Skip to comments.National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
Posted on 11/30/2012 8:04:50 AM PST by haffast
For Immediate Release - November 21, 2012
Presidential Memorandum -- National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.
The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.
The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.
bin Laden? YES!
The ante just went up on whistleblowers. Huge.
Not sure what all that means, but if it’s from Obama, it ain’t good!
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Preaching to the choir.
“These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.”
Hmmmm, the last I heard, it is still illegal for someone with a security clearance to spy, advocate the violent overthrow of the government, or disclose classified information.
Think john walker, et. al. Those scumbags are in PRISON for what they did.
Where in this statement is anything different from years past?
See my post #7.
Wondering what’s different in this statement from 0 that is different from years past.
Explanations range from mild....
White House Issues Insider Threat Policy
White House Advances Insider Threat Policy
November 26th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood
AIPAC, decapitators inside US government: Intelligence analyst
Pardon my French, but WHF is “ potential espionage”? Are they really going to imprison people for “potential” anything? Didn’t somebody make a movie about that, I think it was called Minority Report.
As you rightly point out, these laws are already on the books and the worst leaks of classified information have mainly come from within the administration itself.
Were it not for whistleblowers, we would not know about Fast and Furious. ..among other corrupt deeds of this admin. Now we are looking straight at Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans with what seems to be government collusion.
So the question becomes:
From obama, WHY this and why NOW?
To elaborate on the “potential” part of 0’s statement:
A person with a clearance is vulnerable when he engages in activity that opens him up to blackmail.
Examples that come to mind are excessive drinking, gambling, things that get him in debt or behavior that can be exploited by the agency that is trying to get access to the information that the clearance holder has.
People can get their clearances yanked for just the behavior, with no signs that some agent has tried to “turn” them.
No clearance, no job.
Depending on the activity, and the impact on national security, even without getting turned, its entirely possible to find a law being broken, and then charges brought.
The world of security clearances is VERY Orwellian, even before 0.
If we make a distinction between things that were wrong to begin with and have been classified in order to hide them (example Benghazi, fast n furious), and things that are classified because disclosure would cause “grave damage” to national security (example stealth technology, navy seal techniques) then my assessment would hold true.
That last link is by a guy named Gordon duff.
Wild is right.... I googled his name :0
Lotsa tinfoil hat stuff:
But if they bury accurate info in with all the CR@p, then it makes it hard to sort out.....
“If we make a distinction between things that were wrong to begin with and have been classified in order to hide them (example Benghazi, fast n furious), and things that are classified because disclosure would cause grave damage to national security (example stealth technology, navy seal techniques) then my assessment would hold true.”
Yes, it would, but the addition of the single word, ‘potential’, changes the entire thing. To me, that says that anyone knowing, or suspected of having damaging information, about the administration would be scrutinized whether or not they had actually done anything to warrant such scrutiny. It is intimidation pure and simple,
Gestapo fear given you a twitchy delete finger ?
See my post #12, even before 0 got in, the world of clearances was (and still is) quite Orwellian.
Throughout government and companies it was reiterated constantly that employees were obligated to report behaviors that COULD open them up to exploitation.
Behaviors on their own part, PLUS behaviors of their COWORKERS.
So in an odd sort of way, even before 0 came along blowing the whistle was encouraged.....
This one may encourage it further ....... law of unintended consequences and all that....
I labeled that pos obama a 'mulatto maggot', and posted this prescient graphic - http://i.imgur.com/cJDLl.jpg?1 - along with a link to gargle search results for 'The Road to Serfdom'
- - - - - -
If this site intends to roll over and pee in its panties, Ill be ending my 13yrs of participation.
. . . along with my monthly contribution, already small tho it may be as a direct result of this ecønømy.
My question was asked in a private reply.....
Make older programs run in this version of Windows
Most programs written for Windows Vista also work in this version of Windows, but some older programs might run poorly or not at all. If a program written for an earlier version of Windows doesn’t run correctly, you can try changing the compatibility settings for the program, either manually or by using the Program Compatibility troubleshooter.
If changing the settings does not fix the problem, go to the program manufacturer’s website to see if there is an update for the program.
Do not use the Program Compatibility troubleshooter on older antivirus programs, disk utilities, or other system programs because it might cause data loss or create a security risk.
Run the Program Compatibility troubleshooter
Click to open the Program Compatibility troubleshooter.
Follow the instructions in the troubleshooter.
If you cannot install a program, insert the installation disc for the program and, using the troubleshooter, browse to the program’s setup file, usually called Setup.exe, Install.exe, or something similar. The troubleshooter is not designed to work on programs that have an .msi file name extension.
You can also open the Program Compatibility troubleshooter by right-clicking a program’s icon or shortcut and then clicking Troubleshoot compatibility.
To change compatibility settings manually
To change compatibility settings manually for a program, right-click the program icon, click Properties, and then click the Compatibility tab.
Runs the program using settings from a previous version of Windows. Try this setting if you know the program is designed for (or worked in) a specific previous version of Windows.
Run in 256 colors
Uses a limited set of colors in the program. Some older programs are designed to use fewer colors.
Run in 640 × 480 screen resolution
Runs the program in a smaller-sized window. Try this setting if the graphical user interface appears jagged or is rendered improperly.
Disable visual themes
Disables themes on the program. Try this setting if you notice problems with the menus or buttons on the title bar of the program.
Disable desktop composition
Turns off transparency and other advanced display features. Choose this setting if window movement appears erratic or you notice other display problems.
Disable display scaling on high DPI settings
Turns off automatic resizing of programs if large-scale font size is in use. Try this setting if large-scale fonts are interfering with the appearance of the program. For more information, see Make the text on your screen larger or smaller.
Runs the program as an administrator. Some programs require administrator privileges to run properly. If you are not currently logged on as an administrator, this option is not available.
Change settings for all users
Lets you choose settings that will apply to all users on this computer.
I can only assume because he’s planning Chavez style dictatorship, and also expects a lot of gov employees to fight back and tell stuff they know.
MM - I HAVE NOT IDEA why all that jargon got posted in my comment to you!!! none! I’m freaked out and my computer is being “weird”....
I am completely mind boggled now.
AH, I think hub was trying to fix something on my computer. I’m going to go away now...
No worries, Mate. LOL
Noticed release date of Nov. 21.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I really, really should preview every comment I make... lest foot in mouth disease that way.