The Real Scandal Behind the Pentagon Leaks

[catfish1957]

@catfish1957 @Bigun

There likely isn't any need at all for him to know the content of the documents, but there is a need for him to have unfettered access to the system on which all those documents are stored so he can maintain the network.  And there likely isn't a way to give him the necessary access to the system without him also having access to the contents of the system.  That's why, as a computer tech, he needed the clearance that he had. 

To put it differently, suppose you give your computer to a computer tech to update some hardware, which requires him to have the administrative password to your computer.  Now, does that guy have any need to look at the contents of your actual documents, etc.?  No.  But the mere fact that he has to get access to your laptop means that he is going to have access to your documents.  That's the nature of what IT does, and it happens in companies all the time.

So that's the problem.  I imagine this is going to make IT access a bigger issue, but it is going to be a very difficult problem to solve.

Good explanation.  Sounds like either, the DOD needs to up their standards as far as trustable IT tech competencies, or  improve the tech-savvy-ness of the Intelligence community in general, giving admin rights to very highly trustable and select few.

[Bigun]

@catfish1957 @Bigun

There likely isn't any need at all for him to know the content of the documents, but there is a need for him to have unfettered access to the system on which all those documents are stored so he can maintain the network.  And there likely isn't a way to give him the necessary access to the system without him also having access to the contents of the system.  That's why, as a computer tech, he needed the clearance that he had. 

To put it differently, suppose you give your computer to a computer tech to update some hardware, which requires him to have the administrative password to your computer.  Now, does that guy have any need to look at the contents of your actual documents, etc.?  No.  But the mere fact that he has to get access to your laptop means that he is going to have access to your documents.  That's the nature of what IT does, and it happens in companies all the time.

So that's the problem.  I imagine this is going to make IT access a bigger issue, but it is going to be a very difficult problem to solve.

Maybe we just need to stop putting this kind of material in digital formats to begin with. Take computers completely out of it.

[Kamaji]

@catfish1957 @Bigun

There likely isn't any need at all for him to know the content of the documents, but there is a need for him to have unfettered access to the system on which all those documents are stored so he can maintain the network.  And there likely isn't a way to give him the necessary access to the system without him also having access to the contents of the system.  That's why, as a computer tech, he needed the clearance that he had. 

To put it differently, suppose you give your computer to a computer tech to update some hardware, which requires him to have the administrative password to your computer.  Now, does that guy have any need to look at the contents of your actual documents, etc.?  No.  But the mere fact that he has to get access to your laptop means that he is going to have access to your documents.  That's the nature of what IT does, and it happens in companies all the time.

So that's the problem.  I imagine this is going to make IT access a bigger issue, but it is going to be a very difficult problem to solve.

Which raises the deeper question as to just how well-permissioned are the discrete individual files on any one of the government's secret computer networks?

Documents that are this secret should - I would think - be limited to a need-to-know basis - and therefore access to an unencrypted version should only be available to an individual who has been granted such access and has the access tokens necessary to confirm such permission.

It shouldn't be sufficient to just have the network itself secured; each document accessible on a secured network should itself be secured.

Granularity of security protocols may be at fault here, in part.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Which raises the deeper question as to just how well-permissioned are the discrete individual files on any one of the government's secret computer networks?

Documents that are this secret should - I would think - be limited to a need-to-know basis - and therefore access to an unencrypted version should only be available to an individual who has been granted such access and has the access tokens necessary to confirm such permission.

It shouldn't be sufficient to just have the network itself secured; each document accessible on a secured network should itself be secured.

Granularity of security protocols may be at fault here, in part.

You're probably right.  You're talking about very large numbers of documents, and I'm not at all sure that the encryption is down at the document level.  Likely take a wholesale overhaul of some of those systems to get security where it needs to be.

[bigheadfred]

All this makes me wonder what the Chinese know and when do they know it?

They (probably) have the largest hacker/spy operation on the planet.

If someone told me they had real-time actionable intelligence on military actions, plans, contingencies, etc., before our commanders in the field did, I would believe it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Michael Tracey
@mtracey

According to the affidavit Jack Teixeira had access to the highly classified material because he was granted access pursuant to the job he was given. So the answer to "How did a 21-year-old airman get access to all this Top Secret material???" is "the Air Force gave it to him"



11:37 AM · Apr 14, 2023

[Right_in_Virginia]

Glenn Beck
@glennbeck

The leaked Pentagon documents revealed what the government was doing in YOUR name WITHOUT your knowledge. We should all be asking WHY we were never told.

1:53 PM · Apr 14, 2023

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Glenn Beck
@glennbeck

The leaked Pentagon documents revealed what the government was doing in YOUR name WITHOUT your knowledge. We should all be asking WHY we were never told.

1:53 PM · Apr 14, 2023

Right.  I mean, we have nuclear submarines all over the world, and we don't know exactly where they even are at a given moment!  We also don't know the precise capabilities/limitations of all our weapons systems, what intelligence assets we have overseas -- including their names and locations -- etc..  They should have to tell us ALL of that!!

[Kamaji]

Right.  I mean, we have nuclear submarines all over the world, and we don't know exactly where they even are at a given moment!  We also don't know the precise capabilities/limitations of all our weapons systems, what intelligence assets we have overseas -- including their names and locations -- etc..  They should have to tell us ALL of that!!

[bigheadfred]

Right.  I mean, we have nuclear submarines all over the world, and we don't know exactly where they even are at a given moment!  We also don't know the precise capabilities/limitations of all our weapons systems, what intelligence assets we have overseas -- including their names and locations -- etc..  They should have to tell us ALL of that!!

Well, I, for one, want to know what happened to our secret underground nuclear submarine bases in F ghanistan after we pulled out???

[berdie]

I don't know if the true scandal will be revealed until the intent is.

Is this guy just an idiot grandstander? Or does he actually have some nefarious intent. And what about the people on the original site where the original leak occurred and was then transferred to another.

[catfish1957]

I don't know if the true scandal will be revealed until the intent is.

Is this guy just an idiot grandstander? Or does he actually have some nefarious intent. And what about the people on the original site where the original leak occurred and was then transferred to another.

I know I kind of felt sorry for him earlier in the thread, but the more I think, he sure should have known better, considering doing something like this is going to ruin his life, and likely put him in Leavenworth for 30-50.

These guys are so big on SOP's regulations, and training that there is no way that didn't sink in.

[mountaineer]

...  After the massive data dumps by Chelsea Manning and the other leaker, Edward Snowden, new systems were implemented to prevent, or at least rapidly track, such unauthorized access to top secret files. The “revolutionizing” technology uses sophisticated artificial intelligence that develops prediction tools to detect insider threats. Obviously, those multi-million-dollar systems did not work so well in the Teixeira case. It took the government months to realize Teixeira was sharing classified records with his buddies on Discord.

For those of us who have held a TS/SCI clearance, the fact that Teixeira had access to certain internal intelligence products seems nearly impossible. Though he held a TS/SCI clearance, a low-level guardsman in the IT department would not have access to CIA operation center documents, FISA evidence under seal with the court, or briefing slides of the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. These are not products that anyone with a clearance could obtain just by accessing a secure computer. Some former intelligence officers suggest he may have been provided this information to create a controlled leak of the damaging realities in the Ukraine war and the escalating tensions with China. We may never know for sure how this all went down, but the circumstances are definitely strange.   ...

Christian Post

[Bigun]

Christian Post

Thanks @mountaineer I'm not buying ANY of the "Teixeira did it all by himself" BS being pushed here. Not yesterday, today, or ever.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The real scandal is the lax oversight and lack of accountability at higher levels of authority - like President, Vice President, and Secretary of State.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Thanks @mountaineer I'm not buying ANY of the "Teixeira did it all by himself" BS being pushed here. Not yesterday, today, or ever.

If the goal was to leak certain information into the public sphere, why do it in such a way that the perpetrator is so likely to be caught, and any accomplices traced backwards?  Why not just leak it directly to Russian sources or other potential publishers without the weirdo element of the whole gaming group?

[Kamaji]

If the goal was to leak certain information into the public sphere, why do it in such a way that the perpetrator is so likely to be caught, and any accomplices traced backwards?  Why not just leak it directly to Russian sources or other potential publishers without the weirdo element of the whole gaming group?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Christian Post

"For those of us who have held a TS/SCI clearance, the fact that Teixeira had access to certain internal intelligence products seems nearly impossible. Though he held a TS/SCI clearance, a low-level guardsman in the IT department would not have access to CIA operation center documents, FISA evidence under seal with the court, or briefing slides of the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. "

Obviously, there is no reason at all a low-level guardsmen would need to know any of those kind of operational details at all.  Zip.  Zero.  So if he didn't "need to know" any of that stuff, why did he need a TS/SCI clearance at all?  He clearly had one, which means it was relevant to his job duties despite him not needing to know any of that information.  So...why?

I think operational-type people are getting lost in their own weeds.  Yes, the kid didn't need to know any of that stuff.  However, the nature of his job meant that there was a substantial risk that he could acquire access to that information.  It's the only rational explanation for him having that clearance at all.  Because if we accept the speculation that "his wouldn't have given him access", we're left with absolutely no explanation for why he needed a clearance at all.

These are not products that anyone with a clearance could obtain just by accessing a secure computer.

This sentence is kind of the tipoff that the author doesn't really know what he's talking about.  Or rather, he's just thinking about how things worked from his end as a computer user, and not considering what was going on under the hood.  The point is IT doesn't just have access to "a secure computer."   This kid wasn't the guy you call when your screen froze and you can't figure out why.  This kid was working on servers or perhaps even mainframe system, and that's a level of electronic access that goes far beyond just "a secure computer".