Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday February 10 2017, @06:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the always-get-your-access-tools-tailored dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Troll) by ikanreed on Friday February 10 2017, @08:04PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Friday February 10 2017, @08:04PM (#465576) Journal

    And I'm gonna go ahead and defend it, even though the election is over. The difference between this guy and a certain presidential candidate is intent. The things he brought out of designated areas were things he knew ahead of time to be classified materials.

    This is a substantive difference in mens rea.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:35PM (#465588)

    As long as this man did anything to hurt the NSA, he is a hero, law be damned.

    America is not just a police state. It is a national prison.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:40PM (#465589)

    Still think Hillary didn't know what 'C' stood for, huh?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday February 10 2017, @08:46PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Friday February 10 2017, @08:46PM (#465592) Journal

      Oh yes, she should have had omniscience and known that (C) was going to come later.

      Sorry if these extreme complexities exceed you. I know it's hard.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @09:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @09:02PM (#465594)

        Only she's used (C) on documents herself and signed off on them. She received at least 22,000 during her time as Secretary of State. This is all apparent in the Wikileaks dumps from prior to the election. You know, the same leaks they blamed on Russian hackers despite the fact that we're reading about the actual internal sources now.

        But of course, there's no way she lied about the emails. Or where they came from. Or what all the money foreign governments were pumping into her foundation was actually for.

        Keep on believing everything you hear on CNN, they wouldn't misinform you.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @11:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @11:01PM (#465618)

          This is all apparent in the Wikileaks dumps from prior to the election. You know, the same leaks they blamed on Russian hackers

          No its not. No emails from her server were ever released by wikileaks. They were released by the state department in response to FOIA requests.
          As of today there have been exactly zero emails leaked from her server. There have been a ton of emails leaked from Podesta's gmail account and the state department's computers were thoroughly hacked. [cnn.com] But so far there is no evidence that clinton's email server was ever successfully hacked.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:18AM (#465637)

            Clinton emailed Podesta and the DNC, emails from her server were therefore leaked in both those leaks, as well as Cablegate. Her server itself didn't have to be hacked for there to be leaked emails that are demonstrably sent to and received by her. Here's a link to the classified emails I referred to:

            https://wikileaks.org/plusd/?qproject[]=cg&q=&qfdestination=Secretary+of+State&qfoclass=CONFIDENTIAL&qtfrom=2009-01-10&qsort=tdesc#result [wikileaks.org]

            But yeah, she didn't know what (C) meant and there's definitely not a trove of digitally signed evidence stating otherwise.

            Your check from Correct the Record is in the mail.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:31AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:31AM (#465643)

              You've linked to a search for "cablegate" which has nothing to do with clinton email.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak [wikipedia.org]

              Citing random crap just proves you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:46AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:46AM (#465646)

                Yeah, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the State Department spying on the UN, that's why her name was attached to emails ordering the surveillance of UN officials. Can you dislodge your head from her gigantic ass for a second and recognize that, despite her and the media's willingness to paint her as your retarded grandma who doesn't understand email, that she just might have had a reason for running a private email server from her bathroom, and that reason may have had something to do with large sums of cash donated by the Saudis and Qatari and demonstrable collusion with both the DNC and mainstream media?

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:48AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:48AM (#465669)

                  Whatever dude. You're just indulging in suspicion bias. Clinton is presumed guilty because she's clinton, no further proof needed.

                  And that's pretty much all the email 'scandal' boils down to. There is smoke, so there must be fire - but don't pay attention to that guy with a smoke machine behind the curtain...

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @10:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @10:55PM (#465616)

      > Still think Hillary didn't know what 'C' stood for, huh?

      The (C) markings were on her own call schedules.
      Call schedules are routinely declassified after the phone call is made, because duh the call itself wasn't classified so the fact it happened isn't classified either.

      The (C) markings were left on the schedules in error after they had been declassified (and all the other classified markings were properly removed).
      In other words, the emails were not actually classified at the time they were sent via unclass email.

      You can see the two documents yourself, as published by the government - if it were still classified it would not be legal for the government to publish it because simply "leaking" does not declassifify a document.

      Here are the two call schedules in question:
      https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/267/DOC_0C05791537/C05791537.pdf [state.gov]
      https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08637HCE10/DOC_0C05796118/C05796118.pdf [state.gov]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:21AM (#465639)

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/information-in-dozens-clinton-emails-was-born-classified-report-says.html?intcmp=hpbt2 [foxnews.com]

        'The report says that the State Department identified the emails as containing "foreign government information" when it retroactively classified them upon their release earlier this year. However, the regulations say that such information, defined as having been provided orally or in writing to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts in confidence, must be "presumed" classified, regardless of whether it is initially marked that way.'

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:25AM (#465641)

          Simply quoting from a news article without making your own statement is an act of intellectual cowardice.
          If you have a point, make it explicitly so that people can engage with it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:48AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:48AM (#465647)

            My point is that for every other lesser member of our government, there are things that are "born classified", that is they are considered to be classified even if they are not marked as such. If anyone but Hillary Clinton had been responsible for the communication of that information outside of official government channels they would have been held up on treason charges. It's only because it's Hillary that this "I didn't know it was classified" nonsense is allowed to pass muster.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:45AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:45AM (#465667)

              So lets first acknowledge you've completely moved the goalposts from an argument about whether or not the "(C)" marking was important.
              Ok? Good.

              Now pay attention to what fox has done - they've mashed up multiple separate points in order to make them look related.
              The biggest give away is that fox explicitly says "That number represents scores of individual emails that have already been made public"
              If they contained classified information they would not have been made public.

              Either Fox doesn't have any domain knowledge about classification and is just doing the same crap you've been doing - mixing together a whole bunch of stuff without really understanding any of it. OR they do know how classification works and are deliberately misleading the reader.

              Either way, the article you cited and specifically the paragraph you pulled out does not support your premise.