Re: manual

Message posted by lone wolf on March 25, 2005 at 12:49:16 PST:

It could still be from Groom AND manufactured.

I've never seen a government security manual, but I've seen government (military) RFQs, and nothing the government puts out is as shoddy as that security manual. Government documents are usually good weapons or great kindling since they are padded with useless "boiler plate" information.

I recall the scanned images didn't even have page numbers. Glenn has reduced the scanned pages gifs to something unreadable, so I will need to dig up my copy of the files on my PC for verification. I don't recall any redaction marks either.

I'm not disputing the document comes from Groom. I just can't say with 100% certainty that it is THE security manual.

One thing funny about the manual is the page on codewords. I would expect the codewords to be a different document is codewords do change. Even that stupid Janet name change (that fools nobody) is done monthly. Other stuff in the manual is just strange, like what American would put a hypen in Unimog? Why would that "security breech" form be in the manual? It seems to me that form would be contained elsewhere, and the manual would say use form "blah blah blah." The manual doesn't have much "government-speak" in it. I see the word "compliance" only used once. How about the codeword for the control tower being "tower?"

Attached link: security manual a fake or plant???

In Reply to: Re: manual posted by Peter Merlin on March 25, 2005 at 8:56:18 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]