I agree w/excessive reliance on contractors (and noted as much), but the other things are things contractor did, not NSA, aren't they?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @NatSecGeek
Contractors serve several important roles in natsec missions. For one, gov can't hire headcount for short term missions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MalwareJake @NatSecGeek
Yup. But real Q abt whether security standards maintained. I mean, obviously NSA itself is also a sieve, so maybe no difference, but.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @NatSecGeek
Doesn't NSA adjudicate everyone who works there, contract or civilian?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MalwareJake @NatSecGeek
You're talking people, not systems?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @NatSecGeek
Yes, people. Though I hope auditors would certify contractor systems too, probably using the best CEH's GS money can buy (we're screwed...)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MalwareJake @NatSecGeek
All I know is NSA lost some of the upstream data described in recent 702 opinion in respositories other than "institutional managed ones."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Collyer, bc she's worst recent FISC presiding judge ever, said, "huh. Maybe you should tell me what that means, when you get around to it"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This, in opinion that also described FBI moving stuff to contractors not approved, does not suggest the respositories adequately vetted
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Just so long as no defendants ever get this data democracy will be safe, tho.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.