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

 
This discussion has been archived.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) 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.