I can't discuss my relationship, or position at the company, past or future.
I am not defending the company against any accusation of being a spook agency (or some other such non-sense), those accusations are meaningless to their business. However I am frustrated by some people's ridiculous degree of paranoia and supposition about a commercial company for which I have a great deal of pride.... and employee owned company... which means it may or may not have been, is, or may be, MY company. A company that has grown in some part due to my own labor.
Also, having been a contributing member of this list for gosh I have no idea how many years... 7 ? 8? I hate to see people on it, make such ridiculous accusations that are not based on fact, but only on paranoia or guess work helped along by The X-Files and other works of fiction.
At 11:09 PM 2/15/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Michael J McCafferty wrote:Bwahahahahahaah now THAT's funny. Being that I know that is NOT true, I suppose
out's me as having worked there... so I guess that means that I can't be
trusted to tell you the truth on the matter, which means I guess you must be
right ! But, if I say that you are right, then I guess you can't be right,
unless your point of view fits with The Company Line.
The fact that you once worked there means absolutely nothing. I was once in the Navy. I don't know anything about the inner sanctum of the Navy. I was in Viet Nam for twenty-seven months. I don't have any knowledge of the top level strategy of the war. I was in Cambodia during that war [1]. I don't have top level knowledge of exactly what operations I was there to support. I once worked for Ryan Aeronautical. But there were rooms I did not have clearance to enter without escort. Some not at all. Doesn't make me an expert on every defense contract we bid.
My brother worked for quite some time at Camp Pendleton. He can't tell you much if anything about Black Ops training there.
We all knew what and had access to only what we were supposed to do our jobs. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what security clearances are about.
Break out the tin foil buddy !!! I am gonna get my brain messer-upper thingie out and aim it at you !
Not that I'm accusing you of it, but that is the standard response used by the government whenever confronted with queries or statements about operations, facilities, or programs which they would rather the public not be too curious about: belittlement and the suggestion that the one making the statement or query might be a bit of a crackpot.
Dude, they are no more a quasi-anything than CSC, EDS, IBM, or anyone else that
does a lot of systems integration work for the US and other governments. If
they were a quasi whatever the fuck you think they are then would they do work
for foreign governments ?
That's a rather naive question. Whether or not they do business with other countries is pretty much evidence about ... nothing. What, the U.S. government never does business with other countries. Hell, we've made it a practice to do quite a lucrative business, official and otherwise, with our worst enemies since before WWII - for various reasons. Who would /you/ give sensitive contracts to? Wal-Mart?
You haven't disproved anything with your counterpoint. The fact that you once worked there really doesn't carry any currency in this discussion. Unless you are going to tell us you were a very highly placed employee involved in the day-to-day top level operations of the company.
I didn't see any smilies and it's too wishy washy to be sarcasm.
I can not comment on the recent news stories. I refer you to the official CIAS...
errr umm SAIC web site.
So, if there's no big banner on their Website that says "SAIC is one of many spook front companies for the U.S. government" then we can rest assured that they aren't?
Dude !!! It's a COINCIDENCE that the name is CIA's in reverse. Tin Foil man !!!
Best go get yours ! Best go double strength ! Shiny side out !
This subject has been discussed at least a couple of times on this list in the past. If you want, dig back in the archive for those discussions which include credible evidence to support my statement.
BTW, I find it rather odd that you seem take what I said as some kind of indictment of SAIC. The fact that they are a spook company is not inherently a bad thing. Obviously, to anyone who's been around since before the cold war came and went, having such organizations can be national security asset when operated properly.
Another oddity, is that most of the most vocal of those denying SAIC Defense/NSA connections have been people who "once worked there".
Quoting DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Todd Walton wrote:
It seems that SAIC has cut their own throat. Oops?
Identity theft feared after break-in at top firm: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002178882_saic13.html
To hell with SAIC's reputation as a company involved in information security. A break-in at a defense contractor like SAIC is a concern bigger than SAIC's market status.
-todd
They're not just another government contractor, they are an unofficial (quasi-?) governmental agency. Think of them as one of the black arms of the Defense Department.
-- Best Regards, ~DJA.
[1] Although the official response we always gave was "Oh, no, we're not in Cambodia, we aren't allowed in there. But it's just over that hill there"
-- Best Regards, ~DJA.
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
