Is the FBI responsible for missing Snowden as a potential leaker? Or does this agency have responsibility only after the crime has been committed? Should they have pre-empted the leak?
Since the crime occurred in the US and the FBI investigates such events should they also have been responsible for not catching Snowden's actions at the NSA? Or is that department off limits to the FBI?
Is anyone responsible for security at the NSA? If so, they blew it by letting Snowden walk around with a thumb drive and by allowing computers into this facility with a port that would accept such a device. We expect excuse will be that there is no one "could have seen this coming" at the agency. Poor excuse as corporations already have taken preventative actions to preclude this type of activity. One would think that they would be hyper-vigilant due to the nature of the information they had in their possession, but hey, it didn't involve their families!
We are beginning to feel that the government is after Snowden for only one reason. He told the truth and revealed that the "king did not have clothes on." If so, he should be congratulated rather than spurned. But we are continuing our position of waiting until we get more information before making our final statements.
Conservative Tom
FBI Director: Snowden Leaks Made Nation 'Exceptionally Vulnerable'
Thursday, 13 Jun 2013 12:09 PM
In his last appearance as FBI director before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller said that terrorists track leaked information "very, very closely" and that because of leaks "we lose our ability to get their communications" and "we are exceptionally vulnerable."
"As to the individual who has admitted making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," Mueller said without naming Snowden.
Mueller added: "We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures."
Responding to questions by committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Mueller said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the surveillance programs and they have been conducted in compliance with U.S. law and with oversight from Congress.
The revelation that the National Security Agency is collecting millions of U.S. phone records along with digital communications stored by nine major Internet companies has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration, in its efforts to thwart terrorism, has overstepped proper bounds by using intrusive surveillance methods.
Rep. John Conyers, the committee's ranking Democrat, expressed concern that the two programs were too far-reaching.
"It's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state," said Conyers.
Mueller is nearing the end of his 12 years as head of the law enforcement agency that is conducting high-profile investigations of the Boston Marathon bombings, the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans and leaks of classified government information. Mueller's last day on the job is Sept. 4.
On Wednesday, Goodlatte said that when it comes to national security leaks, it's important to balance the need to protect secrecy with the need to let the news media do their job.
The Justice Department revealed last month that it had secretly gathered phone records of The Associated Press and emails of Fox News journalist James Rosen in an effort to crack down on leakers of classified information.
In the past week, a 29-year-old contractor leaked National Security Agency documents on the agency's collection of millions of U.S. phone records and the NSA's collection of emails and other information that people transmit online to and from foreign targets.
That has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration, in its efforts to thwart terrorism, has overstepped by using intrusive surveillance methods.
"Over the past few years, we have witnessed troubling national security leaks and have learned that the Obama administration seems to be bending the rules in place that protect the freedom of the press in its investigations," Goodlatte said.
On Benghazi, Republicans accuse the administration of misleading the public about an act of terrorism in the heat of the presidential campaign by saying the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on the U.S. diplomatic post grew out of spontaneous demonstrations over an anti-Muslim video. In the immediate aftermath, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described it as a "horrific incident where some mob was hijacked, ultimately, by a handful of extremists." The White House says Rice reflected the best information available while facts were still being gathered.
Goodlatte said the committee planned to find out more about the status of what the congressman called the FBI's "stalled investigation" in Libya.
GOP lawmakers also have questioned why the military couldn't get aircraft or troops to Benghazi in time to thwart a second attack after the first incident that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Four Americans, including Stevens, died in the attacks that took place several hours apart.
Regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, committee members want to know whether there was a breakdown in information-sharing between federal agencies, preventing the FBI from thwarting the explosions that killed three people and injured more than 260.
Russia's internal security service, the FSB, sent information to the FBI about now-deceased bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. The Russians told the FBI that Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen Russian immigrant living in the Boston area, was a follower of radical Islam and had changed drastically since 2010. Because of a subsequent FBI inquiry, Tsarnaev's name was added to a Homeland Security Department database called TECS that is used by U.S. officials at the border to help screen people coming in and out of the U.S.
In January 2012, Tsarnaev traveled to Russia and returned to the U.S. in July. Three days before he left for Russia, the TECS database generated an alert on Tsarnaev. That alert was shared with a Customs and Border Protection officer who is a member of the FBI's Boston joint terrorism task force. By that time, the FBI's investigation into Tsarnaev had been closed for nearly six months because the FBI uncovered no evidence that he was tied to terror groups.
Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police four days after the April 15 bombings. His brother, Dzhokhar, was charged in the bombings and is recovering from gunshot wounds at a federal prison hospital in central Massachusetts.
© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Mueller-FBI/2013/06/13/id/509771?s=al&promo_code=13D1D-1#ixzz2WUr7tmZf
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
You ask, "Is anyone responsible for security at the NSA?"
ReplyDeleteNSA is responsible for security at NSA. Snowden did not smuggle the documents out of an NSA facility. He was working for a private contractor, and the contractor is responsible for maintaining security at their own facility. The FBI is charged with investigating crimes, not securing facilities.
-David
David, you are wrong on so many levels. Anyone who works for the NSA whether they are an employee or a contractor comes under the purview of the NSA or at least should. A contractor on a military base comes under the supervision of the base security.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is ludicrous. You are saying that a company could get a contract to re-pave a runway, use illegal Russian spies who would have the run of the base if the contractor allowed them to do so. That just does not make and sense.
Or if the contract would be in a secure environment ala NSA, then the contractor could have their own entrance to allow their people to come and go as they want, taking anything they want? Wrong. The contract might say that the contractor is responsible for security--that would be a stupidly written contract, but it still would be the responsiblity of the contracting entity to ensure security was in place, not the contractor.
You don't know what you are talking about. My brother-in-law worked on top secret defense systems contracted by the military to Boeing. Boeing has their own security systems in place. He could not walk into or out of their facility with a memory card full of data like Snowden did. He was screened going and coming to work every day -- not by the government but by Boeing security. He had to take and pass a polygraph test every month. All his work materials were locked in a safe every day. Boeing themselves administered all of this.
ReplyDeleteIf you are working on a military base, then you would be screened by military security, but Snowden was at a private corporation. The military does not send military security personnel into private corporations to staff their daily security needs. That is the responsibility of the contractor.
--David
You are trying to make me believe that because one site had good security, all government sites also do. David, you know on the face of that, it cannot be true. No human endeavor allows such consistency.
ReplyDeleteSnowden walked in and out with a thumb drive and took documents--that is the responsibility of the contractor first and the government second. Government has ultimate responsibility.
"You are trying to make me believe that because one site had good security, all government sites also do."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Kim worked right at the DOD and leaked top secret materials to Rosen. As I said already, a guy like Snowden or Kim will find a way through just about any kind of security if they are determined enough. However, that is no excuse for making it as tempting and easy for them as simply walking out with a thumb drive.
Government is not responsible for the day-to-day security at contractor facilities. That would require government to recruit, train, and staff the security dept. at every contractor facility. Do you really want to blow the DOD budget even higher through the roof than it already is? Furthermore, aren't you the guy who believes private corporations can do anything better than government?
--David
P.S. If you hire a contractor to build a house, are they responsible for theft/damage done by thieves/vandals because they forgot to secure the property when they left the worksite yesterday? Just curious.
"If you hire a contractor to build a house, are they responsible for theft/damage done by thieves/vandals because they forgot to secure the property when they left the worksite yesterday? Just curious." They are absolutely responsible for those activities if they did not secure the building. Their responsibility is to protect the home and if they left the door open, a window open, failed to lock the house/building, any resulting damage is their responsibility. They must return the owner of the building to the position he/she was in before the event.
ReplyDeleteKim and Snowden's managers/contracting company are all responsible for any damage he causes.
Right. That is why I said the government is not responsible when a contractor's employee walks out the door with a million documents loaded on a thumb drive. That is the fault of the contractor. Glad that we finally agree on that.
ReplyDelete--David
The government managers are responsible for the contractors that they are supervising. The contractor is at fault, however, that does NOT relieve the managers from their dereliction of duty.
ReplyDeleteThat last comment takes us full circle back to the housing contractor. He is not responsible for day-to-day security at the worksite. We agreed on that. But for some reason, you don't accept that if the government is the contracting party. I don't understand that. There is nothing in the contract that stipulates that the federal government will be responsible for staffing security at every private corporation that has a military contract. I could ask my brother-in-law, but I am pretty sure that the military NEVER came to the Boeing facility where he worked in St. Louis.
ReplyDeleteWrong--the contractor IS responsible for day-to-day security. If someone gets hurt, it is the contractors insurance that pays first and then the owners. If something gets damaged at the site, it is the contractors responsibility first and THEN the owner.
ReplyDeleteYou can bet your bottom dollar that the military was in St. Louis on a routine basis. No contractor works on an UNSUPERVISED basis.
That would depend on the circumstances of the case. If the owner created the hazard that caused the injury, then the owner would be legally liable. If the contractor's negligence of safety caused the injury, then he his liable, and the injured party would not win a lawsuit against the property owner based on the fact that the property owner did not go to the worksite every single day to double-check for security.
ReplyDeleteWhen my brother-in-law needed to consult with the military, he flew to L.A. or some other facility. I don't think they ever came to him, and I know for a fact that military did not provide for their day-to-day security at his facility.
--David
Wrong again!!
ReplyDeleteIf the contractor's negligence caused the injury/death, he would be responsible but ALSO would the owner regardless of his being at the site. The owner is always ultimately responsible for things that happen at the site. He can sue the contractor for the damages but the courts will not allow him to get out of ultimate responsibility as he is the owner. It relates to the reasonable man argument. A reasonable man should have been aware that Snowden or someone else might download documents from a computer that had a thumb drive. The government is responsible.
As far as your brother-in-law, he might have gone to LA for consultation but that does not relate to security type issues. You can bet your bottom dollar that there were strong incentives to maintain security in the building and those security provisions were reviewed by the government before letting of the contract and were inspected by the government during the contract.
The day to day is always up to the contractor but the owner (in this case, the government) is ultimately responsible for their contractor's actions or in-actions.
Fact-checking….
ReplyDeleteThis is an area of law called "premises liability". Premises law liability varies in different states. However, as I told you, the property owner's liability for injuries occurring on his property depends on the circumstances under which the injury occurred. This includes, but not limited to, the following:
"Determining whether the standard of reasonableness required by an owner toward licensees (and in some states, both licensees and invitees) has been met requires an examination of numerous factors including:
Circumstances under which the visitor entered the property;
Use to which the property is put;
Foreseeability of the accident or injury that occurred;
Reasonableness of the owner/possessor's effort to repair a dangerous condition or warn visitors."
http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/premises-liability-who-is-responsible.html#sthash.ftjkEpMt.dpuf
--David
Deleware premises liability law...
ReplyDelete§ 1501
TITLE 25
Property
General Provisions
CHAPTER 15. TORT LIABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS
§ 1501. Liability of owners or occupiers of land for injury to guests or trespassers.
"No person who enters onto private residential or farm premises owned or occupied by another person, either as a guest without payment or as a trespasser, shall have a cause of action against the owner or occupier of such premises for any injuries or damages sustained by such person while on the premises unless such accident was intentional on the part of the owner or occupier or was caused by the wilful or wanton disregard of the rights of others."
--David
Correct as far as someone coming into a construction site, it does not address the security provisions of government malfeasance.
ReplyDeleteCheck out this and see the article on Booz alan, Snowden's ex-employer. What do you think?
ReplyDelete"In a premises liability case, an “invitee” is someone who is on another person’s property because they were invited by the property owner. An invitee must be on the property for one of two reasons: to conduct some kind of business, or because the property is public property and is made available to the public."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/who-is-an-invitee-in-premises-liability-law/
In other words, you are an "invitee" into a public building (library, police dept., etc.) so long as you enter through the front door during regular business hours. Under those circumstances, the government may be liable for your injury.
What article? Where's the link?
--David
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47783/edward-snowden-s-employer-6-shocking-facts-about-booz-allen-hamilton
ReplyDeleteI think they get a lot of tax-payers money to track the traffic on internet social media. Does it do any good? Who knows? Nothing here about their terrible security system, or why they didn't screen out Snowden before they hired him. According to Chinese newspaper, Snowden says he took the job with the intention of stealing classified materials. He may have even known that they had poor security.
ReplyDelete--David