SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 .
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:10AM
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
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
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!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:10PM
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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.