|
Originally Posted by warning1369
(Post 12955555)
You may laugh but I would be more worried for the folks who still have it on line that I am for the five people on paid vacation at TSA for posting it. TSA has over 300 lawyers alone (not including ones at DHS and other federal entities) and there is no permanent leadership at TSA so there are a lot of people looking to make a name for themselves. Getting all the web pages turned off or in some other legal trouble that still have it posted may be a way to make that name.
The more the TSA reacts the worse it will get. |
I just got the Washington Post afternoon e-mail, does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the second most viewed article is? :D:D
|
Blowhard Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee was pontificating on FoxNews about the breach, followed by "Judge" Andrew Napolitano, who noted "Once it is public it is lawful for us to put it on the screen...someone somewhere broke the law by revealing these classified secrets."
He then stated that TSA "will have to change all of their procedures" (wouldn't that be nice if it were true" While I enjoy seeing the TSA skewered by the media, the coverage here is atrocious, there seems to be no comprehension that the revelation of the TSA's supposedly outdate procedures is unlikely to endanger anyone and simply shows how most of what that agency does could be eliminated. "Flying public was never in danger" |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 12955582)
Not going to happen. The horse is long gone.
Also, any non-US website is under no obligation to take orders from a US judge, assuming that one would be willing to issue such an order. If there are 300 lawyers on the TSA payroll, then that's just one more reason that this disgusting, un-American agency should be destroyed. In the amateur world, anyone who winds up with a package containing classified material accidentally delivered to their home by the USPS is under no obligation to return it. I remember one occurance of this back in the mid-1990s. One defense contractor was (lawfully) shipping an envelope containing a classified document from one plant location to another. The post office accidentally delivered it to a private residence. The wife got home first and figure the package was for her husband. She opened the outer wrapper and was immediately confronted with the classification markings on the inner wrapper along with the standard "Do not open and call this number if this isn't yours" label contained on inner wrappers. She stopped right there. When her husband got home, he saw the package and called the number on the label. Some Air Force guys came to their house, thanked them for doing the right thing, and retrieved the package. End of story. |
If the SOP information is sensitive, then classify it. SSI = CYA
Originally Posted by warning1369
(Post 12955555)
You may laugh but I would be more worried for the folks who still have it on line that I am for the five people on paid vacation at TSA for posting it.
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 12955596)
The major difference is that real classified information has a real Executive Order (EO 12958) which describes what to classify, what NOT to classify, WHO can classify, when to conduct a mandatory downgrade/declassification review, top-level guidelines for CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET information, and penalties for screwing up. The penalties cover infractions not limited to unauthorized disclosure. Penalties are also inplace for overclassifying something, not conducting mandatory reviews, and deliberately classifying something to prevent embarassment to one's agency or to keep unclassified information from Congress or the public. All of this stuff pertains to collateral classified information. Compartmented and Special Access programs have their own additional EOs and agency regulations.
LES/FOUO/SBU/SSI have none of these guidelines or restrictions. There are no criteria for creating this type of information, no paragraph marking requirements, no derivative document, no downgrading instructions, etc. If this stuff is truly sensitive beyond a precinct and is determined to cause damage to national security if disclosed, for Pete's sake, classify it the right way. |
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 12955806)
Blowhard Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee was pontificating on FoxNews about the breach, followed by "Judge" Andrew Napolitano, who noted "Once it is public it is lawful for us to put it on the screen...someone somewhere broke the law by revealing these classified secrets."
He then stated that TSA "will have to change all of their procedures" (wouldn't that be nice if it were true" While I enjoy seeing the TSA skewered by the media, the coverage here is atrocious, there seems to be no comprehension that the revelation of the TSA's supposedly outdate procedures is unlikely to endanger anyone and simply shows how most of what that agency does could be eliminated. "Flying public was never in danger"
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 12952681)
The clown news network -- better known as CNN -- is saying this is a how-to-guide for terrorists and the biggest breach of airport security since 9/11.
Do these clowns not realize that competent terrorists aren't being stopped by the TSA and that airport security screeners weren't tasked to stop the terrorists or the weapons used by the terrorists on 9/11? Do these clowns not realize that the TSA is already a big failure in reliably stopping weapons and explosives? The TSA's repeated failure to properly screen out for all weapons and explosives -- or the components for such -- is a far bigger threat to security than even the TSA's accidental transparency. Airport security doesn't come via obscurity. Transparency -- an anathema to the TSA -- is a must for accountability and systematic performance improvements in aviation security. This is something that the TSA and the unnecessarily paranoid talking heads on TV don't get. |
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 12955806)
Blowhard Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee was pontificating on FoxNews about the breach, followed by "Judge" Andrew Napolitano, who noted "Once it is public it is lawful for us to put it on the screen...someone somewhere broke the law by revealing these classified secrets."
|
Originally Posted by warning1369
(Post 12955555)
You may laugh but I would be more worried for the folks who still have it on line that I am for the five people on paid vacation at TSA for posting it. TSA has over 300 lawyers alone (not including ones at DHS and other federal entities) and there is no permanent leadership at TSA so there are a lot of people looking to make a name for themselves. Getting all the web pages turned off or in some other legal trouble that still have it posted may be a way to make that name.
My website is hosted in Anguilla with backups in Brazil and Uruguay and local copies stored in Tortola, BVI. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 12955856)
Someone needs to point out to him that this was not classified information.
|
Originally Posted by warning1369
(Post 12955555)
You may laugh but I would be more worried for the folks who still have it on line that I am for the five people on paid vacation at TSA for posting it. TSA has over 300 lawyers alone (not including ones at DHS and other federal entities) and there is no permanent leadership at TSA so there are a lot of people looking to make a name for themselves. Getting all the web pages turned off or in some other legal trouble that still have it posted may be a way to make that name.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 12955924)
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 12955806)
Blowhard Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee was pontificating on FoxNews about the breach, followed by "Judge" Andrew Napolitano, who noted "Once it is public it is lawful for us to put it on the screen...someone somewhere broke the law by revealing these classified secrets."
|
Originally Posted by warning1369
(Post 12955555)
You may laugh but I would be more worried for the folks who still have it on line that I am for the five people on paid vacation at TSA for posting it. TSA has over 300 lawyers alone (not including ones at DHS and other federal entities) and there is no permanent leadership at TSA so there are a lot of people looking to make a name for themselves. Getting all the web pages turned off or in some other legal trouble that still have it posted may be a way to make that name.
There is no legal basis to pull it down. Once it was published it was owned by every single US citizen. |
I sure hope the Daily Show does its usual magic and does a piece on this tonight.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 12954939)
LA Times has an original story as well today that was picked up by the Houston Chronicle.
The agency posted the 94-page document on a federal website in March while offering opportunities for private contractors. The manual was not removed until Sunday, when bloggers alerted the agency's in-house blogger that nominally redacted portions were visible if readers cut and pasted the document, officials said. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 12956014)
Interesting...Blogger Bob is getting credit for being the TSA staffer who ran this one up the flag pole when it happened:
(bolding mine) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:32 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.