
Secret Service Employees Punished For Illegally Accessing Congressman's Data - colinprince
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160604/13455634625/forty-one-secret-service-employees-punished-illegally-accessing-congressmans-private-data-hopes-discrediting-him.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+techdirt%2Ffeed+%28Techdirt%29
======
kerkeslager
Here's the punishments they received: _" In all, the conduct of 57 Secret
Service personnel was reviewed, including 11 at the SES [Senior Executive
Service] level. Of those, 41 are receiving some level of discipline. This
discipline includes a letter of reprimand to one individual, suspended
discipline contingent on no further misconduct for a period of five years, and
suspensions from duty without pay for periods of up to 45 days. The one
individual found by the Inspector General to have disclosed the private
information to an outside source, the Washington Post, has resigned from the
Secret Service."_

In contrast:

 _" On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors filed a criminal
complaint against Snowden, charging him with theft of government property, and
two counts of violating the Espionage Act through unauthorized communication
of national defense information and "willful communication of classified
communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person." Each of
the three charges carries a maximum possible prison term of ten years. The
charge was initially secret and was unsealed a week later."_[1]

 _" After making his concerns about mistreatment of whistleblowers known to
his superiors, Crane was removed from his position in 2013."_[2]

 _" In April 2010, Drake was indicted by a Baltimore, Maryland grand jury on
the following charges: 1) Willful Retention of National Defense Information 18
U.S.C. § 793(e) (5 counts) (793(e) is a modification of the Espionage Act of
1917 made under the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950), 2) Obstructing
justice 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (1 count), and 3) Making a False Statement 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a) (4 counts)"_[3]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charges)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crane_(government_officia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crane_\(government_official\))

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Indictmen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Indictment)

------
maxxxxx
Now scale that behavior up by a factor of 10 where people never get caught.
Same with Snowden. There are probably dozens of other people accessing the
same data but handing it to a political party or selling it somewhere else.

~~~
zeveb
> Now scale that behavior up by a factor of 10 where people never get caught.
> Same with Snowden.

Snowden hasn't been caught yet, but we can devoutly hope that he will be
someday.

What he did was no different: taking information he had no need to know about
but had access to, and giving it to folks who had neither need nor access.

As for selling it — he seems to have made quite the career from his crime.

~~~
maxxxxx
The people in this country had a need for knowing what's going on.

------
engx
It seems relevant that it was 41 Secret Service employees reprimanded and
perhaps should be added to the title.

Reminds me of this recent article on the US Navy corruption scandal, just
astonishing-

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/seduc...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/seducing-
the-seventh-fleet/)

~~~
yompers888
In terms of it being a startlingly large group implicated in wrongdoing, I
agree. However, I would argue that this intended harassment of an elected
representative by a self-protecting bureaucracy is more heinous than the
corrupt waste of money (and accompanied sharing of classified ships'
schedules.) Maybe that's because I see the greatest threats to the US being
internal rather than external. In both cases they should be punished harshly
(and I'm satisfied to say that Navy careers are being ended quickly, with
accompanying UCMJ sentencing), but one of these is the janitor who steals
office supplies, while the other is the janitor who finds an unlocked computer
and looks for incriminating emails for later blackmail.

Also, there was a short HN discussion of Fat Leonard recently:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11792183](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11792183)

------
jackgavigan
_> ..41 [Secret Service personnel] are receiving some level of discipline._

This sort of behaviour shouldn't be a disciplinary matter - it should be a
criminal matter.

------
jowiar
This is... the biggest thing that scares me about the assorted 3-letter-
acronyms -- Not that they're spying on you or me (because most of us are
irrelevant), but that they may have material on those with control of budgets
and bombs.

------
facetube
If they're not in jail, they're not being punished. This is a staggering
amount of willful, intentional corruption. The criminal conspiracy and
"illegal fun" rises all of the way to Secret Service Assistant Director Ed
Lowery. The only acceptable answer to this is to flush the toilet and rebuild
the agency from the ground up.

------
poof131
Another sad day for government and its inability to maintain any sense of
accountability. As others have stated, I don’t understand how this isn’t a
criminal matter. Beyond just privacy issues, this seems to fit the definition
of blackmail in D.C.

 _“Blackmail also has two elements. The first relates to criminal intent. That
is, the person needs to intend to obtain property from someone else or to
cause the other person to do or refrain from doing something. Second, in order
to achieve the intended goal, the person needs to threaten either: (1) to
accuse the other person of a crime, (2) to expose a secret or asserted fact
that could subject the other person to “hatred, contempt, or ridicule,” or (3)
to damage the other person’s reputation.”_ [1]

They exposed the congressman’s secrets with the intent to cause him to refrain
from critiquing the agency. How isn't this a crime?

[1] [http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-
theft/extortionblackmail/](http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-
theft/extortionblackmail/)

~~~
cdcarter
They didn't threaten the Congressman, they straight up leaked it. So, not
quite extortion. But definitely feels crime-y.

------
a3n
"some level of discipline" for one branch of government attacking another. For
violating a fundamental constitutional principle.

It's good to be the executive branch.

------
PeterisP
In the exact same situation if you aren't a congressman, well, then it just
sucks to be you.

------
doug1001
The precise context--which i didn't see mentioned in the OP--makes this story
many times worse: Why were the SS out to get Rep Chaffetz? Because he was
asking them questions during a Congressional Hearing. Why was the Hearing
called? Because of an incident in which two senior SS got drunk at a farewell
party for a colleague and rammed their car into a White House barricade.
(Sadly) not from The Onion

------
cmdrfred
We are quickly becoming India. Corruption as the status quo.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Our corruption doesn't require average citizens to pay bribes in order to get
basic bureaucrats to do their jobs (simple things like obtaining a birth
certificate) or to avoid arrest for a simple traffic stop. It's nearly all at
the high level.

Whether that's better or worse is worth discussing.

~~~
Johnny555
Well no need to pay bribes when the police can forcibly take your money, and
now even suck it right from your bank account.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862582)

Of course, you can get it back, but it's up to you to prove that it's your
money that they've just confiscated from you. Hope you don't need to hire a
lawyer to get your money back since now you have no money.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Which doesn't quite answer the point the person one level above made about
high vs low level corruption...

