tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post6193797304314832255..comments2024-03-28T03:06:18.182-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: How do you punish security breaches when they start at the top?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-66449559329911846072012-09-12T00:24:22.474-05:002012-09-12T00:24:22.474-05:00It appears that the form is - absent any data iden...It appears that the form is - absent any data identifying a holder of SSI - a completely unclassified form. Why then did we have to wait for it to be "shared"? Aren't there any real investigative reporters and editors left? Or could it be that they are just so accepting of the crap released by the administration? I mean, they wouldn't want to place their access and perks into jeopardy, now would they?<br /><br />Pointing out some discrepancies here:<br /><br />. . . I hereby agree that I will never divulge anything marked as SCI or that I know to be SCI . . .<br /><br />. . . in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI, or related to or derived from SCI, . . .<br /><br />. . . agree to submit for security review by the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to such information or material, any writing or other preparation in any form, including a work of fiction, that contains or purports to contain any SCI or description of activities that produce or relate to SCI that I have reason to believe are derived from SCI . . .<br /><br />. . . These restrictions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive Order 12356; Section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act . . . .<br /><br />I find those extracts remarkable in that nothing "known or marked" as SCI was divulged, else the writer would be under the jail; the author has stated that he had "no reason to believe" it might be SCI; that "related to or derived from SCI" is overly broad and indefensible, in that "everything" can be said to be derived from and/or related to SCI (and not just "formerly" SCI); and that those restrictions DO NOT and lawfully cannot supersede or alter employee (and citizen) rights, nor obligations to report what are believed to be criminal activities, but still appear to be an attempt to provide blanket protection for government actions that could be determined to be criminal in nature.<br /><br />Just saying some thought needs to be given to the issues, but a closed secretive government-only court would not be the place to determine the rightness of the whichness.<br />shovelDrivernoreply@blogger.com