They didn't take the Jordan Neely verdict very well either. Someone joked right after the verdict on Twitter that we should brace for more riots. Whoever runs the account said that sounded like a good idea.
Archived link used to highlight the relevant portion of the article, which is a digression, but worth highlighting.
Some HN users will use the ad hominem that the writer, Greer, is a wack job. Well, as Greer points out, William of Ockham was a medieval theologian. What does that make everyone who still (incorrectly) cites him?
Given the contempt media writers have for Western religion these days(and most HN users as well), it's amusing that a 14th century religious propagandist is treated as if he was capable of making such a broad claim about the nature of the universe. Maybe not all old philosophers were good enough thinkers to be worth citing.
Some HN readers will want a more mainstream source on this topic. How about the magazine whose owner was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and whose editor was a big pusher of the "Iraq still has an active WMD program" narrative in 2002? Great, here's an Atlantic piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-r...
I'm just glad PRISM is nothing but an extremely expensive Rube Goldberg contraption for responding to warrants. Golly, why did Yahoo bother going to court to fight the notion that when a court issues a warrant ...
"Yahoo also felt that warrantless requests placed discretion for data collection 'entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch without prior judicial involvement' thereby ceding to the government 'overly broad power that invites abuse” and possible errors that would result in scooping up data of U.S. citizens as well.'
I think you may have accidentally moved the goalposts here. The claim wasn't that PRISM was restricted to warrants; it handles what are in effect court orders (more specifically, FISA collection directives) which are not warrants.
When stories about PRISM first leaked, there was intense speculation that it was a system that gave the NSA direct access to servers.
What I don't understand, is that if the NSA is tapping all the routers why do they need PRISM at all? Or is the haystack so large they tap the whole thing AND collect from the providers.
The most uncomfortable thing on an SF-86 would probably be your past convictions, but it's unlikely you would get a TS in that case. After that, maybe the names of family members. It also would have your current address and foreign investments, but nothing extremely personal.
> Not to sound like Chicken Little, but just looking at the information on my e-Qip form, there's a lot more in the database than the NYT reports. For starters, I'm not, nor have I ever been a federal employee. So, the scope is actually anyone who has, or has applied for a clearance. That means contractors too. The header of each of the 37 pages on my form has my Social Security Number. In the document you will find the SSN's for my ex-wife, son, and current girlfriend. Other tidbits include the Naturalization numbers for my mother, ex-wife, and girlfriend. Full names, and contact information for people who've known me at the places I've lived for the past ten years. Same for employers. Living in the DC Metro area, many of my references, both personal and professional, have clearances, so they each have the same form in the database. The only financial information asked for in the version I have had to do with accounts that were past due or in arrears, so the typical bank account, credit card, mortgate, and car loan stuff isn't in the form.
The SF-86 is a gold mine as a starting point for exploitation. It does not provide much useful blackmail material in itself, but all the contacts and life history information are very valuable for focusing further efforts if a person is chosen for exploitation. It also provides clues, particularly when combined with other open source material, as to who may have shit lying around that could be exploited. Remember, one purpose of this form is to allow OPM to do exactly the same thing, but from a defensive standpoint.
They have extensive sections on psychological health (e.g., have you seen anyone for a mental health issue in the last 7 years, if so who, and their contact information). There are extensive sections on criminal history and past employment, including reason for leaving, especially if it was Federal employment.
There are also sections on past friends, past addresses, and spouses and ex-spouses, and foreign contacts.
Furthermore, it's not just convictions, you also have to report being charged with any felony offense, even if not convicted. Also, drug and alcohol related history, and gambling. And repossessions, liens, etc.
The SF-85 is a less intrusive version of the SF-86. I think a typical contractor working on open projects would use a SF-85. But note, when you sign the SF-85, you allow the government to collect additional information from various sources (but not medical information). This compiled information would presumably be stored on the systems that were targeted in this hack.
I know people who resigned from their job rather than fill out the SF-85. Part of their reason was that something like this might happen.
It's too bad The Master has departed, I'm going to miss his words being quoted to "settle any possible HN argument" in the words of this great comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1716028. Also going to miss all the pearl clutching about "this comment/thread is horrible", okay maybe not. I assume work was never finished on the Lisp AI that would block comments he disagrees with, any of the mods still working on that?
"I don't do work for the USG". Talk about burying the lede. So where did you get this knowledge about the awesomeness of Government training? I DO work for a contractor, one that hires from the same market as everyone else, with lower salaries. We're not all morons, but I was unaware we were turning substandard hires into geniuses. I must have missed the training program.
I think the WaPo should start a section that's full of Hustler style porn. When people complain about porn in their Washington Post, they can just say "That's a separate department!". TLDR: if you disgrace your sub-organization, you disgrace the entire organization.
