Multiple computers belonging to congressmen/their aides have been reported accessed or stolen (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533162-merkley-says-capi...). Someone posted a picture of Nancy Pelosi's email client, stole mail and left a threatening note in her office. Other private chambers were vandalized (https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/134703950452849868...). Can anyone really confirm that there were zero foreign agents among the thousands of rioters who accessed the building? Let's not pretend what happened was normal.

In that picture (1) it's actually an aid's computer that is unlocked. No chance Pelosi shares an office with someone six feet across from her.

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/01/06/d-c-protesters-s...

The vandalized office you linked is... weird. Judging by the dirt on the carpet a sizeable horde stampeded through the office, some of them stayed long enough to put cigarettes out on a picture frame or something, and yet the destruction seems pretty limited.

I would have expected way worse, including fires.

It's not dirt, it's shit. The insurrectionists smeared shit around the Capitol buildings.

Using the term, insurrection, to describe what happened yesterday is belligerently misrepresenting what happened. If the protests over the last year were mostly peaceful, then Jan 6 really was the most peaceful of them all. I was there, we had more then enough people to mount a serious insurrection. From what I could see, the members of the protest were used by some anarchist group to commit a BNE. Most, IE, 99.9% of the protestors were not involved in the BNE, and a significant portion of the protestors were fighting back against the anarchists.

The media is not telling the truth about what happened.

No, insurrection is pretty accurate. They attempted sedition, and these people breaking in are domestic terrorists. Clear as day.

Just saying it over and over again doesnt make it any more real.

They delayed and tried to overturn a constitutionally necessary process of democracy with their violent intimidation. What is that of you have a better word for it than terrorism and insurrection.

What happened meets the dictionary definition of an insurrection completely. It did not appear to be an armed insurrection or an attempted coup, would be difficult to file under terrorism, and sedition will be very challenging to prove, but "insurrection" is definitely the correct term to describe what happened.

> would be difficult to file under terrorism

"Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

I dunno man, the attackers had flashbangs, zip ties, molotovs... If the building had to be evacuated, then I'd say it counts as intimidation. It was certainly in pursuit of political aims.

I think this counts.

I wasn't there, but the images I've seen don't seem to demonstrate much violence and very little intimidation on the part of the insurrectionists. I see a lot images of people wandering around inside the building taking selfies and acting like tourists (albiet often poorly-behaved ones going places they shouldn't). In hindsight the evacuation was probably overkill but I acknowledge it was probably the best reaction to a clear and present danger.

Like I say, it would be difficult to file under terrorism. You're welcome to try.

I think it's an interesting discussion topic.

The people showed up with molotovs, flashbangs, and zipties. That's intent to intimidate, even if the residents managed to get evacuated before we could prove that they weren't just comfort props from people who were merely cosplaying as terrorists.

Here's a copy/paste legal definition where I removed a lot of extraneous examples:

> Under federal law, the activity or attempted actions which could fall under terrorism charges include:

> government official kidnapping;

> arson or bombing property;

> use of explosives;

> attacking a federal facility;

> conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim;

> take a hostage;

> bombing public places;

I mean, they brought molotovs and bombs. And zipties. I'd say an attempt was made.

Then of course there's the fact that one of them murdered a cop by bashing his head with a fire extinguisher.

Not siding which way on the terrorism debate, but have to comment on the:

> the images I've seen don't seem to demonstrate much violence and very little intimidation on the part of the insurrectionists

And say you must not have watched any of the videos then.

Here's one example: https://apple.news/AZER7Cgj_RceFCKp74T_oDw

They were armed with spears, guns, pipe bombs, and zip ties (for kidnapping/disabling people)

Trump supporters think that was a protest in the same way they think Donald Trump is a successful business man.

Not normal, not good. Will cause issues for sure. But those computers did not have access to classified information.

There are lots of things to be concerned about besides classified information - such as emails and personal files of congress members and staffers - but even further it's not just what you can get off of the computer, it's what you can put on it.

> such as emails and personal files of congress members and staffers

All of which is not of national security concern and most of which is already subject to public access via foia

Can I get a senator's passwords to Facebook and Twitter from a FOIA? no? Ok, what about a key logger on his/her staff computer?

I'm sure Windows Defender will take care of that!

Ignoring the potential for harvesting credentials and then abusing reused creds, the ability to send emails from a congressional email account is a disaster in and of itself. Imagine if someone sent out an email from Nancy Pelosi's email account validating Q Anon theories for example. Good luck ever walking that back.

> But those computers did not have access to classified information.

Got a source for that? You really think a sitting Senator's laptop has zero useful data for a foreign government, or even the opposition party? Heck his browser history or synced texts could have enough blackmail material.

Useful data != Secret/TS data. If there is any Secret/TS data on these systems, there's already been a security breach and yesterday wasn't special. Unclassified systems are often assumed unsafe/breached to begin with.

I don't disagree, however... human beings can be lazy, short-sighted or take short-cuts. I wouldn't put it past someone to keep something where it shouldn't be, intentionally or by accident.

I don’t think you understand how difficult it would be to get classified information on your unclassified laptop and there isn’t a chance in hell you could do it by accident

You write an email that references something you read in a classified briefing?

Nancy Pelosi is part of the Gang of Eight - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(intelligence) which is briefed on National Security matters by the Executive Branch (this is top secret, special forces operations style stuff).

That's actually how a lot of real-world classified data leak incidents happen. Either someone records a classified fact/detail on an unclassified system through carelessness or lack of caution, or compiles a set of facts that are (in aggregate) classified but individually unclassified.

The latter can be particularly pernicious as it's hard to know the aggregate classification. I may be able to say in separate contexts "The XF-42 is capable of exceeding 1200 nautical miles per hour" and "The XF-42 is capable of flying in excess of 60k feet" but placing the two facts together can actually be classified (in practice, usually more than two details).

This seems nonsensical -- why are the sum of the parts more classified than the individual?

If I put together a long list of facts about the XF-42, it's classified, but if I separate each item onto a different page and tell someone else how to recompile the information (eg page numbers), it's fine?

I can't imagine a scenario where this model makes sense -- ignoring absurdities like classifying basic facts (sky is blue) and words (help) due to cascading classification.

It seems to me the rule should be that of poisoning -- any information in a document with classification X poisons the rest of the document to the same classification; or rather, a document classification is the maximum of its children

My example probably wasn't the best as too much is already given away. It's more like this:

- We have a manned aircraft

- We have an aircraft that can travel above 60k feet

- We have an aircraft that can sustain or exceed Mach 8 (EDIT: strike this part as it connects two facts already: "at that altitude")

- We have an aircraft called the XF-42

- We have an aircraft based in Middle-Of-Nowhere, AZ

- We have 10 operational aircraft of some specific type

Any one (EDIT: or all) of those details may be unclassified, but as you start pairing them up classified information can be derived from it. Note that in this, somewhat better, example only one item identifies the aircraft (rather than my initial example in which both items identified it).

Publicly it may be known that an XF-42 exists, even where it's based, and that there are only 10. Publicly it may be known that an aircraft exists which is manned, travels above 60k feet and over Mach 8. But the two sets of data may not be joined in public because that would give more information than desired (in particular, that there are only 10 indicates a limit on the capability of the mystery superfast and high altitude aircraft).

EDIT: Regarding some of your other comments.

If I spread the information out and tell you how to reconstitute it so you can make a cohesive whole, I've just obfuscated the classified information which is the same as leaking it straight up.

Regarding "poisoning", this is how it's done. If you have a document with TS data, the document is TS even if it's a single line item surrounded by unclassified data.

Fact A and Fact B are unclassified for the XF-42. But combining Fact A and Fact B implies Fact C, which is classified. Separating each item on a different page wouldn't make the whole thing unclassified. It'd make the entire report classified. One of the facts, if not both of them, would likely be controlled information, even if unclassified, in order to reduce the likelyhood of Fact C leaking.

Example: the XF-42 has a jammer builtin. The output of the jammer is classified. But the amount of power available from the generator is unclassified, as is the percentage of power used by the jammer. Individually, either of those facts doesn't help, but together they tell you how much power the jammer has, which can help our adversaries figure out how much power they need to burn through the jamming.

That said, if any fact is classified, that by itself will make the document it's in at least that classification.

EDIT: to use your poisoning example. If it's a poison, it makes the entire thing poisoned. But there are binary poisons. Two things together make a poison, even if neither alone is (very) poisonous.

I’ve never seen exactly what they are talking about but what they may be getting at is actually information compartmentalization - group A can know fact A and group B can know fact B but neither group can know AB. Some higher up official can know AB but must keep those facts separated in documentation because they may share portions with the groups. Having said that - both A and B are classified. You can’t have unclassified compartmentalized info.

Just wondering as I have no special knowledge, but suppose I am a senator and I receive a number of classified briefings on a particular issue.

Could I use Outlook to take some notes on my thoughts on that issue? Say as a draft e-mail? I don't think there would be anything technical to stop me, and it's not going to set off any automatic exfiltration flags.

But those notes could very well need to be classified. Does everyone in the Capitol with access to classified material have the necessary skills and incentives not to make notes about them on their personal computer?

If you are receiving a classified briefing you cannot be on a machine that has internet access - the briefing would be in a secured area with no personal devices and the only machines in that area are airgapped (and they are airgapped forever, no switching back and forth).

You could of course write stuff down afterwards in an unsecure place but that is day 1 essential huge fucking deal no no. You don’t even discuss classified info outside a secure area, not in your public office not in the outback not ever. That doesn’t mean people don’t do it but when they do and it is found out it is a really big deal. Accidents do happen and there are protocols in place to deal with them when they occur. 99.9% of these leaks are extremely mundane low tier classification and are due to document misclassification etc. Sometimes the name of a project is classified and is leaked by reference etc but when it comes to actual important stuff people are quite competent at keeping that in secure areas.

Though of course all those rules are subject to Trump's Law: "When you are a star they let you do it".

A random member of the military or the administration would go to jail for a long time, a senator especially from the same party as the president would get away with it with impunity.

>Does everyone in the Capitol with access to classified material have the necessary skills and incentives not to make notes about them on their personal computer?

Access to classified information comes with training on properly handing classified information.

Mishandling classified information is a crime if you have a security clearance

I know a lot of people who worked for members of Congress and a few who do now. Computers sitting on desks in regular Congressional offices do not have access to classified materials. Most members of Congress or their staff do not have access to classified material at all.

There is a lot of private information on those computers, though, and the biggest risks there are the use of that info to harass staff and/or manipulation of it to feed conspiracy theories (see: Pizzagate).

Blackmail material is extremely unlikely since these are all government computers and everyone who works there knows they are subject to oversight.

There's a difference between the personal data you mentioned, which is on all of our computers, and actual classified information.

You'd have to reimage all those computers for sure.

This is something that surprises me about the whole thing. Wouldn't the chambers full of Very Important People who are presumably targets of many an angry/deranged person be among those highly sensitive areas? When I heard that these people were breaking down barriers and potentially storming the Capitol building, I thought surely they would stop as soon as they foolishly approached the chambers and started getting shot dead. When I was so much as standing across the street from the White House, where all the protesters hang out, I assumed I basically had a red dot on my head, so I should be careful what I do.

They are representatives to people and basically shake hands and kiss babies for a living. They can’t be isolated.

Obviously, the security services stood back and had high level direction to do nothing. They left a few capitol police flapping in the breeze and the cavalry (national guard, other law enforcement) never showed up.

I work near a VA hospital, and a few years ago a deranged man was running around the grounds with a machete and what looked to be a rifle. They activated their protocol and within 10 minutes mutual aid (Federal Protective Service police, State Troopers, local PD were on site.

That didn’t happen. I hope Biden purges the top layers of career management in those police agencies as well as the commanders of the National Guard. They failed the nation.

The leadership of the police agencies involved should absolutely be investigated.

The National Guard, on the other hand, you seem to be misinformed about its status. Most of us work regular ass jobs full time just like everyone else here and we're lucky to get 1/3 of our unit strength to report within a few hours. Plenty of service members don't even live in the same state where they are in the Guard, especially on the East Coast. Then it takes time to make a plan, organize, issue equipment, load/prep vehicles, and roll out.

Finally, NG commanders can't just choose to deploy somewhere on their own because there's an emergency. It has to be authorized by the state governor. I don't know how it works exactly for DC though. The Secretary of the Army was part of a press briefing Wednesday announcing NG deployment, but the NGs for the 50 states aren't part of the Department of the Army, but rather the states and the National Guard Bureau until mobilized under Title 10 authority (not a drop of the hat thing). Maybe the DC Guard is under some direct Executive Branch control which in this case would be bad news, because look who was more than happy to have the Capitol overrun.

I’m talking about the people at the top, not the guardsmen, who were activated iirc.

There are credible reports of a vacuum in terms of communication or response from the pentagon guard brass. Seems unusual that you have a insurrection at the Capitol and the governor of New Jersey is activating people, sending State Troopers, and trying in vain to reach someone in the Pentagon.

I think we are interpreting the term "Commanders" differently then. (Speaking about the Army NG) we have Commanders (who exercise command authority) at every level all the way from Company (60 to 300 soldiers) up to Division (10K to 15K soldiers).

The difference is the Governor of New Jersey directly controls the NJ National Guard. I have no doubt there was confusion about activating the DC Guard, as your sibling reply points out, the President is the Commander in Chief of the DC Guard. However, I doubt the Adjutant General of the DC Guard reports directly to the President, so for sure there was confusion in whatever layers of bureaucracy there are, and of course, the President wasn't exactly helpful in responding to the situation quickly or at all.

It's worth also pointing out that a big issue with National Guard mobilizations is funding. Since service members aren't on salary like the active component, then there has to be money set aside to pay SMs for their activation, someone has to decide which pot of money it's going to come from, authorize its use, etc, etc. It takes time.

In the case of DC (since Posse Comitatus doesn't apply), the capital would be better off having troops from the active component to draw on for emergencies.

> Maybe the DC Guard is under some direct Executive Branch control

Indeed it is. Since DC has no governor, the US president is the CINC of the DC National Guard.

Hence it is particularly damning that while the DCNG was activated two days in advance as the terrorist threat to DC became evident, the White House did not give the go-ahead for them to come to the aid of the Capitol Police.

Apparently this permission eventually came late in the day after events were already under control, reportedly conveyed by the Pentagon on orders of Pence rather than Trump.

That story is inaccurate speculation - it is not possible for the VP to issue orders to the military in any scenario unless the President is dead or has been removed from office. The military would disregard any such orders.

Secdef could issue those orders in POTUS’ name, he likely has the delegated authority to do so, but the VP is not in the chain of command and has no authority.

> The one person who almost got into an area where they really didn't want people was shot dead.

Wait, what is the context on this? I saw the footage once before I knew she died. It honestly looked like law enforcement with guns coming up the stairs, and it looked like a crowd of people, not a woman acting alone. What area of the building was that that was extra-sensitive?

EDIT: I see now, other angles are easy to find. Trying to climb through a blockaded entry point as guns were already pointed at her...

It was at the locked corridor barrier to the Speakers Lobby which adjoins the House Chamber. Rumors that Pence was there and it was Secret Service haven't been confirmed; he had been in the Senate chamber and Secret Service had evacuated him, so it's unlikely he would end up on the House side in a poorly secured area. News reports indicate it was simply Capitol Police, possibly someone associated with the House Sgt at Arms since they have an office somewhere around there.

I guess the woman, despite being a veteran (Air Force... why is it the Air Force has so many crazy people?), was so caught up in LARPing that she couldn't rationally evaluate that this was the last meaningful barrier to the House chamber and they might have more liberal rules of engagement or someone might panic and overstep their RoE to prevent an unauthorized mob from entering. If she'd climbed through, she could have opened the door to the mob.

On the other hand, I can see the argument that shooting her was an absurd overreaction. There were armed capitol police who had just come up the stairs behind her and that group of protesters, and they were doing nothing. The news reports that the justification for the shooting was that she might have been armed, but if that's really their rationale, it's a bad one. They should have retreated to the main chamber, because they weren't in a good tactical position, trying to defend a barrier with windows large enough for people to climb through. In addition, no such resistance was offered on the Senate side. When you're outnumbered that badly, unless you have special training like the Secret Service would, and plenty of ammo, you're not going to accomplish anything by shooting anyone, unless they are overtly threatening people such that you think you're going to die or be taken captive anyway.

I don't think Capitol Police are legally at fault in any way for her death, but I think they did the wrong thing there.

I'm hesitant to speculate too much before there's been an investigation, but I believe the shooting took place when there were still a number of congresspeople in the gallery of the house chamber, and she appeared to have a large backpack on that obviously didn't go through security screening.

I can imagine the Capitol Police being worried that something very bad could happen if she was allowed to breach the barrier and run into the chamber.

According to that huffpost reporter, they were still in the chambers at that moment, and the shooting was less than 20 feet away.

The video footage from inside the chambers at the time of the shooting showed people were still in chambers, mostly up in the second floor gallery, but a few on the floor.

I don't have a good phrase for people that willfully chose to believe something deranged. But believing that plainclothes security is going to let a mob get their hands on a congressman, that's it.

I agree with you, these folks charging through the Capital and expecting to get away with it were completely deranged.

She was carrying a backpack and attempting to breach a security perimeter.

It’s a good shoot pretty much no matter what else at that point. The police officer can reasonably defend that perimeter with deadly force.

Regrettable that it came to that, no one wants to see anyone due, but if you don’t want to get shot don’t go to a riot.

not sure the office computers are typically accessible to public

now they gonna check everything for possible keyloggers or whatnot

and theres no way of knowing if any computer was left unlocked and might have had something installed on it

At least one protestor claimed he found an unlocked computer. Up to others to verify if that claim is accurate.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/pro-trump-report...

Windows-L is the keyboard command to lock on Windows. I strike it by habit every time I get up from my chair.

He can explain it himself when he's trying to bargain a shorter prison sentence with prosecutors.

Super-L is the keyboard command to lock on Gnome. The super key is called the windows key on Windows :-)

Best way I found is to set a "hot corner" that will lock the computer once the cursor is moved there

Easier than typing a key combination

I had that at one point, but on Windows, with a high resolution screen and maximized windows there are too many useful operations dangerously close to every corner.

Some folks at my office have ID cards that need to be inserted to operate the computer (it locks when the card is removed from the reader). The smart ones have attached the card to their belt so that when they walk away, the card goes with them and the computer locks.

"Hi Representative Foo, I have a presentation on the USB stick here I'd like to show you, mind if I plug it in?"

"I just need to download the presentation from my website, can I use your computer real quick?"

Do you really think an 80 year old anti-tech representative would even consider that a problem?

I'd have to assume the computers are already protected from that attack vector.

Edit: I'm getting a lot of downvotes without replies, which makes me thing people don't agree with this. I wonder, how many have actually worked in corporate IT security for a non-tech company with older employees? Because things like this definitely happen on a daily basis.

Case in point: Pelosi's screen was unlocked when that guy sat down, which was at least 20 minutes after she left. That means that not only does she not lock her screen when she gets up, but the screen saver doesn't even auto-lock after 20 minutes.

Forget older employees, just employees. And I've seen enough poor security practices by 20 somethings at tech firms to have any faith in any user. Favourite example I've seen in several companies including one doing extremely sensitive work - senior devs with root access to the jewels of the kingdom doing pair programming on their own machines with interviewees / interns / new staff and leaving the computer unattended and unlocked to pop to the loo, grab a coffee, or let the junior work something out on their own.

its nice of you to assume the tech staff on the hill are any younger than 80yo reps themselves

i worked for a long while in various near-it jobs before transitioning to my current position in cyber /devops

i am quite sure that non-technical office security is crap under the best of circumstances

and that before a bunch of yahoos start rampaging around it

at least the employees know they are being tracked and easy to find ,pass security clearance and probably are not the dumbest of people

whereas Trump lot were obviously idiots,and under an impression they would not be persecuted

i dont see why some foreign actor couldnt pay one or more of them to install something or other

There's at least one photo of the screen of an unlocked laptop, with a security warning popup in the corner suggesting evacuation.

Yep, the important rooms would not accidentally be left accessible, even in a situation like what happened yesterday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Inform...

In the video I saw of the person who got shot, it looked like she was climbing into a room that already had both police and other rioters inside - is that incorrect? I’ve also seen pictures of people inside Pelosi’s office, including on her unlocked computer with emails displayed (albeit I assume these weren’t confidential - the only one mentioned was about the security breach).

> The one person who almost got into an area where they really didn't want people was shot dead.

The videos showing her get shot had several police in the area and they never looked like they were very interested in protecting that area before she was shot.

Difference between the Secret Service and Capitol PD.

Last I heard, it still had not been determined who shot her. What makes you think the Secret Service was involved? They don't typically protect Congress.

The guy that shot her was wearing a suit without any clear badging. This looks like Secret Service who may have been on VP Pence detail.

[Viewer discretion advised]

Screenshot:

https://i.imgur.com/vHvvkHQ.png

Video:

https://worldstar.com/video.php?v=wshh17cIq2bB6L71wx1q

Secret Service protect high-profile Congressmen and Senators. For example: Former first-ladies, presidential candidates, and others as appropriate. Hillary Clinton, for example, had an entourage of secret service agents wherever she went, including in the Capitol. Same with Obama leading up to the election.

TLDR: It's likely there are secret service members in the Captiol at any given time.

It does seem to have been a plainclothes USCP officer per new reporting. I had read possibly erroneous reports that he was part of Pence's detail.