Slashdot Mirror
NSA Ill-Suited For Domestic Cybersecurity Role
Hugh Pickens writes "Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Stephen Lee has an interesting article in the Examiner asserting that the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,' with a history of disregard for privacy and civil liberties. Lee says that for most of its sixty-year history, the NSA has been geared to cracking telecom and crypto gear produced by Soviet and Chinese design bureaus, but at the end of the cold war became 'stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.' When the NSA finally recognized that it needed to get better at innovation, it launched several mega-projects, tagged like 'Trailblazer' and 'Groundbreaker,' that have been spectacular failures, costing US taxpayers billions. More recently, the NY Times reported that the NSA has been breaking rules set by the Obama administration to peer even more aggressively into American citizens' phone traffic and email inboxes. Whistleblower reports portray NSA domestic eavesdropping programs as unprofessional and poorly supervised, with intercept technicians ridiculing and mishandling recordings of citizens' private 'pillow talk' conversations. Lee concludes that 'if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust — perhaps even a new entity. Meanwhile, NSA should focus on listening in on America's enemies, instead of being an enemy of Americans and their enterprises.'"
i l l Ill capitalization makes roman numerals!
> Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust
I'm afraid we have No Such Agency.
Sure, let's go ahead and create ANOTHER agency. People like Lee need to realize money doesn't grow on trees. Who else can we get to do this? The whole point is to find the next group that will try to pull something here in the US. DHS, BATFE, and FBI, all have the capability, although DHS would probably the best pick of the bunch.
they were at the forefront of technology!
It must be true!
The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.
At present, nobody knows exactly what the reach is of the NSA. Nobody knows what they can and can't hear. If you task them with defending assets, each probe or attack reveals new information about what the NSA has at their disposal, depending on what the response is. I really don't think the NSA is willing to compromise the secrecy of its capabilities in order to thwart hackers.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I doubt the authors claims regarding the state of the NSA. It's fun to take a poke at big agencies like the NSA because they fit into that 'big bad government' mythology that is so prevalent today. He's presuming the NSA is somehow more effective than any other large organization. (public OR private)
What I doubt is the possibility that a new agency would, in fact, respect the personal freedoms as spelled out in the constitution and probably codified with laws and court precedence. The steady corrosion of discipline and 8 years of Executive Office supremacy has worn away the last of the ideals spelled out in the Constitution.
The last new agency I can recall is the Homeland Security Agency. They were gifted all kinds of previously independent agencies. The benefits are equally unclear on all sides of that monolith.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust
Like, the FBI? Or perhaps the NRO? The CIA is just down the road. Maybe NASA could do it. Really - the facts are these - NSA already has the equipment, connections and brain power. You'll have a very difficult time replicating, much less staffing any enterprise like the NSA.
Legally, they really are disqualified from performing the role of domestic spying. After all, they're administered by DOD, they've skirted American law by utilizing foreign bases for gathering, and are well known for bending the arms of domestic telecom companies.
But they are a working tool - and they get the job done. It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Here's an idea: if the NSA has gotten to the point that even the White House or Congress can't control them, cut off their funding altogether and wish their employees good luck finding jobs. Create a new, much smaller NSA that has the authority to do one thing and only one thing: handle security for other government agencies, such as setting minimum standards for TOP SECRET transmission.
Perhaps he is a little misguided in saying that we need to put the job in another agency's hands, but his reason for thinking so is not. I mean what we really need to do is take some power out of the NSA's hands. This is more of the mess left by the Bush Administration. They gave them so much power because of after 9/11 and the war on terrorism. It was a big problem immediately following 9/11 because we all wanted security so much we didn't realize how much we were losing. Obama is partially to blame for this when we voted to let the telcom companies off the hook last year. Perhaps it is time to give the Patriot Act the ax or rename it the Unconstitutional Act.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
All this beating up on the NSA is fun and stuff, but are we really complaining that we don't have a competent domestic spying agency? We've already proven as a society to be incapable of electing a majority of leaders that respect privacy and are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty. So would it actually make us happy to have a bunch of g-men who are intelligent when it comes to new technology and could really fully exploit all the powers of databases and networks and algorithms to spy on us in an incredibly thorough manner?
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
If you create an agency whose express purpose is monitor for suspect conversations, its only natural that they are going to try to ensure they monitor as much traffic as possible. In the case of the NSA, I am sure they can just tell a phone provider like AT&T we are going to filter your traffic, don't tell anyone or you go to jail. They have absolute undefined power as long as they are not monitored.
Qui Custodes Ipsos Custodes?
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
And here I haven't even heard of NSA-II yet and already we're on the third one?? I've seriously got to keep up on the news! But apparently they're "Suited for Domestic Cybersecurity Role" so maybe I should relax a little.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Government ill-suited for big brother surveillance of populous? Sounds good to me!
The first is that unbreakable encryption was invented in 1917, and if it is applied with discipline can be kept unbreakable. It is called the "one-time pad." It was used in World War II for high level telephone conversations (e.g., Roosevelt to Churchill) that could not be broken today if you could have a recording of the encrypted transmissions. It has its limitations, but isn't difficult to implement, especially with modern technology.
The second is that NSA produced Security-Enhanced Linux. SE-Linux demonstrates NSA's capability for innovation.
NSA may well be a hidebound bureaucracy. It is, after all, a government agency, with all the issues of a government agency.
However, the main problem is that technology is now far beyond the capability of the legal system to easily deal with it.
Long story short, this guy is an idiot. I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this. (If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)
First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works. "CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona. The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician). Anyway...
Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example:
Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.
Total nonsense. The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS. To claim otherwise is nutty.
From TFA:
the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,'
... that's what they want us to believe.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are two sides to every coin.
While I too understand the inefficiencies of redundant agencies/Depts., I had to ask myself one question.
Would I prefer all that power lay in the hands of ONE omnipotent agency?
The answer was an easy one. No.
Not a Watchmen post.
the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,
Yeah, right. That's why the NSA-proprietary software actually works and the rest of the DoD is "innovating" by wasting billions of dollars on contractor-developed software that doesn't work. Maybe he thinks innovation means cutting off USB ports like the Army has done?
I don't see the CIA contributing any code to us.
If the CIA wants the NSA to stay out of domestic security, I say they can prove it by putting their programmers where their mouth is. All I'm seeing from my point of view is the NSA doing a lot of contributing and the CIA doing a lot of bitching.
Cryptography is still the same science as it was some years ago, when nobody doubted about NSA's supremacy. Surely there's been a huge breakthrough in telephone networks and mobile technologies, but not in cryptographic techniques that protect them. So, do we have to believe that they couldn't keep up with "commercial innovation"?
when you can just capture plans and software from your access to all US telecommunications?
Don't spy on American citizens in America.
That was their one rule. Their only rule.
Now, they capture the majority of Internet traffic and store it for analysis.
That's Bush for you.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The premise of "security" for the Executive Office of the President, by using all agencies of the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and the newly appoined State Police of the Departmetn of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Agency is falicy.
The only good United States of America Citizen is a Dead United States of America Citizen because all citizens of the United States of America pose the greatest security risk to the Executive Office of the President, according to the Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Agency), National Security Council and the National Security Agency (DoD).
Therefore, the government of the United States of America at the direction of the Executive Office of President of the United States of Americam must at all cost, all measures, perpatrate "culling events" upon the people, citizens, of the United States of America in the same function as the events of "9/11" -- the day that the Executive Office of President layed waste on the citizens of the United States of America using homeless citizens of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as their pawns in a scheme to "cull" their greatest enemy, the citizens of the United States of America.
One has to wonder how much this ex-CIA guy is just doing a hatchet job on a former interservice rival. Traditionally, CIA has been about black ops and human intelligence, and the NSA was about signals, but one wonders, just how much mission overlap is there. This, after all, a government that gives us an Army with ships and a Navy with tanks, and so on. I would be willing to bet that waving around civil liberties has just become another cynical tool that entrenched bureaucrats use to attack their rivals, and that, at the end of the day, no one in government actually cares about civil liberties with respect to their mission. The EPA, IRS, DOE, DEA, ATF will all spy on you and violate any right to privacy that you may perceive that you have because they would argue, and who knows, maybe even correctly, that they have to do it in order to do their job. What's really the difference, after all, between the CIA listening to your phone calls, the IRS plumbing your finances, the EPA sniffing your property and so on. They all spy on you.
It's just that, everyone has a different value system as to what sort of spying is allowed, and really, its just that, no one wants the gov't breathing down their backs on issues they are sensitive about. Conservatives don't like the EPA because they are trying to run their farms and their mines, the Liberals don't like wiretapping because the essence of their industry, be it media, arts or research, is communications, and no American likes the IRS because most people probably cheat on their taxes. Political parties exploit this to no end because they like to keep us divided so they can lock in their profits and screw us.
The only way we will really have a country that doesn't suck is in ourselves, and not in any political party. We need to have conservatives to not get bent out of shape about liberal antics in the media and liberals not get bent out of shape about conservative industries. Sometimes, we need to take the big plunge and actually start to trust each other. These culture wars serve no practical purpose other than to give tools in both political parties a paycheck.
I'm sure that liberals right now are hyped up about Obama thinking he might be their savior. You know what, we on the right were just as hyped up about Reagan and Bush Jr, and you know, we got pretty burned on the balanced budget we were promised. I'd be willing to bet that Obama won't live up to your expectations either.
This is my sig.
It's the same concept with spy powers.
No its not. If President Obama cannot keep discipline within his NSA, then one should question his leadership. Bush had no problem trying to purge the CIA of liberals, and if Obama wanted to purge the NSA of those who would spy on American citizens, then, he would.
The real issue is that, now President Obama is in the hot seat, he is being barraged daily by a bunch of threat reports, classified and unaccountable, that he finds himself, thanks to 9/11, incapable of entirely ignoring. On one hand, his instincts might tell them 99% are pure b.s., and, honestly an even higher percentage of them probably are, but, if one is actually not b.s., then he has a problem.
Thus, despite all of his feelings otherwise, all of his misgivings and suspicions, the lion's share of the security apparatus started by Roosevelt, that every administration has built on, will continue to grow.
This is my sig.
There is a word in my comment that got me thinking for a while. How can you express the condition of being clearly the best in a single word? I can think of three words: supremacy, domination and hegemony. They all sound rather unpleasant, after all who would dare achieve such a condition?!
For a European, the US military institutions are surprinsingly sincere about their intentions. The NSA clearly says in their vision statement that they seek "global cryptologic domination". (Conversely, most european military institutions only say that they want to pacify the world).
So after some thinking, i chose supremacy as the most neutral term. Just think of two examples:
* Most countries use "supreme" to refer to their highest court. It would really be suspicious for a country to have an "hegemonic" court or even worse a "dominating" court.
* There is a singing group called "The Supremes". However, I could hardly think of a group called "The Dominators" (unless it were an underground rock band) and I prefer to not even use the third word in respect to those great singers.
There's also a film called "The Bourne Supremacy", in which they try to convey the same idea of being clearly the best. Interestingly, in most european countries they used a diferent word in the translation: in Spain, "El mito Bourne".
After writing the comment, i checked that the NSA uses the word "domination" in their website. They also refer to "cryptology" instead of the more common word "cryptography", maybe to emphasise on the idea of crypto being a science rather that a way of representation.