Here's some examples of the comments that were posted on that blog:
"Heads need to roll at the State Department. 50+ days to tell a sitting US Senator that his passport records had been breached. Outrageous? More like CRIMINAL." -Posted By: Duane in Philly | March 20, 2008 at 08:18 PM
**
"well, according to the Times article, it APPEARS to be just curiosity on the part of the people who were fired. And, apparently, this same thing happened to Bill Clinton when he was a presidential candidate. -Posted By: lola | March 20, 2008 at 08:56 PM
**
" 'Imprudent curiosity' to controlled and sensitive information in three separate incidents? Are you kidding me?" -Posted By: this is not coincidence | March 20, 2008 at 09:09 PM
**
"So, is there any indication if this was employees acting on their own, out of curiosity, or did someone have them do it?" -Posted By: pelagic rabbit | March 20, 2008 at 09:10 PM
**
"I might buy 'Imprudent curiosity' if there was only one incident. But there were 3.
Believe me, these employees know the rules. Aside from the fact you sign a statement that you understand the Privacy Act and how it relates to your job, you also have to log in and a warning comes up when you access records. Also, you are aware you are being monitored and that unathorized access trips an electronic alarm.
If one dummy did it anyway in January and was fired, believe me, all the other low level employees knew it because the repercussions of accessing unauthorized records are played up to them.
Something really stinks here that three people are willing to do this in such a short time span. It also stinks that the middle management team for whatever reason didn't feel it was important enough to report. I don't believe it was to save themselves. They would have been fine for taking the right corrective action.
This is a huge rat's nest and the question that needs to be asked is who would benefit from accessing this information." -Posted By: speckles | March 20, 2008 at 09:27 PM