Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

She did 4 years and was still an A1C? That's a red flag for me.

Airman (E-2) to Senior Airman (E-4) Promotions

Just like the Army, the unit commander is the promotion authority for promotions to Airman (E-2), Airman First Class (E-3) and Senior Airman (E-4). As long as a person doesn't get into trouble, and does their job satisfactory, promotions up to E-4 are automatic, based on Time-in-Service (TIS) and Time-in-Grade (TIG).

The TIG/TIS requirements are:

Airman (E-2) - Six months TIG as an Airman Basic (E-1)
Airman First Class (E-3) - Ten months TIG as an Airman (E-2)
Senior Airman (E-4) - 36 months TIS with 20 months TIG, or 28 months TIG, whichever occurs first.

Link

She would have put on Sr Airman at 36 months, unless she had been demoted.

originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: Indigo5

I went to the Pluribus website earlier today.
They have several job openings!
Currently looking for linguists and IT.

A couple years after college, I had a college roommate that applied to NSA for cryptology.

I got interviewed for his security screening. What freaked me out was that I once bought ...hmm...something to smoke..in college..and the interviewer knew the day/time/place and name of the person I bought it from. The DEA had an undercover operation going on my campus at the time I was never aware of. I was just impressed with the thoroughness. I get the feeling they are much less thorough these days. This was a couple decades ago.

a reply to: abago71

She was apparently with the 94th Intelligence Squadron
www.squadronposters.com...

A1C ranking was an unnamed source in the Airforce...maybe they got it wrong?

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't think that is possible.

Unless they were the vaguest of acquaintances, they knew her rank.
If they knew her, worked with her or stayed in the same dorm as her, they knew her rank.

It's a pecking order. Everyone knows their place and many are quick to point out who has seniority.

If this source is in the Air Force, they are well aware of the ranking system too.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Lot's of strange questions. Given her experience she would have known what came next. Apparently she left an easy to follow email trail from her to the Intercept..Everyone has anonymous, encrypted, virtually untracable digital drop boxes these days for those things. She didn't even wait for a lawyer...just immediately said, yep, it was me?

Even if she didn't, she mailed a hardcopy to the intercept and the printed materials tracking dots would have outed her anyway. I'm certain she knew this and decided not to play the game.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Indigo5

Lot's of strange questions. Given her experience she would have known what came next. Apparently she left an easy to follow email trail from her to the Intercept..Everyone has anonymous, encrypted, virtually untracable digital drop boxes these days for those things. She didn't even wait for a lawyer...just immediately said, yep, it was me?

Even if she didn't, she mailed a hardcopy to the intercept and the printed materials tracking dots would have outed her anyway. I'm certain she knew this and decided not to play the game.

I believe they may have used the tracking dots to narrow the suspect list down to six persons. Here is a bit of detail: Quartz

The operation that zeroed in on Winner as the suspect who leaked the classified materials was described by a FBI agent in an affidavit released by the DOJ.

On June 1, the agent wrote, the FBI was given a copy of the leaked document, which the news outlet had given to another agency, presumably the National Security Agency (NSA).

That agency had verified that the document was authentic, and inspected it closely. The scanned copy of the document “appeared to be folded and/or creased,” the agent wrote, “suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.”

The unnamed agency then conducted an internal audit to determine who had recently printed the materials in question, and found six people who had. “A further audit of the six individuals’ desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet,” the agent wrote. “The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.”

a reply to: Liquesence

I was thinking, who would send anything to the Intercept now? It's almost like the editors of the Intercept wanted to sabotage the site itself. For all of the hullaballoo on the Intercept's site about how it protects anonymous sources, it didn't waste any time making sure the NSA was aware of the report that "Reality Winner" leaked.

And Reality Winner... that's a doozy of a name. Couldn't make it up if you tried. The first time I saw it, I thought it meant a Survivor or a Dancing with the Stars contestant was the leaker.

a reply to: alphabetaone

This is an interesting angle..

Sen. Warner says that many more states were targeted by Russian GRU than was shared in the original intelligence report released last year, plus at least one SW Company responsible for Voting Device SW.

He also said that he wanted to make it public, but that the Fed. legally considers the States and the Company "Victims", so they would have to sign off on making it public.

Of course the voting SW company doesn't want it known they were potentially hacked. Not sure what various states motivation would be for not making it public...beyond embarrassing or legal liability?

Maybe that has to do with her motive?..

www.usatoday.com... /

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Liquesence

And Reality Winner... that's a doozy of a name. Couldn't make it up if you tried. The first time I saw it, I thought it meant a Survivor or a Dancing with the Stars contestant was the leaker.

I am pretty sure the catch phrase for the entirety of 2017 is "Reality is stranger than fiction"..

a reply to: Indigo5

What freaked me out was that I once bought ...hmm...something to smoke..in college..and the interviewer knew the day/time/place and name of the person I bought it from.

That would have creeped me out a bit.
What year was that... approximately?

a reply to: Indigo5

What freaked me out was that I once bought ...hmm...something to smoke..in college..and the interviewer knew the day/time/place and name of the person I bought it from.

The modern day equivalent of that would be them telling you they knew you pirated a movie who's copyright belonged to Time/Warner, in 2002.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

What freaked me out was that I once bought ...hmm...something to smoke..in college..and the interviewer knew the day/time/place and name of the person I bought it from.

The modern day equivalent of that would be them telling you they knew you pirated a movie who's copyright belonged to Time/Warner, in 2002.

LOL

There is a topic there to be explored...How spying in the digital age misses a lot or makes spies lazy..Something to be said for old-school spy thinking and practices.

I think the reason it took so long to find OBL was that he went digitally dark and reverted to hand written messaging.

I think leaning too much on digital might be a crutch/weakness for our modern intel community.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

What freaked me out was that I once bought ...hmm...something to smoke..in college..and the interviewer knew the day/time/place and name of the person I bought it from.

That would have creeped me out a bit.

What year was that... approximately?

I graduated in 92 and it was a year or two after that...maybe late 93 early 94.

a reply to: icanteven

I was thinking, who would send anything to the Intercept now?

The impression I get is that she may have sent it to more than one media outlet, it just happened to be The Intercept who acted upon it (first).

For all of the hullaballoo on the Intercept's site about how it protects anonymous sources, it didn't waste any time making sure the NSA was aware of the report that "Reality Winner" leaked.

That's the strange thing, and also why many people (including other journalists) have a problem with how The Intercept dealt with protecting the source; they didn't do anything, it appears, to even try to make it more difficult for the NSA, or the FBI, to determine who had leaked it, either when they contacted the NSA about having the document, or even posting it.

a reply to: Liquesence

Which makes it look like a fake and scripted plan to hurt trump and his team?

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
a reply to: Liquesence

Which makes it look like a fake and scripted plan to hurt trump and his team?

Scripted, possibly. But the document is still real.

How is it a plan to hurt Trump? There is nothing in the document that implicates Trump or his campaign—in any way.

It implicates Russia, and there's no evidence the election was influenced or who it might have benefited even if it had been.

The Intercept really F'ed up here. They basically were either lazy, or reckless, or just didn't care about their source. The only reason the leaker got caught was because they essentially gave her up. Why would you ever trust them again if you had something to leak?

a reply to: Liquesence

But the document is still real.

Maybe it is maybe it isn't, the government contractor told the reporter he thought it was fake.

a reply to: icanteven

Exactly, I don't know what they could have been thinking.

a reply to: DAVID64

Absolutely. If this isn't a red herring, I don't know what is...