as if it never happened.

                  If I am such a fakir, all you gotta do to call me out is agree: If I prove that none of the classified material was marked you won't post about clinton's emails anymore. You've got nothing to lose, right? Look, I know you haven't bothered to check into it yourself, your too much of a lazy fucktard and that's why you won't commit, because in the back of your head you are thinking, "holy shit, maybe he's right and he'll make a fool of me." Well, punk if you don't commit that's just admitting you don't even have the courage of your own convictions.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @12:40PM

                    Oh my balls, you have busted them. Please, bitch. Prove it or don't. At this point I really don't care anymore.

                    --
                    We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:09PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:09PM (#411466)

                      Coward.

                      Well, there we have it. The mighty butthurt knows he's so full of shit that he won't even stand by his own words.

                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @01:21PM

                        Bored now. If you could prove your shit you would have done it when first asked.

                        --
                        We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:37PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:37PM (#411475)

                          > If you could prove your shit you would have done it when first asked.

                          Going in loops [soylentnews.org] now because you know you are intellectually bankrupt.

                          Come on man, all you got to do is stand by your own words.

                          Unless you are willing to stand by your words I've got no reason to prove anything. You are the one who accused me of being a liar but its just an empty accusation unless you are willing to back it up.

                          > Bored now.

                          You've said that twice now, but you sure keep posting like you care. You are just too much of a coward to actually back your own words. Just cut-n-paste it: "If you prove that none of the classified material was marked, I won't post about clinton's emails ever again." I'm not even saying you have to admit you were wrong, you just have to stop talking about it. That's about the smallest possible thing you could do to back your own beliefs. But you won't even do that because you don't even trust yourself. You are full of shit and you know it.

                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @01:56PM

                            I do not gamble. Not for any reason. But have fun thinking you won something. You're still a liar, just like your gal Clinton, until you prove otherwise. I'm going to go do actual work now.

                            --
                            We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:09PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:09PM (#411493)

                              > I do not gamble. Not for any reason.

                              Haha. Yeah, you just post bullshit because you have neither personal responsibility nor any commitment to truth.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:00AM (#410954)

    Why is it that this guy has documents and the news organizations make it sound as if he's stolen the crown jewels but Hillary deletes over 30K documents after receiving a subpoena, still has over 100 of them classified in what she does turn over, and at least some of them are deemed "special access" which is even more highly classified than simply Top Secret but it barely seems to move the needle? Why did the FBI insert "intent" into their determination when the law doesn't actually care about intent or speak to it? By virtue of her being "reckless" she certainly qualifies for prosecution but her dumbass VP running mate actually thinks that his son wouldn't get court martialed for doing the same thing. How high up the food chain do you actually have to go to be above the law exactly? The dichotomy is really amazing to see here...

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:22AM

      by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:22AM (#410960)

      Except that this guy had zero reason to be in possession of it inside his home. Clinton can legitimately say it was an accident that flash drive was behind the toilet. How was this guy in possession of so much data away from the office? Hard to make the Clinton defense stick with the facts when he can construct no legitimate reason for possession. I've no idea what his intentions were either. Maybe they caught somebody before they were about to leak. Why else would you do it? Offsite backups performed by empowered employee with initiative? Working in government? Not many good reasons here beyond utter stupidity and chronic brain flatulence.

      That I find interesting, yet another employee leaking information. I'd heard before that a good portion of the NSA were very upset with their activities and felt spying on Americans was wrong. What's that saying? First time is coincidence, second time is happenstance, third time is enemy action?

      Wouldn't that be something. The NSA revolting from within.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:44AM

        by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:44AM (#410963) Journal

        Harold Thomas Martin III, 51, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Booz%20Allen%20Hamilton%20snowden [google.com]

        Booze Allen, maker of fine Snowdens.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:14AM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:14AM (#410984) Journal

        Yeah and this guy didn't have peons to go on Reddit to find out how to destroy evidence or take a hammer to his devices when the feds come a knockin. Why I bet he won't even have the entire media rush to accuse anyone who disagrees with him having the data a racist misogynist or post endlessly about how "the previous guy did it so that makes it okay".

        Silly peasants, thinking they can do the same corrupt shit that Queen Hillary gets to do and get away with it, tsk tsk.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:48AM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:48AM (#410996) Journal

          When you get rid of a hard drive that might have sensitive information on it do you "acid wash" it first?

          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 07 2016, @12:21PM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Friday October 07 2016, @12:21PM (#411443) Journal

            I don't take hammers to my devices nor have I ever changed a data retention policy and wiped drives AFTER an investigation was started so no, I'm nothing like Queen Shillary.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:41AM (#410992)

        Except that this guy had zero reason to be in possession of it inside his home

        No longer matters? If intent is now required, which it is since Hillary is getting away with it because she didn't have any bad intentions (yeah right, she would have used it for personal gain), then all this guy should have to say was he didn't mean anything bad about it and he should get off free. Having no good reason is not the same as having bad intentions. Unless he was caught trying to sell the info, they should have no case.

        But no, the corrupt protect their own. This guy isn't in their club, he'll rot in jail as a traitor.

        Booz Allen Hamilton isn't looking too good right now.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:55AM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:55AM (#410997) Journal

          18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:

          Passed in 1994, so intent has been required for 24 years. That's almost as long as Clinton has been fighting ISIS, according to one of the presidential candidates.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:00AM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:00AM (#411000) Journal

            Damn, you got me. I am a time-traveler from a Clinton-presidency future and things are great. Post would have been much more touche-worthy if I could do simple arithmetic correctly. Just call me the Gary Johnson of soylent-posters.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:35AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:35AM (#411015)

              Just call me the Gary Johnson of soylent-posters.

              My $Deity! Have we sunk this low? Soon we will have the Soylent equivalent of that Texan with the big ears, you know, third party candidate. Or that Anderson guy, back when there was Nixon. Or the Dan Quayle of Soylentils: "This is a Soylent, and it is made up of peoploe." (pedantic historical note: the extra "o" in "people" is placed out of respect for Dan Quayle spelling "potato" as "potatoe". The extra vowel makes all the difference.) But to be the Johnson of SoylentNews, this makes me think it may be a TMB sig, and rather crude one. So we should stick with HGary Johnson and Boose Allen, for the win? Or we will have to invoke the spirit of the great Presidential candidate, Pat Paulsen. That guy would have been great! Even more "low energy" and "low information" that Johnson could ever be. I think.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:54PM (#411070)

                FWIW, Anderson ran against Carter and Reagan for the 1980 election. Carter was the incumbent.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:04AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:04AM (#411024)

            According to the Clown Party candidate, Clinton and Obama founded ISIS together.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:13PM (#411238)

              Fair enough, Bush is more responsible for ISIS than anyone. But who voted for the war? I guess even if she was foolish, I still wouldn't want her to lead the country.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @02:00PM

        by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 06 2016, @02:00PM (#411091)

        It wasn't a mistake that Clinton had that material away from the office, it was intentional, undeclared and completely unsecured. The FBI director pretty clearly stated that she's guilty, but that he wasn't recommending a prosecution because the DoJ was too afraid to actually take the steps to bring it to trial. If you literally add up the things he said, she is guilty as sin of mishandling classified materials.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:30AM (#410962)

      Yes, recent times have really shown the divide between those in power and those who are just their tools. It is nothing new, but the instant dissemination of information enabled by the net has been making it painfully obvious for everyone. People can try sticking their head back in the sand, but the loudspeakers of the net are not too easily silenced.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:39AM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:39AM (#410990) Journal

      It's almost like not-distributing classified information and intentionally-distributing classified information are different things. What a double-standard!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:47AM (#410995)

        What's with all these mental midgets going around defending Clinton? I can understand correcting falsehoods, but correcting falsehoods about Clinton would make me feel like garbage; it's just not worth the effort.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:10AM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:10AM (#411003) Journal

          Great rebuttal. Here's a hint: your filter bubble does not reflect reality.

          You actually can scientifically assess the political preference of populations, on aggregate, within some margin of error. Most people prefer Clinton at this point, by a margin that exceeds the error bars.

          Keep reading those online polls though, maybe Soylent should do one.

          • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:13AM

            by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:13AM (#411013) Homepage Journal

            The problem with Trump is that he was a joke candidate at first but then he realized a lot of people are actually fed-up with current rigged-to-the-core system and became serious half-way. You can see this turn around when he fired his campaign-manager. But he let go of too many opportunities to mount a good assault, got no support from the mainstream republican party, and had already given too much ammunition to the democrats. The media spin, already perfected by Obama, is on such high levels today that world over people are fuming over the possibility of Trump being a president without any reason. There is no mention of Hillary's flaws anywhere, such is the power of woman card. Yet random media - gaming journalists, movie journalists - drop Trump jokes as if that's a cool thing. My personal belief in Trump's campaign being badly managed was cemented when he let go of the UC killer news. Here is a guy who is an immigrant, has killed a white woman. But there was no mention of it at all from Trump! Instead, the dems immediately converted him into a campus-killer, Obama talked about gun-control, and within a week everyone was focusing on some rapist athlete proving how "rape-culture" exists among white people. And still no response from Trump.

            Failure of Trump is going to be a turning point in the history of USA, if you ask me. I think life is 'good-enough' for most among the youth block, and they think it is the job of government to dole-out freebies to poor people, as long as their life is not affected. The youtube watching, tumblr going new generation thinks that being nice to their gardener is revolutionary in itself. They are... awfully similar to the hippies of 60s. And I am worried that, just like them, they are going to give rise to a very vicious state (but headed by a woman instead of a man).

            • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:08AM

              by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:08AM (#411026) Journal

              Yeah! cubancigar11 is well enough to discuss presidential politics in the US of A! Of course, he is still completely assbackwards wrong, but that is the cubancigar we all know and love, or at least tolerate, and the point is, he is out an about and commenting agian! Hooray! I, for one, have never felt anything so optimistic, so hopeful, so pure and naive and childish, as when cubancigar11 posted this fine post as he did, right here on SoylentNews! Seig Heil Hillary, you pathetic alt-right basterd, you!

              --
              #freearistarchus!!!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:10PM (#411074)

              The failure of Trump will be because he is an idiot. He has already offered his potential Vice Presidential candidates (current and former) the offer to basically be president. He has no interest in actually doing the job.

              The only telling thing of the Trump experience is what it says about the state of the Republican party and how fucked up the primary system is. In my opinion, Trump really blew it just before the convention when he ran all the way to the right with his Vice Presidential pick, his statements about who he says he will put on the Supreme Court, his firing of his staff and replacing them with far-right people. He really had a chance to do something significant because he really turned the Republican party on its head with a lot of his stated positions from years gone by, but instead he's just another idiot spouting extreme stances that are unacceptable to pretty much everyone except the motivated fringe groups who dominate the primaries. Typically a reasonable candidate has to run far right during the primaries and then spend the entire general election run up assuring people that he really isn't an extreme wingnut after all, but Trump actually made it through the primaries with some non-extreme positions (and a LOT of stupid ideas and statements as well), and now for the general election he's decided to run far right. Instead of a potential far-right candidate who might not be, the Republicans now have an avowed far-right candidate who comes off as being very unstable in his positions and statements.

              If he loses and you draw some idiotic grand trans-formative conclusions from it, then you are as equally as idiotic, or do you buy into Trump's much-overused ploy of "There's no way I can lose Pennsylvania. If I do, it is because of fraud." that if he does lose, you are convinced it is because of some dark conspiracy rather than the fact that he is simply and entirely unacceptable to the majority of the country?

              • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 07 2016, @06:30AM

                by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday October 07 2016, @06:30AM (#411372) Homepage Journal

                I don't think there is any conspiracy. Its politics and there is word for having dealt the upper-hand: being in power. The problem is not that everyone is an idiot who wants to do politics, the problem is that biggest idiots and the actual privileged class who are not forced to do politics to remain relevant think that if people were just "nice", the world will be a better place.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:22PM (#411059)

            Soylent has sadly become yet another part of the morass of sites where facts and details don't matter, only the feels. If you hate hillary then she must deserve it! Fuck the truth.

          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @02:06PM

            by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 06 2016, @02:06PM (#411092)

            No, they don't. Do you happen to know how those polls were conducted? Here's a hint, they don't call people's cellphones and they don't send requests via FB or Twitter, the polls themselves tend to be biased towards older people and people with less technical savvy. The people who absolutely hate Clinton tend to break down to people who are independents, republicans and millenials. Care to guess which one of those doesn't show up on polling data at a representative rate?

            The fact that you're even having to reference the error bars ought to be cause for great concern for anybody that believes that witch should be elected.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:48PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:48PM (#411132)

              > No, they don't. Do you happen to know how those polls were conducted? Here's a hint, they don't call people's cellphones and they don't send requests via FB or Twitter,

              Apparently you don't know how those polls are conducted.
              What you wrote was probably true a decade ago. Not any more. For example:

              Pew Research Center will call 75% cellphones for surveys in 2016 [pewresearch.org]

              All major survey organizations that conduct telephone surveys include cellphones in their samples. They have to, because the kinds of people who rely only on a cellphone are different from those reachable on a landline, even though being cellphone-only is becoming more mainstream.

              Francis, this is a teachable moment for you. You know all that bullshit you believe? Most of it could be cleared up with 2 minutes of effort in google. Try it sometime.

              • (Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:27PM

                by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:27PM (#411229)

                Sigh, more AC bullshit. Way to completely miss the point of the post.

                Secondly, the link you've given is suspect. If they're really randomly dialing all the possible numbers in those exchanges, then how do you explain people like me that have yet to receive a single survey in the last decade? And even before that I hadn't received any. It makes no sense to me that somehow I've managed to avoid the calls over such a long period of time if they're truly randomly calling cellphones without permission.

                Seems to me that I'd see those names popping up on my cellphone from time to time or at least once in the last decade.

                As for teachable moment, it would help if your information actually reflected reality in some way. It's questionable how they can be making that many cellphone calls with people like me not receiving any for such a long period of time if there isn't some sort of restriction in place on which phones they call and the link you posted doesn't reflect that, nor does any of the other sites I've seen in regard to this issue.

                The link you've provided only indicates how many people they're calling, I don't see any reference to response rates nor do I see any indication about how large the pool of numbers is in comparison with the number of people with cellphones.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:17PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:17PM (#411496)

                  > Sigh, more AC bullshit. Way to completely miss the point of the post.

                  Since you won't state your point, you can't blame anyone for missing it.

                  > If they're really randomly dialing all the possible numbers in those exchanges, then how do you explain people like me that have yet to receive a single survey in the last decade?

                  Really? Are you that innumerate and self-centered? Your argument is nothing more than "well I have never got polled so it can't be true."

                  > I don't see any reference to response rates nor do I see any indication about how large the pool of numbers is in comparison with the number of people with cellphones.

                  Lol, for someone who has demonstrated his innumeracy now you want all the minutiae spoonfed to you? You made a broadly and easily refutable claim, I refuted it. So instead of admitting your error you move the goal posts far beyond the effort that a comment on tiny little website nobody has heard would justify to avoid admitting you are full of bullshit. Congrats you protected your obviously fragile ego but everyone else see you for the fraud you are.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:55AM (#411008)

      white male (spit) vs Woman.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:09PM (#411073)

      A second Hillary?!?!? Isn't one enough?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EQ on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:08AM

    by EQ (1716) on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:08AM (#410956)

    ...that he isn't politically connected. The laws apparently get enforced only on"the little people".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @09:11AM (#411027)

    If what they're saying about this guy is true he would make the perfect VP for Hillary! Only trouble is, she already picked one.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:20PM

    by looorg (578) on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:20PM (#411120)

    They seem to have some problems over at Booz Allen Hamilton with their staff and security clearance, first Snowden and now this guy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:29PM (#411126)

      > They seem to have some problems over at Booz Allen Hamilton with their staff and security clearance, first Snowden and now this guy.

      No. They are huge, they may be the single largest staffer for the spy programs. There will always be statistical outliers, the fact that two of those outliers were in a very large pool of people doesn't necessarily mean anything.

      • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Friday October 07 2016, @04:20PM

        by arulatas (3600) on Friday October 07 2016, @04:20PM (#411530)

        Are you saying Booze Allen is too big to fail...

        ... too big to fail to have outliers?

        --
        ----- 10 turns around
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:24PM (#411161)

    Remember the supposedly coded message tweeted from Snowden a few weeks ago?
    And apparently they'd been watching this guy for awhile?

    Coincidence? Maybe. It will be interesting to see if it is. If we're ever allowed to know one way or the other.

  • (Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:07PM

    by LaminatorX (14) <reversethis-{moc ... ta} {xrotanimal}> on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:07PM (#411185)

    When criminally misappropriating government data, do not keep media holding said data at home.
     

    --
    Banjo - Fiddle - Tolkien: The Lonely Mountain String Band. lmsb.me [lmsb.me]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:26PM (#411194)

      When criminally misappropriating government data, do not keep media holding said data at home.

      Conceal it at my next door neighbor's who also happens to work for Booz and NSA. Check.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:11PM (#411208)

      > When criminally misappropriating government data, do not keep media holding said data at home.

      10:1 this plays out that he's got some psychological issues and that while what he did is a crime, he did not have criminal intent. He was probably engaging in hoarding behavior or something misguided.