freedom of information

One thing leads to another.
Laptop containing secret data is stolen from MoD HQ

A laptop containing secret data has been stolen from the Ministry of Defence's headquarters, it was disclosed today. The laptop, with an encryption key for unlocking sensitive files, was taken from the the MoD building on Whitehall in Central London in late November. An MoD spokesman said: 'An investigation by MoD police is ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment further.' According to the Sun newspaper the laptop was left in the headquarters by a high-ranking RAF officer. He was removed from the building and posted to another station while the incident is investigated. Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: 'If true this is an extremely worrying development. 'This goes way beyond the careless loss of a laptop or lapses in personal security that we have seen in recent times. 'I'll be seeking clarification from the Secretary of State as soon as possible.'

"This goes way beyond the careless loss of a laptop or lapses in personal security that we have seen in recent times."

Oh he must be referring to the hundreds and hundreds of laptops and memory sticks carelessly lost or stolen from the UK's MoD over the past few years, the vast majority of which have never been recovered.

JULY 2008: The U.K. Ministry of Defence has revealed some startling figures about laptop loss for the last four years: 659 laptops have been reported stolen and 89 lost. These figures contradict earlier investigations by the Ministry of Defence that put the new figures at double previous figures. Of the laptops lost since 2004, only 32 have been recovered. In addition to these lost laptops, 121 USB memory sticks have been lost or stolen since 2004, some of which held restricted / classified data.
Or, maybe he refers to the data stolen on September 11, 2008 that raised serious blackmail concerns for senior RAF personnel.
Sensitive files detailing the extra marital affairs, drug taking and use of prostitutes by very senior officers in the RAF have been stolen, raising fears within the Ministry of Defence that personnel could be vulnerable to blackmail.

Up to 500 people in the service could be affected by the theft. They have been interviewed individually about the possible consequences to them and to their families.

The potentially damaging information was stored on three computer hard drives that went missing from RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire, last September. The files were not encrypted, so could be opened easily. The RAF disclosed the loss of the hard drives two weeks after they went missing, revealing only that the bank details and home addresses of 50,000 servicemen and women were on the computers.

It kept secret the fact that the "vetting" information about 500 staff had also disappeared. The defence secretary at the time, Des Browne, was not told, nor was Sir Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner. The details were also withheld from parliament.

But the seriousness of the potential loss, and the nature of the information, were outlined in an internal MoD memo, which was obtained under Freedom of Information legislation.

It said: "This information included details of criminal convictions, investigations, precise details of debt, medical conditions, drug abuse, use of prostitutes, extra-marital affairs including the names of third parties.

"The data is not routine vetting information, but relates to those cases that have been referred to RAF … because the individuals have serious vulnerabilities that affect their suitability to obtain/retain a security clearance. This data provides an excellent target list for foreign intelligence services, investigative journalists and blackmailers. Moreover, if the information relating to the private lives of RAF personnel, especially of some very senior officers, enters the public domain, the reputation of the service will be tarnished.

"The vetting information would be likely to generate further interest and, due to the profile of some individuals, would likely grab front page status."

Well, I suppose there's two ways of looking at this, and it totally depends on who has the information and what they plan to do with it.

As with climategate, the "hackers" have done us all a service by exposing scientists' real attitudes. The leak clarified the situation and derailed the NWO agenda. Of course the "violated" parties immediately invoked the Rule of Law. They always know where to find it when they have been caught. Otherwise, they couldn't care less about the Rule of Law.

Similarly, exposing purloined data might clarify other situations which have resulted in deaths and/or ruined lives: false wars, false flags, pedophilia and human trafficking rings reaching up to the highest levels. Unfortunately, it might also be used to further confuse, to trigger another false flag, to lie us into another war, to sacrifice more innocent lives.

Momentum has shifted in our favor. Do you feel it?

The truth shall set us free.

No comments:

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.