|
sausage paddy posted:That P-51 picture would have at least made sense with an F-22. smh I see a spitfire. What do you see again? It does make sense to have a British Spitfire with a British F35 seeing as it was developed in part with the British. Since they don't fly any F-22's, why should they get their spitfire to take a picture with one?
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Canadian Naval Officer pleads guilty to spying for Russiaquote:Using a thumb drive, he would download intelligence from a system called the Stone Ghost computer, which contains information from the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. He would then hide the drive somewhere on his body when leaving the secure area and later pass it over to the Russians Do you think at some point in time his Russian contact told him to clean it first?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
Psion posted:You think it's implausible yet cite undersea cable tapping in Soviet waters which is just as balls out insane? The undersea cable and glomar explorer missions were bold and risky and  but entirely plausible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:Canadian Naval Officer pleads guilty to spying for Russia On, not in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
The surprising thing about that story is he sold them for $3k a month. Either they weren't that great secrets or he's a really lovely negotiator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
priznat posted:The surprising thing about that story is he sold them for $3k a month. Either they weren't that great secrets or he's a really lovely negotiator. You'd be amazed how little low-level informants and spies get for their trouble. The Rosenbergs and a bunch of the people who were charged in conjunction with their case were alleged to have gotten pathetic little dribbles of $500 here, a couple thousand there, etc. all adding up to maybe somewhere in the low five-figures for each person. Admittedly those are 1940s dollars, so figure maybe low six-figures today, but not nearly enough to go to the electric chair over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Informants are not generally people who make good decisions.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You'd be amazed how little low-level informants and spies get for their trouble. The Rosenbergs and a bunch of the people who were charged in conjunction with their case were alleged to have gotten pathetic little dribbles of $500 here, a couple thousand there, etc. all adding up to maybe somewhere in the low five-figures for each person. Admittedly those are 1940s dollars, so figure maybe low six-figures today, but not nearly enough to go to the electric chair over. I don't think what they got paid matters as much as what they provided, when it came to their sentencing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Fearless posted:I don't think what they got paid matters as much as what they provided, when it came to their sentencing. Yeah, I'm just saying that they are generally paid poo poo and if you're looking for a purely financial motive it's usually not nearly enough cash to warrant the kind of risks they take. The Rosenbergs, for example, seem to have had a very real ideological/philosophical reason for helping the soviets (well, if certain sources are to be believed - that whole case is a cluster gently caress, even today) namely not believing the US should have a monopoly on nuclear arms. edit: like I know gently caress all about how the world of espionage works, but i wouldn't be surprised if that $3k a month the Canadian was getting was to cover incidental expenses
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
He'll be sentenced to a shame circle and 60 hours community service, do 30 of it and be free and clear. OR if the Conservatives manage to get that bill passed, 300 lashes and a keelhauling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
The Soviets were almost always strapped for hard cash that anyone outside their boarders would want and they'd much rather be spending it on resources than silly things like "modern technology." At a guess I'd say money spies are less reliable than more ideological based ones any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Spies who wanted significant amounts of cash got it. Ames got 4.6 million. The Walker spy ring also supposedly broke the million dollar mark, and Robert Hansen started with asking for a $100k, and then operated for a long time. poo poo, Larry Chin probably cleared a million during the years he worked for China and China was harder up for cash in the '70s than the USSR. A lot of spies are either doing it for other reasons (revenge, patriotism, etc) and are secondarily motivated by money, or convince themselves they're just going to do it a few times to cover some bills. These are the guys who take paltry payments. The problem is once you've done it, you're rather susceptible to blackmail. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 15, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Spies who wanted significant amounts of cash got it. Ames got 4.6 million. The Walker spy ring also supposedly broke the million dollar mark, and Robert Hansen started with asking for a $100k, and then operated for a long time. poo poo, Larry Chin probably cleared a million during the years he worked for China and China was harder up for cash in the '70s than the USSR. Isn't the acronym MICE (Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego) for the main reasons people spy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Isn't the acronym MICE (Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego) for the main reasons people spy? Yup, although the C generally stands for "compromise" or "coercion" (i.e., blackmail). During the Cold War you would see the gamut for Soviet spies, although ideology tended to be near the beginning of the Cold War (think Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, and the rest of the Atomic Spies or Guy Burgess, Kim Philby, and the rest of the Cambridge Five), while money tended to be later on along with ego...Ames, Walker, and then especially Hanssen who started off motivated by money but then become much more motivated by ego, believing he was too smart to get caught because the FBI and CIA were too stupid to catch him (not an altogether incorrect assertion, honestly), although even then he still made sure he got paid. You also saw some coercion/blackmail with homosexuals, particularly in the '40s and '50s when it was still a very big societal no-no to be out of the closet in the West. For people spying for the West, ideology was almost exclusively the motivation, Oleg Gordievsky and Oleg Penkovsky being prominent examples, along with Arkady Shevchenko and Pyotr Semyonovich Popov, although there were other Western spies who had baser motivations as well as some who were blackmailed. As for our Canuck traitor, sounds like he was in dire financial straits and I'm sure he was telling himself that he was "only" taking the $3K because "that's all he needed." And the fact that he was pulling poo poo off of a Five Eyes network...  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And the fact that he was pulling poo poo off of a Five Eyes network... What does this mean? I honestly wondered what kinda stuff he was passing. Is anything known?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What does this mean? Five Eyes is the informal name for the U.S./U.K./Canada/Australia/New Zealand intel sharing agreement (as well as sharing other sensitive information). I haven't seen anything about what he was passing, and honestly I will be surprised if it comes out (that's one of the reasons plea bargains are often made in espionage cases, to avoid having a messy public trial where what was stolen might get out into the open). The reason I expressed dismay over that fact should be fairly obvious...it's bad enough that a Canadian was spying for the Russians, but the fact that he was doing so with access to a Five Eyes network means the scope of possible damage is greatly expanded. Those five countries have a separate protocol where they will share certain relatively sensitive stuff among themselves that they wouldn't otherwise release to allies (other NATO nations, for example). e: To put it in perspective, this is probably the closest relationship the U.S. has to other countries as far as sharing information, with the possible exception of any stuff that is "special relationship" UKUSA only. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What does this mean? There's a wikipedia page with the usual government mumbo-jumbo on it. I'd guess most of the actionable intel is of the "who, what, when, where" variety. If it's kosher to ask, what kind of security clearance does that sort of network generally require? Do the Canadians have clear analogues to US clearance levels? It at least used to be basically impossible to get a meaningful US clearance with a recent bankruptcy or even high credit card debt on your record - is that not generally the case elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
I worked for a military contractor during a university co-op term and had to fill out the "where were you for the past 10 years" and provide a shitload of references. The RCMP or CSIS (I forget) actually contacted my references too. And I wasn't cleared for much. The funny thing was the difference between the people cleared for just being there and the people cleared for the "top secret" crypto areas was: a blue dot sticker on your badge. It was a pretty fun work term though beating the poo poo out of a new communication system (I was in the test group so we got to do the various mil-std tests like dropping stuff, shaking it, spraying it, etc).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:There's a wikipedia page with the usual government mumbo-jumbo on it. I'd guess most of the actionable intel is of the "who, what, when, where" variety. The UKUSA Community page is a little clearer. In a word: SIGINT (although there is obviously also some other stuff, intel or otherwise). The rumor I've seen in a couple places is that the U.S. dominates the agreement, with several of the ostensibly foreign operated stations basically serving as a branch subsidiary for the US agency (NSA or whoever else). I can only speak to the Brits, but their security clearances are more or less analogous to the US (TS, Secret, and Confidential are the same, I think they call FOUO/CUI something else but it's basically equivalent), with similar adjudication guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Can someone explain how exactly this computer had working USB ports? I mean, I'm no penetration expert ( ) but it seems like you would lock them off or deactivate them on this sort of sensitive system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:Can someone explain how exactly this computer had working USB ports? I mean, I'm no penetration expert ( Probably the same reason a lot of this happens. Someone made an oopsie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:Can someone explain how exactly this computer had working USB ports? I mean, I'm no penetration expert ( Not to mention that USB ports are pretty damned useful for actual legitimate business, too. I mean, it's kinda nice to be able to plug in a mouse and keyboard to a computer. Makes it a little more useful than if the ports were disabled. grover fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
grover posted:At some point, you just have to trust your people. That's why they do increasingly deep background investigations, polygraphs, etc- to ensure you can trust people. The trick is knowing who to trust and who is a risk... Every computer I use that is networkable, even unclassified systems, has USB deactivated for ANYTHING that can be used for storage, except for external burning drives like CD/DVD. You can still plug in peripherals like keyboards, mice, HASP keys, etc. It's been that way since 2009.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Every computer I use that is networkable, even unclassified systems, has USB deactivated for ANYTHING that can be used for storage, except for external burning drives like CD/DVD. You can still plug in peripherals like keyboards, mice, HASP keys, etc. It's been that way since 2009. You pretty much have to do this (didn't DoD also ordered some USB port filled with hot-glue) when one of the easiest penetration approaches is dropping a USB key in the parking lot and waiting for some secretary to pick it up and plug it into their work machine. Users 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Five Eyes is the informal name for the U.S./U.K./Canada/Australia/New Zealand intel sharing agreement (as well as sharing other sensitive information). Ah, OK. I've heard of this. Though I didn't know UKUSA was a step above; I thought Five eyes was an extension of UKUSA. I once read a in-depth paper that the CIA had published on a spy they had in the Soviet Union. He was an electrical engineer who worked at the bureau that designed radars, and his main reason for becoming an agent was hatred for the soviet system. Both his patients died in gulags, and after one of his in-laws was similarly sent to a gulag someplace, he decided to become an agent for the Americans. As a spy he lasted a few years, and despite that his motivations were mostly ideological, the CIA still had to give him money now and then. They also gave him little gifts of things like pens and western razors. The article said that this sort of thing is usually necessary even with spies like this guy, especially over a period of years. Apparently the gifts are to show appreciation for the risks this guy was taking, and help keep his morale up. Eventually, the guy was caught. I think he was someone Aldrich Ames outed. The paper also covered the capture of the spy's handler in Moscow. The KGB when dealing with actual foreign agents (at least in that era), interestingly, were rigorous in their application of the law, and always built an extensive evidence-based case against them before doing anything. The handler was arrested and after some unpleasant but not illegal treatment was handed over to the Americans. The spy, of course, was executed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Happy 48th birthday to China's Project 596
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
grover posted:At some point, you just have to trust your people. That's why they do increasingly deep background investigations, polygraphs, etc- to ensure you can trust people. The trick is knowing who to trust and who is a risk... Yes, they are, but you don't give unchecked access. If there is a need to transport information there is software that will encrypt the media and allow decryption on an authorized terminal. It's bullshit to imply you should have unchecked USB and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Ah, OK. I've heard of this. Though I didn't know UKUSA was a step above; I thought Five eyes was an extension of UKUSA. Five Eyes is technically an extension of the original UKUSA agreement, I was just referring to other stuff (the various SLBMs/associated warheads, for example) that is going to have a UKUSA caveat since we only share it with them and no one else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:It at least used to be basically impossible to get a meaningful US clearance with a recent bankruptcy or even high credit card debt on your record - is that not generally the case elsewhere? I think it's been linked in TFR before, but there is a report online that's been made available by the government that contains anonymized results of the reasons different people's classified access is put under review, and whether or not it's revoked. It makes for some....interesting reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
IIRC being a child molester and admitting it was better than being gay and lying about it to the people interviewing you or something similarly crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:IIRC being a child molester and admitting it was better than being gay and lying about it to the people interviewing you or something similarly crazy. Was this the interview to become a reddit mod?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
That feels like a cherry-picked comparison stemming from an obvious iron-clad rule of "don't lie on your top secret clearance forms" immediately disqualifying you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:That feels like a cherry-picked comparison stemming from an obvious iron-clad rule of "don't lie on your top secret clearance forms" immediately disqualifying you. Yeah, it's just the thing that stood out in my memory. That and the fact that you could still get a security clearance if you admitted to child molestation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/ Happy reading
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/ Case Number: 10-11190.h1 Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct 12/30/2011 Applicant was convicted in a 1986 general court-martial of indecent acts with a child, a felony violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He served 15 months of a 30-month prison sentence, and received a bad conduct discharge. However, significant information about his rehabilitation and good conduct over the last 25 years supports a conclusion that the security concerns about his personal and criminal conduct are mitigated. His request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 10-11190.h1
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Read as: "I really, really, really need this one-of-a-kind C/C++ wizard for my cryptanalysis group and he's all good as long as he gets money and a condo, Hell, we can even have him stay on base since he never goes out anyways and there's an Arby's inside the gates. Oh and there's definitely no risk of any honey traps from foreign female operatives. Don't look too closely at the manga magazines strewn all over his filthy desk, though."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
I'm only semi-joking here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Sabres rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Even the krauts liked them. Some unimportant guy no one cares about flew that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 06:15
|
|