View Single Post
Old January 28th, 2007, 12:05   #55
Digital_Assasin
 
Digital_Assasin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OTTAWA.ON.CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
You did not read what I said. If she has a proven clearance of the proper level, I can talk with her about it. You are nitpicking about the details. You can discuss classified material with others who have the right level. You can even go into fair details without revealing anything.
No, you can't. Again you are ignoring the need to know aspect. Just because someone has a secret clearance does not mean that they have carte blanche access to all classified secret information or lower for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
"Hey, today was fun; I traced a criminal's electronic papertrail and the Security Director was right there watching the show. Too bad it only took 5 minutes."
Your above statement is far from going into "fair details", though the exact meaning of that is probably open for contention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
I cant tell where, I cant say who I traced, I cant name the director or talk about the exact information I found, and I cant show documented proof. Cant say much of anything even to another security cleared person.
Going by what you said, then you know you wouldn't really be able to tell the individual anything more then what you stated here, if information related to that is indeed designated or classified:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
The Police Officer who watched and read this site is from the Joint Provincial Firearms task force (or whatever acronym they use today). They dont post, but they DO read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
Should I say where to point Google Earth for one of the monitoring facilities in Ottawa (anyone can see it) our would you get me fired?
If its existence and exact location as such is classified, regardless as to whether the general public can see the building, and you identify it as such. (The general public can see it and not know what it is used for. eg. another bloody office tower.) Then yes, ultimately it could get you dismissed depending on a lot of other things of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
Should anything classified be blanked out? Good luck. Wont happen.
That's the principle behind classifying information, to prevent people that are not cleared and have a need to know from seeing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
This is like you showing up in the Director's office telling him how to do his job and chiding him.
I would if they are not following security policy. I have an obligation to bring it to their attention if it is done in front of me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
Go find folks who really break the law IF that is your job. If not, you are impersonating an officer of the law.
Never said that I was in law enforcement, in fact as you pointed out my profile states, vaguely, what I do for a living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GREYLOCKS
Hmmm, want to be as professional as you claim? I would change my profile's comment about my job real fast. Government Security pros dont advertise. Telling all the world what you do in that field is not a good move.
My profile contains less information then is publicly available on GEDS and I never stated what my actual job entails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greylocks
"I fixed a computer filled with viruses today, it was hell." I just told the truth, nothing is classified even if the computer and it's contents are. The computer is not named, nor it's location, access codes or content. Not even the subject of the contents. That's how the secrecy laws work.
I am glad you understand that. However you do not need a security clearance say that [first sentence] to someone.



My point is when you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greylocks
Oh, if you want proof, you'll have to show me proof of your security clearance first.
You were implying that you had information that required a security clearance to obtain, has not been declassified, and were offering said information to another individual that, even if they had the correct level of clearance, do not "need to know" said information. Such an action (providing said information to the other party) would be a contravention of at least Section 4.1.A of the Security of Information Act.


This is probably all mute because you are now claiming it as a "sarcastic statement". But as you pointed out if "you want to be as professional as you claim", you would never have made that statement to begin with.

Last edited by Digital_Assasin; January 28th, 2007 at 15:07..
Digital_Assasin is offline