Slashdot Mirror


The Shadow Factory

brothke writes "The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America is the third of James Bamford's trilogy. Bamford started this with The Puzzle Palace in 1982 and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency in 2001. The Shadow Factory is likely the last book Bamford will find the NSA cooperative to, given his often harsh treatment of the agency and its directors. It is also doubtful that former NSA Director Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden will grant Bamford additional dinner invitations, given his portrayal of Hayden as a weakling who could not stand up to Dick Cheney and other in the Bush administration." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America author James Bamford pages 416 publisher Doubleday rating When sticking to facts: 9. When digressing: 2 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 0385521324 summary Good overview of the NSA post-9/11, but some of the author's biases get in the way The book can be summed up with two basic themes: The top management of the NSA and CIA has not made the fundamental changes needed post 9/11, as the politicking and inter-agency squabbles are seemingly alive and well. Bamford's other premise continues to be his contempt towards Israel.

Often bands produce abysmal releases in order to fulfill contractual requirements. In some ways, The Shadow Factory is reminiscent of that; at almost half the size of Body of Secrets, and 2/3 the size of The Puzzle Palace. When the book sticks to the facts and avoids conspiracy theories, it is a fascinating read.

If nothing else, Bamford knows how to turn often mundane aspects of wiretapping and supercomputers into a gripping read. Divided into five interwoven sections, the book starts out with a fascinating account of how two of the 9/11 hijackers lived the American dream, all the while planning their devious acts. Had there been some semblance of interagency cooperation and shared databases, Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi would have been identified in seconds.

Not only that, in the book, Bamford writes that many of the 9/11 terrorists set-up shop within miles of the NSA headquarters in Maryland, communicated with their counterparts in the Middle East, at the same time the NSA was searching the world over for them. Bamford makes the NSA seem like the keystone cops searching for these terrorists, while they were literally a par 5 away.

A number of the chapters details the Bush administration forays into its illegal wiretapping adventures and how Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card manipulated a sick and barely lucid Attorney General John Ashcroft into signing on to the program.

It has long been known that Bamford has no love lost for Israel. His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War.

The book details how Israeli high-tech data mining and surveillance companies such as Comverse, Verint, NICE and more have become indispensable to the US intelligence community. Bamford asserts that the vast majority of surveillance of telephone transmissions are done via technology from Israeli companies. He then makes the jump that the American intelligence community is placing itself as risk and that the Israeli companies will access this same information.

Such conspiracy theories are tired and old. For the longest time, there were claims that every Check Point FireWall-1 had a backdoor which the Mosad could tap into. Some years ago, the NSA even sent out a memo denying that fact, as it was getting in the way of firewall deployments at the agency.

As to Bamford's assertion of Israeli control of American intelligence, it makes great fodder for the conspiracy theory community, but lacks any sort of real evidence. What Bamford does is show that many of the founders of these companies are graduates of programs from the Israeli military, served in the same intelligence corps unit and therefore, guilty by some sort of association.

Irrespective of Bamford's deep hostility towards Israel, there is not the slightest indication that the American intelligence community was forced to purchase these Israeli products. They purchased these due to their superior capabilities produced by one of its closest allies. What Bamford fails to mention, is that Israeli and US intelligence groups have a long history of mutual cooperation. Much of the US success in its war against terror and monitoring of Iran are only due to help from Israel.

If the Shadow Factory is meant to be a critique of the NSA, then Bamford's unsubstantiated allegations about Israel and the Mosad show the agency to be a bastion of utter incompetency. Irrespective of problems with management at the NSA, it is utterly incredulous that the Mosad could single-handedly undermine the entire US intelligence effort, filling it with back doors and secret agents.

Bamford seems to be confused on his approach to the NSA. On one side, the NSA are the smartest guys in the room, successfully, surreptitiously and often illegally monitoring nearly every telephone call on the planet. They push supercomputers to the envelope and optimize ever CPU cycle. Yet simultaneously, these smart guys are simply pawns of a small group of Israeli intelligence agents who have managed to develop and get their software on various NSA projects.

In his review of the book in the New York Times, Christopher Dickey sums it up best when he writes of Bamford's habit of such conspiracy theories that "it's a fair bet that Bamford will find a way to work the bloodbath at the Taj Mahal hotel into the long NSA narrative that he began with "The Puzzle Palace" in 1982, followed up with "Body of Secrets" in 2001, and may well continue with paperback updates and further sequels after the present book. These are the kinds of details, or coincidences, that Bamford loves. In "The Shadow Factory" he piles one on top of another — events, addresses, room numbers — in a slapped-together text that often blends facts with speculation to evoke a pervasive atmosphere of conspiracy".

When Bamford is able to stick to the facts, which is about 2/3 of the book, he paints a frightening picture of the threats that the US is facing. Equally frightening was the response of the Bush administrations to the threats and attacks, which in some cases turned mince meat out of the Constitution. Bamford writes of Dick Cheney's attempt to give the President significant more control, while ignoring the need for separation of powers. There are many other such instances in the book. Yet when Bamford takes off his hat of reason and attempts to connect invisible dots, Christopher Dickey's observation should be kept in mind.

Seemingly on the brink of failure, the events of 9/11 recycled the NSA. For the astute reader who is able to discern between fact and fiction, The Shadow Factory is a fascinating read into an agency that still exists in the shadows. With a budget larger than the GDP of some countries, and a workforce that spans the globe, the NSA has long existed and thrived in the shadows that Bamford often describes so well.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

157 comments

  1. terrible review by vingilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A review that tries to debunk the conspiracy theories set out in the book... pretty lame.

    1. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is it lame?

      The book is not advertised as a set of badly researched lies, so it's up to the reviewer to let us know how it fares. Preferably before anyone who likes factual books wastes their money.

    2. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reviewer is unabashedly pro-Israel (Zionist, probably), so excuse me if I take his criticism of Bramford's book with a huge grain of salt. Beside, there have been other members of the intelligence community that have gone on record criticizing the US reliance on Israeli intelligence in the Middle East, so it's hardly all conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo.

    3. Re:terrible review by timholman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On one side, the NSA are the smartest guys in the room, successfully, surreptitiously and often illegally monitoring nearly every telephone call on the planet. They push supercomputers to the envelope and optimize ever CPU cycle. Yet simultaneously, these smart guys are simply pawns of a small group of Israeli intelligence agents who have managed to develop and get their software on various NSA projects.

      That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots. Conspiracy theorists are incapable of recognizing their own cognitive dissonance from embracing both viewpoints.

      I always find it amusing that the same brilliant government overlords who are supposedly micromanaging every detail of our lives can't seem to even get the mail delivered reliably, or a single branch of the government running efficiently, or even bother to cover up the most blatant evidence of their supposed plots.

    4. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      what was a lie in there? Please tell us and then back it up with proof. Off hand, I would rather trust Bamford who has not only inside knowledge but backs it up with others, than an AC who makes accusations.

    5. Re:terrible review by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Money? Who said anything about money???

      Go get it from PirateBay. Save your money for women and computer hardware and property.

      --
    6. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't get the impression that the reviewer was pro-Israel, merely that he was asking for some kind of evidence of the book's claims.

      Anyway, the last few huge failures of American intelligence have come from their arrogant ignoring of warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, and their refusal to share what little they do have.

      (See 119 disaster and political use of SIGINT to prevent Guantanamo revelations in the UK)

    7. Re:terrible review by sleigher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the spirit of embracing both viewpoints, have you considered that a lack of efficiency in government is no mistake? One could speculate that the government is as it is simply to ensure their own success. Not saying I think this, but it is the other side of your argument I suppose.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    8. Re:terrible review by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always find it amusing that the same brilliant government overlords who are supposedly micromanaging every detail of our lives can't seem to even get the mail delivered reliably, or a single branch of the government running efficiently, or even bother to cover up the most blatant evidence of their supposed plots.

      They just do that to make you think they are incompetent. Otherwise we'd figure out the truth about 9/11 (Israeli cruise missiles), the JFK assassination (Vice President Johnson) and TWA Flight 800 (shot down by the US Navy).

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, i was thinking, wtf, this is a book review, why does it read like a piece written by the Israeli department of propaganda?

    10. Re:terrible review by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reviewer seems to have a "make Israel look good" agenda. I've read the book, and didn't get the impression that it was anti-Israel. In the book, Israel is a minor side issue.

      NSA did have serious problems, the most serious being irrelevancy. NSA was set up to deal with the USSR, a large, slow-moving opponent. NSA's expertise classically was in radio interception and cryptanalysis, with the main target being the USSR's military and intelligence operations. After the USSR went down, the NSA downsized. Running a vast effort to obtain basic information about what the Soviet Union was doing was no longer necessary. You could go to Murmansk and look at the nuclear submarines.

      NSA's approach wasn't that helpful in dealing with small-scale non-state actors, which was the problem after 9/11. There were frantic efforts to repurpose NSA, which are well-covered in the book. These efforts were driven by the Cheney crowd, who were more concerned about accumulating power than actually dealing with real terrorists. That's well-covered too.

    11. Re:terrible review by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a numbers game for you: the reviewer stated that 2/3 of the book was composed of facts, yet 3/4 of his review is dedicated to slamming the book for its "anti-Israel conspiracy theories".

    12. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what is 'AC'?

    13. Re:terrible review by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      911? Inside job. Why were these guys in MD? Proximity to their handlers.

      Threats we face are terrifying? That's what they told Winston Smith.

      Ben Rothke? I suppose it is anti-semitic to draw attention to his affiliation.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    14. Re:terrible review by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots.

      Why would that be a problem? Most people are smart in some things, and stupid in others, or very smart when it comes to ideas and planning but not execution, or vice versa. People have varying capabilities, some of these conspiracies would touch a great many such capabalities, so why is it surprising that they would succeed in some aspects, and fail at others? Not to mention even a tightly knit conspiracy depends on multiple people who, again, could be smart in some ways and not so smart in others.

      It's only in the movies where the super-genius villain is so smart and capable that their plans never foul up outside of when the hero specifically steps in and spoils them. In the real world, Nixon succeeded in spying on his political opponents for a long time, until his agents happened to get caught breaking into the DNC office. Reagan kept his arms-for-hostages deal tightly under wraps, but wasn't counting on a leak from the receiving end. The NSA deployed and successfully kept their warrantless wiretapping program a secret for years, but they couldn't stop the FBI from accidentally handing transcripts of recorded calls to the party who had been tapped. Bush, Cheney, and Rove played the American people like a finely tuned piano to convince us to go to war, but then demonstrated an utter lack of ability to prosecute said war.

      So, like, how could they be both smart and stupid at the same time? Is that really the question being asked here? The answer is "because they're human", but that hasn't stopped real conspiracies from existing and succeeding for quite some time in the past, so why would it today? Conspiracies don't just exist in the movies, so movie stereotypes don't apply.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:terrible review by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hah! Show's what you know. JFK was assassinated by a cruise missile being remotely piloted by Oswald on board TWA Flight 800 piloted by Johnson while on the way to Israel to pick up the Ark of the Covenant from the Illuminati. Don't you see?! The pieces all fit!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    16. Re:terrible review by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, yes. Us Jew types tend to get a little worried about anything that can fuel the conspiracy theories. You'd understand if you'd been the scapegoat and target of the world's hatred for a couple of millenia also.

      Personally I agree with tjstork's comment below. We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.

    17. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you not get that impression when 80% of the review dealt with bashing that aspect?

    18. Re:terrible review by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anonymous Coward, usually a Digger who wandered onto Slashdot and decided to start a fight.

    19. Re:terrible review by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.

      That would kind of be the point now, wouldn't it?

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    20. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of Coarse there are no conspiracies. It just a coincidence that the family of John Hinckley (who shot Reagan) was best friends with the Bush family. Nothing to see there.

      I just happens, that Lee Harvey Oswald, was a former marine, defected to the Soviet Union, let back into the United States during the HEIGHT of the cold war, and then shoots the president.

      Of coarse there are no conspiracies. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain crazy or stupid. After all the american intelligencia, who run the media, know what is best for us, and would let us know if anything was amiss.

    21. Re:terrible review by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "(See 119 disaster and political use of SIGINT to prevent Guantanamo revelations in the UK)"

      What is 119 disaster? Is there a 120 coming up next or something?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      I don't think 'that' was the point of the review.
      You may want to look at it just once more....

    23. Re:terrible review by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Some of it may be a bit deserved too. From what I've ascertained from reading, and people 'in the know' about such things. After the Chinese (#1), it is pretty much Israel at #2 or #3 as far as who spies on the US the most. Hey, all countries do it, some just have more specific targets, and it appears US is about the highest on China and Israel. At least...it seems that way since so much of their spying activity is aimed squarely at us.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it the other way around? These conspiracy theories are made up by the government to make them look more powerful and competent.

    25. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Air Conditioning

    26. Re:terrible review by TnkMkr · · Score: 1

      So I have a simple honest question, no malice intended:

      Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?

    27. Re:terrible review by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?

      Yes, provided that the criticism is:

      A) directed at Israel rather than at Jews.
      B) Not just an old, known anti-Semitic canard or idea with "Zionists" or "Israel" substituted for "the Jews".
      C) the criticism is falsifiable and based on well-sourced facts.

      Unfortunately many modern anti-Semites claim to be merely criticizing Israel as a cover. You can recognize them by their failure to meet criteria (B) and (C). Everyone else, however, can criticize away.

    28. Re:terrible review by viracochas · · Score: 1

      Absolutely a terrible review. I haven't read the book yet but have read Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets several times. As someone who doesn't give a toss about Israel one way or the other Bamford's earlier works had no bias I could detect. How did this tirade get accepted as a review by slashdot? Considering the contribution Bamford has made to public consciousness about the NSA he deserves far better.

    29. Re:terrible review by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the USA is one of Israel's top spying targets. I'm also sure that the USA keeps tabs on Israel. I wouldn't even by surprised at hearing about double-double-crosses or triple agents and other things normally heard about only in spy stories as Jewish intelligence agents find themselves torn between two different countries with simultaneous valid claims on their loyalty. That kind of stuff is normal in international relations, just as you said.

      Actually, that sounds like a bloody good spy novel.

      Just don't come telling me that Israel spying on the USA while the USA spies on Israel somehow justifies anti-Semitism or the constant stream of anti-Israel conspiracy theories that, when traced to their source, always seem to come from Muslim or Arab countries.

    30. Re:terrible review by causality · · Score: 1

      In the spirit of embracing both viewpoints, have you considered that a lack of efficiency in government is no mistake? One could speculate that the government is as it is simply to ensure their own success. Not saying I think this, but it is the other side of your argument I suppose.

      That's absolutely true, but it doesn't usually happen the way you think it does.

      Most of the time, no one sets out to do that. It's rare that anyone plots and plans to have government become a self-feeding, self-justifying answer to the problems that it either created or had a hand in creating or could have easily prevented. Yet, this happens all the time. It's not just government. Anyone and anything that wants to rule you has to get you to depend on them first, typically by catering to your weakness. When government does that, it usually takes the form of doing for you things you should be doing for yourself.

      A classic example of this is the Social Security system. At the beginning of young adulthood, I saw that one day I would grow old and would want to stop working and retire, and that the time to start saving up for that is right now. I could have just depended on government to take care of this for me as many people have done, but this is a no-win proposition. For one, that system is like a Ponzai scheme and is likely to have collapsed by the time I reach retirement age. Even if that does not happen, the price is too high. By abdicating a responsibility that is rightfully mine, I would become weak and would therefore have to surrender some of my integrity. It's a subtle and intangible effect that wrong decision-making always has on your nature. I can tell you that real strength and real courage and real peace of mind cannot exist together with that kind of weakness because it makes you experience something like guilt (of failure) and thus inner conflict. The mundane explanation that is also true on its level is that such a weakness would, to a greater degree than is necessary, put my financial future at the mercy of the government and this is not a good position. Imagine how many people are going to find themselves in an unenviable position when Social Security finally does collapse -- that is only the outward form or the outward expression of what is really an inner weakness.

      So where does the drive to run government this way come from? The thing you absolutely must understand about people if you are going to change or improve anything is that each person always does what they believe is right, or at least what they believe is necessary, and so each person feels quite justified no matter how wrong they actually are. That's why confonting them in the wrong way, that is with anger and condemnation, only makes them more determined. They will label you an attacker and resist you and do what they do in spite of anything you say. Such an angry response may even be the reaction they wanted to get from you because miserable people who suffer because of how they live want to spread their misery; seeing their misery in you, even if they had to put it there first, is how they deny that you are in any position to tell them that they are doing something wrong, either verbally or by your example. Our attempts to control behavior have no power to address this actual problem because you can only effectively do that by force or by deceit and neither of those trees knows how to bear good fruit. At best, that can only replace one tyrant with a slightly less malevolent one and this is hardly a victory.

      If each person always does what they believe is right, no matter how right or wrong that actually is, then the matter of importance is where they obtain their view of what "right" is. Human beings have the ability to see that for themselves and to know it when they see it, but not when they suppress their real selves by falling for the allure of greed and power and other corrupting temptations. The people who run government and truly believe that it has so

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    31. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      AC's also seem to be predisposed to believing these conspiracy theories.

    32. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      What makes you seen to know his 'affiliation'?

    33. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually a pretty good attempt to codify things and I give you credit for trying even if I don't think it holds up.

      There are lots of potentially interesting directions we could go in this discussion but let's bring it back on point instead. Do you think Bamford's book fails these criteria and, if so, how?

      It seems to me that your criterion C is a high hurdle to get over for a book which not only deals with secrets but also a secretive agency and a mine field of national security laws that the author needs to tip toe through. Is it even possible for an author to pass that test without being sent to prison? Is every book written on the NSA therefore by definition going to be labeled "consipiratorial"?

    34. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me from US. Me no get every other nations does days then month. Me so horny. Me love you long time.

    35. Re:terrible review by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're right that something can be speculation based on very limited available facts without lapsing into conspiracy theory or prejudice as long as it's falsifiable.

      However, I feel that the book pretty much fails points (B) and (C) because it appears that Bamford puts together whatever little evidence can be found for his a-priori theories (so that fails B since the a-priori theories are really just old "Protocols" crap) and that if "evidence" is falsified he'll just scrape up some more (failing point C).

      But I do think that much of what's written about security and intelligence agencies amounts to little more than conspiracy theory. If all these agencies really do things they can't or won't let the public know about and aren't subject to the rule of law, how the hell is evidence going to leak out? We tend to conspiracy-theorize as these things happen, and then find out the truth (which is often, in itself, pretty awful and conspiratorial) roughly 30 years later.

      So conspiracy theorizing may indicate the existence of facts outside the public view, but it gives almost no evidence for what those facts are and nearly always points the finger at some convenient scapegoat.

    36. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you did something about those large noses we wouldn't keep confusing you with goats....scape or otherwise. [oh, I am going to burn for that one....]

    37. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unfortunately many modern anti-Semites claim to be merely criticizing Israel as a cover."

      So either way you can say they are anti semites eh?

      Personally I was horrified at the time of the Munich Olypics and strongly supported Israel.
      Israel's actions since since have eroded my support and I have reached a point of thinking
      Israel is a terrorist state(Both in its creation and subsequent actions)

      So am I an anti semite?

      When I express my view that is exactly what I get called, it is the standard way of muddying the issue so as Israel can go on with its ethnic cleansing uninterupted.

    38. Re:terrible review by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Just don't come telling me that Israel spying on the USA while the USA spies on Israel somehow justifies anti-Semitism or the constant stream of anti-Israel conspiracy theories that, when traced to their source, always seem to come from Muslim or Arab countries."

      Perhaps I'm just not as sensitive to it...but, since I'm not in or around any muslim communities or countries...I really hear VERY little of any anti-Semitical commentary at all.

      And isn't most everyone from the middle east technically a 'semite'....Arab and Jew?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Certainly. Just make sure it is legitimate and verifiable.

      As opposed to what goes on at Durban II. Ironic conference which turns into an anti-Israel roundtable by some of the worlds most oppressive regimes.

    40. Re:terrible review by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      So you are saying Bamford is beyond approach?

      According to you, the New York Times review which he quotes should not have been published either.
      Should Slashdot have a policy stricter than the NY Times :)

      Yes, Bamford has contributed a lot, but that does not give him license to misrepresent facts and connects dots that are not there.

    41. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, anti-semite, anti-zionist, anti-israel and anti-jew we are then. that's a fact! LOL! Who are we? We are the 31337

    42. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very limited available facts

      I think this is the crux of where we disagree. I don't think Bamford's information is limited so much as his ability to talk about knowledge of things not already in the public record. At that point the reader needs to default to whatever confidence they have in the author. Either you believe he knows a great deal more from informal sources or that he has some a-priori agenda.

      I haven't read this particular book but I have read some of his prior work and articles and heard him speak in various venues. His agenda (maybe obsession) seems to be national security and the NSA in particular and I am unaware that he has any interest in Israel outside of those. If you are going to accuse him of a different agenda, particularly something like the Protocols, it seems only fair that you hold yourself to at least as high a standard as you wish to hold him. A perception that he is unduly harsh to Israel or that he somehow sets off your anti-semitic spidey sense isn't satisfactory.

      In any case, I look forward to reading the book and making up my own mind.

    43. Re:terrible review by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The problem is that criticism of anybody at all in political power or the military in Israel is portrayed as "anti-Israel" by many various loud groups. Take Robert Fisk for example, since he was a war correspondent in that region he was automaticly seen as "anti-Israel". He got that accusation even when the portions in his articles that were ranted about were direct and attributed quotes from Israeli newspapers. If you mention Israel at all in a book of non-fiction in less than glowing terms various loonies will stick the "anti-Israel" label on it - ignore them since they probably aren't even from there.

      As for the "being weak" - those are the only people left standing when an administraion decides that being authoritarian is the way to go. People who were "difficult" got things like their wife outed as a covert CIA agent to the press after all.

    44. Re:terrible review by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I just don't see how it is a conspiracy to look at simple human nature. If I go to the same branch of service as you do, believe in the same God that we both pray to as we are dodging bullets in a foxhole, you know what? I am a hell of a lot more likely to do you that "favor" or look the other way when you want something I shouldn't hand out and wouldn't do for somebody else.

      There is a GOOD reason why the Marines have sayings like "Every Marine is my brother". It is because the shared experience means something. To pretend that military service, especially in something like the Mossad where they are pretty damned likely to get shot at almost constantly and have to work like hand in glove means nothing, simply shows that the author of this review knows nothing about shared experiences and their effect on relationships.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    45. Re:terrible review by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      So, this epiphany about Social Security and "personal integrity", did this occur before or after you read Ayn Rand?

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    46. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) directed at Israel rather than at Jews.

      As a non-Jewish citizen of the U.S. there is no other country I could buy a plane ticket to and be assured of not being kicked out or turned back. In comparison a Jewish citizen of any country could (if Jewish by descent at least). So I don't really see what the difference is in differentiating between Jews and Israelis.

      B) Not just an old, known anti-Semitic canard or idea with "Zionists" or "Israel" substituted for "the Jews".

      A canard is a false or baseless claim, so this is covered by C. Or did you mean a well-source, factual bias against Jews is anti-semetic? That would seem, with C, to rule out any criticism of Israel.

      C) the criticism is falsifiable and based on well-sourced facts.

      In a perfect world. In reality, we can only go by what we know so far. For instance, we don't know why Israel has attacked us and spied on us... maybe there's some innocent explanation for it. But it doesn't seem very likely.

      Can we really say who broke the last ceasefire in palestine? Does one or two PCB plastic rockets fired by some poor people stuck in a modern-day gulag count as breaking the ceasefire, or was Israel's full-on incursion what broke it?

      In reality, most criticism will be at least somewhat subjective. So relying on absolute burden of proof and correctness is not a valid way to define what is or is not anti-semitism.

      Really it is like what the Supremes said about porn... you know it when you see it. It isn't even whether the information is correct or not, it's whether the intention is to be derogatory and to debase. Unfortunately for the people who like to run around saying 'antisemite!' that's a much higher standard.

    47. Re:terrible review by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      "NSA did have serious problems, the most serious being irrelevancy. NSA was set up to deal with the USSR, a large, slow-moving opponent. NSA's expertise classically was in radio interception and cryptanalysis, with the main target being the USSR's military and intelligence operations. After the USSR went down, the NSA downsized. Running a vast effort to obtain basic information about what the Soviet Union was doing was no longer necessary. You could go to Murmansk and look at the nuclear submarines. " I was in the Army branch of the NSA (The Army Security Agency) as an analyst for high-level enemy communications from North Korea in the mid-1970's. The tools we had then were the top of the line for the time; truly amazing. And the agency was very much focusing on SigInt - mainly because it was waaaaay easier to do, cheaper, and you could do it from far away. All the better to spy on the USSR (nearly impossible to get human being intelligence - despite all the great movies showing that). But after the fall of the USSR, the NSA truly lost its way. For the war on terror, the agency needed HUMINT, and it was even MORE difficult to get folks into the Middle East. The agencies problems when I was in it and NOW are the same - they are drowning in data and need more of the people like me then (trained in the language and able to sort the wheat from the chaff). "Data-mining" apps can do some amazing thing, but in the end, human eyeballs and brains decide what is important, and what it means.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    48. Re:terrible review by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the purpose of SS is not to coddle old people. Just living off SS income is not very fun. It's not that much money.

      We have SS for a number of reasons. It's a form of insurance. What if you become disabled through injury or illness before you've saved a significant amount? Also, having SS to fall back on prevents us from having an increasingly large amount of destitute old people. Yes, it *would* be better if they had saved for retirement, but since they didn't, our society is still better off with them having some sort of subsistence living than having nothing at all.

      --
      Elrond, Duke of URL
      "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
    49. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us non-Jew types are getting tired of the exaggerations, too.

      "Target of the world's hatred"? The truth is that the horrendous misery inflicted on Jews (throughout history and obviously culminating in WW II) was caused by a very tiny sliver of the world. Huge populations - India, China, North America, etc, etc. - bear no malice whatsoever towards Jews, and in some cases are closely allied with Israel.

      Stop trying to guilt us. It's actually a little narcissistic...there have been many genocides throughout history, so there are probably quite a few people out there (Armenians, Hutus/Tutsis, Gypsies, Persians by Genghis Khan, the list goes on) who could claim the "world'd hatred" as well.

    50. Re:terrible review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an idea. How about I say whatever the hell I want? How about I criticize who I deem worthy of my criticism, without having to worry about being shouted down with your little abc list? Geez, for a group who has been on the receiving end of so much racism, you guys sure are racist.

      And no, I don't have a /. account, nor do I care to get one. So suck it if you don't like my 'coward'ness.

    51. Re:terrible review by fava · · Score: 1

      Most conspiracy theorists also also assume that hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators can actually keep a joint secret for years. In reality it simply doesn't happen, someone will sooner or later spill the beans.

  2. All this stuff is just made up crap. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    I mean, really, on either side of the aisle. WE have no idea what the NSA is doing and never will.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, we know some of what the NSA is doing, because some of it is not SECRET or TOP SECRET. For example, the NSA publishes recommendations for computer security, and together with NIST certifies products that comply with those recommendations. The NSA also evaluates cryptographic algorithms and hardware, and CPU enhancements that may have cryptographic uses (for example, when HP was working on a CPU instruction set that included a bitwise permutation operation, some NSA agents showed up). Some of the evaluation techniques are secret, but the fact that the NSA is doing this is well known.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by thedonger · · Score: 3, Funny

      WE have no idea what the NSA is doing and never will.

      I'll give you a hint. Watch "Enemy of the State." Not that.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    3. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you! The portrayal of Enemy of the State is every bit as accurate as the portrayal of the CIA in Bad Company.

      And Will Smith is a great actor, shame he got snubbed again at the oscars

    4. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      How does this get modded up? You really think this book - volume three of a highly regarded series on this organization - is "made up crap"? I'm not saying there aren't secrets, but a lot of the information in books like this can be verified by researching newspaper articles. This isn't about "either side of the aisle" making shit up; it's about journalists doing their jobs. Comments like the above are just an excuse to not pay attention.

    5. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      They've had a museum for a while and while not, "here's our project list for the week" it does have quite a bit of information about what they've done in the past (including exhibits on supercomputers and Verona documents). For an agency that's name was considered No Such Agency, I was plesantly surprised.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    6. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by alfredo · · Score: 1

      For most of their history they were the good guys. J Edgar Hoover misused them, but until bush came to power, they kept their ears pointed away from their fellow Americans. They worked for the American people, not against us.

      It wasn't 9-11 that changed it, plans were in the works early in the bush administration. Let the NSA get back to their core mission: the monitoring of foreign threats. Leave the domestic spying to the FBI.

      The NSA is a bunch of computer nerds. The label spy doesn't fit them. They are for the most part, patriots that love intellectual challenges. I'm pretty sure the majority of them are uncomfortable with the direction taken during bush's year. It adds a lot of noise that makes it more difficult to detect valuable intel.

      It's that old needle in the haystack. What bush did was pile tons of hay on top of the existing haystack.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    7. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      The NSA's main activity is evaluating and certifying electronic equipment for government use. When a company builds a new super secret secure communications toy like the Obamaberry, the NSA is the the agency who evaluates it and certifies that it really is as secure as the manufacturer claims it to be.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    8. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      For most of their history they were the good guys. J Edgar Hoover misused them, but until bush came to power, they kept their ears pointed away from their fellow Americans. They worked for the American people, not against us.

      You don't know that, that's my point. And NSA wasn't so much as spying on Americans as the foreigners they were talking to.

      --
      This is my sig.
    9. Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. by alfredo · · Score: 1

      Their charter forbid domestic spying, and the culture inside was such that nobody would dare target American citizens.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
  3. how about a tech thread jack by opencity · · Score: 1

    Given how interesting tech topics get thread jacked into political food fights around here wouldn't it be a refreshing change of pace if this devolved into a technology discussion about NSA gadgets? As I have nothing on that right now I'm just complaining.

    TODO: [insert informed inflammatory political troll]

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
    1. Re:how about a tech thread jack by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, I'd like to hear the pros and cons concerning the NSA's new [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]. I have heard from sources close to the inside that it can [xxxxxxxxxxxx] a single [xxxxxxxxxxx] at the packet level without having to [xxxxxxxxxxxxxx].

      --
      Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
    2. Re:how about a tech thread jack by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note to mods: Please reread Slightly Askew's post with "x" to represent a redacted item, not a porn film.

      It's funnier that way.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:how about a tech thread jack by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  4. At Your Local Bookstore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in the Fiction/Fantasy/Paranoia aisle.

  5. Prez, VP, are the bosses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't stand up to your bosses and keep your job. Everyone's got a boss.

  6. interview by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was a very interesting interview with Bamford a few weeks ago.

  7. right by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    better to wallow in conspiracy theories, since that's what the audience wants

    why try to tell the truth when you can sell an audience its quasireligious, foundational psychosis: western democratic governments are actually mind control agencies out to get you?

    but don't worry about my tone of voice: i'm obviously "one of them" (deluded sheeple or neocon stormtrooping fascist, take your cartoonish pick)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Be a little more dramatic oh put-upon one. The original complaint is valid, a book review should talk about the contents of the book. It's not the proper place to try and debunk the author's statement of fact. About as far as a reviewer should go is say something like "...although some of the claims in the book may not stand up to close scrutiny...". Only when a statement by the author is completely proven as false should you mention it and one time is enough, for example the statement about the attack on the Liberty.

      Here's a good example of someone reviewing a book full of complete crap and yet they manage to only call out the author once at the very end of the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/books/16masli.html

    2. Re:right by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Who modded this comment flamebait? It's absolutely true that an entire sector of the book-publishing industry exists to confirm people's delusions that the government is out to get them (preferably under the control of a foreign body so that America can somehow remain The Good Guys).

    3. Re:right by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      is it... *gasp* a conspiracy? :p

      and who do non-US publishers pander to to tap this market?

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    4. Re:right by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      and who do non-US publishers pander to to tap this market?

      No, sorry, I meant that in conspiracy theories the villain tends to be foreign. This allows conspiracy theorists who feel a bond of loyalty to their home country to convince themselves that its hands remain clean because it was duped and under the control of a foreign agent. It's a kind of catharsis.

    5. Re:right by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      i know what you meant. I was meaning that this market cannot only exist in the US. For instance, perhaps US or antarctican :p villains would do better in e.g. Europe.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    6. Re:right by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I think Antarctic villains tend to do fine even in the United States. Like that guy... what was his name... ah Oz_!#*#*%NOCARRIER

  8. disclaimer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the books primary offense is criticizing Israel, it might make sense to mention the cultural/religious affiliation of the reviewer.(google is (in this case) your friend)

  9. Questionable at Least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May be a bit bias, Israel or Israeli mentioned 14 times, in a short review, all in a defensive manner.

    The story of the USS Liberty is still open, NSA has yet to release all the intercept tapes from the EC-121 in the area or documents related to communications intercepts from other stations.

    Not a fair review.

  10. Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bamford's account on the USS Liberty murders was right on the money. I'm a veteran of the "Green NSA", the Army Security Agency. I was on duty on that fateful day in 1967. I was at the east African station he mentioned. I'm glad he debunked the "mistaken identity" lies about the murderous attack on our sailors. He was also right about our government siding with the Israelis time and time again when we tried to get justice for our heros. They even called off rescue efforts when they found the attackers were Israeli.

    After having to hold in my anger and hurt for 30 years, it was wonderful to find someone on our side. Thank you Mr Bamford.

    Don't get me wrong, I do believe in standing with Israel, but they got to return the favor. Friendships should be a two way street. Israel, stand up and take responsibility for your actions against the USS Liberty. We do believe in forgiveness. Trust us.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
    1. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never known what to believe regarding the Liberty incident. The one question I've never heard answered though is what motive would the Israeli's have for attacking an American ship? What would they stand to gain from doing so?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      Do not attribute to malice that which could be attributed to incompetence. If it would be malice I think by now someone would have spilled the beans.

      What I don't get is why they didn't simply own up to it. The accumulated PR damage of this festering wound surely should by now be higher than just getting it over with. Of course that is fodder for the conspiracy guys: What are they covering up that is so big then ?

    3. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The USS Liberty was a spy ship. Israel was doing some things they didn't want anyone else to know. They tried to sink the ship and destroy all lifeboats. They wanted no witnesses. There are suggestions that they feared the USS Liberty had intercepted info that could have exposed Israel to war crime charges. The whole story will come out someday.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    4. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are suggestions that they feared the USS Liberty had intercepted info that could have exposed Israel to war crime charges. The whole story will come out someday.

      Even if that's true it still begs two questions:

      1) Why would the Israeli's sink an American ship when they could just ask the American Government to keep secret whatever the Liberty intercepted? They trust us enough not to retaliate when they kill our servicemen but not enough to keep a secret?
      2) How would sinking the Liberty keep such information a secret anyway? The Liberty was presumably in constant communications with her base. How could the Israeli's know that whatever information she had hadn't already been communicated?

      I still find the conspiracy theories hard to swallow......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      The USS Liberty was a spy ship. Israel was doing some things they didn't want anyone else to know. They tried to sink the ship and destroy all lifeboats. They wanted no witnesses. There are suggestions that they feared the USS Liberty had intercepted info that could have exposed Israel to war crime charges. The whole story will come out someday.

      When it does, will we critically re-examine who the heroes and villains of the last world war were? Seems like it's about time for that....

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Israeli's are right wingers. Right winger's don't need reasons, or logic, and they don't use much of them either. They do as they please until someone stands up to them.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. That would mean telling the very people they wanted to keep in the dark.

      2. Not sure if I can address every concern because that gets into methods. The first thing the Israelis did was cripple communications. The first torpedo hit the com center killing all within. It took a while to get an SOS out.

      They even shot down our Flag, but our sailors risked their lives to run up a new, even larger American flag. they knew it was an American ship. It was clearly market, the weather clear. Our sailors were sun bathing on deck and waved and cheered the Israeli pilots circling the ship. They had no idea of what was coming.

      Two Israeli pilots refused to fire on Americans and were punished. They were the only ones disciplined. Because of that, it would be very difficult for the government to pretend they didn't know it was an American ship.

      The Captain of the Liberty was given the CMOH, but the ceremony was done at a hanger, not the White House because of protests from the Israeli government.

      My anger is at the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.

        Our government should have stood by our sailors. Our government acted cowardly. What a great disappointment.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    8. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by krou · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was my understanding that the attack on the USS Liberty was done in order to further thicken the fog of war (1967 War), not to make anything secret. It was meant to stop the super-powers from knowing what was going on (the Liberty was conducting intelligence operations). The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed, namely the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (See US Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1978).

      It is incorrect to label this as a conspiracy theory. The only thing really missing is substantiation of the reason behind the attack. It was clearly not an accident. Furthermore, Israeli attacks on its allies have been documented before e.g. the Lavon Affair.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    9. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not sure if I can address every concern because that gets into methods

      I'm not asking you to address "methods". I'm simply asking the question of how could the Israeli's be sure that sinking the Liberty would keep whatever secret they thought she had?

      The first thing the Israelis did was cripple communications. The first torpedo hit the com center killing all within.

      Well, 1) The torpedo strike didn't happen first, the air strikes did. 2) You think the torpedo hit on the comm center was by design? Torpedoes (particularly of the 1960s vintage) aren't known for being precision weapons and as I recall they actually fired five of them and only got one hit.

      Because of that, it would be very difficult for the government to pretend they didn't know it was an American ship.

      I don't know what they knew. I still haven't heard a good explanation for why they would want to attack the ship and more importantly how they could be sure that they would have gotten away with it. If they wanted to sink the ship why would they only dispatch four planes to do the job? Why hit a ship with napalm when there are more effective weapons for the job?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Israeli's are right wingers

      -1, drastic oversimplification and inaccurate statement

      Right winger's don't need reasons, or logic, and they don't use much of them either.

      -1, political bias

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 1

      Much of what stays secret is secret because it would embarrass, not endanger. Also: If Israel owned up, they might face expensive law suits by the families of the victims.

      I'm not concerned about the motives. I want justice for the fallen.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    12. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      It's Israel. Everything they do is fodder for conspiracy morons. If they "Ha'averot aleinu!" (The sins are upon us!) and beg the world's forgiveness for everything they've ever done wrong, people will just take it as evidence that their crazy theory was right all along and persecute the Israelis. If they act like they've done nothing wrong, people will assume they're hiding something. If they admit some things but not others (for example, only admitting to the things they actually did), people will assume they're covering their asses for when the real horrors come out.

      There is nothing Israel can do to make people like them.

    13. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you considered that your sort of "They're Israelis, they don't need motives, they just act out of blind malice like the Joker" reasoning is exactly why people on my political side of this sort of thing worry about even the slightest fuel for anti-Israel conspiracy theories?

    14. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing Israel can do to make people like them.

      Of course there is. The Israelis just need to give back what they stole from the Palestinians. Go back to the 1967 borders as per the UN resolution, remove all the settlers, and pay reparations for damages. I am not sure why that is so confusing to people.

    15. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A little. But I will still point out that Israel, as a nation, has become extremely right wing over the years, and this explains a lot of the country's actions. In fact, I think the greatest tragedy of Israel is just how right wing it has become, being a nation of Jewish immigrants. If you look at the history of socialist movements throughout the western world, you will almost invariably find a prominent Jewish name; So it is sad to see a country so far to the right as Israel presented as the premiere Jewish state.

      So I will refer to as a right wing state, as that is what it has become. And moreover I will say that the irrational and unreasonable national mindset resulting from becoming so right wing is the single greatest threat to the continued existence of Israel, so people are probably doing the country a favor by pointing it out.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    16. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing Israel can do to make people like them.

      Stopping expelling Palestinians from their properties to put colonists in it, would sure go a long way.

      Stopping the worse-than-apartheid handling of Palestinians would also go a long way.

      You know that old talk of treating everyone equally, human rights and shit.

    17. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      OK, so you think they've become a right-wing nation. And I think Avigdor Lieberman is a racist douchebag who shouldn't be allowed in politics.

      Go ahead and refer to them as a right-wing state. Just acknowledge that even people you think of as right-wingers have motives and logical capabilities.

      And then tell me what you mean by "right-wing". Do you mean economic rightism, social authoritarianism, or nationalism?

    18. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the only reason they expanded beyond the UN established borders is because they were being attacked. You can't attack a country and lose, then ask for your land to be back like before.

    19. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I think the only explaination that makes sense is that we were listening in on all their troop movements and we were sharing the info or were comprimised. That's the only explaination that makes sense as to why both governments wanted to keep it quiet (US because we didn't want everyone to know how much we could learn in a battle situation or that we were comprimised) and Israel because they thought we were sharing the info (or we'd been penetrated and they wanted the leak stopped quickly--which we didn't want publicized either). http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/attack_sigint.pdf Here's the intel community's write up.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    20. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 1

      All I am concerned with is justice for the USS Liberty victims.

      The worst thing to ever happen to that region is oil.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    21. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convince the US that Egyptians or whoever else Israel was fighting against were responsible, causing the US to get involved militarily.

      Google 'false flag operation'.

      There was also an Israeli professor of military strategy who flapped his jaws a little too much and admitted that Israel has nuclear missiles pointed at every major city in the west. The point being, if Israel is attacked (say by Iran or whomever), Israel intends to share their misery with the rest of the world.

      Israel is run by a bunch of psychotic sociopaths, and I wonder why the OP still wants to defend Israel even after all these admissions.

      (I could also talk about the numerous Israel spy scandals of past and present too).

    22. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 1

      They destroyed the antenna. You always cut communication as soon as possible.

      transmission of info:
      Things sit in the gut and digested before being discharged. You digestive system works all the time but you only crap a couple times a day. Of course things might be different today.

      Paranoia. Remember, they were under attack. They may not have wanted any monitoring by anybody, even allies. That's understandable. I don't know the real reason for the attack, we can only guess. Somebody knows, but as yet I haven't heard any other motive other than preventing the dissemination of sensitive info.

        They said it was Sharon's unit that was executing prisoners. Still there is no confirmation. Someday the truth will come out and I hope it is in my lifetime.

      I was in contact with an officer on the ship that day. He's written extensively on the subject and has testified before congress. He's a good guy and a straight shooter. I have confidence in his honesty. I've lost contact with him and hope he is doing well and has found some peace.

      This is about standing up for my brothers. Our government hasn't.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    23. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 1

      thank you

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    24. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, lets take all of Israel as reparation for Israel's numerous crimes against Americans. Sounds about as fair and logical as what you said there about land.

    25. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can it is in fact illegal under the Geneva Conventions to gain territory through war, even defensive war. Further U.N. resolution 242 demands Israel give back it's illegally held land. In sum you don't have a legal leg to stand on A.C.

    26. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two wrongs don't make a right. The UN has sat down to look at it, and determined that the land should not be acquired through war.

      Besides it is not as if Israel just kept expelling Palestinians from their own land during the last 40 years, and installing Israelis in their land.

      For fucks sake man, Israel now days is worse than South Africa during the apartheid. How many people in Israel actually agree that Palestinians should have, say, "human rights"?

    27. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It doesn't require a conspiracy all of the way to the top, and as for "just ask the American Government to keep secret whatever the Liberty intercepted", are you serious?

      From the wikipedia entry one of the main things that comes out is an impression that it was to stop those pesky Americans from looking too closely and interfering. If a commander had an "us against the world" attitute and if there is a weak chain of command I can see this happening when a spy ship from any nationality gets close. Also remember that US-Israeli relations were not quite the same back then.

      The problem here is criticism of any criminal that just happens to work for Israel is seen as advocating genocide - extremist loonies have removed any chance of talking with anyone else without getting shouted down.

    28. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying that a few corrupt fascists don't need reasons. Israel won't be led by such people forever since eventually people get sick of the corruption (already had some moves that way) and have the ability to elect somebody else. Distractions like kicking a savage animal in a cage just in time for an election are not going to work forever.

    29. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In every war, military forces kill members of their own side or their own allies, by mistake. The US killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, for example. Was that a nefarious conspiracy too? Or was it just a screwup, like happens in war?

      When something terrible happens, people can't think straight. They get angry, and they want to blame someone. That's understandable, but it doesn't lead to accurate analysis of what actually happened.

    30. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by renoX · · Score: 1

      [[ The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed ]]

      needed --> wanted.

      Here the 'need' is a subjective one not an objective one.

    31. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      And then tell me what you mean by "right-wing". Do you mean economic rightism, social authoritarianism, or nationalism?

      In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced. They see that the world should be a certain way and it is very difficult to dissuade them from that view.

      This kind of thinking leads to a very monochrome, us/them, mentality when dealing in economics, culture, social issues and foreign affairs. Economic conservatism (including protectionism!), authoritarianism, and nationalism all appeal to this mindset, and are accordingly found in conjunction. Parties like Yisrael Beiteinu do I think typify how such thinking ultimately manifests itself in the modern political spectrum. However such thinking is not restricted to these parties alone, and there is a great deal of right wing, uncompromising and authoritarian thinking in many mainstream parties across the world.

      However, I think politics in Israel is certainly well above the average right wing quota. And indeed now, probably well above it's own historical quota.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    32. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's anti-Semitic to point out that two high-ranking members of AIPAC, a very strong pro-Israel lobbying group, stand accused of spying on America on Israel's behalf. Israel has a proud tradition of having a robust special forces capability. It is probably a fair assumption that they are doing a lot more spying on the United States than they have been caught doing. I mean, it's impossible that the US has caught every instance of Israeli spying.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    33. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by EQ · · Score: 1

      "someone who only believes in rights for the right people. [They] only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced."

      Sounds more like collectivists/communists you have in mind there.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    34. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by alfredo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was not a mistake. Israeli planes were flying over the Liberty for hours before the attack. Our flag and ID were plain to see. Our sailors were cheering and waving to the pilots as they flew over. They knew the ship because it had been sailing those waters for years. The ship was in international waters, cruising slowly clearly marked and not acting in an an aggressive manner.

      I worked morse intercept, and was stationed nearby. Everybody on duty that day knows the truth, we heard it in real time.

      Some quotes, and a link to the profiles of the Liberty and the horse carrier Israel claimed was the ship they though it was.

          "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "
                          -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

                      "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
                          -- CIA Director Richard Helms

        "I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."
                          -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

          "Those sailors who were wounded, who were eyewitnesses, have not been heard from by the American public. . . [Their story] leaves no doubt but what this was a premeditated, carefully reconnoitered attack by Israeli aircraft against our ship."
                          -- US Senator Adlai Stevenson III in interview with Wm. J. Small, UPI, for publication September 28, 1980

      Details of the murders was classified for 30 years. For thirty years all of us that knew the truth were not allowed to say anything about the USS Liberty.

      Pilots are trained to tell the difference between ships, just as they are trained to recognize profiles of planes. They know the profiles well. The Israeli pilots were close enough to see our sailors waving to them.

      Here's the profiles of the two ships.

      http://www.ussliberty.org/g/libertyquseircompared.jpg

      It was premeditated murder.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    35. Re:Bamford - USS Liberty by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced. They see that the world should be a certain way and it is very difficult to dissuade them from that view.

      Fair enough, but that sounds a bit... overly vague to me. I think if that were true nobody would ever elect right-wing leaders since they so obviously act (by your definition) only in their own interests.

      I would say that a left-right divide really only makes sense in places like the USA, Canada, and England with systems that result in only two major parties. In those systems, it seems to me that right-wing ideology tends to come from a belief that might makes right, whereas left-wing views tend to come from a belief that weakness makes right. Taken to extremes, both are insane. Taken to extreme moderation, both are meaningless.

      I invite you to read up on the Israeli parties from last election. As you can see, Israel has about a dozen different parties that end up significant in the Knesset for coalition-building. Also, the left-right divide in Israel tends to run almost purely along nationalism lines: Zionist (ie: Jewish nationalist) parties are defined as right-wing while anti-nationalist parties are defined as left wing. Social and economic positions get distributed with a rather vague relation to this axis. A few peculiar tidbits to take notice of:

      1) The Labour Party, usually the party of the educated, secular Ashkenazi upper class, has become known as the party of entrenched interests and big business.
      2) Israelis tend to have too good an understanding of what anti-nationalism would mean for them to vote for the "left wing" parties.
      3) The big winners in the last elections were Kadima, Likud, and Yisrael Beiteinu. These three parties actually share much of their domestic agenda in common: land-ownership reforms (to stop real-estate shortages), better education, a social-democratic economy, promotion of science and technology industries, a strict and strong approach to stopping crime, and moderate environmental improvements.

      The most controversial possible issue is Yisrael Beiteinu's demand that everyone do military or civilian national service to get welfare-state benefits, vote, or hold office. This is actually a good thing, as it would encourage moderation in politics and participation in mainstream society. But racists on both sides don't like that. If the party wasn't run by a racist bastard who lives in a settlement and has a nasty approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I'd outright endorse them. Such a bill actually came up in the last Knesset and narrowly failed; I sincerely hope it passes this time.

      My point? That when national-security and nationalism is the defining issue of elections, the typical left-right divide as seen in other countries doesn't necessarily apply. Even the rightist and center-right political parties have domestic agendas that most countries would call center-left.

  11. Incorrect? by Samschnooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has long been known that Bamford has no love lost for Israel. His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War.

    Could an example his incorrect details be supplied?

    And what about it? An Israeli jet fired upon a ship flying an American flag and killed a bunch of Americans. There's no excuse.

    I just don't get American foreign affairs, I guess.

    1. Re:Incorrect? by alfredo · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just a jet, it was jets and torpedo boats. There was no mistake. They had recon planes buzzing the Liberty for hours before the attack. They knew the ship well even before the six day war.

      They claim it was an Egyptian horse transport. That ship was half the size of the Liberty and had a completely different profile. there was no mistake. The Liberty was clearly marked, and flew the American flag. It was in international waters and was not acting in a hostile manner.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
  12. The Mossad & NSA denied it? by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the longest time, there were claims that every Check Point FireWall-1 had a backdoor which the Mosad could tap into. Some years ago, the NSA even sent out a memo denying that fact, as it was getting in the way of firewall deployments at the agency.

    They sent out a memo? Well consider that one debunked.

    1. Re:The Mossad & NSA denied it? by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not debunked until Savage and Hyneman blow something up. In this case, a scale model of the Liberty.

      --
      -=Bang Bang=-
  13. Limits of Power by Bacevich by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're interested in this type of book, you might want to check out the Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich discusses the immense cost of the entire national security apparatus, and how most of the money spent on it goes to increasing the power and prestige of the individual services (NSA, CIA, FBI) and very little goes to actually protecting the American people.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  14. The reviewer - is he Mossad? by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    His defense of Israel is so vigorous I find myself wondering - is the reviewer himself on the Mossad's payroll? Was he sent here to cultivate sympathy for Israel amongst the world's intellectual elite (slashdot)?

    1. Re:The reviewer - is he Mossad? by FenwayFrank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the world's intellectual elite (slashdot)?

      Man, we _are_ in trouble!

    2. Re:The reviewer - is he Mossad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL!!!

      8-D

    3. Re:The reviewer - is he Mossad? by refactored · · Score: 1

      the world's intellectual elite (slashdot)?

      > Man, we _are_ in trouble!

      I'm truly sad to say, but yes, the parent is right, and you are right, and indeed we are in trouble.

  15. interesting data points by ekimminau · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know about Masad backdoors into Checkpoint firewalls, but the RAIN protocol http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00910866 is the method used to build Checkpoint HA clusters. Another intersting point is that Narus, a company founded by an Israeli, created technology that has been used to gather intelligence on the backbones of some of the largest ISP's in the world. The AT&T traffic sniffing snafu of a few years ago was accomplished using Narus devices.

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    1. Re:interesting data points by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      We did it to the Russians with oil pipe line controls, we sold to them in the 1980s. So it's not far fetched to believe a country would sell another country, friend or foe, technology that the seller country could exploit.

    2. Re:interesting data points by bensch128 · · Score: 1

      Israel's number one money maker is the ideas and developments of it's people, mostly in the form of software, more then tourism.

      When your country doesn't have any significant natural resources and doesn't have friendly neighbors to trade with,
      it tends to develop a very robust intellectual infrastructure.
      Plus, most of it helps the defense industry. You'll notice that the entertainment industry in Israel is quite small.

      Cheers
      Ben

    3. Re:interesting data points by vovin · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Crypto AG.

  16. NOVA Documentary by Jonny_eh · · Score: 3, Informative

    I haven't read the book yet, but I highly recommend the PBS NOVA documentary based on it:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/

    1. Re:NOVA Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that's for viewers within the US only.

    2. Re:NOVA Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4BItquziNI

  17. redeeming factor by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    The reviewer clearly states his bias though:

    "Good overview of the NSA post-9/11, but some of the author's biases get in the way"

    Unless of course 'author' does not refer to the author of the review ;)

    1. Re:redeeming factor by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The pro-Israeli taint is appalling. Israeli apologists use the same lines of reasoning they used for South Africa and that should tell you something.

    2. Re:redeeming factor by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      What did Israel do in South Africa?

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    3. Re:redeeming factor by linzeal · · Score: 1

      They were smarmy political as they faced similar problems with apartheid. Israel liked them so much they gave them nukes.

    4. Re:redeeming factor by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Nuclear and non nuclear weapons tech and nuclear raw material trade.
      eg
      Israeli nuclear forces, 2002 from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
      http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/a38g5111525882t4/fulltext.pdf

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. USS Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War."

    I have not read the book, but I'm curious. What was incorrectly written? Why was it incorrect?

    You accuse the author of making unsubstantiated claims, yet you've done the exact same thing here. I understand this is a book review, but if you're going to make such broad statements, at least back them up with a link containing evidence to support what you say.

    Labelling things that he says as "conspiracy theory" does not debunk anything at all . That is a sloppy way of trying to refute what he says (which we don't really know, since you don't actually quote anything he says, preferring to give your interpretation of it).

    The evidence you do cite is equally poor, however. The NSA sent out a memo refuting the claims of a backdoor in a firewall? So what? Bush claimed the US doesn't do torture, guess how accurate that claim was. And so what if the US and Israel have a long history of mutual co-operation. Are you naive enough to think that Israel wouldn't exploit that to achieve its own ends, if necessary? Why shouldn't they?

    Judging by some of your statements, you come across as having admiration for the work that the US and Israel have done together, so it seems clear that you have a bias towards Israel. Why should we not, then, discount anything you say here?

    This is, in my view, a poorly written, biased and unsubstantiated review, guilty of the same things that the reviewer accuses the book of.

  19. This book rocks by HongPong · · Score: 1

    An excellent overview of the techniques and methods of mass data mining.

    The question is whether all that stuff they collected (and the galaxy of contractors is REALLY well explained) can count as exculpatory evidence in big cases. (IE if you're accused of being a terrorist, then Booz Allen Hamilton ought to cough everything up.)

    Which is why i loaned my copy to rnc8.org - the RNC Welcoming Committee "furtherance of terrorism" defendants!

  20. Conspiracies do happen. by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a good list at the end of the wikipedia article on "proven" conspiracies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

    Governments are made of people. who are capable of brilliant maneuvers and colossal fuckups. If you read about Operation AJAX, you'll discover that fewer than 100 people overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s. This was due to their access to american political influence and funding from the CIA. Similarly, you can read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, and learn how a handful of dogmatic lawyers, with no qualifying experience in Islamic terrorism, international law, or even basic politics were able to dictate our policies on torture for 7 years. The thing with concentrations of power, outside of public view, is that it will lead to conspiracy, unless you believe that people don't act in their own interest. They absolutely do, and those in power are no different.

    In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI denied that they were targeting civil rights political leaders for assassination, but the revelation provided by the COINTELPRO documents provided proof that they not only did that, but actively infiltrated and subverted any organization thought to pose a threat to the existing "social order" of the United States. The CIA are the world leaders in terrorist planning, conducting operations from Latin America, to Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Lots of secret organizations do lots of bad things, and those are just the "known" groups in the United States. Consider countries like China and Russia and the Middle East, and I'm sure you can give yourself a nightmare without much imagination.

    To paraphrase Baudelaire, the greatest trick the conspirators have ever pulled is convincing the public that they don't exist.

    1. Re:Conspiracies do happen. by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The problem is that conspiracy theories are not only unproveable but unfalsifiable. They may occasionally be true, but then so may $RELIGIOUS_TEXT_YOU_DONT_BELIEVE occasionally be true. Sometimes real evidence will vindicate them (as with some COINTELPRO stuff), but until then nobody wants to deal with a believer in an unfalsifiable, paranoid theory of how the modern world works.

  21. Huh, wha? by huckamania · · Score: 1

    "...how Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card manipulated a sick and barely lucid Attorney General John Ashcroft into signing on to the program."

    Wasn't Ashcroft already signed on to the program? My understanding was that the sideshow in the hospital was just to continue the authorization for the program. Also, I'm pretty sure he refused to sign.

  22. Israel as a nuclear state by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Would you be surprised at this point? Israel has nukes and a secret chemical and biological weapons program. Israel has more nukes than France and are 1/10th the size in population. That is the only thing holding back the Arab states from running them over with their combined forces in this day and age. Israel is increasingly an untenable state, for the fact that when anyone who does not like them manages to get nukes (i.e. Iran) a single 100kt nuke would be enough to cripple the country and 10-20 to make the entire country glow like the surface of the sun. Israel is too small to have nukes, they are undeclared and have unknown capabilities in range and destructive power. I am more scared of hard right wingers in Israel coming to power than Iran at this point as the constant disregard for human life in Palestine shows that Israel would do anything to survive and that could mean doing crazy shit like targeting Europe or the United States if we attempt to force a 2-state solution.

  23. I love Bamford's work by PingXao · · Score: 1

    I've read both previous books and will read this one, too. I see this story as a spoiler zone, and I haven't read the entire review, but I want to thank /. for putting up a review on it in the first place. Bamford's looks at the secret world of our intelligence agencies are nothing short of thorough and well-researched.

    Everyone should read Bamford before ever uttering the letters "NSA" in public. Whenever someone starts ranting about the NSA I ask them if they've ever read the Puzzle Palace or Body of Secrets. If they answer, "No", then I know their opinion can safely be discounted.

    This agency is one Americans know very little about - with good reason most of the time - and oversight of it is incredibly important and sorely lacking.

    1. Re:I love Bamford's work by demachina · · Score: 1

      "but I want to thank /. for putting up a review on it in the first place."

      Well you should have READ the entire review before thanking them because it was a really bad, biased review. I'm assuming Rothke is either Jewish or very sympathetic to Israel because his review was obsessed with a defense of Israel and downplaying Israeli centric conspiracies to the point you started to feel this review is part of a CONSPIRACY. Slashdot editors really need to consider actually reading reviews and not posting ones like this one that are pushing a personal agenda instead of reviewing the book.

      --
      @de_machina
  24. Conspiracy Theory? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The book details how Israeli high-tech data mining and surveillance companies such as Comverse, Verint, NICE and more have become indispensable to the US intelligence community. Bamford asserts that the vast majority of surveillance of telephone transmissions are done via technology from Israeli companies. He then makes the jump that the American intelligence community is placing itself as risk and that the Israeli companies will access this same information.

    Such conspiracy theories are tired and old.

    As a reasonable, skeptical individual, I would personally be completely shocked to find out that absolutely none of this data was being passed on to Israeli security forces. At the very least, I would expect that Israeli intelligence has in some fashion managed to get access to information it needs through at least one of these companies. It would beggar belief that an organisation like Mossad had not availed itself of such an opportunity.

    Frankly, in the times we live in, I would expect that all of these companies along with every other subcontractor, has already creamed off useful statistics and data and sold them to banks, credit agencies and marketers. This in fact would bother me more than data being passed to competent intelligence outfits, would would at least misuse it in a security conscious way.

    This data is in some fashion being passed on to the Israeli security forces. It is in no way a conspiracy theory to suggest this, and any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. Whether the American intelligence community is placing itself at risk by outsourcing like this is another matter.

    Frankly, from the tone of the book, the American intelligence community appears to be a contradiction in terms.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  25. Chatter by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

    For a less political and more informative view of the NSA, read Chatter by Patrick Radden Keefe.

  26. the NSA downsized? by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "After the USSR went down, the NSA downsized"

    No they didn't, security efforts were redeployed in industrial espionage, with the help of our own GCHQ

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  27. What are the facts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When Bamford is able to stick to the facts, which is about 2/3 of the book"
    Why are you so certain of the facts? Do you have firsthand information? If so, then why don't you write a book?

  28. Biased review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A quick perusal if the reviewers website shows his pro Israel bias quite clearly, he "Ran for Israel" in a marathon for example.

  29. The problem with anti-conspirationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seem to be a strangely common link with all the persons who aim at disproving various conspiracy theories :
    They think C-T proponents are out to get Israel (the political country, not the Qabballah meaning) !!! While it has been proven countless times that this view is flawed to the bones.

    For the original review, I think the author misses the point in his crusade against C-T : you can be the brightest when it comes to planting surveillance devices throughout the world (NSA's job description) while at the same time being the dumbest when it comes to identifying cleverly organized spies (Mossad's core reputation) !!