Friday, 16 November 2012


  • SpirifOfAmerica16 November 2012 4:11PM

    A short search of the internet will lead you in the right direction. These are the tip of the iceberg. Find someone with a job involving a security clearance and they will be able to give you more, based on their annual security training.
    It seems that the background checks do a pretty good job of screening out the true believers, but the reaction to a real or perceived need for more money seems to be harder to define.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-08-24/us/spy.timeline_1_trofimoff-hanssen-military-secrets?_s=PM:US
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/walker/1.html
    http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/spycasesustoc.html

Your comment will appear as follows:


  • Katyia16 November 2012 10:27PM

    groan - - - those stories look like they've been fabricated for a purpose - - -
    they don't prove that spying is financially motivated - - - my feeling is
    that is unlikely in the majority of cases since it would be such
    a stupid thing to do - - -
    http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/spycasesustoc.html
    here it cites that spies tend to be from upper ranks and the work is poorly
    paid - - - I feel there is some reason for maintaining that it is financially
    motivated as an extra slur against the spy - - -
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/21/spies-among-us-modern-day-espionage.html
    here it cites tracking terrorist activities, cyber attacks and counter spying - - -
    those are the things that come to mind when you imagine the normal
    profile of a spy - - - the kind of thing you are describing is akin to
    robbing a bank and I think its unlikely that top level security clearanced
    employees are in the habit of being that stupid - - - more likely they are given
    that label when the spying goes wrong and does not turn out the way that the
    select committee hoped - - - at which point they call you a traitor and threaten
    to set the FBI on you in a dark alley way or something like your articles threaten - - -
    also as I was saying Id like to see other criteria considered for people that have
    access to someones private - - - like whether they have deep seated abuse
    within themselves for instance - - - or are about as confidential as a tea strainer - - -
    *********
    submitted

    Your comment will appear as follows:


    • Katyia16 November 2012 11:15PM

      thats interesting actually both of them came to be pro risk ( a good thing ) King perhaps later on, but the principal difference being that George didn't like the use of regulatory bodies - - - which I was critical of but at the same time I agree that giving the banks more responsibility was a good idea and perhaps what he was notorious for - - - presumably his firm and steady hand - - - in not wanting to bail them out is a principal that you learn in rehab! so in a way Ive turn up my nose at what could very well be the teething problems of a post machiavellian banking system - - - something which perhaps King is puffing to catch up on - - - and like you say they have been good in different ways and the intuitive responding to a crisis is very much a thing of the moment - - -
      Mervyn "price stability does not guarantee stability of the economy as a whole" and that "the instruments used to pursue financial stability are in need of sharpening and refining."
      Steady Eddie restored his reputation through his adept handling of the United Kingdom?s embarrassing withdrawal from the European Communities? exchange-rate mechanism in September 1992. Withdrawal?which amounted to a forced devaluation of the pound sterling?was a political disaster for the Conservative government, but George managed the technical side of the crisis with consummate skill
      Wik
      **********
      submitted

      Your comment will appear as follows:


      • Katyia16 November 2012 11:22PM

        actually thats kind of straying from the point which was what
        criteria are important in giving people security clearance
        my point was that there are other considerations than
        just simply their financial status when having access to
        other peoples intimate lives - - -
        ************
        submitted
        Katyia16 November 2012 11:41PM

        there is a difference between letting it all hang out after midnight
        - - - making a terrible mess - - - and having paralytic
        gatecrashers groping your guests and pissing
        on the sofa - - - call the bouncers - - -
        *********
        submitted
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)