US Defense Contractor left Sensitive Files on Amazon Server Without Password

[tlink]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

They do as far as this context and discussion goes.  Be as pedantic about it as you like but it won't change the discussion.

no they don't. and i can turn that last sentence back at you and it would make just as much sense, its not a real argument but a cop out. contracted by the government=/=being the government. its the same as saying that when HTC contracts qualcomm, qualcomm becomes part of HTC. its still an independent body.

[leadeater]

21 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I don't consider myself particularly intelligent either, which says a lot about my thoughts towards the majority of younger generations who are ultimately astounded by a plastic bottles ability to land upright when it's filled with the right amount of liquid.

Damnnnnn, truth can be so harsh sometimes.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, tlink said:

no they don't. and i can turn that last sentence back at you and it would make just as much sense, its not a real argument but a cop out. contracted by the government=/=being the government. its the same as saying that when HTC contracts qualcomm, qualcomm becomes part of HTC. its still an independent body.

whatever floats your boat.

[AlwaysFSX]

17 hours ago, tlink said:

no they literally don't. is google the government? they are company's. they are businesses.

When you get contracted out by the government you are an extension of government employee status.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

When you get contracted out by the government you are an extension of government employee status.

As far as I am concerned, they are one and the same to the lay person, if they are contracted by the government it means the government are paying them to do a specific job for them.  Just like if they where employed directly they would be paid to do a specific job for them.  Security clearance would be the same, privacy laws would be the same and legal responsibility is the same, the only difference is the individual is paid by another entity who is beholden to the governments conditions. 

[tlink]

4 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

When you get contracted out by the government you are an extension of government employee status.

they might get treated like a government employee, but that doesn't mean they are one.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/government-employee/
 

Quote

1. appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity- the President; a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress; a member of a uniformed service; an individual who is an employee under this section; the head of a Government controlled corporation; or an adjutant general designated by the Secretary

2. engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; and

3.subject to the supervision of an individual named by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the performance of the duties of his position.

if someone qualifies for all three points they are a government employee. otherwise they are not. the dictionary definition would be civil servant, which also excludes contractors because that is only the administrative branch.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

whatever floats your boat.

my boat is floating so high in the sky at the moment you wouldn't believe.

[AlwaysFSX]

7 hours ago, tlink said:

they might get treated like a government employee, but that doesn't mean they are one.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/government-employee/
 

if someone qualifies for all three points they are a government employee. otherwise they are not. the dictionary definition would be civil servant, which also excludes contractors because that is only the administrative branch.

No.

 

When you're a contractor for the government you are on loan to the government. You are a temporary government employee without the benefits like having access to the TSP for example. It doesn't matter if you work for a company, if you're on a government contract you get paid by the government through DFAS for the contract which the company distributes to the contracted employees, you're paid by the government because you're an on loan government employee. SBA and DoE is a little bit different but follow the same concept and rules.

 

How about you go spend some time looking at both the government side and the contractor side before you go look at a singular definition and have your pre-determined ideas which are still wrong.

 

I've been around this my whole life, guess what, I know how it works.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

You are a temporary government employee without the benefits like having access to the TSP for example.

That's not how it works...

Seriously. I do jobs for different companies and government agencies all the time. I never switch employer, nor do I sign up for a second job. In every legal and contractual sense, I am not employed by the government. I am an employee of a private company at all times.

You could call it a "temporary government employee", but the legal definition will not agree with you.

 

There is a specific word for this and it's "government contractor", not "government employee". And yes, contractor and employee are two widely different things.

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not how it works...

Seriously. I do jobs for different companies and government agencies all the time. I never switch employer, nor do I sign up for a second job. In every legal and contractual sense, I am not employed by the government. I am an employee of a private company at all times.

You could call it a "temporary government employee", but the legal definition will not agree with you.

 

There is a specific word for this and it's "government contractor", not "government employee". And yes, contractor and employee are two widely different things.

No.

 

In the US, when your company is awarded a government contract and you work on it, you are by extension a government employee for the duration of that contract. That's how it works here, you are owned by the government for that job.

 

You're in Sweden, I am not, I have been around the government my entire life. I think after a couple decades I'd know how the semantics here work.

[tlink]

5 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

No.

 

In the US, when your company is awarded a government contract and you work on it, you are by extension a government employee for the duration of that contract. That's how it works here, you are owned by the government for that job.

 

You're in Sweden, I am not, I have been around the government my entire life. I think after a couple decades I'd know how the semantics here work.

i literally gave you the juridical definition, you have nothing for your side of the argument. give me some proof and i will consider it.

[divito]

Getting a contract for government work simply means you're a contractor, by definition and legally. At no point would a contractor say "I'm a government employee." 

My company hires a company to do a job, they sign a contract for the work they're going to be completing, they're not suddenly employees of the company I work for. What a silly argument.

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

No.

 

In the US, when your company is awarded a government contract and you work on it, you are by extension a government employee for the duration of that contract. That's how it works here, you are owned by the government for that job.

 

You're in Sweden, I am not, I have been around the government my entire life. I think after a couple decades I'd know how the semantics here work.

Sorry, but you're wrong. You're a government contractor, not a government employee. Employee is a legal term with a very specific meaning.

On your employment contract, does it says that your employer is some government agency? If it does not say your employer is a government agency, then you are legally not an employee by the government.

Your employment contract is what determines where you are employed. Not the location where you work, nor what tasks you are doing.

 

That's how it works both in Sweden and the US. You might say "I work for the government" in everyday speech, but you are not legally an employee of the government.

 

My workplace hires cleaning personnel from another company. The person who comes and cleans the office is not employed by the company I work at. They are employed by another firm which we pay to clean our office. The cleaning person is not legally employed by 4 different companies just because he/she might be cleaning 4 different offices that day. They are employed by one company, and does work at 4 different ones.

 

 

On 2017-06-02 at 0:53 PM, AlwaysFSX said:

When you get contracted out by the government you are an extension of government employee status.

This is not true.

On 2017-06-02 at 1:08 PM, mr moose said:

As far as I am concerned, they are one and the same to the lay person, if they are contracted by the government it means the government are paying them to do a specific job for them.  Just like if they where employed directly they would be paid to do a specific job for them.  Security clearance would be the same, privacy laws would be the same and legal responsibility is the same, the only difference is the individual is paid by another entity who is beholden to the governments conditions. 

This is true.

 

Not sure why this conversation went onto be about the definition of employee/employer, but no, you're not an employee of the government if you are employed by another company who has a contract with the government. The one who employed you and pays your salary is legally your employer.

[mr moose]

There is a legal definition of employment, which is there to ensure employees and employers can't dodge their rights and obligations when a company contracts to another entity.    In the context of general obligation and responsibility a private contractor is in exactly the same position as a direct employee.  

 

I think the only people here who are hell bent on trying to use semantics to prove a point are missing the bigger point that the individual in question only has the data because the government contracted his employer to do that work.

 

57 minutes ago, divito said:

Getting a contract for government work simply means you're a contractor, by definition and legally. At no point would a contractor say "I'm a government employee." 

My company hires a company to do a job, they sign a contract for the work they're going to be completing, they're not suddenly employees of the company I work for. What a silly argument.

 

In general laymen speak, the terms contract and employment get interchanged frequently.   Because press releases are not legal documents, neither are forum discussions.

[plsno]

Must be the same person that worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server. 

 

inb4 they end up with jail time for carelessly handling sensitive documents 

[PlayStation 2]

Let's see if he's a swamp figure and gets away with it.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

In the context of general obligation and responsibility a private contractor is in exactly the same position as a direct employee.  

There is also a difference between a private contractor and a contract between two entities to carry out work, looking at the conversation most people seem to be talking about private/sole contractors when arguing the case of being a government employee. I have no idea which is more common in the US or specifically US government contracts but here it is much more common to contract a company to do work not an individual.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There is also a difference between a private contractor and a contract between two entities to carry out work, looking at the conversation most people seem to be talking about private/sole contractors when arguing the case of being a government employee. I have no idea which is more common in the US or specifically US government contracts but here it is much more common to contract a company to do work not an individual.

I am pretty sure that's what alwaysfx was trying to explain.  The company is contracted but the worker for all intents and purposes works for the government. Just like security guards are all employed by external companies however they work at the mall and have a staff and change rooms there etc. 

[2bitmarksman]

On 6/1/2017 at 6:30 AM, themctipers said:

unsecured

 

no password

 

government information 

 

 

how are you that dumb? 

Rule #1 of SysAdmin work:
1) Users are stupid

[vorticalbox]

42 minutes ago, 2bitmarksman said:

Rule #1 of SysAdmin work:
1) Users are stupid

to keep a network secure you would an it professional for every single other employe.

 

don't press that, that's not a secure password, yeah let's not do that ever. 

[TopDollar]

On 6/2/2017 at 8:50 PM, AlwaysFSX said:

No.

 

In the US, when your company is awarded a government contract and you work on it, you are by extension a government employee for the duration of that contract. That's how it works here, you are owned by the government for that job.

 

You're in Sweden, I am not, I have been around the government my entire life. I think after a couple decades I'd know how the semantics here work.

Looks like there's some confusion going on here. Maybe I can clear some things up. First off, when I say government contractor, I'm generally referring to a company that bids on contracts put out by the federal government. In turn, each of their employees could be considered a "government contractor" I suppose. I tend to use the term interchangeably.

 

In a sense a government contractor could say they "work for the government" in that the government is paying for the job being performed, or the company has a contract in which they are essentially on retainer for the government, or their whole business model is based on getting government contracts. Hell, a majority of the time they do the exact same type of work and work hand-in-hand with federal employees, but they among themselves are private sector companies. In contrast, federal government employees work directly for the federal government. For example a Navy Civilian is a federal government employee that works directly for the department of the Navy. With so many different agencies, it can get confusing who you actually work for; but in general it kind of works like a chain of command. These jobs are gotten through usajobs.gov, which is managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

 

The best example I can give is within the Naval industry (which probably is a good representation of the whole government contracting thing since they deal with some of the largest contracts). In that industry, there are privately operated shipyards owned and operated by private companies (such as Huntington Ingalls Industries which owns a few different shipyards) and there are public shipyards which are owned and operated by the federal government. The employees of those yards work directly for the government and are considered part of the military. It's actually a bit of a misconception that the military only consists of active duty service men and women. A lot of what keeps everything running (planes, ships, bases, etc) is the DoD workforce. Something that I even expect our President wasn't aware of when his hiring freeze went into effect