Post #351,080
11/23/11 5:24:40 AM
11/23/11 5:31:15 AM
|
Whoa
Individual employees do NOT get the hard disk when it is a security issue. The organization gets them, and then wipes / shreds them via a professional approved method. End users are NOT left with this responsibility.
Cut that shit out, you attempted to paint a blatant INSECURE action (wide insecure dispersal of various information, probably including their email history) with a sheen of security. There is a difference between hiding something (both what they were doing and how they were doing it) and securely destroying something. And they didn't want to be seen as destroying them.
This was NOT security related then (except to hide their history that SHOULD have been in the public eye), and it certainly doesn't pass the laugh test now.
Give me one security guy (you ain't) who will agree with you. Not happening.
BTW: You watching the various SCADA blowups happening lately? Can't be secured.
Edited by crazy
Nov. 23, 2011, 05:31:15 AM EST
|
Post #351,099
11/23/11 11:36:44 AM
|
Re: Whoa
Read the article. Says the administration, not the individuals.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #351,131
11/23/11 4:44:41 PM
|
I did. You're wrong. Sorry.
|
Post #351,153
11/23/11 10:35:47 PM
|
Not the same article
that one talks about individuals buying, and yep, thats different.
Doesn't really change my opinion on the matter..but you are correct that this would not be security procedure of the administration.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #351,155
11/23/11 10:53:00 PM
|
Actually you're wrong two ways
Buy backs are acceptable (and SOP) if the administration is buying equipment from individuals for security.
However,
1) Individuals buying hard-drives from governments (for security) is very unusual.
Assuming it's purely security related, the other problem...
2) How is this NOT favoritism? These drives weren't auctioned off. They did NOT belong to Romney personally, they belonged to the state. If I can buy a drive, can I buy a computer? A boat? A plane? What price was paid?
When I worked as a Government Contractor, I was not allowed to buy *ANYTHING* except through an action.
But then again, Romney is a Republican. If Obama did this, you can bet people would yell.
(Hell, they yelled about Clinton's administration walking off with 'W' keys from the keyboards!)
|
Post #351,173
11/24/11 9:43:04 AM
|
As I said, if you would read
the initial article mentioned nothing of individuals, it was said "the administration"..which, btw, is the government.
If it was individuals, then it is NOT SOP. I know this. And said as much.
The opinion that doesn't change is the one where I said "I don't care".
The W key thing was stupid too, but also destruction of property, not hiding anything.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #351,176
11/24/11 10:04:32 AM
|
GAO report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf (220 page .PDF):
 Twenty-six EOP staff said that they observed a total of 30 to 64 computer keyboards with missing or damaged ÂW keys. Two former Clinton administration staff said that they saw a total of 3 or 4 keyboards with missing ÂW keys.
 Purchase records indicated that the EOP bought 62 computer keyboards on January 23 and 24, 2001. The January 23 purchase request for 31 keyboards indicated that the keyboards were Âneeded to support the transition, and the January 24 purchase request for another 31 keyboards indicated that it was a Âsecond request for the letter ÂW problem. The purchase requests were approved by an OA financial manager who, in April 2001, sent an E-mail to an OA branch chief indicating that the 62 keyboards purchased in January 2001 were approximately the number that were defective because ÂW keys were missing or inoperable during the transition. (The actual number of keyboards that were damaged during the transition is uncertain because of different statements provided by EOP staff regarding the number of damaged keyboards that had to be replaced.)
There were 518 people working for the EOP the first few weeks of 2001.
Interesting that it seemingly took 3 months for the keyboard purchases to be approved. I guess they hadn't heard of the GSA yet.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #351,181
11/24/11 10:44:41 AM
|
Interesting?
That's pretty quick for gov procurement
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #351,184
11/24/11 11:14:21 AM
|
Heh. Don't think so.
|
Post #351,191
11/24/11 12:08:06 PM
|
Destruction? Really?
I don't know about you, but if a computer won't work with a keyboard, it certainly won't work if the hard drive is taken.
Then it becomes a matter of semantics: If I take a 'W' and leave a quarter, is that better or worse than taking a hard drive and leaving $100 bill?
You could argue that Romney's aides had permission...I'd argue from whom. Then I'd question if the Clinton administration officials had permission. :-)
And the follow-up is still on the table - who gave Romney's aides permission to "buy" the hard drives and at what price? That question isn't insignificant.
|
