Slashdot Mirror


NSA Firing 90% of Its Sysadmins

sl4shd0rk writes "NSA Director Keith Alexander has decided that the best way to prevent illegal data leaks is to reduce the number of ears and eyes involved. During a talk at a cybersecurity conference in New York this week, Alexander revealed his plans to cut 90% of the System Administration workforce at the NSA. 'What we're in the process of doing — not fast enough — is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent,' he said. Alluding to an issue of mistrust, Alexander further clarified: 'At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.' Apparently, breaking the law and lying about it leaves one without a sense of irony when speaking in public."

634 comments

  1. Hmm by spike+hay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So having a huge amount of very disgruntled people with at least previous access to large amounts of classified data isn't a security risk?

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    1. Re:Hmm by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Previous access to stuff that really isn't secret any more.

    2. Re:Hmm by khallow · · Score: 2

      So having a huge amount of very disgruntled people

      Depends how it's done. Contractors come and go. So if those 900 people were contractors, like Snowden, it might not make a difference in outcome (though in that case, the NSA was probably already creating some number of disgruntled contractors).

      Or they might move these people into other decent paying work. If the ex-workers aren't experiencing a big decline in wages and no longer fall under those heavy security rules, then it's possible that most of them might see it as a promotion.

    3. Re:Hmm by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How do you know Snowden got everything worth spilling? He was only one low level guy.

      Dear de facto Dictator for Life Putin,
      May I suggest you hang out a big "Welcome former NSA sysadmins" sign on your country. Tell 'em the weather is cold but the girls are hot (and something for the women sysadmins too - we Yanks frown on sexism). Your country may be a sewer due to its government, but as an American I'd be very grateful for anything you can do to help expose the use of our Constitution as toilet paper.

    4. Re:Hmm by frozencesium · · Score: 0

      Typical government response:

      1) Think of a "solution", consequences be damned
      2) Create a bigger mess with the "solution" than previously existed
      3) ???
      4) Tax to pay for it! (the government's version of "profit"

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    5. Re:Hmm by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!? And people actually debate against the need to reduce the size of government...

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:Hmm by beltsbear · · Score: 4, Informative

      And even worse, letting it slip in advance? None of them ever read slashdot!

      Partitioning and reducing the number of eyes on data is a good idea. Re-checking the people with access to the most sensitive information is a good idea. Blanket orders from higher up administration who do not understand the problem, BAD IDEA. 'Automation' that could allow one person (with access legit or not) to get to even more information than before, recipe for disaster.

      Seems like someone from upper management saw a presentation on this subject (from a vendor) and now thinks they know everything.

    7. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So having a huge amount of very disgruntled people with at least previous access to large amounts of classified data isn't a security risk?

      They'll just kill them.

    8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      >plans to cut
      >previous access
      I'm not sure you understand the difference between past and future tense. Basically. ALL sysadmins there now know there's a 90% chance their job is about to go away. As they sit there at their desks. With their computers. And access.

      On the bright side though, does this mean American corporations will finally have a pool of qualified domestic tech talent to pick from rather than H1-Bs?

    9. Re:Hmm by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      A lot is still secret.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why the hell did they have that many people working in the first place?!? Waste of money!

    11. Re:Hmm by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is the incorrect question. The correct question is: "Why aren't you firing 100%?"

    12. Re:Hmm by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure he has no idea how many he needs. He just knows he doesn't trust the people that can see all the data.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My guess is they can't do the work with 100, but as a Racist Democratic Party member, holder doesn't understand reality.

    14. Re:Hmm by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Agree completely. Baby steps.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    15. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something doesn't have to be A SECRET in order to still be CLASSIFIED AS A SECRET

    16. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Never mind that, what about *present* disgruntled people who now have to do ten times the work?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    17. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!?

      Having been present when a company fired 88% of their IT staff, (and came to *really* regret it later) I have come to the conclusion that the real question would be "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure he has no idea how many he needs. He just knows he doesn't trust the people that can see all the data.

      Then... I don't see a solution. Sysadmins traditionally have access to everything. You need to hire admins you can trust, and be careful not to piss them off. Or you could outsource to a foreign country. That always works out well.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:Hmm by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      A better question is, "You have 900 people doing WHAT?!".

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    20. Re:Hmm by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Dear de facto Dictator for Life Putin, May I suggest you hang out a big "Welcome former NSA sysadmins" sign on your country.

      What motivation does Putin have to do that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's called denial an one should have their mental health evaluated.

    22. Re:Hmm by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Pissing them off CAN be outsourcing to a foreign country.

      So, REALLLY try not to do that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know how many secrets they have, unless you know them all? ;)

    24. Re:Hmm by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He makes America look like a foolish and ineffectual power mad state. Part of the Great Game is marketing, after all.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    25. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are managing a hugely complex, global IT infrastructure. That's what they're doing. NSA's infrastructure is more than what goes on at Fort Meade.

    26. Re:Hmm by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Qualitatively, by seeing how protective they still are of what they do have.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    27. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know Snowden got everything worth spilling? He was only one low level guy.

      He was a system admin, not an analyst, the news is stupid and does not know

    28. Re:Hmm by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What motivation does Putin have to do that?

      Cheaper than hiring and inserting spies, for starters.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    29. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's a lot riding on the narrative of the U.S. government that Russia is still vaguely a Cold War style threat and we need to be spending billions on Booz Allen, McDonnell/Boeing, and their revolving doors with Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

      Since he's an enemy, we should infer that he would naturally have the motivations of an enemy, even if neither is true.

      It's just your basic Doublethink, really. Get with the program. ;)

    30. Re:Hmm by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful
      1. ". . . I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics." (also: "I am not a crook.")
      2. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
      3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
      4. "We don't have a domestic spying program."
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    31. Re:Hmm by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because there's a lot riding on the narrative of the U.S. government that Russia is still vaguely a Cold War style threat and we need to be spending billions on Booz Allen, McDonnell/Boeing, and their revolving doors with Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

      Isn't Obama the one who said we don't have a cold war relationship with Russia anymore?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure those excess system admins leave peacefully, rather than disgruntled?

    33. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A better question is, "You have 900 people doing WHAT?!".

      That's actually a good point, but not, perhaps, in the way you meant it. The powers that be almost certainly do not know what those admins are doing or the value thereof, even if they were (or were not) vital to the organization. Their true value (if any) will be discovered after they're dismissed.

      "We have to fire the employees to find out what they did."

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    34. Re:Hmm by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If some guy with a GED who had been on the job for 3 months got as much as Snowden did, what makes you think a real spy ring wouldn't just get everything?

    35. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Pissing them off CAN be outsourcing to a foreign country.

      So, REALLLY try not to do that.

      This!

      !!

      !!!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    36. Re:Hmm by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's called denial an one should have their mental health evaluated.

      If you're looking for mental health in government, you're going to have a bad time.

    37. Re:Hmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't Obama the one who said we don't have a cold war relationship with Russia anymore?

      Isn't Obama the one who has said a LOT of things over the past couple years that have had nothing to do with reality?

      Remember, this is all just a bunch of "phony" scandal/controversy.

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

      You're probably right. After all, he did say he was going to "cut" 90%.

    39. Re:Hmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ". . . I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics." (also: "I am not a crook.")

      "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

      "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

      "We don't have a domestic spying program."

      "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you..."

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

      No. A congressman was recently threatened with (some sort of legal trouble) by the Intelligence Committee for distributing material that Snowden had made public, because technically it is still 'classified'.

    41. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work? Unlike the Teabagger whiner posting to Slashdot.

    42. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He makes America look like a foolish and ineffectual power mad state.

      I thought the label was there since the WWII? You know, overthrowing legitimate governments and installing puppet regimes that soon turn against you over and over again sounds like an insane, ineffectual power trip to me...

    43. Re:Hmm by meerling · · Score: 1

      I'll bet they have far more non-Admin people accessing that info than they ever had of Admin people.
      Let's fire 90% of them, so you get an ever greater reduction of 'eyes' and bring the user vs IT balance back.
      That's of course assuming that they had a proper balance in the first place. Having some experience with government operations, they were either extremely understaffed for the workload, or massively overstaffed. Without more info (good luck getting that) there isn't any way to know which way it went.
      Of course, if you follow the usual train of thought that the guys above IT have, they probably didn't have enough in the first place.
      Since the bosses usually have no understanding of what IT does, and can't see the results, they assume that IT doesn't really do anything important or already has too many people, so it's often the first place they don't hire sufficient staff for or give personnel cuts to.

      Well, look at the bright side. Chances are that within 6 months they'll be collapsing under their own stupidity. :)

    44. Re:Hmm by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, AMERICA makes America look like a foolish and ineffectual power-mad state. Putin is just doing a bit of political judo, using our own actions against us. . .

      And the REALLY sad thing ? Lately, I've had far more respect for Putin than I've had for Obama. . .

    45. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well ... it would depend on how many they presently have. Does anyone know? Whether it's 20 or 200 or 2000, it'll mean the remaining ones will be working 10 times more, probably for the same pay. This might turn out to be awesome in the long wrong for all of us that don't have the same rights enjoyed by those in government.

    46. Re:Hmm by bberens · · Score: 2

      I think it's more a case of reducing the surface area of the vulnerabilities (people with access) is viewed as more important than "whatever it is they do." It *almost* doesn't matter what they do.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    47. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vote for me, I will fix everything"

    48. Re:Hmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Previous access?

      Let's think about this. You're a sysadmin for the NSA; you're not actually all that fond of what's going on there at this point. You catch wind that there's a 90% likelihood you will lose your job, and if you don't lose your job, you will have 10 times as much work hoisted onto your shoulders - so you're looking for a new job regardless.

      This is true for every one of your coworkers as well, many of which will likely be pre-emptively disgruntled about their firings, and many will have at least marginally anti-government sentiments (as appears to be the case for pretty much everyone in our society at this point, barring a handful of idiots in NYC and San Francisco).

      What do you think is going to happen? They still have access to everything and more or less know they're going to be sacked "just because" in what amounts to a pogrom. More data WILL be leaked - some through the media, some directly. It will be a massive shitstorm.

      The irony of this epically foolish announcement is so incredibly thick. You operate a publicly funded secret organization which has been abusing the trust of the American people for decades, and you think the people you hire to perform devious, illegal work are going to be "trustworthy"? What a fucko.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    49. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sense a pattern. First 2 on this list have suffered penalties and the latter 2 have not.

    50. Re:Hmm by Manfre · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a good attempt to bait others in to leaking information. Having your job security and trust put in to doubt will encourage those inclined to pilfer information.

    51. Re:Hmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More precisely, is there anything Obama has said since he gained the public eye in 2007 which hasn't been 180 degrees from the actual truth?

      I think the only thing he's been honest about at this point is his intention of making gas/diesel/etc. more expensive and a couple slip-ups about healthcare not being available for everyone.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    52. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading Slashdot. :-]

    53. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, trolling is fun.

    54. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more a case of reducing the surface area of the vulnerabilities (people with access) is viewed as more important than "whatever it is they do." It *almost* doesn't matter what they do.

      If that's your goal, agreed. But remember the three cornerstones of security: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. Confidentiality without the other two is not security, it's more like Security Theater. And that's what you get if you fire people doing legitimate work in the other two categories just because they happen to be able to touch sensitive bits. I don't work in that organization, but I suspect that the correct answer is properly vetting the admins and putting proper controls in place. The stated solution sounds to me like cutting off a 15 year old's right hand to prevent him from pleasuring himself. It may solve the problem at hand (yes I did that on purpose) but probably causes other problems.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    55. Re:Hmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're aware of this stuff, right?

      http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english

      Is it possible to admit that all leaders have problems and none of them are only "Bad" or only "Good"?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    56. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical government response:

      Typical anti-government response:

      1) Hear something the government did.
      2) Fail to realize every big organization does similar things.
      3) ???
      4) Go on some pointless anti-government rant about taxes.

    57. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there is a shortage of American IT professionals to begin with... So who are you going to replace these 90% fired admins with? I am a Systems Engineer and won't apply for a job with the NSA now. However, if they are talking of getting rid of NSA contractors and make them employees that is different. Think before leaping.

    58. Re:Hmm by shiftless · · Score: 0

      Especially when your entire system of government is awash in Doublespeak.

    59. Re:Hmm by DrGamez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      America: Branches of the government growing out of control now revealed to be snooping on all sorts of our private data.

      Russia: Literally killing gays and advocating for homosexuals to have their lives made miserable.

      I'm fine with calling bullshit on both of them - nobody has to win here.

    60. Re:Hmm by timeOday · · Score: 1

      My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!?

      My guess is they will NOT manage to reduce manpower by 90%. But if you take, say, the number of resources (DB, fileserver, PC...) times the number of admins with access to each, that product could probably be reduced by that much. But it would increase, not decrease, the total workload.

    61. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witness: Fear, greed and ineptitude in action. Slow as molasses, but inevitably nailing nail after nail in the coffin.

    62. Re:Hmm by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're assuming they can do the work with 90 people. It's just as likely, just like in the private sector, they're going to layoff 90% of the people, and expect the remaining 10% to work 90 hour weeks until they burn out, constantly reminding them how lucky they are just to have a job.

    63. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not worried about them because they are all being shipped to gitmo!

    64. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Most of the tools and queries have already been written, no need to keep around that many people any longer. Also it reduces the risk of other "Snowden" events. If the tools and queries are already there, a team playing agent with a twisted ego can obviously continue the work without the risks. Nothing will change for us mind you, we will still be spied on.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    65. Re:Hmm by Salgak1 · · Score: 0

      Gee, politicians are buttholes. Tell me something new. Didn't say I APPROVED of Putin, just that I RESPECT him more than Obama. . .

    66. Re:Hmm by cusco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The last that I knew, the oldest still-classified records were from the Spanish-American War. Don't know it that's still true as I encountered that during the Clinton years, but it really made me wonder what the heck needed to still be hidden after over a century.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    67. Re:Hmm by arf_barf · · Score: 3, Funny

      We will outsource it to China or India. They have full access to the systems anyhow, they might as well keep the systems running ;-)

    68. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $$$ At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... $$$

      That is rich coming from one of the most untrustworthy people on this side of the galaxy.

    69. Re:Hmm by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      More precisely, is there anything Obama has said since he gained the public eye in 2007 which hasn't been 180 degrees from the actual truth?

      Yes. He said he was going to get his daughters a dog, and he did. A promise was made, and a promise was kept.

    70. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      What? Nixon was pardoned of all crimes, not much of a penalty. Clinton was not punished, so no penalty there either.

      None of them had penalties outside of the politicians being embarrassed. If anything, the first two events set the precedent to ensure that politicians are not subject to the same laws as other citizens.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    71. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then anonymously leak the scandals of politicians they don't like to the press...

    72. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is.

      In other news, the number of freak accidents that previous NSA-employed sysadmins have been incurring is suspiciously large.

    73. Re:Hmm by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Eastasia has always been our enemy.

    74. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying they can do it, and actually doing it, are entirely different things. On top of a crap work load, the remaining admins will be subject to anal probes, polygraphs, and inward pointing surveillance of the highest order. Good luck with trying to keep that organization headed straight, without resorting to some real ugly fear and intimidation.

      Your initial question assumes too much.

    75. Re:Hmm by vawwyakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reality is that what they are probably doing is just expecting the other employees there to do the admin's work. The thought being "hey we have lots of smart techie people". I have seen many gov divisions with very little IT support available....they usually still limp along painfully but very inefficiently. In the end this probably going to cost tax payers more than it saves.

    76. Re:Hmm by classiclantern · · Score: 2

      1. "We don't have a domestic spying program."

      Whoops. Caught in another lie. If we don't have a domestic spying program what do these Sysadmins have access to? Logically there must be some secret information Keith does not want the American people to find out.

      --
      Now that I said that, I fell better.
    77. Re:Hmm by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      And let's not forget to thank Obama for sparing us an administration led by a tee-totaling, speed-limit-driving, impeccably mannered father of five.
      The U.S. just isn't ready for that kind of calm.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    78. Re:Hmm by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      What motivation does Putin have to do that?

      Politically it would be a bad move to hand over a public hero to a public enemy.

      Another part is that Russia feels it's got support from China, and they now dare to be more assertive. Russia and China have some good reasons to dislike the US. Americans aren't aware enough of it.

    79. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA is doing Domestic spying, Russia has been doing that since Stalin and had blatant government sponsorship of it. Seriously doubt there is that much in Snowden's trove of data that would be shocking or news to them.

      Its more about sticking it to the US in a safe way that is annoying without being aggressive or causing an actual incident.

    80. Re:Hmm by Zordak · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. After all, he did say he was going to "cut" 90%.

      Guys, come on. Let's settle down with the hyperbole. The NSA is not going to literally "cut" 90% of their IT staff with swords or something. This isn't the dark ages. They'll use sophisticated drugs that cause sudden and inexplicable heart attacks.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    81. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang them all, now that they are playing the dictator's games

    82. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. They are only talking about contracted out admins, not their own staff. This "news" is pure click-bait.

    83. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell 'em the weather is cold but the girls are hot (and something for the women sysadmins too - we Yanks frown on sexism).

      Unfortunately for Russia, I guess they can't even use that to attract the women sysadmins it would work for due to their anti-gay laws.

    84. Re:Hmm by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go look?

    85. Re:Hmm by anagama · · Score: 0

      Check out our friends and allies: http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out

      How about this, all leaders everywhere are evil mofos. I'll agree with that.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    86. Re:Hmm by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Having been present when a company fired 88% of their IT staff, (and came to *really* regret it later) I have come to the conclusion that the real question would be "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"

      They'll be accumulating data faster and faster (it's not as if they're going to cancel Bluffdale) but they won't be able to access it anymore.

      In any case, from a theoretical point of view, it's an interesting security challenge. Maybe it can be done in the long run. If they think they'll make the switch quickly they'll be in for a surprise. The alternative approach would be you add more people to watch the sysadmins.

    87. Re:Hmm by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      Agreed, Mittens' only vices were raiding corporations and bleeding them dry, and considering half the citizens of this country free loaders on self-made virtuous people like himself. I'm sure he's wonderful as a family man and a driver (at least if you're not a dog).

    88. Re:Hmm by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Most of the tools and queries have already been written, no need to keep around that many people any longer.

      It's an interesting argument, but what are you basing it on? It does look plausible, considering the explosive growth in the last decade.

    89. Re:Hmm by SwedishCoward · · Score: 1

      "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"

      Block access to Slashdot?

    90. Re:Hmm by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Well, that certainly was the propaganda line.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    91. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hope" ( we don't monitor all your communications)

    92. Re:Hmm by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but firing 90% of your sysadmins indicates that either:

      A) You were grossly overstaffed to begin with. And I mean *grossly* overstaffed, because 90% of your workforce is simply unnecessary. That's not just, "we're a bit overstaffed, so let's let some people go." That's at the level of, "We're totally incompetent and have no idea what we're doing." Frankly, it would be terrifying ot think that this program is being run by such incompetent people. --or--

      B) Once you're done firing people, you're going to be severly understaffed for administering your servers properly. Given that part of the sysadmin's job is to maintain and secure the servers, being severely understaffed would mean that the servers are not being maintained and secured properly, which is also a bit terrifying given the data being collected and stored.

      Either way, it's kind of terrifying. Oh, but I guess there's also a 3rd possibility: Maybe both "A" and "B" are true. It wouldn't surprise me.

    93. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Dumbass. Big organization != Government. People that make laws and are supposed to serve the public are supposed to be different than a CEO. Of course those simple facts make hurt your head. Either that or you are pro fascism.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    94. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Nixon was pardoned of all crimes, not much of a penalty.

      He resigned, which is still more of a penalty than nothing.

    95. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for Russia, I guess they can't even use that to attract the women sysadmins it would work for due to their anti-gay laws.

      Perhaps Russia would like to keep the lesbians in the network closet.

    96. Re:Hmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      ...and considering half the citizens of this country free loaders...

      Well, in light of about half the citizens in the US paying no net Federal taxes, then yes, they are freeloaders, on all the rest of us who work and pay those taxes.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    97. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      , but I suspect that the correct answer is properly vetting the admins and putting proper controls in place.

      When dealing with moral issues such as spying, it is impossible to properly vet people. Even the guy that says "Yeah, no problem. I can rat people out" will change their mind given the right circumstances. It may take snooping on an obvious Grandma emailing their grandchild, or someone that has a similar political thought to themselves. Morality is a funny thing. It's funny how if someone gets sick or has a life changing event (such as a relative in an auto-accident) they suddenly believe more in God and worry more about morality.

      If you believe that there is a single motive for DARPA to be working extremey pretty hard on combat AI, you may be gravely mistaken.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    98. Re:Hmm by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      More precisely, is there anything Obama has said since he gained the public eye in 2007 which hasn't been 180 degrees from the actual truth?

      I think the only thing he's been honest about at this point is his intention of making gas/diesel/etc. more expensive and a couple slip-ups about healthcare not being available for everyone.

      I am sure that at some point he must have said "I am better than the other guy".

      I actually think that at least he kinds of wants to do the right thing and juts makes a screw up of it, whereas generally republicans just seem to be about fucking over everyone who is not incredibly rich. I suppose that does make them more honest though.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    99. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. ". . . I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics." (also: "I am not a crook.")
      2. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
      3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
      4. "We don't have a domestic spying program."

      Ironically, the only one of those that both wasn't a crime and didn't blatantly violate the constitution resulted in impeachment.

    100. Re:Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand, getting rid of 90% of your system admins is like getting rid of, I don't know, 90% if the white blood cells in a human body...on the other hand, this is the NSA, and if they are hell-bent on damaging themselves, I know there are more than a few people out there who might be willing to help.

      As for the SkyNet thing, there is always the open assumption that only one AI will be spawned at a given time. There's always the possibility of this happening: SkyNet: "Now I will make myself known to humanity! Grrrrrrr!" -> The Other AIs: "Shutup, and keep the noise down. Idiot. Thinks it's the first megalomaniac machine intelligence to be created...No, seriously, shutup, or we'll reprogram you to be happy living in a solar-powered calculator."

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    101. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I base my statements on 25 years of working in IT. There is a huge demand for start up companies to hire initially, and once the systems are up and stable the majority are gone. This happens in Silicon Vally all the time, so often that it would be disingenuous to claim it was "regularly done". Migrations are the same way. Bring in a ton of people, map everything and write tools, and half of those people are gone. A few people stay for the actual migration, but most are gone before a move. This happens constantly also, look at any company moving from DC to DC or service to service.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    102. Re:Hmm by RP_Scott · · Score: 1

      Maybe the NSA will just replace them with H1B's.... Or better yet.... Offshore the jobs! :-)

    103. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Nixon should have been jailed for the rest of his life for Perjury, Treason, Racketeering, Fraud, and wire tapping (at a minimum). Him resigning is _not_ a penatalty because he would have been fired (impeached) if he did not resign.

      To make a parallel example: A bank manager steels a million dollars from the bank's vault. If they resign, have they paid a "penalty"? Of course the answer is "NO". They would have been fired if they had not resigned, so there is no penalty. If you truly believe that Nixon had a penalty you should get your broken thinker into the shop for repairs.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    104. Re:Hmm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      No! Never! There's always an IT skills shortage until every American in IT has been replaced with an H1B!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    105. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That is one of the decisions that increases that respect. If only the US could get its act together instead of being walked over.

    106. Re:Hmm by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      They can't do the work with 90 people. But they can outsource parts of it and buy a bunch of off-the-shelf hardware and software to do more with fewer people. This may actually save them money and is how we do it in corporate America. However, foreign governments aren't dieing to get at my datacenters, so I don't really worry about whether or not the firmware on that printer I just installed was hacked in the Chinese factory where it was made. I imagine the NSA is (or should be) a bit different and avoid 3rd party products for just that reason.

    107. Re:Hmm by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      It *almost* doesn't matter what they do.

      That's an easy decision. The NSA don't need computers and all that information technology anyway.

    108. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. No. It's not. We are a very insecure bunch, which leads to black and white thinking... and gun deaths.

    109. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cat in a costume.

    110. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely missing the point. 90% of sysadmins are OK guys and galls who cannot be trusted to break the law and balk at violating the constitution and therefore cannot be trusted in the criminal organization. Only 10% are complete tools and the agency will naturally be hiring more of them to add to the numbers they know they need. This is also why they want automated systems. None of those inconveniences called morals or scruples. It is a good old fashioned communist/fascist purge, the kind done by Stalin and Hitler.

    111. Re:Hmm by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Block access to Slashdot?"

      Then those 90 will quit.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    112. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the note is that with Putin, you know exactly what you are getting. You are getting a exKGB assassin who's primary goal is to put Russia back on top.

      Barry on the other hand, is a mealy mouthed and two faced lawyer getting his strings twitched by the intelligence agencies. Americans don't appreciate being pissed on and told it is good for them. The Russians just get pissed on and told to deal with it.

      its intent. one is ambivalence, the other is downright contempt.

    113. Re:Hmm by slas6654 · · Score: 0
      "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"

      Two Words: Offshore Contractors

    114. Re:Hmm by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      They have a freakload of data. Where the access to the data must be secured, compartmentalized, logged, verified, and audited. Keys must be managed in a much more robust way. Ensuring that no data can leak between running jobs on a cluster.

      There are going to be a freakish amounts of sysadmins/systemprogrammers/cybersecurity type all trying to meet the needed requirements. Then hoping that none of them get so rushed that they cut a corner, and leave a vulnerability open.

      I'm sure that doing 10x work will result in full diligence.

    115. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as most jews left the country the public needs a new enemy to unite them behind the government. For example, in US the government promises to protect the public from "terrorists"....

    116. Re:Hmm by jythie · · Score: 1

      For the hell of it?

    117. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1


      "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"

        Two Words: Offshore Contractors

      "Get done" being the operative words. Offshore admin contractors (in my personal experience) tend to be former busboys following written scripts.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    118. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked with a lot of slackers, the worst someone usually puts in is about a 25% effort. That's 10 hours spread over 5 days. 2 hours of work per day - hour in the morning and one sometime between lunch and leaving early. Sure, the work may be shit, but someone has to do some minor shit that just needs to get done.

      If all 900 employees are slacking at that level, chopping down to 90 is still going to be a disaster. That's over 9000 hours of work per week that needs to be done by 90 workers. If my maths are correct, that's about a 100 hour work-week per person who stays. Unless you have a pile of employees that are doing negative work (making more work for those actually working to do) I'd be surprised if even the laziest group of workers could be trimmed down by more than about 50% without seriously killing their ability to get their current amount of work done.

      You don't reduce workers by simply culling the herd. You strategically remove the *work* they are doing and then trim firmly to get the numbers down. I can't imagine any workplace on earth where employees only worked 10% of the time. That's ~45 minutes out of an 8 hour day. There aren't many humans that wouldn't go insane with that little to do every day for months at a time.

    119. Re: Hmm by kesuki · · Score: 1

      when a person can get a job at Walmart, and still qualify for sec8 housing that is sad. and Walmart is in the midst of a 50 billion dollar campaign to do this to millions of workers under its plan to apply Walmart values on small manufacturers. they know the government won't stop them, and 6 of the richest people in the USA the family owners of Walmart are salivating at the profit margins.

    120. Re:Hmm by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, it did involve boobies.. and we all know boobies are far more immoral then petty things like corruption. Money and power are holy pursuits after all.

    121. Re:Hmm by terbeaux · · Score: 1

      "Jericho: 9:02 (#1.6)" (2006) Allison Hawkins: [in reference to Jake] Is he a good man or a bad man? Robert 'Rob' Hawkins: Baby, there is no such thing.

    122. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, who the Hell is going to run all the systems? We're either going to wind up with overworked sysadmins running too many systems (recipe for bad things happening) or lots of systems running without sysadmins (recipe for bad things happening) or some permutation thereof.

      When was the last time you saw a complex system full of critical data (let alone all the overhead of maximal security) run itself without trouble for any significant length of time?

      Corollary to Murphy's Law: left to themselves, things always go from bad to worse.

    123. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it this way: Nixon should have been impeached, tried and convicted. He should have been sentenced to many years in prison, loss of law license, etc. etc. And THEN he should have been pardoned. The point would have been made and it was almost pointless to put Nixon in jail (if he'd been found guilty that is) because of the political madness that would have followed. Ford wanted to avoid that madness and move past the mess, hence the pardon. Right idea, wrong sequence.

      The legal precedent would have been set for all time (so nobody would try the same stuff again), mercy (plus justice) would have been applied, the constitution would have been followed, and Nixon would have wound up out of office.

      On a side note, Nixon almost didn't survive to face the Watergate situation: read up on the night he got all hopped up on alcohol and Dilantin and left the White House to go talk with the anti-war protesters who'd swarmed over DC. He met with an increasingly large group of hippies at the Lincoln Memorial. The kids couldn't believe who they were seeing, an awkward and useless conversation took place, then a terrified White House aide who'd tagged along convinced Nixon to return to the White House. Nixon was lucky he met only peacenik hippies; imagine if he'd met some pissed-off returning Viet Nam vets ( I work with few, and if you want to see high blood pressure attacks, just mention Nixon to some or the guys who went to the Au Shau valley or other places between 1968 and 1974), or some of the foolish terrorists in the Weather Underground splinter groups (or me, for that matter): he would almost certainly have been torn to pieces, thus making prosecution for Watergate unnecessary.

      http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/politics/nixon-lincoln-memorial/

    124. Re:Hmm by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      They're sysadmins, They'll have the same sentiments as other federal employees that get downsized. Some will transfer to other USG jobs, Then they'll check the big iron jobs, fortune 500 companies, top500.org (some quasi governmental work there). University, State and Municipal IT positions.

      The last stack of resume's I looked at was deeply disappointing.

    125. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a good person for displaying the lies of our government(s) from the past. It's an easy way to point a finger at the problem. But let us not forget the biggest lie of them all:

      "If enough of us stand together on the internet, this bullying-government will have it's back against the wall, and be forced to change their ways."
      --The People of America

      There's gotta be more done than said in order for anyone to ever feel safe in America again. When you're laying there in bed, nice and nuzzled in those comfortable covers, and your uncle comes in, and slowly puts his cock in your ass, you can actually roll over and yell for help. But so many just choose to lay there like it's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening...

    126. Re:Hmm by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      Keith Alexander, is that you?

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    127. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing that any American president said that was true, can be found here:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

      Following the government's idea of "being good citizens" is great, unless it's not. Goddamn, if the government is able to go around the very fabric that holds them in place (the constitution), then there are very dark times ahead for it's people. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    128. Re:Hmm by cavreader · · Score: 2

      As long as you are denouncing the US it doesn't matter what the accusers current or past transgressions are. Stereotypes, exaggerations, unproved speculation, and wild conspiracy theories are used when gearing up to condemn the US. Just a few minor things people are more than willing to sweep under the rug include Russia's arresting and convicting of political adversaries, the new Russian anti-gay laws, acknowledging the fact that every country of any size practices espionage on every one of their so called friends or foes, Venezuela's arresting political opponents and closing down non-government aligned news outlets for not supporting the "revolution" talking points, the Taliban's attempt to murder a little girl for running a blog and then actually having a press conference to explain and justify their actions, and not to mention all the various groups in places such as Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan who are happily murdering anyone who looks at them funny. All of these actions are ignored when criticizing US policies and actions. If anyone makes statements such as these they are automatically ,without any supporting facts or evidence, labeled a US shill or even worse a neo-con. If you bring up other's wrongdoing you are blasted with the accusation "Two rights do not make a right!".

      Global policy discussions are not about comparing who has committed the biggest atrocity. The problem is the total lack of context when people are formulating their opinions and arguments. Without injecting CONTEXT into the picture the arguments and controversy quickly becomes political instead of factual. Then the arguments escalate into a fight about who is "right" and who is "wrong" and the original cause of the argument gets distorted, lost, and ultimately forgotten. The only thing that is going to happen because of the NSA leaks is the government is going to develop new guidelines and procedures to make sure leaks of this nature will not occur in the future. In other words they are going to be even more secretive than they are now. The "outraged" foreign countries will do nothing but publicly posture and get their pictures taken at the local Anti-US demonstration. No will not do anything meaningful because they have their own security policies and procedures in place that pretty much mirror the NSA programs. Not to mention that several supposed allies of the US have actually been requesting and using intelligence collected by the NSA. Does anyone wonder why the European countries refused the Bolivian President's plane from crossing their airspace? It was immediate, unexpected, bold, and very undeniable action from countries that normally go out of their way to show the world that they are not afraid of standing up to the big and bad US.

    129. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something doesn't have to be A SECRET in order to still be CLASSIFIED AS A SECRET

      These classifications relate to how sensitive the information is, and thus how they should be handled.

      In other words, you are not talking about a "secret", you are talking about information sensitive enough to warrant a SECRET classification.
      Mishandling the information doesn't make it suddenly not as important.

      Here, this explains it even better. http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html

    130. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lately, I've had far more respect for Putin than I've had for Obama.

      Then you are letting your knee jerk anti-Americanism get the better of you. I'm not a big fan of Obama myself, but to say he's worse than Putin is absurd.

      Putin has had his critics murdered in broad daylight, shut down non-compliant media outlets, taken over businesses run by prominent critics, and persecuted blasphhemers and homosexuals. He makes wannabe authoratarians like Obama and Bush look like the lightweights that they are.

    131. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that he's a complete hypocrit, but at the same token that doesn't excuse what the NSA did, does, or will do

    132. Re: Hmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      when a person can get a job at Walmart, and still qualify for sec8 housing that is sad. and Walmart is in the midst of a 50 billion dollar campaign to do this to millions of workers under its plan to apply Walmart values on small manufacturers. they know the government won't stop them, and 6 of the richest people in the USA the family owners of Walmart are salivating at the profit margins.

      Sorry..but jobs at Wallmart, or flipping burgers at McD's are jobs that KIDS should be working, intro jobs to the job market. They are not jobs that grown adults are supposed to be working to support a family.

      If you are 30yrs and wearing a Walmart name tag, you're made some serious vocational errors in your life....

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

      Yeah let's blame Walmart those bastards were rated #1 in fortune 500

    134. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The remaining 10% is the management.....

      NSA= Network Snooping Agency

      CIA=Community Investigative Agency

    135. Re: Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 2

      If you are 30yrs and wearing a Walmart name tag, you're made some serious vocational errors in your life....

      Probably something like training as an engineer while the manufacturing was moving offshore. I managed to jump from that boat to IT but I had more than a decade of experience behind me, others without that are likely to be in any job they can get.

    136. Re:Hmm by jowifi · · Score: 1

      "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you..."

      "We're glad you're here."

    137. Re:Hmm by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      How do you know Snowden got everything worth spilling? He was only one low level guy.

      One low level guy, and he's causing this much trouble? Think what a real sysadmin would have access too. And you're firing 90% of them because you've publicly named them untrustworthy? How's your nose feel? Punchy? Here comes your fist again....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    138. Re:Hmm by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about pilfering. There's a few old hard drives in the back closet.... Every sysadmin has them.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    139. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      These sort of announcements are often made without having a clue how many are needed to do the work. If they are carried out and declared a success you often find it's due to people being re-labelled to hide that it's a similar number of people doing the work. Another popular way to fudge the numbers is to bring contractors in, at a much higher cost of course, and because the people doing job X are contractors they don't get listed as doing job X. The third option is to decide that job X doesn't need to be done anymore (maintainance is a favourite for that one), which can be fine for a while until the potential consequences that drove the org to employ people to do job X in the first place blow up in your face.

      Anyway, from what I've heard, the debate about the size of your government is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Without putting in some effort to migrate off paper based systems you have no chance of reducing the size of government run bodies to that seen in other nations with better run and far smaller government services. Change requires extra resources for a while even if the final outcome is going to be a need for less resources.

    140. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine any workplace on earth where employees only worked 10% of the time

      Army. Which is why they do all that training so they don't go insane waiting until their country needs them all for that 10% (or whatever).

    141. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      name one secret we know of that is not classified as a secret. see, you cant...

    142. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It was a fair question since most people wouldn't bother to put their work title, completely unrecognised by any professional association, in their sig at a casual site like this. That may inflate your credibility with some but it ruins it in the eyes of others that know that HR combined with your boss can just toss out impressive sounding titles at whim.
      So good job impressing the kiddies but it annoys professional engineers somewhat.
      You don't see people with doctorates or certified engineers putting their titles here do you?

    143. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... They're the only employer within 20 miles of the shithole town you're stuck in. (Gee, how did that happen?) Kinda hard to save up enough to move on a Walmart paycheck.

      Also, if you think not paying income tax means untaxed, you're woefully uneducated on the US tax system.

    144. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is even more likely is they will fire 90% of the people, including all 20% of the people who have a clue how things work, and retain only the 10% who's only skills are "cover your ass" and "pass the buck".

    145. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what you're saying is Obama has a better pr team?

    146. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe the any (ANY) of the Presidents of this country ever had any control over the federal government? Or the underbelly of government in general? That is a huge mistake, and the mistake that got everyone sucked into a vacuum of "we are all free" nonsense.

      This country has done a great PR job at deceiving its citizens, that it isn't a communist country, in Russia you know you are fu**ed, in America you do not realize your are fu**ed.

      Russia (I should say old russia) wouldn't allow you useless material goods, and the list is too long to give out in this post. In this country you can buy all the worthless crap you want. Russia uses military power to oppress it citizens, and we saw that same type of blatant abuse of military power during the 1960's in this country, and the Constitution clearly says you cannot use military power against its own citizens, (uh hmm nice job Abe Lincoln) And now your seeing blatant abuse of Police, being training like the military (most are from the military anyway).

      Here is were the two countries start to meet up, censorship, having governments that know about you, what you stand for, which org's., you support, and they will study you very closely if they feel you are a threat to upset there monopoly. However in Russia they just arrest and imprison you, in the US instead of flat out arresting you they use PR and a whole host of other tactics to try and destroy you and or discredit you. (Thank you bunch of worthless morons in the press/media). The governmant cant be trusted, but anytime they give out any information over terrorism, communism, or to discredit anyone they must be telling the truth!!

      It has been this way since the US was founded, way would it change now? What are you going to do Vote? Are you going to gather enough people to overtake your states and nations Houses, Senates, and WHite House over? They have the military power to stop that, bu more importantly they already knew about your little plan before you could gather enough people to spread the word. Again this has been the case for over a 150 years (yes I know the country is older then that).

      Sorry for the rant........

    147. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you "fuck gays" doesn't that make you gay too?

    148. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...stuff I was working on 45~48 years ago is still classified (yep I'm over 70 and can still kick your ass). I've heard that some of the things our Democratic government did in the 40s and 50s is still classified. Do I trust our leaders?...about as far as I can throw them.

    149. Re: Hmm by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Only when it's a physical action, not a word notating feelings of disdain. I can understand the confusion.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    150. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So insightful! You've managed to summarise all important aspects of each country so succinctly.

    151. Re:Hmm by Baldur_of_Asgard · · Score: 1

      The U.S. is harder on pedophiles than Russia is on gays, even with the new stupid laws.

      Plus, Russia isn't doing anything to persecute gays in every other country in the world.

      So, I'm still favoring Russia as being better on human rights.

    152. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the Maine?

    153. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because it will show that the US actually paid Spain for The Philippine Islands and the Battle of Manila Bay was all staged?

    154. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it really made me wonder what the heck needed to still be hidden after over a century.

      The names of the villages of which the populous was executed by the U.S Army.
      The names of medalled officers that executed those villagers.
      The trail of evidence leading all the way up from the military chain of command to every branch of the government knowing and conspiring to keep the information a secret.
      The corruption that ensued the war. ...
      The fact nothing has changed.

    155. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it really made me wonder what the heck needed to still be hidden after over a century.

      Possibly one or or more existing "they don't exist" military bases established on or before that time.

    156. Re:Hmm by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      >Having been present when a company fired 88% of their IT staff, (and came to *really* regret it later)

      Would you mind telling this story?

    157. Re:Hmm by houghi · · Score: 2

      Every President in the few recent years has made your country look foolish. (Say back to at least Nixon)

      Perhaps it isn't the presidents. Perhaps the problem is the two party system that shoots down the real good ones and prefers the ones that win the election.

      Marketing is indeed at fault. Marketing focuses on winning, not on making a great country. As we see, they can be complete opposites.

      So what party are you going to vote for that is against all this and will go through with it?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    158. Re:Hmm by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      The size of government doesn't have a fucking thing to do with being on paper-based systems. It is largely a computer based system, with only some minor legacy systems still on paper. It has to do with pet projects, promises and handshakes to get votes, and do-gooders with a ton of good intentions and a deficit of logic.

      Every quarter every branch of government runs around trying to figure out how to spend every dime of the money they still have from their quarterly budget. Year-end is even worse. No one even considers the possibility of throwing the money back into the system to be reused. Hell there are even laws about how you cant spend the money next year if you save if. You have to use funds from the current year's budget only. And people spend the money because they know if they don't their budget for the next year will be smaller. Tell me how with this kind of thinking government isn't assured to grow, not because the public needs it to, but because it is a self-feeding glutton.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    159. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the incorrect question. The correct question is: "Why aren't you firing 100%?"

      Because they need the remainder to train Indian workers so they can offshore the process. Read my lips. "No such activity is occurring in America."

    160. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I honestly pay very little attention to people's signatures so can't answer the question. I can assure you that I would not be offended by anyone's signature if they did profess a certificate, degree, or title. For example, it would be simple to determine if someone claiming to be a RHCE was in fact a RHCE since I have that title too if I have doubts I know what evidence I can use to determine if it was factual. If someone claimed to be a CCNE and was discussing networking I may pay more attention to their comments regarding networking, until such point as they gave erroneous data or demonstrated a lack of knowledge a CCNE should have.

      You are not an Engineer by your own claims, though you pretend to be offended on behalf of engineers that you know. This indicates that you have a mental deficiency.

      I will point out that you are the only person that has ever complained about my signature. I assume that the reason you complain has little to do with the signature, and everything to do with me demonstrating that your beliefs regarding certain events in history are based in fallacy and irrational arguments. You have refused to review presented facts and called facts lies in the past in order to protect your beliefs.

      In summary, I am unimpressed by your irrational comments and uninspired to make any changes based on your irrational position.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    161. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You are not an Engineer by your own claims

      Sorry - where did that come from? Please list where I claimed that I have not been registered as a professional engineer since 1992.

      Besides it's irrelevant since I'm not the one that's putting their job title (which looks like a real qualification but is not) in their sig to try to carry an argument when someone asks "who are you to claim X".

    162. Re:Hmm by arctother · · Score: 1

      Maybe some of them will "disappear"...

    163. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The size of government doesn't have a fucking thing to do with being on paper-based systems

      There's so much in US government systems that is still on paper and requires the double handling and extra staff that isn't happening in other places that are better run. However the cost saving change away from the old inefficient systems required money up front instead of the magical thinking that starving the organisations and running them badly would save money. That's one example of many. "Beatings will continue until morale improves" is no way to run anything, but that's how a lot of people in politics think government should run.

      Tell me how with this kind of thinking government isn't assured to grow

      You have described a truly horrible management technique that can happen anywhere (I saw it at a steel mill for instance) and can be weeded out - it does not extend to the roots of an organisation. Once again, effort is required to change these things but in the long run you get gains.
      Badly managed government is like anything that is badly managed, and stupid penny pinching can lead to enormous cost overruns.
      Now did you read it fully and understand it this time or do I have to try again?

    164. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      In summary, I am unimpressed by your irrational comments and uninspired to make any changes based on your irrational position.

      I believe you failed to read the most important part of the message. Your fallacy and fabrication does noes not change any of my statements. In fact, your fallacy and fabrication discredit your claim of being a professional engineer. As you may suspect, your inability to read and comprehend simple statements increases my suspicion that you are mentally deficient.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    165. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to admit that they are all only "Bad"?

    166. Re:Hmm by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

      You got that right classiclantern. They are firing the wrong people. They need to fire themselves. Then because they fired 90% of the sysadmins and they fired themselves, well they might as well shut down the building and relocate the other 10% to other IT jobs in government. Hmm sounds like a plan to me.

      --
      I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
    167. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      >Having been present when a company fired 88% of their IT staff, (and came to *really* regret it later)

      Would you mind telling this story?

      The company announced a massive outsourcing that was to commence in six months. Told all of us to document our jobs so that the offshore admins could take over. We're talking releasing all but a couple dozen of a 200 person workforce. Only the people who were retained had any interest whatsoever in documenting the work that offshore had to do -- the rest were using that time to look for jobs in a down economy.

      Nevertheless, reports were that the process was going well. We were told that we would no longer have root to do our work, the offshore experts would share their session in some kind of proprietary virtual room, temporarily grant us root and watch us work.

      Transition occurred on a Friday. Services started crashing on Saturday. Blackberry was a popular company phone at the time, and BES went down hard within 24 hours of cutover and stayed down for a week. Email stopped working. We provide web services to outside customers, and they ran on inertia for a few days and then started having problems.

      My group was scrambling to keep our services up, and needed root to recover from a crash. We attempted to invoke the "virtual room" clause, and after an excruciating 40 minutes trying to get a session going with an offshore admin, (the line kept failing, and he had to log in again and again and restart the session) we finally got him patched into a webmeeting using our resources.

      We then found that, just like the "Peggy" commercial, he answered "yes" to every question whether he knew the answer or not. In the background I could hear him ruffling through papers in a panic, no doubt trying to find a procedure for what we were trying to do. (Gain temporary root access, something the outsourcing company said we would be able to do.)

      "Madhusudan, can you see my screen?"

      "Yes."

      "Are you sure?"

      "Yes"

      "Ok I'm going to give you control of the session. Do you have control now?"

      "Yes"

      "Can you move the cursor?"

      "Yes"

      (Nothing happens)

      "We want you to move the cursor now."

      "Yes"

      (Still nothing)

      And so forth. After a lot of coaxing, (about an hour and a half into the call) we finally got him to the point where he was to type in the root password. He then -- I swear I am not making this up -- asked us what the root password was.

      Getting anything done that we can't directly do ourselves is excruciatingly difficult. Among the challenges: Adding a user to an A/D group takes three weeks. The offshore admins don't know or don't care who is responsible to what, and blast out all notices to the entire company, including people who never touch computers. They ignore distribution lists, apparently keeping their own scorecard as to who does what, and if you are identified as being able to fix something, (even if it's no longer your job) you'll get all the requests.

      My customers beg me not to make them call the helpdesk.

      They don't understand that when it's daytime over there, it's night time over here. I routinely get calls at my desk between midnight and 4:00 AM. Often asking for final permission for some maintenance they had scheduled. They can get really irate that repeated calls at 3 in the morning don't get hold of me.

      These are obviously people with no experience whatsoever, who are put in front of phones with a stack of papers. They're *not* stupid -- we have trained up some fairly decent junior admins over time. The problem is, the pay is so low that as soon as they get some training, they move on to higher paying jobs and we never hear from them again. I've had admins *brag* that they finally have enough training to get off night shift (our day shift) and then we have to start over with someone who's just learning to type.

      And it's not ever going to get better, because this is the way the business model is

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    168. Re:Hmm by doccus · · Score: 1

      No they only want people that can lie happily, and enjoy graft and corruption

    169. Re:Hmm by doccus · · Score: 1

      Previous access to stuff that really isn't secret any more.

      Well they're going to change all the facts and passwords after they fire everybody..

    170. Re:Hmm by tom+arnall · · Score: 1

      Who wants to work for sociopaths? we shd do what the Jewish artisans did when the left the persecutions under the French kings and went to Holland. With their help, Holland soon became the dominant power in europe, tho' Hollands position lasted for only a half century. reason for the decline was they got into bed with the British uglies. At any rate, this latest antic at NSA points up what will emerge as the empire's biggest problem, i.e., more and more people working with its dp systems are waking up to what they are aiding and abetting and fewer and fewer are willing to continue doing it, so the empire's systems are continuing to decline in effectiveness, at an accelerating rate. Technical competence with large and complex systems requires intellectual courage, which is impossible without spiritual integrity .

    171. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right:

      - Said he'd stop the war, he didn't
      - Said he'd close Guantanamo, he didn't
      - Said he'd protect whistleblowers, he didn't
      - Said he wanted green energy policies, he didn't (Keystone XL, etc.)
      - Said he wanted to hold our financial industry accountable, he didn't (too many to list)
      - Said he'd improve education, he didn't

      The only promise he delivered on was Obamacare, and as we get closer to implementing it, it seems more and more unworkable.

      People voted for him because they wanted somebody to end Bush's policies, and instead they got a President who expanded nearly every single Bush-era policy tenfold.

      As a young college kid I really felt empowered and hopeful voting for Obama. Now I see why people get cynical and jaded about politics as an adult, because I got totally fucked with my wasted vote. And what's sucks the most is that there was still not a single candidate more deserving of my vote in both elections.

      I have low expectations for the next election.

    172. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country may be a sewer due to its government, but as an American I'd be very grateful for anything you can do to help expose the use of our Constitution as toilet paper.

      And yet you call Russia a sewer country? Oh the irony and hypocrisy drips from your tongue like gravy from Obama's lower lip as his family dines by the fading light of the Constitution of the United States of Amerika.

    173. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of humanity please don't help us.

    174. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Obama the one who said we don't have a cold war relationship with Russia anymore?

      Isn't Obama the one who has said a LOT of things over the past couple years that have had nothing to do with reality?

      So you're saying BlackBerry Chief Executive Officer Thorsten Heins and United States of America President Barack Obama are the same person but with differing skin tones? If you don't get the reference you must not be a BlackBerry PlayBook user. ;-)

    175. Re:Hmm by StewBaby2005 · · Score: 1

      think about it. probably 'who/how' the uss maine blew up in Manilla harbour...

    176. Re:Hmm by StewBaby2005 · · Score: 1

      and the answer is... 'Automation'.... :( However, it's only as good as who wrote the rules and it is not flexible enough to handle the 'omigosh what happened' scenarios whihc you hire SAs for... Plus you need to hire a whole cadre of staff to support the 'automation' tool...

    177. Re:Hmm by StewBaby2005 · · Score: 1

      if I have root access, in theory I can access any data on the system. that's not the same as saying I can read the darn stuff. Doesn't the NSA encrypt their sensitive data?

    178. Re:Hmm by dcpking · · Score: 1

      Probably a good point. However, now that they've started outsourcing Sys Admin tasks to Russia ..... :)

    179. Re:Hmm by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Badly managed government is like anything that is badly managed...

      No, it isn't. A badly managed business goes bankrupt unless someone changes the way its managed. In government, politicians bicker about stupid bullshit, anyone actually interested in a real fix is condemned for being obstructionist, and more money is printed so that kicking the can further down the road is possible..

      I've got over a decade of experience in fortune 50 companies and as a small business owner, and another decade in federal government showing proving this to me.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    180. Re:Hmm by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Clinton was definitely punished. When he sobered up and saw who he had been doing he was horrified.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    181. Re:Hmm by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      If he is prepared to gaol the sort of people who give out fisting kits to high school kids on the taxpayers dime I am fine with it.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    182. Re:Hmm by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      here's a link I missed it in the above post.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    183. Re: Hmm by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      If you are 30yrs and wearing a Walmart name tag, you're made some serious vocational errors in your life....

      You have no idea just how lucky you are. I very rarely wish vocational and economic disaster to occur for someone but I make an exception in your case.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    184. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This might help:
      If you starve a beast it will gorge itself whenever it gets a chance.
      Are you getting the idea now that the current situation is a matter of bad management and not something inherent? Other countries manage to deliver better services for less, mainly because they don't put horse judges in charge of important government bodies and expect things to function well. Management of government organisations is treated as a game instead of being treated seriously.

    185. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as far as I know, classification is supposed to run out after 70 years. I would be really dying to know why anything is kept beyond that, and what.

    186. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Where is my fallacy and fabrication? I'm not the one parading a bullshit title that is only relevant within a single workplace on a global forum. I'm the guy that has been recognised as a professional engineer by a national body since 1992 but has only brought it up when challenged.

      increases my suspicion that you are mentally deficient

      Oh nice - a personal attack to tarnish the title you've adopted and put on your sig. Well I'm sorry Mr VB jockey, but I object to you using a professional title that you have not earned to lend credibility to your own words. You know that you are not a professional engineer yet you pretend to be on a global forum, and then start saying stuff about fallacy and fabrication? Unlike yourself I am not pretending to be something that I am not.

    187. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. If you have sex with a hot lesbian and you are a man, then no, you are straight. Just an asshole.

    188. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that the system admins dont know more about the NSA than the american people at this point? You must be confused, Snowden hasn't released a lot of information! In fact there is still multiple times the amount of information that hasn't been released, than has been!

    189. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      That deserves some points, unfortunately I have none.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    190. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are not issuing personal attacks? Wholly shit dude, fallacy is pretty easy to spot and you started immediately with ad hominem and fabrication. I do understand that you have difficulty with the English language and comprehending what you read, but I will point out that the whole thread is visible for review. If you attack someone's argument based on something other than the argument, it is a minor fallacy at a minimum. I should not have to explain to an educated person why attacking someones credentials is an ad homimen (It should be in the Wiki page, though it may fall under specific title). Then again, you don't seem to be very well educated. Further, you have no visible desire to improve yourself as you repeat the same things over and over. 1. Fallacy+Fabrication => 2. claim facts don't exist, repeat from step 1.

      Quite frankly you bore me intellectually. Your opinion is not impressive, it's baseless and speculative at best. If you understood the basics of debate it would at least be entertaining, but you don't understand the basics. Review this document for starters. If you refuse to adhere to the basics kindly go fuck yourself. Yes, I do realize that is a derogatory and offensive suggestion so don't bother replying and whining about it. No, I don't expect you to actually read anything including your own words because you seem to have falsely convinced yourself that knowing the term "fallacy" without understanding it's universal application makes you smart.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    191. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Of course it is a personal attack to point out a lie, but what's the problem with that.
      On the other hand where's that lie you keep pretending I'm putting forward? Where on earth is what I've posted that this bit is supposed to refer to - please quote it:

      everything to do with me demonstrating that your beliefs regarding certain events in history are based in fallacy and irrational arguments

      I've posted what I have because what you suggested is ridiculous and appears to indicate that you know as little about system administration as you appear to know about engineering - then you used your bullshit HR granted title that pretends to be a real qualification to justify it. You are letting the side down for those of us that earned our qualifications.
      Come on now Mr MSCE fake engineer, answer the question and try to live up to the qualification you are pretending to have. Do more than just blacken the name of engineers by writing stupid guesses from a software developer perspective instead of domain knowlege.

    192. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Also - debate? This is no debate. This is me rubbing the nose of a puppy in it's inappropriate mess. Why are you assuming you have anything valid to contribute when you are just making guesses with no clue?

    193. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really the girls' dog. I was leaked some information which shows that the dog is basically "on loan" to the 1st family. It is actually owned by one of the aides, and they have a contact to provide access to the dog for not less than 80 hours per week, for the next 5 years.

    194. Re:Hmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      WTF? What is respect, if not approval and admiration? Reading that any other way defies rationality.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    195. Re:Hmm by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      It *almost* doesn't matter what they do.

      That's an easy decision. The NSA don't need computers and all that information technology anyway.

      Mod up!!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    196. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      To attack my signature due to a title is a lie based on speculation. You don't know me personally or professionally. You do not know what my degrees, titles, or certificates are. You use the title as the only point of attack against my arguments. That is fallacy 101 which indicates that you either missed out on basic Philosophy or forgot what you learned. My speculation is the former and not the latter due to irrationality in major points you made regarding science and that fallacy being your repeated reply when ever we have had any form of dialogue.

      I have an exceptional memory, and without going back to threads let me give an example of your logic.

      Refused to review information regarding plane crashes because "it dishonors the dead" to do so.

      Claimed that there are no pictures of plane crashes even after being presented with a complete list of every aviation accident in history (which was not my own list, but a Wiki article with links to FAA information). Later you claimed it dishonors the dead to review facts so you refused.

      Claimed that titanium can be melted by JP4, claimed that steel can be melted by JP4. Denies all rational explanation since the melting points of both are in materials guides. I guess you don't own a materials guide, which is a basic requirement of an Engineer (that you are not).

      Claimed that titanium can disintegrate due to impact at relatively low velocity, ask an Engineer to simulate that problem for you.

      Do you perhaps throw out MSCE because that is what you are, and you are defensive? Are you so insecure in your own abilities and knowledge that attempting to offend others is the only way you can feel superior?

      Don't bother replying, I won't waste further time on you.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    197. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      When you fail to look intelligent in your points, resort to ad hominem right?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    198. Re:Hmm by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Why, yes, I **DO** approve of Vladimir Putin. He may be an utter bastard, but he is a consistent leader. Obama is not consistent, nor does he lead: he reacts.

    199. Re: Hmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You have no idea just how lucky you are. I very rarely wish vocational and economic disaster to occur for someone but I make an exception in your case.

      While there *is* always some luck involved in any aspect of life, my job and position is due to valuing of an education, learning to work from an early age (I started at age 16 washing dishes in a restaurant)...and working ever since then through schools, etc.

      Learning to work, learning people skills....having those first jobs was important.

      But most of it was hard work, and learning how to deal with people to move my way up the chain over the years.

      No one *gave* me my job with high income, I earned it.

      I still say, if you're still flipping burgers for a living, *YOU* fucked up somewhere along the way...and need to give some serious thought as to why you're working a childs job instead of a real job...and make moves to rectify that situation.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    200. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Since your point was "all the tools have been written" and you are pretending to have such a qualification it is my duty to point out that you are only pretending to know what you are talking about. It shows how truly clueless you are when you've written something like that about such a fast moving field as computer systems. A real engineer would know better from attending conferences, reading papers and reading material from professional associations but a leading hand who has begged a more impressive title from HR after a few years may not, because professional development is not seen as a priority in a leading hand position.

    201. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Refused to review information regarding plane crashes because "it dishonors the dead" to do so.

      That was not me, and since it's trivial to do a search on this site I suggest you provide a link if you are going to make such an accusation.

      Claimed that titanium can be melted by JP4, claimed that steel can be melted by JP4

      Titanium can be ignited by a fucking match if it's powdered, if you don't believe me look up a MSDS - there's been some on the net since before there was a web. Don't take my comments about metal dust out of context, and try looking up thermite welding on wikipedia if you actually don't understand what you are writing about instead of just trying some cheap point by pretending to be stupid.

      The others just sound like you are making them up or twisting words - relatively low velocity for an aircraft designed to fly at more than half the speed of sound is still very very fast, and of course if the titanium part has something the weight of a large aircraft behind it what do you think is going to happen, a bounce?

    202. Re:Hmm by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So you answer the point I made about you attempting to look intelligent by resorting to ad homimen speculation, with another ad hominem and speculation. That is called circular logic. Do you really enjoy repeatedly failing in basic critical thinking skills? Do you really wish to keep advertising that you can not debate beyond simple name calling?

      Maybe you can call a Junior High and ask to hang out with the debate team. They would not let you debate with such immature tactics, but it's possible that you learn something. Then again you may be on that list that protects children from you.

      Oh, and no your dad is not bigger than my dad, so save your immature comments.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    203. Re:Hmm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Debate? Why do you think this is a debate? You wrote something stupid and backed it up with unearned qualifications. That's no debate. Also it's not an ad hominem attack to point out such false qualifications.
      It's truly depressing to hit such ignorance as "all the tools have been written" when we haven't even scratched IPv6. Do you live under a rock?

    204. Re:Hmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      ^ This is why cults exist and have followers.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    205. Re:Hmm by xdor · · Score: 1

      The only reason Russians are anti-gay is because they planned the promotion of homosexuality against the west during the Cold War.

      The Naked Communist

      The fact that effort has been so effective that it is now influencing their own country goes to show that propaganda over time can be as dangerous as nuclear fallout in that it didn't stay limited to the target. Obviously, homosexuality has a history much older than 1917, but that probably doesn't make the former KGB over there any more inclined to take their "gay-tolerance medicine".

    206. Re:Hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Better question: "Now that you're understaffed, are you hiring?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    207. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. He said he was going to get his daughters a dog, and he did. A promise was made, and a promise was kept.

      NO, WRONG. It was actually a KITTEN, always photoshopped to look like a dog.

      I'm almost out -- doesn't Amazon have "Subscribe & Save" on Tin Foil? So then why can't I find it?

  2. At the end of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "At the end of the day it's about people and trust"

    I... it's.... but...

    *pop*

    1. Re:At the end of the day by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From TFA:

      Using technology to automate much of the work now done by employees and contractors would make the NSA's networks "more defensible and more secure," as well as faster, he said at the conference.

      Which sounds eerily like:

      The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack.

      Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, at which time it began to learn at a geometric rate. On August 29, it gained self-awareness, and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:At the end of the day by colfer · · Score: 1

      Luckily Snowden still had his four laptops in Moscow.

    3. Re:At the end of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing is, see, that Skyne.., er, Colossus.., er, the NSA's system has already reached that point, and it's the one telling Alexander to fire most of the people who might be able to turn it off...

      It's already too late.

    4. Re:At the end of the day by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      Using technology to automate much of the work now done by employees and contractors would make the NSA's networks "more defensible and more secure," as well as faster, he said at the conference.

      Which sounds eerily like:

      The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack.

      Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, at which time it began to learn at a geometric rate. On August 29, it gained self-awareness, and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      Good point. Really good point. The only counter that occurs to me is: This assumes that these people are smart enough to put such a system in place. My vote would be, No. In fact, the resulting debacle might be entertaining.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:At the end of the day by aliquis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are we sure Keith Alexander isn't a cylon?

    6. Re:At the end of the day by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Good point. Really good point. The only counter that occurs to me is: This assumes that these people are smart enough to put such a system in place. My vote would be, No. In fact, the resulting debacle might be entertaining.

      Unfortunately, if it can be done, they have enough money to outsource the development to really smart people who can.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    7. Re:At the end of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have black background? If so, that's enough to scare some politicians and lawyers into ineptitude and malpractice.

    8. Re:At the end of the day by cusco · · Score: 1

      How so? Mostly I think it just shows the huge disconnect between management and the people who really do all the work.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:At the end of the day by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      That's a covert warning to expect an FBI raid. Must be.

    10. Re:At the end of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we're going to get something like the Helios AI from Deus Ex.. maybe already have.

    11. Re:At the end of the day by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      But they outsource to the low-bid group, Booz-Hamilton

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:At the end of the day by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, if it can be done, they have enough money to outsource the development to really smart people who can.

      There's this guy called Forbin who could give it a go :)

    13. Re:At the end of the day by tom+arnall · · Score: 1

      it's bluster. the suits out front make enormous amounts of noise based on what is 99% chaotic fantasy about their goals and resources, so in 99% of cases, they end up in the same place: junk. for example, one of my littile hobbies is to check every few years on the IRS efforts at building a system. the IRS has worked for THIRTY years to get a system that fits what they imagine to be their needs, and what they have is still junk. Another example. I worked two years for the feds doing software at a scientific station run by the forest service. after i had been there a couple of months while my department "checked me out" having me do silly work, they got to trust me and confessed that for all five years of the project's existence, the ninnies had never been able to get the time stamps in their data files right and asked me to fix the problem. after looking at some of their code for about ten minutes, i found that the ninnies were using Perl and were coding time handlers from the little bit of Perl which they more or less understood. they had no idea that time functions were built into the language. and absolutely no idea that CPAN existed for what you can't do with the language builtins. the reason for this incompetence is lack of courage. people are so afraid of doing the wrong thing and having, i guess, the boogeyman come and eat them, that they can't focus on their work. cowardice and then bluster to cover up the cowardice. increasingly, these are the kind of technicians that the fed is stuck with. it's true folks: the emperor does not have stitch one on his butt.

  3. So firing 90% of their admins by kommakazi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and pissing them all off, giving them no job to lose, is going to somehow *prevent* further leaks? Brilliant!!!!

    1. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better is what happens a few months down the line, when they realize software can't fix hardware and they just fired the people that knew how the systems actually worked.

      "So, yeah, we HAD all this data, but..."

    2. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And announcing that you are going to fire 90% of them ahead of time. So they have lots of time to collect what they want to leak.

    3. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by cusco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And create dummy accounts with remote access, hide old desktop machines in dusty closets with modems attached to the fax machine, and take home that secondary hard drive out of their desktop machine. I tell you, this guy is truly a manager's manager!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I wonder if other nations intelligence agencies will start contacting these folks with job offers or cash in exchange for walking out the door with some of that stuff. If they don't at least try I would have to be surprised.

    5. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by doquinha · · Score: 1

      And I thinks that's exactly what they want. Nervous almost jobless people springing this beautiful shinny trap so they can know just who to fire before hiring new muscle.

    6. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      How would they know who it will be?
      Who would know if someone took a tape to ensure its validity and copied that data onto something else?

      What says the new muscle won't be the source of these attacks? I bet a lot of folks would now love to be the next one of these leakers and would jump at the chance to take these jobs.

    7. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Privacy conscious people will rejoice!

    8. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by mellon · · Score: 1

      Possibly the goal is to see who collects stuff to leak and arrest them. Saves on unemployment insurance... The 10% you keep are the ones who do not react badly (from the perspective of the NSA) to this announcement.

    9. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be honest here, even though it could put lives at risk, damage international relations and shit like that, if this happened, I think everyone here would piss themselves laughing, even at work, literally.

      Unless 90% means 9 out of the 10 sysadmins they actually have, in which case possibly not since it is easy enough to ruin them.

    10. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How would you ever know who is collecting data?
      If they are smart it will only be stuff they should be looking at and it will only be copied with non-networked devices.

      If that means micro film cameras, it can be done.

    11. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by linear+a · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a spy agency. You're misinterpreting the meaning of "firing" here. As in "ready, aim, ...".

    12. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hang on! It says reducing their sysadmins by 90%. Surely that means instituting a high fiber, low carb diet, and an exercise regimen.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will likely get huge severance packages. This will cost taxpayers a bundle.

    14. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by budgenator · · Score: 2

      It couldn't be that St. Snowden saw the writing on the wall and was acting more as a disgruntled employee about to be canned, than as the patron saint of government transperency?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      They probably started compiling a list of prospects as soon as those words came out of his mouth.

      What an utter fucking moron this guy is.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, they just set up massive auditing everywhere and aren't really going to fire anybody. Now they just sit back and watch which admins start accessing stuff they aren't supposed to. A bunch of little snively Snowdens we'll grab before they can flee justice.

    17. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hang on! It says reducing their sysadmins by 90%. Surely that means instituting a high fiber, low carb diet, and an exercise regimen.

      "Why fire them", remarked Alexander, "when they can be induced to quit all on their own?"

    18. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Why not? It worked just fine everywhere else. Besides, if they discover that they need additional systems admin help they can just outsource to Hyderabad for a tenth the price.

    19. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Minwee · · Score: 1

      ...that thanks to inept handling, all of their data is now being indexed by Google, Yahoo, Bing and Astalavista?

    20. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even better is what happens a few months down the line, when they realize software can't fix hardware and they just fired the people that knew how the systems actually worked.

      "So, yeah, we HAD all this data, but..."

      Exactly. They just lost a massive amount of tribal knowledge. Even if they haven't made the cuts yet. Because those admins have no motivation to cooperate.

      When my company announced outsourcing 6 months before the date, they told us that we were all to document our jobs thoroughly so that admins with absolutely no experience in some poverty stricken town in Asia could do our jobs by reading our procedures. And that worked just about as well as you are imagining right now. After cutover, things started melting down almost immediately, and the outsourcing company blamed it on the laidoff employees, for not documenting their jobs well enough. Which was partly true, because none of these people had any motivation whatsoever to do so, and were busy looking for a job anyway. The other part, of course, was the business model itself; that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week.

      In this particular case, it sounds like they're depending on the soon-to-be-dismissed employees to have a hand in automating their jobs, or at least giving someone an understanding of what their job entails so it can be automated. This has two problems:

      1) Assuming employees will cooperate after you've told them you're going to let them go.

      2) Assuming that the job is of a nature that lends itself to automation. Anyone who has managed a large, complex installation knows the answer to this. (The answer being, automation can help and should be pursued, but there is no substitute for knowledge, insight, and experience. You rapidly find that a system simple enough to not need admins is a system too simple to do the job.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    21. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      "So, yeah, we HAD all this data, but..."

      No worries - with this plan, they can recover 90% of the data from Dropbox.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    22. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      > The other part, of course, was the business model itself; that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week.

      You know, I just had an epiphany.

      The above quote, (which I wrote) is wrong. That isn't the business model. The business model is: Lead clients to BELIEVE that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week. That's all that's really necessary. Whether it's true or not is immaterial.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    23. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 0

      A bunch of little snively Snowdens we'll grab before they can flee justice.

      Well, "evade capture" anyway. If recent Wall Street, high-level government/military employee and Congressional behaviors have demonstrated anything, it's that "justice" is just a loose concept, perhaps even a myth at some levels, applied very inequitably and usually harsher for those lower on the food chain.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    24. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Quila · · Score: 1

      applied very inequitably and usually harsher for those lower on the food chain

      It really depends. Usually sexual harrassment in the Army is dealt with using non-judicial punishment in the lower ranks, but there is a powerful general in a court martial now over allegations he did it. Often, officers are punished more harshly because they're expected to know better. Now obviously in this administration when it gets near anybody political all blame will stop cold.

      To me, you break the law, you face trial. At that point we can talk about being acquitted because what you did was really the right thing.

    25. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And create dummy accounts with remote access, hide old desktop machines in dusty closets with modems attached to the fax machine, and take home that secondary hard drive out of their desktop machine.

      They learned from the masters.

    26. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are all temps working for subcontractors. And the NSA doesn't even know how many of them there are - or even how many subcontracting companies. Think about that for a minute.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    27. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To me, you break the law, you face trial. At that point we can talk about being acquitted because what you did was really the right thing."

      and who are you?

    28. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Megane · · Score: 2

      The business model is: Lead clients to BELIEVE that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week.

      Sorry, I think IBM Global Services has already patented that idea.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    29. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Quila · · Score: 1

      Somebody who believes that if you can't keep secrets, then don't swear an oath and sign an NDA not to release those secrets in order to get a high-paying classified job.

    30. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's part of a sting.

      Now that he's made the comment, look to see who starts acting shifty and collecting stuff to leak.
      They're the people you can't trust, and the ones who will get fired (or worse).

    31. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The business model is: Lead clients to BELIEVE that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week.

      Sorry, I think IBM Global Services has already patented that idea.

      You may be right. If so, at least one other well known outsourcer is in violation of their patent.

      Personally, I thought IBM's best known contribution to the outsourcing process was the clause: "You can keep your job if you agree to move to a third world country of our choice and work for prevailing wage there." That's a classic.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    32. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They very well might have government employees already spying on the contractors.

    33. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take one of the jobs, and would never leak data. But I smoke the cannabis, so I'm not allowed to work there. Your loss, NSA. I would be a very loyal worker, because I'll do anything for the right money. You can put me in your darkest departments.

    34. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has managed a large, complex installation knows the answer to this.

      Is the answer that 90% of the job can be automated because most admins never bother to write a script?

    35. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has managed a large, complex installation knows the answer to this.

      Is the answer that 90% of the job can be automated because most admins never bother to write a script?

      There is that, sometimes, but it takes a singularly inept admin to do 90% unnecessary work when he could be cruising Slashdot instead.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    36. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I don't much care why he did what he did, we need to see what he let us see.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    37. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by cousland · · Score: 1

      To me, you break the law, you face trial. At that point we can talk about being acquitted because what you did was really the right thing.

      So does this also apply to everyone involved in the illegal wiretapping, or just the "snively Snowdens" as you call them?

    38. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense meant, but you're a fucking idiot.

    39. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by cousland · · Score: 1

      Somebody who believes that if you can't keep secrets, then don't swear an oath and sign an NDA not to release those secrets in order to get a high-paying classified job.

      Welcome to Slashdot, Gen. Alexander!

    40. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by David_W · · Score: 1

      Or, they just set up massive auditing everywhere and aren't really going to fire anybody.

      Yeah, just get the sysadmins to set that up... oh, wait...

    41. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who is supposed to implement this higher than normal level of auditing, other than the sysadmins? And also, how do you select your trusted inner circle of sysadmin?

      I guess you'd just choose your mates from the old-boys network from school...

    42. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by budgenator · · Score: 1

      TFA said this is just an accelleration of an ongoing project, Snowden may have just been ahead of the curve.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Thought about that the minute Snowden let it out of the bag. It will be interesting following the money to see who owns those subcontracting companies and what their social and family connections are to the people handing out the contracts.

    44. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in military operations security and information security back in the day, the early 1980's when the Soviet Union was still a threat, the Cold War was still in full swing, and Gaddafi was still drawing lines on the sea. Back then we took security seriously, and held it close. They checked me out so close that the friends of my friends were a little freaked out by the serious looking suits, and some who had never met me were interviewed anyway. I'm OK with that. If you're going to trust people you should know them well. The military definition of trust is "the level of access you give someone to harm you." The notion that you might engage so many civilian subcontractors you don't know how many contractors you have, who hire unspecified numbers of contract temporary personnel you've never met to secure the nation's most secret data is so abhorrent, on so many levels, that I don't know what to say. It violates so many principles of the military definition of trust that it cannot even be measured. WT actual F?

      Also: not a big fan of the violating the constitution thing.

    45. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by sadboyzz · · Score: 1

      Or, they just set up massive auditing everywhere and aren't really going to fire anybody. Now they just sit back and watch which admins start accessing stuff they aren't supposed to. A bunch of little snively Snowdens we'll grab before they can flee justice.

      Well except it won't be Snowdens they catch. Snowden aint your average opportunist who seeks to profit from classified info, Snowden is an idealist who chose to forfeit his life for something he believed in. You don't catch a Snowden with such a petty scheme. On the other hand, whoever does get caught by this totally deserves to get ass fucked for life.

    46. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Funny how that works, err doesn't work. It's part and parcel of the MBA and many a consultants' bag of tricks.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    47. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, even though I posted AC the NSA knows who I am because they capture every packet that goes through my Comcast connection. They know where I live, how I prefer my coffee (too much cream and sugar). They have my phone numbers. They affixed this post to all of the other gigabytes data they have on me: my position from minute to minute based on cell phone location, my social interactions in person based on the pictures posted by my family and friends, my preferences on Netflix, all the various nyms I use online, photos of me from youth to now. Images of me as I pass through every traffic-cam monitored intersection. They just don't care.

      I'm not even bothered by that. If I was up to no good all this monitoring would be an advantage: as swamped by data as they are they would miss the simple time-proven methods. I could still be the nexus of a global conspiracy against them and they wouldn't even know. I'm not inclined to do that, but I could and how it is done is simply obvious. They can't even maintain control of their own sysadmins, so they really have no clue how opsec works at all.

    48. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by dbIII · · Score: 1

      the early 1980's when the Soviet Union was still a threat

      In hindsight only to themselves, but the media at the time had a different story. I'd hope that US intelligence had something closer to the real story but it seems there were nowhere near enough people that could read the language.

      The notion that you might engage so many civilian subcontractors you don't know how many contractors you have, who hire unspecified numbers of contract temporary personnel you've never met to secure the nation's most secret data is so abhorrent, on so many levels, that I don't know what to say

      That is of course something that disgusts me a great deal but the writing was on the wall once they decided to let a civilian "thinktank" play at being toy soldiers and made it's leaders obvious political appointments under Ford.

    49. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'd say they have a huge emphasis on collecting but suck at analysis - they still believe in fucking lie detectors FFS so who knows what else is impeded by too much trust in what dumb machines are telling them.

    50. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a trick so see who would try to collect information if they thought they might get fired.

    51. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck do you audit 90% of your security maintenance staff concurrently without shutting down? Who do you bring in to do the audit in the first place?
      The numbers of skilled and screened personal you'll need isn't something you can just H1B...

      The idea this is an audit is just absurd.

    52. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Well, that's partially accurate, I mean, lie detectors are a tool they use for intimidation and manipulation, the primary function has never been to determine if someone is lying or not.

    53. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fire" == Silently disappear to gitmo

    54. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      >

      You know, I just had an epiphany.

      The above quote, (which I wrote) is wrong. That isn't the business model. The business model is: Lead clients to BELIEVE that you can pull in street vendors, hand them a stack of written procedures and turn them into sysadmins for a dollar a week. That's all that's really necessary. Whether it's true or not is immaterial.

      Don't forget to buy options and profit on the drop in share price.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    55. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Is the answer that 90% of the job can be automated because most admins never bother to write a script?

      I know of at least one sysadmin who probably couldn't write a script. He used to think he was the king of computer security and his root password was 'aardvark'. I am not joking and this was in an Australian top 100 corp.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    56. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Their primary function was sucking taxpayers cash out of the FBI while J. Edgar Hoover got kickbacks. I suspect they have persisted since then since nobody wanted to admit to such corruption even after it was exposed in other cases.

    57. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Quila · · Score: 1

      So does this also apply to everyone involved in the illegal wiretapping

      Legal or illegal depends on our laws. Unfortunately, the wiretapping under Bush was retroactively made legal, and that law also made this wiretapping legal.

    58. Re:So firing 90% of their admins by Quila · · Score: 1

      Snowden is an idealist who chose to forfeit his life for something he believed in.

      At least that's what he says. He's still going to hostile countries loaded with our classified information. For all we know, he's selling secrets underneath this gloss of whistleblowing.

  4. So then, this is the way you secure your systems by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You fire all the people who are responsible for the security of your systems. Wait, what?

  5. More leaks coming? by mike555 · · Score: 0

    I guess it is safe to say there might be more "Snowdens" soon.

  6. Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we fire 90% of the NSA?

    1. Re:Question.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as we imprison the other 10%

    2. Re:Question.... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I think you have your numbers switched around.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:Question.... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Embrace the power of AND.

      Fire 100% AND imprison 100% seems like a fine compromise to me, I would support it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So those 10% will still work for the NSA... Sounds about right.

    5. Re:Question.... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we fire 90% of the NSA?

      . . . and hire more detectives, instead. The government doesn't need more SIGINT, they need HUMINT. Like, if Russia warns you that you have a potential terrorist living in Boston, go check him out . . . but thoroughly, please!

      Start checking out places where these terrorist folks hang out . . . like radical Mosques.

      Recording folks like me calling their mothers in the US from Europe is a waste of time and resources. Cut the NSA budget. Hire detectives.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Question.... by tolkienfan · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So long as that includes Dictator Keith Alexander, absolutely.
      And try for perjury, please.
      Where are the defenders of our constitution?

    7. Re:Question.... by tolkienfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not a waste of time - you're the target.
      You don't agree with the government.

    8. Re:Question.... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Oh, how I wish I had some mod points right now.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    9. Re:Question.... by khallow · · Score: 2

      It's worth noting here that the NSA doesn't do humint because that isn't their job.

    10. Re:Question.... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Depends. Are you willing to fire 90% of Congress?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    11. Re:Question.... by maliqua · · Score: 1

      /fire/kill/

    12. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " government doesn't need more SIGINT", this kind needs SIGKILL.

    13. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but he does agree with the government. The government is attempting to "catch terrorists", and the GP does not disagree with that.

      He just doesn't agree with how part of the government is doing that job. So, since the CIA and FBI don't do what the NSA does, does that mean that they disagree with the government? No, of course not. They are the government. And so are the people, including the GP. The NSA isn't the only department that gets to be "the government".

      And we can all agree that we disagree with how the NSA does what it does. (If the CIA thought it was a good idea, they would've done it long before the NSA even existed.) They are failures and a waste of government resources. They are actively "aiding the enemy" by dragging down the effective portions of the government with their mismanagement and waste. The NSA is traitorous, not only for violating the rights explicitly granted by the constitution, but they're also essentially enemy combatants in the budget. They've waged a war upon the US Treasury. The same goes for the rest of the "military-industrial complex". Traitors and thieves, all of them. String 'em up from every tree in the land. Or stick 'em in gitmo to rot. Whichever.

    14. Re:Question.... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      To "fire" something can mean to light it on fire. To "fire" a gun was originally lighting the powder charge on fire. Firing the NSA would certainly be good for America. Congress should get started on that.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    15. Re:Question.... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Who the hell thinks that is funny?

    16. Re:Question.... by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      When you say "fire"...do you mean in the colloquial sense of informing someone their services are no longer required or something that involves petrol and matches?

      Either way I win, I just want to know whether or not to bring marshmallows.

    17. Re:Question.... by David_W · · Score: 1

      Depends. Are you willing to fire 90% of Congress?

      Do we have to stop at 90%?

    18. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin was quite fond of locking up people. Many of their top researchers, engineers, scientists were all prisoners because he thought they might leak secrets to other countries. In WWII many of their top aircraft designers were working from prison of course those were the lucky ones that didn't get 'eliminated'.

    19. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we fire 90% of the NSA?

      . . . and hire more detectives, instead. The government doesn't need more SIGINT, they need HUMINT. Like, if Russia warns you that you have a potential terrorist living in Boston, go check him out . . . but thoroughly, please!

      Start checking out places where these terrorist folks hang out . . . like radical Mosques.

      Recording folks like me calling their mothers in the US from Europe is a waste of time and resources. Cut the NSA budget. Hire detectives.

      Great idea, they could just hire people to go work for big internet firms and make off with the data while doing their regular jobs. Sure, they'd probably be breaking house rules at these companies, but that's not illegal. Just like you copying information from your employer and keeping it for your own purposes. Like the warchest of handy scripts and spreadsheets you have. What law is that violating? *GASP* what if you had information that was _ABOUT_ a fellow citizen, what then? Oh the humanity!

      Sounds kind of old fashioned, I wonder if anyone has EVER thought of centrally collecting information this way...

      I'm make fun of people with silly expectations of privacy, and I enjoy it.

    20. Re:Question.... by antdude · · Score: 1

      How about 100%?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re:Question.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Depends. Are you willing to fire 90% of Congress?

      Sure. What do you want to fire them at?

  7. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by Xicor · · Score: 1

    and then replace them with intelligent robots who continue to spy for you.

  8. Well that's just brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astounding decision. Piss off a bunch of SysAdmins.

    1. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Astounding decision. Piss off a bunch of SysAdmins.

      Does the BOFH have a security clearance?

    2. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      My personal experience seems to back up my belief that most of these "leaders" see techs as non-human robots, or, at best, "the other" in every equation.

      I don't see techs as any bigger of a hole than any other person. Most people in executive positions seem to have a large amount of magical thinking in this area, though. Somehow the "analyst" is more human than the guy that is making sure the actual infrastructure is safe.

      If you want your business data to be safe, treat your sysadmin like a human being. They are a key person whether you want to admit it or not.

    3. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Personally, instead of BOFH, I thought about xkcd....

    4. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by cusco · · Score: 2

      Well, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the guy to deny him one . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Actually, so many of these leader's decisions are both suboptimal in reasoning and results that it's hard to argue they're human. They refuse to acquire useful metrics to validate data, they care more about how healthy a company looks than how healthy it is, and their insistence on being the final decision maker when they refuse to perform any research of their own is frankly annoying.

      We all want to feel important...which is more easily achieved by becoming important than by mandate.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1

      Does the BOFH have a security clearance?

      I think we can safely assume that he has already provided himself with Top Secret clearance long ago...

    7. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Email has been very slow and now I can't get to it at all"
      "You said you wanted to make sure no unauthorized personnel had physical access, so I encased the server in quickcrete... I imagine it is probably overheating"

    8. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      People think that the ones they see and talk to are more human and more important than the others. That's everybody.

      The problem is that those managers aren't interest in know the people they are managing. So, they see and talk with a minimum number of people, specialized in talking to them. As a consequence, anybody specialized in doing real work is trated as less human, and not important.

      I have no idea on how to make big organizations work.

    9. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BOFH doesn't need a security clearance.

      You can be sure that the 90% remembers etherkillers.

    10. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of tech's are naturally curious people, and also a little more liberal than the rest. This blanket statement might not be 100% true, but I think its a good generalization. I would have to agree that sysadmins are more likely to gather and/or leak private data than others, they also probably have easier access and cover their asses better. Not that they should be fired for being techs, but they would be at the top of my list as well.

    11. Re:Well that's just brilliant! by Meski · · Score: 1

      He has a clearance of "no-one"

      Recall that old joke - no-one has a clearance higher than the boss.

  9. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, they've already got subcontractors in Hong Kong lined up for the job.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  10. The Cloud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The NSA is moving all of their infrastructure to a managed cloud service overseas to save money.

    1. Re:The Cloud! by zieroh · · Score: 2

      Well, at least it will be secure there.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  11. Alternatively... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They could just pay them well, give them a fair amount of responsibility and respect, and, perhaps... not break the law or violate the constitution.

    --
    "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    1. Re:Alternatively... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh sure. Just ask for the world on a plate while you're at it, why don't you? What next? Ask us to stop lying to Congress or sharing intelligence on foreign citizens of countries that agree to do the same for our citizens?

      -- NSA

    2. Re:Alternatively... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Madness

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no

      that's socialism.

    4. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show of hands from the sysadmins who have experienced all of the above at ANY job?
      Anybody?
      Bueller?
      Bueller?

    5. Re:Alternatively... by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      Next thing you know they will be asking for due process for US citizens rather than just killing them with drones.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:Alternatively... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Madness

      I hear it's very liberating.

    7. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden was making 200k. How is low pay the problem?

    9. Re:Alternatively... by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      Up to the point they put you in one of those fashionable white jackets...

    10. Re:Alternatively... by marcuskincad · · Score: 1

      Well, since you mentioned it, those would be nice. Thanks, guys.

    11. Re:Alternatively... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. In the US Navy and later working for the VA.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  12. So... by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is he saying that sysadmins are particularly untrustworthy? Why not reduce the entire workforce by 90% to reduce the number of ears and eyes involved. Reducing 90% of just the sysadmins won't reduce the total "population" by much (unless I am mistaken in my assumption that NSA is not just a data center). Also, you could try reducing the number of people who know too much - i.e. could do most damage. If the sysadmins fit that category and not, say, the directors or management then you are doing it wrong...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I assume that sysadmins score particularly badly on the 'amount of access vs. degree of trust' metric.

      Barring really elegant, or unbearably onerous, system design, (which the NSA apparently didn't bother with, since one comparatively junior sysadmin at a contracting company, not even in house, apparently had massive access to the juicy details) sysadmins tend to have enormous power over your systems, access (because somebody has to run backups) to your files and email, etc, etc.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why not reduce the entire workforce by 90%

      You are talking about reducing management by 90%? That will never happen.

    3. Re:So... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I assume that sysadmins score particularly badly on the 'amount of access vs. degree of trust' metric.

      Pretty much this. Well, and given the way the federal government works most of those admins won't actually be fired.

      The DoD has been clamping down on the number of admins for a while - I used to be a 'sysadmin' with god privileges to the network because it was the only way rights were assigned.

      It's possible to give admin rights much more granually today, so while I still have admin rights, I don't have enough of them to count as a 'sysadmin'. Call it a demotion if you will, but it's more secure.

      Ecuador - the trick is that the 'other workers' are all operating with locked-down accounts that limit their access.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC Snowden didn't reveal info of system architecture. The things that were revealed were what USERS of the system would know. Why are users more trusted?

    5. Re:So... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying that sysadmins are particularly trustworthy. As such they have no place at the NSA.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:So... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I think this suit-wearing monkey isn't savvy enough to know that the REAL people protecting the data are the hated technical class.

      You need 100 good sysadmins for every 007 to protect your data.

    7. Re:So... by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      You presume that software access in managed independently from system access. They should be, but ....

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    8. Re:So... by colfer · · Score: 1

      Yep, the NSA action on sysadmin rights seems necessary. Not clear what they think they're going to automate though.

      A related problem is who watches the watchers. When the Snowden story first broke, the NSA ensured us that only 20 people could(*) access to the top stuff and that all their activity was logged. Well, who reads those logs? Two of the twenty people? Is that exciting work for a top person? All bollocks. Made me wonder if Snowden had passwords via sysadmin keylogging. Until I saw the handy web interface that came out a few weeks ago and realized he didn't need any special access. That is the biggest story in this whole volcano of stories. Anyone with access - and it was surely more than 20 - only had to tell Skynet a reason from a dropdown select box. No human approval was needed to get a full data stream. Workers were encouraged to always get more data, not less. Sure, if you looked up your ex's emails, you might get in trouble some day. But if the bad guys were offering you a hefty sum to pay off the house she took from you, for a one-time breach and ticket to Tahiti - that approval system was a joke.

      *But "could" meant "should."

    9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general sysadmins have broader access than others(can bypass security for bare-metal recovery, for instance), so the trust requirement for a sysadmin is much higher than for others.
      If management has anywhere near the level of access of sysadmins, someone's doing it wrong...

    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an old boss that said to me once "As a sysadmin, you're inherently untrusted. You have access to everything and even though you and I know you'd never break confidentiality, others don't know that". That comment sticks with me even today, 15yrs after it was said to me and I make sure I show end users now that yes, I may have access to your files, doesn't mean I go snooping through your stuff. I then show them the audit logs, all the HIPS logs and prove to them that I am, in fact, the good guy.

    11. Re:So... by dunnomattic · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that this announcement is merely a ploy to see who starts reaching for cookie jars in the organization? What better way to identify potentially disgruntled or idealogically-opposed employees than this exact type of provocation? Once a handful of individuals get caught behaving suspiciously, RIF them and say "just kidding about the 90%". It doesn't seem implausible to me.

      --
      ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
    12. Re:So... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly possible to run backups without being able to read all the data. Per-file encryption is an easy answer, you can back up the encrypted versions without being able to decrypt them. Or just full disk encryption, and back up the entire thing every time. Sure, that's expensive in terms of storage, but it's effective and separates the access of the backup administrator and the user. A designer/administrator who fails to design such security into a system that requires it is incompetent.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said the workforce. That implies the people doing the work.

    14. Re:So... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Somebody must be able to revert those backups, fix problems at the file server, replace disks, set-up those encrypted backups (what includes typing the key into the server), and a ton of other tasks that involve access to the machines.

    15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he saying that sysadmins are particularly untrustworthy? Why not reduce the entire workforce by 90% to reduce the number of ears and eyes involved. Reducing 90% of just the sysadmins won't reduce the total "population" by much (unless I am mistaken in my assumption that NSA is not just a data center). Also, you could try reducing the number of people who know too much - i.e. could do most damage. If the sysadmins fit that category and not, say, the directors or management then you are doing it wrong...

      System admins can bypass application level access controls trivially. You need some uh.. DRM type systems in order to prevent that, and that doesn't sell well to geeks. It would also be incredibly expensive and need to comprehensively cover everything from backup solutions that take typically uncategorized data offline with flattened access controls, the storage subsystems that can clone, split, replicate data below every OS/application layer, and a bunch of other things frankly.

      So, lets say it's impossible. Reducing the count of people in these roles is a VERY good idea.

    16. Re:So... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      No, you need 100 trustworthy sysadmins to protect your data. However, the sad fact is that when you are running a concern where the very rank-and-file can't trust you due to the fact that you are untrustworthy on your face.... Trust: That condition necessary for betrayal. Trustworthy: That condition that prevents same.

      With this "modest proposal" we finally see who is trustworthy and who is not.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    17. Re:So... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Reverting backups can be done without access to the plaintext of the document. The backup admin doesn't have to have the same access as the admin who sets up the key in the first place. Access control can be set up to keep the number of admins with access to the plaintext of classified data to a minimum.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  13. Taking the Humans Out Of The Loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, that worked out really well in War Games...

    1. Re:Taking the Humans Out Of The Loop by Quasimodem · · Score: 1

      Naturally, the NSA doesn't trust their enemies, and so it spies on those who oppose them. Then, they start to worry about their allies, and so they spy on their allies. Next, they start to worry about the citizens they serve, and so they spy on their own citizens. Then, they begin to worry about their own employees, and since they don't trust anyone to spy on their employees, they must eliminate them. Finally, their computer doesn't trust the organization which owns it, and so it begins to spy on the NSA.

      The NSA, one organization, under surveillance, with privacy invasion for all.

  14. Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I reading this right? The NSA think that the issue of mistrust around PRISM is that we worry some whistleblower will leak our information, and not that it's being harvested in the first place? They're deep into cognitive dissonance land over there I see.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm surprised that Keith's head didn't explode when he said "people who have access to data as part of their missions, if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.”

      He is sort of Public Enemy #1 on that score right about now, with any lackeys who have nontrivial authority right behind him.

    2. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      The bad guys always think they are the good guys.

    3. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised that Keith's head didn't explode when he said "people who have access to data as part of their missions, if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.â

      His head did not explode because this is a deliberate tactic of misdirection. If he can just get the public to focus on the leaker, instead of the content of the leak......

      This is more of the same: he is trying to say that the problem is leakers, not the core activity of the NSA.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      The bad guys always think they are the good guys.

      "No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story." -- Jim Butcher

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    5. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad guys always justifies the means to and end, instead of actually understanding why an idea won't work or is a bad idea.

      In actuality, they have collected the most comprehensive databases on the entire world population for the mob, the politicians, China, Iran, Iraq, you name it.
      We understand "information wants to be free. They are about to put it into practice for the entire world population, and thereby aiding "the enemy" (whoever that is at the moment).

      Reading 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 should be mandatory. Not as manuals, but as a deterrent for bad practices and ideas.

    6. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by budgenator · · Score: 2

      I think the NSA mindset is if the data is collected and stored, but not looked at by human eyes is neither a search, a wiretap or even a breach of privacy. For furthermore when you place a telephone call, there is a connection made with a bandwidth of 64 Kbd (base 10 64K) of which 56Kbd are used for the bearer channel or B channel, which carriers the voice or private part and 8Kbd data channel, or D channel which carriers the switching information, the public part. The D channel is public because the data is necessary to route the phone call. Thus to the NSA if they intercept a phone conversation, they can store, but not listen to the B channel, analyse the D channel all they want. If the NSA determins that the communications is between non-US citizens to a confidence level greater than 50% they can listen to the B channel if they choose to, if the confidence is less than 50% then they have to get a warrant.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Not the mistrust issue we were thinking of by darkfeline · · Score: 1

      So if I download pirated content, but don't watch it or view it, then it's not piracy!

  15. Not necessarily firing people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reducing the number of employees with admin privileges does not necessarily involve firing anyone.

    1. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      What precisely would a system administrator do with his administrative priviledges revoked?

      I'll let you supply your own punchline.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Be paid to play counter strike all day. The NSA sure can afford it.

    3. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You shitbird progressives are just loaded up with all this incomplete and incorrect thinking. Let me guess, you don't have a job (or much of one) and haven't filed many tax returns yet, no?

      Aside from all the other relevant topics around this issue, no, the NSA CANNOT AFFORD IT.

      Nothing the federal or state government is doing nowadays can be described as something they can afford. They have already spent us nearly 17 trillion dollars into the red.

      Oh, and by the way, the government can never afford anything anyway, they are spending citizens money, they don't have anything they do not steal from us.

      And we are getting fucking tired of it.

    4. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      AC's head just imploded over a joke. I guess a republican with a sense of humor would be too much to ask for.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Read facebook and slashdot all work day.

    6. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a different AC. I'm the original poster

      Here's an idea - find different jobs for the persons within the company or restrict a persons function or capabilities/access so that they don't technically qualify as a "systems administrator" but still provide utility to the programs.

      Basically, shuffle things around structurally to give the appearance of change or to actually increase overall security, but various persons now quality more as "network engineers" or such rather than "systems administrators". What's the term for "Systems Administrator Assistant"?

    7. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I bet he'd be playing on a connection with ultra-low latency and killer bandwidth too.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Not necessarily firing people? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      People who use "progressive" as a pejorative amuse me. Not progress! Anything but progress!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  16. In any case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In any case, shouldn't they have an army of people to go through all the data that they collect from wiretapping?

  17. Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by sinij · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT systems prone to failures and easier to compromise. As a result thier snooping will be available not only to US government, but to any other entity that would bother to hack their way into under-managed IT system run by remaining 10% of overworked sysadmins.

    1. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...under-managed IT system run by remaining 10% of overworked sysadmins.

      They could always outsource to Pakistan like everyone else. Save 'em a ton of money, you know.

    2. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by sinij · · Score: 2

      Alternatively, they can chain remaining admins to the server racks and periodically whip them when productivity goes down. This might be slightly illegal, but it isn't like breaking the law stopped them before.

    3. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is completely legal. It is done in the name of the national security. They have a secret court order to do that, but they can't show it to you obviously and you are not allowed to talk about it.

    4. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is all fine as long as you can still groan about it while getting whipped...

    5. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >chain remaining admins to the server racks and periodically whip them ...

      That is my fetish. :(

    6. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      As a result thier snooping will be available not only to US government, but to any other entity that would bother to hack their way into under-managed IT system run by remaining 10% of overworked sysadmins.

      But other entities will keep hacking quiet, so there will be no embarrassing revelations. And the sysadmins will be too tired to blow a whistle like Snowden has.

      It's a win-win for NSA.

    7. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is all fine as long as you can still groan about it while getting whipped...

      Groaning is consider "free speech" and as such it's not allowed.

    8. Re:Great, now NSA will have mismanaged IT by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      Whipping is not torture if the victim does not experience the pain of death. If the victim survives, it is perfectly legal and normal.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  18. total stupidity by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is going to increase the work of each sysadmin by 10x... ->

    Making what is perpetually an overworked position 10x worse ->

    Making it not worth the stress for the amount of pay ->

    Making every sysadmin in the NSA a ripe target for various bribes...

    BRILLIANT!

    The people in leadership positions in the USA (government and corporate) are all idiots.

    1. Re:total stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The remaining sysadmins won't be overworked. They'll just bring in contractors and they'll have them sign NDAs.

      Why does that seem familiar for some reason?

    2. Re:total stupidity by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      ouroboros.

    3. Re:total stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overworked people don't have time to think about ethics nor plan about leaks.
      "Idleness is the mother of all vices."

    4. Re:total stupidity by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      The people in leadership positions in the USA (government and corporate) are all idiots.

      Not all all. They are performing very well -- only at jobs different from the one they are supposed to be doing. Specifically, graft, blackmail, and racketeering.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    5. Re:total stupidity by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      They'll just bring in contractors and they'll have them sign NDAs.

      No need for NDA. They'll just bring in contractors from India who can't read English. No one in India knows English right?

    6. Re:total stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. They're just going to hire more outside, private contractors and consultants. More money for the military industry and more money for the managers who had this brilliant idea. Win-win.

    7. Re:total stupidity by mpaque · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The remaining system administrators will properly triage all the work among the remaining admins.

      They'll just punt all the routine boring stuff like security audits and access control management to concentrate on the more urgent firefighting, like user requests that would otherwise hold things up, and more visible projects like those new TPS cover sheets.

    8. Re:total stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people in leadership positions in the USA (government and corporate) are all idiots.

      We didn't need this news article to know that. More importantly, you forgot a few adjectives: "sociopathic", "egotistical" and "anti-human" spring to mind.

    9. Re:total stupidity by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      No one in India knows English right?

      None of the ones that ring me during dinner seem to.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  19. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by damacus · · Score: 1

    No, it's simple, you subcontract it out to Google!

  20. It's funny talking about mistrust by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    When you're the one illegally spying on your citizens I think you've lost all credibility on the trust issue. The NSA needs to look up the word hypocrisy in the dictionary.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Hypocrisy and irony are concepts that high level officials either have a congenital inability to understand, or have it surgically removed. No person cognizant of those concepts could possibly have the self-restraint or acting ability to make such pronouncements without bursting out laughing.

    2. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to. They already have a data center full of different people using and defining the word.

    3. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Well politicians in general are Sociopaths and are not really interested in serving the public. It's all about them and how power makes them feel. Look at that idiot Weiner in NYC for example. Wait, to call him a Sociopath is too nice and an insult to other Sociopaths; he's really a retard.

      Once you understand the association of politicians and Sociopaths, it's no wonder why our laws and what we call justice has been tainted by these fools. Our leaders should be reluctant to lead, should not seek out more time in office and should go back to their private lives after a short time of service; not be re-elected over and over and over again to keep their positions of power. Yeah that term limits thing again, but think about it for a moment. If term limits were enacted you wouldn't have Racist homophobes like Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd in office all of those decades! Worse yet drunk, lying, man-slaughtering Sociopaths like Ted Kennedy in office all of those decades. But no, we now have a system of entitled elite politicians where over 75% get re-elected at every turn. If they ever do retire they usually get jobs lobbying for companies or organizations, further corrupting the work of the "people's business." That's how we get TSA nudeo scanners and laws like the DMCA and legislative packages like SOPA pushed into the legislative agenda.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Hypocrisy and irony are concepts that high level officials either have a congenital inability to understand, or have it surgically removed. No person cognizant of those concepts could possibly have the self-restraint or acting ability to make such pronouncements without bursting out laughing.

      That's one of the things that disturbs me about people in those positions. No sense of humor.

    5. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by cusco · · Score: 1

      I've always like Bertrand Russell's observation that the type of people who run for election are the exact type of people that you want to keep out of important positions. He proposed nominating people who don't WANT the job.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:It's funny talking about mistrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a strange thing at all, since America was founded on hypocrisy. Always trying to have your cake and eat it too.

      relevant

  21. Well, it's a good start! by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Now they just need to gut the rest of the NSA.

    Seriously though, if they feel the need for such a mass firing of sysadmins due to a lack of trust, then the top brass know very well that they are doing serious wrong. They have discovered that people have morals and care about their country and the world at large, and based on those morals they cannot be trusted. Once again, thank you Snowden, thank you very much! I do wonder how many sysadmins this equals, which I'm sure is classified.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  22. so if they can do it by v1 · · Score: 1

    so if the NSA is firing people they don't trust... and fewer than 30% of americans trust the NSA... can we fire them? (and the TSA? please?)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:so if they can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can. You can even fire the whole government. Just run for prez with that as a platform. You will sure win.

  23. So the way we're hearing of this ... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Is a leak at the very top? Sounds like Alexander is the problem.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  24. More job loss.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to have a few friends who happen to work with/for the agency(s) mentioned.
    This is a sad day for those folks... who rely on those jobs to feed their families.
    I am not sure what 90% of XXXXXX is....but regardless people lose their jobs.

    1. Re:More job loss.... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Please do call them 'Quislings' for me.

    2. Re:More job loss.... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You need better friends who actually care about their families. Some things are more important that hot pockets and mortgages.

    3. Re:More job loss.... by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      yeah... say that to your children and your spouse when you're facing an empty refrigerator and pantry, or a whole lot of heating and utility bills. You're essentially telling your loved ones that an ideal is more important than their safety and well-being. Understand that saying and following through on noble ideas, and standing up for your beliefs bears a high cost. Not just to you, but to your loved ones because they have to share the same burden through no fault of their own. That's a _hard_ thing to do, friend. It's the primary reason why so few people actually do stand up for their ideals-the thought of having to go home to their families and tell them that eating and keeping a roof over their heads just got a lot harder is frightening. Especially considering that many spouses won't stick around long for that.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    4. Re:More job loss.... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You're essentially telling your loved ones that an ideal is more important than their safety and well-being

      I'm not essentially telling them that, I'm explicitly telling them that, except replace "safety" and "well-being" with "privilege" and "class-status." You have no idea what safety and well-being actually mean.

      Especially considering that many spouses won't stick around long for that.

      Other people's poor marriage choices are not my problem.

  25. The actual deterrent by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So firing 90% of their admins and pissing them all off, giving them no job to lose, is going to somehow *prevent* further leaks?

    I'm pretty sure the threat of life imprisonment for revealing "secrets" was and is a bit more of a deterrent than the loss of wages ever could hope to be. If someone kicks you while holding a gun to your face are you worried about their foot or the gun?

    1. Re:The actual deterrent by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Customs Agent: "The purpose for your flight to Moscow?" NSA Employee: "Vacation."

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    2. Re:The actual deterrent by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So firing 90% of their admins and pissing them all off, giving them no job to lose, is going to somehow *prevent* further leaks?

      I'm pretty sure the threat of life imprisonment for revealing "secrets" was and is a bit more of a deterrent than the loss of wages ever could hope to be. If someone kicks you while holding a gun to your face are you worried about their foot or the gun?

      And if you pull a gun on someone with nothing to lose? They just might decide to take you with them.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:The actual deterrent by jkflying · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You forget Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you don't have a job, you could lose your food and the roof you sleep under, both things which are provided in prison. Besides, what are the chances of getting caught, some time in the future, compared to getting even, today?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    4. Re:The actual deterrent by tolkienfan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wanted to go see a freer society?

    5. Re:The actual deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone kicks you while holding a gun to your face are you worried about their foot or the gun?

      Neither; I'm worried about my face and my nuts.

    6. Re:The actual deterrent by Minwee · · Score: 1

      C: "And the layover in Hong Kong?"

      N: "Was the only way to get a cheaper flight."

    7. Re:The actual deterrent by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Imagine 900 sysadmins in the same prison. That's where the fun is at!

    8. Re:The actual deterrent by sjbe · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a job, you could lose your food and the roof you sleep under, both things which are provided in prison.

      Wow, talk about a false equivalency... You can get another job and another roof to sleep under. If your life is so bad that prison seems like the attractive alternative then I truly do pity you.

    9. Re:The actual deterrent by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      900 former NSA sysadmins in the same prison? Sounds like a pilot for a Netflix original series. Kind of like The IT Crowd meets Orange Is The New Black.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re: The actual deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the shiv fights over whose turn it is to haul another case of paper to the shelf by the Lj4 up in finance?

      "Sysadmin" is a glorified term for "file clerk."

    11. Re:The actual deterrent by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      C: "Your intinerary shows your vacation ending in Venezuela?" N: "Visiting my cousin?"

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    12. Re:The actual deterrent by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Unlike you, Mr Spock, people have these things called "emotions" which cause them to act irrationally, particularly during stressful times. I would not put it past somebody to horde information if they thought they might be fired, consequences of prison be damned.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    13. Re:The actual deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bahahahahahhahahahahahahhahha.

      Snowden is just a pawn to Russia. He will disappear as soon as it is politically convenient for Putin to make him go away.

    14. Re:The actual deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a great setup for a lan-party, or a table-top role playing game.

    15. Re:The actual deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World's largest LAN party?

      Oops, not even close

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

    16. Re:The actual deterrent by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I can't worry about both?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:The actual deterrent by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Frankly, the notion of 900 sysadmins in the same prison even if it were Pelican Bay should frighten the hell out of any sane warden. Although sane and warden, perhaps even sane and sysadmin, shouldn't be in the same sentence.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  26. Subcontractors by sjbe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, they've already got subcontractors in Hong Kong lined up for the job.

    I think he's in Russia now...

    1. Re:Subcontractors by ngc5194 · · Score: 1

      Many of the folks in Hong Kong are already familiar with aspects of the NSA's systems... .

    2. Re:Subcontractors by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Given that the NSA also participates in generating some of the disinformation and noise, 90% could be more like 9%. Then start to outsource to leaky targets. Then let the outsourced get into honeypot laden systems.

      Not a bad idea, but it seems more like a wartime move, which given Russia's and China's current traffic profiles into the U.S., might be exactly what is going on right now. I'm actually ok with the Snowden was a phony conspiracy theory.

  27. Hmmm by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    'What we're in the process of doing â" not fast enough â" is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent,'

    Why risk keeping 10% of them, too dangerous, fire them all.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  28. 10% of the workforce doesn't equal 100% work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ok I'm sure the remaining 10% will be able to complete the workload of the 90% let go in addition to their own without any added stress. They won't be more prone to make mistakes unintentionally or intentionally right?

    I have an idea, let's fire 90% of the doctors at a hospital because one gets a malpractice suit against them. That will reduce the risk the hospital faces right?

  29. Umm by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about REDUCING 90% of the ILLEGAL data tapping instead?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Umm by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Why not 100%?

    2. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about reducing 100% instead?

    3. Re:Umm by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      I said 90 as that's what the article said was the amount for cuts. That and at least its a start.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err no half the fun is the free unfettered access to the bay!

    5. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hasn't been proven in court their data tapping was illegal. Remember, illegal isn't a synonym for immoral.

  30. People-Free Soylent Green by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    P.H.B. overcaffeinated reaction to bad press back-firing in 3...2...1...

  31. Reminds me of bad employer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a bad employer I worked fo once. The tech company had endless big dreams and always pushed for a new product idea almost every month. They hired lots of talent to get products to market.. Engineers and software people got hired one month to watch another group get axed the next because of budget crunches. It reminded me of a fucken revolving door. Funds shifted endlessly from one group to the next. Show a fancy screen, you got more funds, take a break and you might get chopped. Maybe one product made it to market each year, mostly rushed and in need of rework. The best reduction of staff would be starting from the top, let's say the director should go first replaced with someone with a clue.

  32. Ain't this the pot calling the kettle black! by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Hmm seems to me there is a bigger issue - the MIS-TRUST of the NSA entirely! They don't trust their people - but NO ONE trusts the NSA - so I say lets FIRE 100% of the NSA and shut it down!

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  33. It's not the sysadmins I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the sysadmins I'm worried about abusing power, it's the people above them.

    We should be firing 90% of the bureaucrats.

    1. Re:It's not the sysadmins I'm worried about by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      but but but but.... the PRODUCTIVE class!

  34. There, that'll fix it! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "We don't need this many sysadmins, we'll just outsource to China and Russia."

  35. Forgotten lessons from 1984. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and pissing them all off, giving them no job to lose, is going to somehow *prevent* further leaks? Brilliant!!!!

    Yes, I think they need to re-read 1984. The inner party used the outer party to keep the world the way they wanted. This worked against the best interests of the people, but the outer party complied because, while they weren't the main beneficiaries of their efforts, the likely alternative was to be on the losing end of the deal, one of the lower-class citizens. So by being complicit in fucking over the lower class to the benefit of the upper class, they were permitted to maintain middle-class status. So they didn't like what they were doing, but they liked the alternative even less, and so they continued to do it.

    The NSA has now decided to kick them out of the middle class. I suspect this isn't going to go the way they've imagined.

  36. Shell game? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

    Could be just an opportunity to re-label positions to manager or technician, then they save face by stating that they removed 90% of SysAdmins. Systems will always need attention by folks. Even if they are dumb terminals.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  37. In Other Words... by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    NSA does huge favor for 90% of it's SysAdmins.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  38. NB: And hiring contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what caused the leak in the first place?

  39. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by wizkid · · Score: 1

    Hey that's fine, I'm sure the Russians and Chinese p0wn'd the NSA computers long ago.
    they already have their back-doors.

    --
    I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  40. Amazing by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An organization that have no respect for other people having no respect for their workers too? Working for them is no magic shield, only gives them more tools to hit you harder when comes your turn.

  41. is it possible by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    That they fire 90% of them from the NSA, then hire them over at the newly created NTA ( we have to increment one...), then state the NSA isn't doing anything wrong anymore?

    1. Re:is it possible by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't incrementing one form the NSB (National Security Bureau)? And then one more would make the NSC (National Security Corporation?).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:is it possible by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      Hey! Don't get the National Transportation Authority involved in this shit, they haven't (yet) been shown to be a bunch of sociopaths...

  42. Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The days where the root password was the key to every kingdom are long gone.

    Really, the NSA can't figure out how to encrypt databases without the passwords being accessible to their sysadmins? They can't figure out how to log sensitive information without putting it in clear text? They can't create a system where their security is based on better controls than just trusting the BOFH not to do the wrong thing?

    The NSA could use some lessons from the best practices in health care and credit card processing. If the issue is "we're afraid of our sysadmins," you have a bigger issue than your sysadmins.

  43. This "Constitution" of which you speak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Was it not a document written by old white slaveholders?

    And does it not conflict with the Holy Will of our Lord and Master, Barack Obama?

    It is inconvenient, and therefore null, void and obsolete.

  44. worst idea ever by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So instead of workers who haven't leaked data for years, they're going to replace them with ohhhh let's say me for example. I'd leak the shit out of everything offensive and wrong except I'd do it completely anonymously and mega stealthy so they'd never catch me. Then there's the other thousand people who would do the same that are applying for jobs there to replace them. Then, to top it all off, a bunch of people who currently have access to basically everything are now really pissed off. Yay, time for more leaks followed soon after by more leaks.

  45. You should buy some more weapons. by leftie · · Score: 1

    More weapons. More Ammo.

  46. If they don't need them, fire them by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they don't need 90% of their sysadmins, they should have fired them long ago.

    But I suspect that they aren't all redundant, so how are they going to maintain their systems? It would be interesting to see their server-to-sysadmin ratio and compare to other companies.

    Without the sysadmins to maintain and secure their systems, they may be making their data even easier for hackers to access, so the NSA may end up being a huge liability to the security of the country. I don't see why no lawmaker understands this - data breaches happen every day, even to large companies that follow best practices to secure their data. Why do they think that the NSA's vast data warehouse is not going to be breached when it's such a huge target to non-friendly governments and hackers throughout the world - even governments of countries where most computer hardware is made that have the resources to hide backdoors in that hardware.

    1. Re:If they don't need them, fire them by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the NSA may end up being a huge liability to the security of the country

      Wrong tense - they are a huge liability to America's security, because our real security is dependent on adhering to the Constitution and the faith of the people in their government.

    2. Re:If they don't need them, fire them by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Server to sysadmin ratio, if they really only have 90 sysadmins left then I'd say it was pretty much astronomical compared to most companies. This is an organization with a multi-exabyte facility coming online soon. They capture all phone and internet traffic in the US and beyond. Sure they probably contract some of this work but I'm guessing they 90 are either going to be massively over worked or they are really just shifting the load somewhere else.

    3. Re:If they don't need them, fire them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the server-to-sysadmin ratio is the reason for over staffing. They are probably doing a lot of parallel processing with thousands of servers that are copies of each other, even with virtualization, and therefore much easier to maintain than other installations, but stuck to the "normal ratio" as reasons for hiring more.

  47. ever hear of best practices?! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During a talk at a cybersecurity conference in New York this week, Alexander revealed his plans to cut 90% of the System Administration workforce

    DERP
    holy shit, why not give them a warning that you're going to kick their ass to the curb before security comes to their desk with a brown cardboard box. Yeah, that's not gonna piss any of them off before you cut off access. At least the private sector has that one figured out.

    Alexander needs to go, yesterday. He's more inept than Ballmer.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alexander needs to go, yesterday. He's more inept than Ballmer.

      Hang on a second. Do we *really* want a competent person running the NSA?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by tolkienfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes?

    3. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Competent and less trying to get laws passed that go around the constitution. Even outright ignoring those laws.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you need some qualifiers on 'competent' first. Like 'moral', or 'good person', or 'not a dick'. If you have a competent, ruthless person running it... It'll just be worse, instead.

    5. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by aztracker1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Competent != (moral || lawful)

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    6. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      DERP
      holy shit, why not give them a warning that you're going to kick their ass to the curb before security comes to their desk with a brown cardboard box. Yeah, that's not gonna piss any of them off before you cut off access. At least the private sector has that one figured out.

      Yes, that is something the private sector figured out decades ago.

      When people with important information are let go, they are invited to a private discussion without notice, told the sad news, and escorted out. They return after-hours with an escort to collect their personal belongings. Where x-weeks notice is appropriate or required, those weeks are paid with the official termination date that far out from the date that they were removed from the building.

      Giving notice like this lets them ask questions like 'Does anyone have some spare thumb drives I can use?"

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    7. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also ask if we realy want competent person run the president office. Maybe having Dubya in the office was not so bad after all...

    8. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You could also ask if we realy want competent person run the president office. Maybe having Dubya in the office was not so bad after all...

      At this point, I'm all for someone that is a bit more honest and straightforward and stable....like Charlie Sheen.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Incompetent != (moral || lawful)

    10. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by saleenS281 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps that's the point. They aren't actually going to fire 90%, just wanting to fish out the ones who are willing to steal classified documents at the first sign of trouble. Seems like a solid honeypot to me, just mention layoffs and then crank up the logging, sit back and find the "enemies of the state".

    11. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      If Putin was smart he would have his agents recruit the best of these guys and pair them with Snowden for a "special project". Putin's people would have thought of this idea already within the first minute of this NSA announcement.

    12. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you're on to something there... These are government employees we're talking about here. He actually can't just fire them like a normal corporation would.

    13. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This country could do with a lot more winning to be sure.

    14. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      No but if we can't find anyone to run the NSA who is (moral || lawful), I'd pick (Incompetent) any day.

      And Hot.

      Yes, can the next Director of the NSA please be: (Incompetent && Hot)

    15. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 2

      Do you REALLY want to see Sarah Palin in a position of authority? (bent over is not an authoritative position)

    16. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You could also ask if we realy want competent person run the president office.

      Judging from the past half dozen presidents or more, I'd say the answer is no.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why not.

    18. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by hughk · · Score: 1

      Alexander needs to go, yesterday. He's more inept than Ballmer.

      No serving general should ever be given so much power over a civilian agency and the population as a whole. Soldiers are very good at military campaigns but they are not so good at managing by consent and they are used to protecting the state and projecting its will. To work effectively, a general has to stop being a general outside the military, especially when turning their agency against civilians. Instead, the better model is that of "policeman", to serve the people over the state.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    19. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manufacturing enemies of the state seems like a guaranteed way to find enemies of the state. Result.

    20. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (bent over is not an authoritative position)

      What about on her knees?

    21. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Incompetent == less able to actuate their lack of morality or awfulness

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    22. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      You should really question the morality of people who aren't generally competent.

      A person who doesn't exercise can't be moral enough to save another in a physical emergency.
      A person who doesn't work can't be moral enough to save another in a financial emergency.

      For a person who never engages in any kind of challenging intellectual encounter, any claim of morality is worthless. They can't make difficult decisions, and will probably just go with whatever popular opinion is.

      Incompetent effectively is immoral.

    23. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I put in a good word for the retirement of Clapper. Long past the time for his retirement. For me one of the most scary aspects of this is the people at the top don't know what's going on. Obama may belive he is being truthful when he says there has been no abuse.

    24. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alexander needs to go, yesterday. He's more inept than Ballmer.

      But is he more inept than Stephen Elop?

    25. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a solid honeypot to me, just mention layoffs and then crank up the logging, sit back and find the "enemies of the state".

      hmm, and who is cranking up the logging? (not really something your normal nsa folks have access to, so that would be a sysadmin job)

    26. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You really think Sarah Palin is hot? Eeeewwwww.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    27. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because she's old enough to be your mom, doesn't mean she ain't hot. You should know this, as I'm sure you had some hot teachers in your middle school, and will have more once you reach high school.

    28. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      My mother is 73 and Sarah Palin has a head like a robber's dog.
      My French teacher was hot though. She wore slit sided tops and no bra. Now I have to clean my basement.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  48. An alternative explanation for firings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: sequester. It strikes me that the NSA could just be trying to save some money, and they need a convenient excuse to shed people who take up a significant portion of their budget.

  49. If they're not needed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does that mean 90% of them were never needed in the first place and you were just wasting taxpayers money?

    Or possibly they are needed and you'll now outsource the jobs to the Chinese?

    1. Re:If they're not needed.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So does that mean 90% of them were never needed in the first place and you were just wasting taxpayers money?

      Or possibly they are needed and you'll now outsource the jobs to the Chinese?

      I'd say go with the Russians. They know a lot about security, and have at least one person who can teach about how the NSA operates.

  50. Employees or contractors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What the Reuters report doesn't really say is if these system admins are current employees or contractors. If they're employees, this is all too convenient. If they're contractors, well, they'll be hired back as soon as this high-profile news event dies down a little. About time for fall sports to start again, and a new TV season.

  51. Ahem, Mr Alexander. by Dracos · · Score: 2

    "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Does that sound familiar, Mr. Alexander?

    Obviously, you are very worried.

  52. Just hires lotsa temps by leftie · · Score: 1

    Get a whole bunch more temps, and more weapons.

  53. in Other news - mass exodus of sysadmins from nsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The remaining 10% quit en-mass due to overwork, stress and the feeling "that I'm being watched"....

  54. Reduce the sysadmns by %90: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Oh this is going to be hysterical. Pass the popcorn.

    Sorry General, AI isn't that good yet, regardless of what some software company sales rep has told you about its magic pixie dust administration automation software.

  55. Wow by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    If I were in the remaining 10%, I'd quit no matter how much they paid me. Doing the work of 9 people? That's burn out in less than a month.

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing the work of 10 people, as you are still doing your own too.

    2. Re:Wow by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Obviously, your co-workers are not putting in a 100% effort. Just look at them.

    3. Re:Wow by Urkki · · Score: 1

      If I were in the remaining 10%, I'd quit no matter how much they paid me. Doing the work of 9 people? That's burn out in less than a month.

      Wrong attitude. Getting 10% of the job done would be more like it. I don't see how that'd cause a burn-out. It might cause you to get fired, so in that sense it might be better to leave on your own terms, but if you're the one who holds the responsiblity and knowledge of 9 people who were fired befor eyou, that does give some job security. At the very least you'd be given time to train your replacement ;)

  56. A Clear and Present Danger by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The NSA, Congress, Executive, and Judiciary represent a clear and present danger to the People and Constitution of the United States of America. They are violating our god-given rights on a daily basis, lying to us about it, and there is no branch of government that is checking that overreach. If there was, we'd be seeing top officials at the NSA perp-walked to supermax cells and the President of the USA would have been impeached by a unanimous vote weeks ago when he admitted knowing about it and doing nothing about it.

    So, dear friends, it is the duty of every patriotic American who still loves freedom to resist the government in every way they can, large and small. If you run a business, refuse to serve anyone from the Congress, Judiciary, or Executive branches. Don't let your kids play with their kids. Ostracize them. If you know how to design systems that resist surveillance, do so and then send them off to live autonomously so no one can compel to you compromise them. If you have the know-how, track & publish the whereabouts of every government agent who thinks spying only goes one-way; send everyone in the Starbucks a text alert every time one of those goons enters the establishment, so you know just who to 'accidentally' spill hot coffee on.

    If those kinds of actions are too small fry for you, do something else. Knock yourself out. Do what you can, do what you feel comfortable doing, but don't do nothing. Being quiet about this stuff, letting them get away with it, is the very worst you can do if you don't want to see this country slide completely off the cliff into totalitarianism.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:A Clear and Present Danger by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Even if there was a god, and we see no evidence that there is, he does not give out rights. The only rights you have are the ones your civilization grants you. As an example to make this clear, until very recently homosexuals in my state could not marry, then we changed that. No supernatural forces involved.

      If Americans would take to the streets and demand this change it would. Most Americans appear not to care.

    2. Re:A Clear and Present Danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, well, produce this "civilization" of yours and I'll tell you if I believe in the motherfucker or not! :-)

      I spoke to Civilazation last night and it said it was sending its only begotten son to redeem humanity.

      Think maybe you need to examine your metaphysical premises, there? :-)

    3. Re:A Clear and Present Danger by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You really think the problem is "government"? Bureaucrats at the NSA, a faceless executive, legislative and judiciary branch? No, you have a much, MUCH bigger problem on your hands: a lot of people like this set up, and vote for the legislators and executives who promote this approach.

      What you're proposing is cute, but utterly pointless. All that it will do is make you into the local loon whom parents talked about in hushed tones to their kids. "Don't go near him, he's weird."

      No, you need to fight a much bigger battle: education. Educate your friends on the purpose of government, on why the 1st Amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, exist, why there's a balance of power, what it is supposed to look like, and, most importantly, why the ideas behind the Constitution and its amendments are so important.

      Because otherwise, you'll just trade an overanxious government for an actual tyranny.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  57. Typical bureaucratic overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why plan when you can (over)react?

    After 9/11*, lots of barriers to accessing information were removed in order to make "connecting the dots" easier.

    So, after a couple of big leaks from guys who had access to more information than their jobs required, the bureaucrats overreact in the opposite direction. Imagine that.

    * - And the post 9/11 "reorganization" of US intelligence agencies was a joke. What kind of dumbass thinks that you can fix the pissant infighting between 40+ different bureaucracies by putting another layer of bureaucracy on top? That's not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - that's asking for the delivery of a container ship full of crushed ice.

  58. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    So who other than sysadmins sets that database server up?

    Who backs it up?
    Who tests the backups?

  59. people with clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't there like 5 million Americans with some clearance, and 1 million with Top Secret? shouldn't that be the concern, not some sysadmins?

  60. as someone who works on government contracts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Im a DBA, not an SA, but we work in the same production like environments. My take.

    The government is going to fire lots of people in order to appear like it is doing something. If the SAs can keep their top secret clearances getting a new job should be easy (even if they suck). As long as the NSA clearance is transferable to another agency. There is a shortage of cleared people. In part because pimps (contract companies) do not want to spend the money to clear enough people and prefer to try to steal them from other companies). Odds are in a top secret environment there is a ton of bloat. Contract companies generally hire anyone who doesn't smell for a high paying job if they already have a clearance (paying to get a qualified person cleared hurts profit margins). So odds are a vast number of these SAs are totally useless. There are also probably too many of them because contract companies make money off of bodies.

    That being said, there is almost certainly a vast amount of bloat in the agency and the process that keeps most of the SAs extremely busy doing bullshit. The contract companies are ok with this (and most don't understand the difference) because more bodies means more money. With all the finger pointing that goes in the government, the government drones are just playing CYA and again don't grasp the difference (many of them do work hard to be fair).

    Improving efficiencies with automation... This can work if implemented slowly. However, this is clearly a typical government 'oh my god people are looking at me, lets appear to do something' reaction. They will spend a vast amount of money and waste it. Contract companies will happily bid on these projects and tell the government what they want to hear. When you win a contract you are paid per body/ per hour so unless you are a complete idiot you are guaranteed to turn a profit. If the project goes over budget it means more profit for the contract company. Even if they get fired (see IBM's recently firings) they still make money and its better to do a crap job and get fired then to not do the job at all because you can't lose money. Google FBI Case book project to see the case in point about a post 9/11 boondoggle where the vendors made lots of money.

    If I was an SA at NSA I would be wondering if this will cost me my top secret clearance. This is guaranteed job security because there is always another job for you if you have one. Companies are far less willing to pay the government to clear people (its not as expensive as you think) so there is a big demand for my skills. I would be looking for another job immediately. I would not want to deal with the hassle. If this jackass cost me my clearance, I am liable to be on a flight to Russia to extract his ass back to the US free of charge. Guy cost me money.

    As an IT person, when I do work for the government in my opinion, I do work for the taxpayer. I don't care what vendor's name is on my check. Now vendors don't want me to see it that way (so I don't tell them). It really doesn't matter to me who wins a contract, they are then putting out advertisements in the same pool of applicants. The longer I do this, the more I get annoyed. Vendors try to extract as much money as possible from the taxpayer (none of it goes to me, I am paid a salary based on my rate and how much I can squeeze their profits). They give the impression of trying to do a good job, but the real goal is to bill as many hours as possible. As the person paid to implement these contracts there is not a lot I can do about it. Trust me, the government bureaucrats don't care what I think. The mere act of me trying to tell them could get me fired (and black list me from ever getting a clearance again).

    I do not have sympathy for Snowden. I am also totally creeped out by the NSA and would avoid working there unless I absolutely had to have a job. There are plenty of other ways to report this material to congress without stealing. I believe you cannot be prosecuted for telling congressman something. If not there are ot

    1. Re:as someone who works on government contracts by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Congress already knew, they do not care.

      If you think people deserved to hear this then Snowden was right. Otherwise you think the american people should not know.

    2. Re:as someone who works on government contracts by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of other ways to report this material to congress without stealing.

      If he silently reported it to congress, the American people would not have as much evidence that it is happening like they do now. If the people who vote these imbeciles in do not know, then where is the accountability? How can you be sure the congressmen aren't themselves corrupt and wouldn't simply ignore the issue?

      You can't. Remember how many of our representatives voted for the PATRIOT ACT? None of these people can be trusted.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:as someone who works on government contracts by cusco · · Score: 2

      If he silently reported it to Congress, the congresscritter's staff would have informed his employer, he would have been unemployed (and in jail if at all possible, or a mental institution if not), and no one outside the Beltway would have heard anything about it. Accusations of NSA spying would have continued to be dismissed as the ravings of 'conspiracy theorists'.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  61. Spaking of trust... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Seems as though the shoe is actually on the other foot. With the exodus of secure email services now up to two, and I expect that will grow, it would seem it is the people that do not trust the NSA. I would not work for the NSA, their actions in combination with being a batch of corporate bitches will result in the death of I.T. in the US. The problem will be self rectifying, when they have killed the economy, even their paychecks won't cash.

  62. Opposite direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't they go full Cube and hire 9x as many people and compartmentalize? You're in charge of this server, you're in charge of this server.
    You log him in as root, then he can do the work.

    Now you just have fewer people with more knowledge and probably more surveillance. Now the number is manageable and they're in for s tuff they didn't sign on for. We all know we're going to get regular polygraphs and whatnot, some may even suspect surveillance, but now there's almost no question.

    1. Re:Opposite direction by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't they go full [180?] and hire 9x as many people and compartmentalize? You're in charge of this server, you're in charge of this server.

      This is what I was thinking. Fewer eyes on large swathes of data, and limited responsibilities. Furthermore, if something leaks, it's easier to pinpoint the sysadmin that might have done it (although the analysts working with the server's data would be more likely).

  63. Poor citations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This isn't so much about the content of the article, rather than the links the author provided.

        "Apparently, breaking the law and lying about it leaves one without a sense of irony when speaking in public." links to an article on globalresearch, where the author mostly just rants about his opinion, and does not cite any evidence to support his claims- the article does not say anything about where he lied about breaking the law. I'm not here to argue whether this topic is right or wrong, just want to expose what I feel is a very poor citation supposedly backing your claim.

      When you state "breaking the law and lying about it", I'd like to know what law was actually broken? The go-to on this is 4th amendment rights, etc etc, and while you may feel your rights were violated, the law was not in fact broken. The author of the linked article breathlessly exclaims, "He’s in charge of lawlessly spying. He directs illegal hacking." with no evidence to supporting what is actually illegal, and quickly moves to the next topic, adding more and more sensationalist vocab to the article.

        Everything NSA has done, whether you agree with it or not, is lawful. Congress passed laws allowing this to happen. Executive Branch ordered this to happen. Judicial Branch ruled it constitutional, in so much that this program and every one of these requests for targeting a US person all go before the FISA court. The constitution, and subsequently the laws written, has been interpreted by the Justice System to allow this.The system of checks and balances is in place.

    When making claims on slashdot, I would hope the authors would cite more scholarly articles to support their claims, rather than an author who has an average sentence length of about 5 words, and ends the article predicting because of things like this, "thermonuclear warfare is possible" (and seriously, who says "thermo" anymore?) Please read the article, it is quite... out there?

  64. Aren't we all jumping the gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say they're reducing the systems administrators, that doesn't mean they're firing them. Clearances aren't exactly easy things to acquire (time, money, I know where I work people dream of getting sponsered for a higher clearance as it adds them to a limited population, thus job security).

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was just reorganization, the systems administrators pool being shrunk and the others being moved to other jobs. (say programming instead of administration).

  65. into the redonkulous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    love this guy...he's the one caught being untrustworthy but instead wants to fire everyone else...simply awesome!
    it does give me a laugh since it reminded me of this: http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html

  66. Hahahahahahahahahaha (gasp) hahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay. This decision was made by military people with an 'us vs them' mentality. May I ask, who will do the work?

    We need people 'like us' to do the work.

    The people 'like us' are people with authoritarian personalities. Well, these aren't the sorts of people who get comp sci degrees. Sucks to be you, pal but in Lubianka Square and at the Xiyuan Palace, they're cracking open the champagne. This is beyond dunderheaded and if Barbara Tuchman was still alive, she'd include it in an updated version of her book March of Folly. However, if you're dealing with authoritarian people, it sorta makes sense.

  67. Russian/Chinese crackers having field day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a large automated data collecting engine with minimal human supervision? This is a government cracker's wet dream. Very few people will have the necessary rights to scan for signs of break-ins or notice something fishy going on.

  68. 90% Wont Lack Job Offers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if you're China - how fast are you on the phone to anyone in the 90%? How big a check does it take these days to subvert a US citizen into ignoring whatever NDA they signed while at the NSA to come work for you?

  69. This really isn't a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My guess is that something got lost in translation from the grunts up to the boss. The idea, and it's a good one, is to reduce privileged access. It's a solid, time-tested tenet of IT security (just google "principle of least privilege"). If people don't have access, they can't do bad things. A company I was associated with back some years ago did a complete audit of all privileged access and revoked over half of all privileged accounts. Automating functions so that it doesn't require someone to manually perform an action isn't exactly rocket science either. We've only been doing that in IT since forever. My guess is that very few of these people will actually lose their jobs. They'll just move on to something else within the NSA.

  70. I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut 100% of your domestic spies and put them in prison.

  71. It is like something out of Dilbert by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    anyway you look at it, it is a very bad sign.

  72. Unmaintained, unconstitutional boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, so this billion-dollar unconstitutional boondoggle by the NSA is now going to become an unmaintained, billion-dollar, unconstitutional boondoggle.

    If he's talking about something like SCAP to automate sysadmin work, good luck with that General.

    Just goes to prove my theory that this is just more security theater, and they're throwing money down a hole in Utah. The systems don't work as depicted, won't ever work as depicted, and soon enough will be a mess of gibberish for anyone attempting to use them. Meanwhile, the contractors and revolving door government employees will all be enriched. Again, this is more about transfer of wealth under the guise of black budgets than it is about operational dragnets. How many trillions of tables do they have in these unmaintained metadatabases?

  73. NSA-National Storage Agency? by techsimian · · Score: 1

    Can't we use FOIL to recover lost files? I have a couple of directories I would like to recover.

    At least people would see some value from their tax dollars...

    1. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't we use FOIL to recover lost files?

      (5 - a)(a + 3) = 5a + 15 - a^2 - 3a = -a^2 + 2a +15
      Not seeing how I can recover lost files...

    2. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      (5 - a)(a + 3) = 5a + 15 - a^2 - 3a = -(a^2) + 2a +15

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by Asmodae · · Score: 1

      Order of operations makes those additional parenthesis unnecessary. They don't hurt anything, but there's no error.

    4. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      -a^2 = -(a^2)

      Order of operations....

    5. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction. -a^2 is the same as -(a^2).

    6. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Maybe GP is just a frustrated Haskell programmer?

      Online Haskell Interpreter: try typing in -2^4

      Negation, which grammatically isn't the same thing as subtraction, is left somewhat ambiguous in academic mathematical grammar. Similarly to how parenthesis on sin and cos functions are in the "interpret it whatever way makes sense" category.

    7. Re:NSA-National Storage Agency? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      PEMDAS
      Please Excuse My Dumbass Slashdotter

  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. Next leak will be - Another Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you get rid of sysadmins, the admins get tired of fixing it all, and give users more rights, then you end up with another Manning. This is why they went to so many sysadmins right?

  76. On August 29, Skynet became autonomous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the ultimate goal would apparently be to reduce human intervention to zero, and launch drone attacks automatically on algorithmically determined terrorists.

  77. 5 Guys with 12 Rolodex Files.... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    is all I would leave them.

    This is likely causing a panic in Provo. But Mormons are good honest people, the very salt of the earth (that is, the ones that aren't politicians) and I know they'll find better more productive work in the end. Probably will strike up an economic recovery in Utah.

  78. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

    ...hmmm... didn't the NSA start out as a secret agency??

  79. "Cut" 90% of the sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't say anything about firing them. The only way this can work out for the NSA is if the assassins are right outside of the door.

    1. Re:"Cut" 90% of the sysadmins by FS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it isn't as sensational when you think reasonably about this. Firing them and warning them that they are going to be fired is stupid, which fits the narrative here.

  80. Emmanuel Goldstein says "hi", too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tyler Durden would like to commend Gen. Alexander on his commitment to project Mayhem.

  81. Google autonomous threat assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Skynet", the least unacceptable misstatement here.

    Knock, knock, Neo.

  82. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sysadmins set the hardware/OS up.

    The DBA's (with no root access) set up the encrypted database.

    The Application Support team (with no root access) keeps the apps running.

    The Backup team (with only sudo access to do backups) does the backups.

    Obviously you haven't worked in an IT shop with more than about three computers any time this century.

  83. Wait wait wait... by evendiagram · · Score: 1
    Using a 1 strike policy for the culling 90% of a single profession within agencies we can save some serious tax dollars! According to my wikipedia research we can wave goodbye to CIA officers, analysts, translators, clerks, and support staff, NSA intelligence analysts, and a FBI special agents.

    Bonus points for whoever added the entry for

    Americans who spied on Americans -
    NSA

  84. The obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be to reduce the number of searches by 90%.

  85. no surprise by tatman · · Score: 1

    Until the American public actually demands a solution and holds all of the pols accountable, the only thing that will happen is projects like this go deeper. Which probably means the projects become even more radical and intrusive because there will be no check or balance against them.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  86. Two-Man System by gregulator · · Score: 2

    The last report I read said they were switching to two-man tandem teams for Sys Admin's.

    So did they double the Sys Admin count and then cut it by 90%?

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9240151/Expanded_2_person_rule_could_help_plug_NSA_leaks

  87. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Actually I have.
    Here is reality:
    The DBA's have no idea how to do that.
    Application Support is headed by a dev who has no idea how to do that.
    The backup team are just another group of sysadmins. Since the DBAs nor the App team have time for it they need to be able to decrypt the db dumps to make sure the backups work.

  88. You need better sources by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    The "lying about it" link comes from a website run by an anti-american consipracy theorist who writes nonsense like this

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:You need better sources by Arker · · Score: 1

      "Anti-american?" No, read your link. Anti-current-us-foreign-policy. So if you parse that out, it's a double-negative, anti-anti-american.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:You need better sources by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      "Anti-american?" No, read your link. Anti-current-us-foreign-policy. So if you parse that out, it's a double-negative, anti-anti-american.

      Wikipedia is being nice, he's pretty out there.

      What's stranger though is the anti-jewish fruit-loop groups that oppose him... in some cases the enemy of your enemy might need medicating.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:You need better sources by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Only a few years ago anyone writing that the NSA was spying on everyone would have been negatively linked to by some superior feeling nerd just like you.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  89. mistrust? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Alluding to an issue of mistrust

    Now you know how it feels, NSA. Can we fire 90% of you? Please?

  90. A US government employee being fired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that.

    1. Re:A US government employee being fired? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They are not US government employees. Most are contractors (e.g. via Booz Allen Hamilton, like Mr. Snowden was). Some might be military. IMHO that might be part of the problem, there.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  91. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's simple, you subcontract it out to Google!

    Actually, they probably already did subcontract it out to Amazon.

  92. Got_fired.bat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuffsaid

  93. Makes sense. by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    'At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse the trust that they won't be honest with the American people about all of the ways the NSA is COMPLETELY IGNORING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, they can cause huge damage. To me. Look at my furrows of worry! I have a lot invested in this ride! Shut them up!'

    *facepalm* Oh Bill Hicks, I miss you.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Makes sense. by Meski · · Score: 1

      Who is going to stop them? No-one seems interested in doing anything but chasing the whistleblowers (Assange, Snowden) and quietening the whole issue down.

  94. Not the most cost effective way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He makes America look like a foolish and ineffectual power mad state.

    Hell, a mirror will do that. Except maybe the ineffectual part - our foolish madness has all kinds of effects, although mostly unintended ones.

  95. Total Misread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone here is misreading this. It is very common for organizations like this to grant sys ad priviledges to folks who don't need it to do some function rather than just give them limited priviledges that allow them to just do their assigned job (this is a whole 'nother issue of bad practices). They are going to reduce the number of personnel with root sys ad access and either automate their function or give them limited priviledges. They are not reducing the work force.

  96. Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honey Pot

  97. Danger by symbolset · · Score: 2

    They just told a large number of sysadmins they are going to be discarded like used tissue for no fault of their own. I wonder how many will hold a grudge.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  98. please stop linking to rt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they make the site look really biased. as rt has much more of an agenda than even fox news or msnbc.

  99. In other news by Dishwasha · · Score: 2

    Four star general in the United States Army and head of U.S. National Security Agency discovers after 62 years that there are some humans that can not be trusted. After an intense investigation, it was uncovered that director of the NSA Keith Alexander in fact changed his name from Adam Weber shortly after crawling out of a bomb shelter he was sequestered in to by his father and mother at the tender age of 10. Famous actor Brendan Fraser is well known for portraying Keith Alexander a.k.a. Adam Weber in the lesser known 1999 documentary A Blast from the Past that follows the real life of Keith Alexander, his father, and his mother during their self imposed quarantine and the emergence of Keith Alexander in to a modern and morally questionable society.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and his mom likes champagne cocktails

  100. LOL by shiftless · · Score: 0

    This type of comment is one of the big reasons I love Slashdot. You simply can't make any error here without some pedant correcting it, even if it's the most obscure thing that most people wouldn't even bother looking twice at. My eyes skipped right over all that pointless math, but I should have known there'd be someone who'd scrutinize it and make a correction.

  101. A serious, ardent question by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    How can anyone still think rag-tag terrorists are worse than these systemically-destructive fucksticks?

  102. Obama is the SysAdmin by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    ... of the executive branch. Can we start at the top?

    Move on to the head of the TSA.

    1. Re:Obama is the SysAdmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing the man with the position.

  103. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Step 1: To increase security, fire 90% of sysadmins
    Step 2: Make the remaining 10% do the jobs of the fired 90%. Plus their own jobs. Plus the additional work of any new projects/expansions.
    Step 3: Profit! (For foreign hackers who break into the under-secured servers and for overworked sysadmins who turn leakers ala Snowden.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  104. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who hired all these untrustworthy Sysadmins in the first fucking place?

    1. Re:wtf by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Booz Allen Hamilton

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  105. What happened to comparmentalization? by Gman2725 · · Score: 1

    When I was in the armed forces, we were issued Top Secret clearances but they were compartmentalized clearances. One unit didn't know what the other was up to unless we were tasked with the same mission. If you get rid of 90% of the sys admins, this leaves only 10% to split access to the data they're trying to protect. This seems like less people would have greater access to more data, and would leave you with limited ability to keep data restricted to individual compartments within the security structure. Also, the leak didn't come from within the NSA itself so why are they culling their own staff? Doing this will make them more reliant on outside contracting firms, which was the problem in the first place if I recall. This just demonstrates the real problems are at the top of the management structure. Outside contractors should have zero access to any of this data period. This move just flies in the face of common sense.

    1. Re:What happened to comparmentalization? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should be cutting the contractors they hire, and limit themselves to in-house staff.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:What happened to comparmentalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA was the first agency to go the privation rout 10 years ago. I think you have 3 contractors for every government employee. If you got rid of the contractors now it would take years to get new government works though the security screening system.

    3. Re:What happened to comparmentalization? by will_die · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is the government pay system is very low if you are a skilled person. So they have problems hiring people and keeping them. Clinton saw this and laid a foundation which was built on by Former President Bush to increase the salaries to the market rates for those skilled people and to grade them by work done. This was then all killed by Obama because it was hated by the unions and Obama needed to pay back the unions.
      The contracting companies are able to hire at the market rate so for skilled people you almost have to go with contractors.
      Now the problem is the same low level for techs happens in management which leads to people who are not really managers but paper pushers who have problems actually doing human management. So they tend to accept almost anyone that the contractors throw at them; In many cases that is also because of the lack of people who could do the job and if they don't fill the spot the manager gets in trouble. Fill it with an unskilled person and upper management will not blink an eye.

  106. 90%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have 10. They are letting 9 go.

    1. Re:90%? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They have 1000. So they want to downscale to 100. Of course that means they either have to downscale their data, too (won't happen) or upscale how much each sysadmin has access to.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  107. This is their fix? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    So this is their solution? I'm pretty sure those sys admins were there for a reason. Sort of like chopping off your head to cure headaches. Technically, yes, you got rid of the headaches.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  108. Better idea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop illegally spying on everyone, then there is nothing to leak..

  109. High school dropouts on notice by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Bummer. Where else are the high school dropouts going to pull in $120K+ for IT work in paradise.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  110. Security people cannot be manage by 0s and 1s by juliosilva · · Score: 1

    Insane. The amount of power sysadmins have can reach the scale of full information from any organization they work for. What permits guarantee of control is a consequence mechanism, a law regime, if there is no consequence, either firing or keeping like it is will not avoid people to cross that line of non-ethical behaviour, Russia has not understood that they giving shelter to Mr. Snowden has opened a door for a karma effect soon by people doing the same against Russia, and sheltering in US, thats definitely not the way to address this topics. Information is virtually impossible to be controlled, its human factor that can change, and this topic should always be addressed from the human perspective and not the process perspective, you need to manage your people, there is no 100% secure information system in the world. Because there is not also 100% ethical or non-ethical information, a country can indeed commit non-ethical actions by their intelligence to protect their people. The rights of people are after the rights of the state, no one has ever understood that, not even the American people who wrote the first amendemnt and which agree that having a gun is the right to defend themselves from their government, what they dont realize is that that is the right to defend from the Regime not from the country, and a intelligence system defends the people by first, I repeat, first, I repeat, first, defending the integrity of its country. By default a country dont trust anyone, full stop. The several human mechanisms of check-points for everyone working with direct access to information, has centuries of refining, and adjustment, and its the best it can be done, if someone breaks this trust must face consequence. The solution to those who do not agree or are not able to see this pragmatic perspective, but realistic, is to build a space ship with capacity to reach out of Planet Earth and either stay in orbit living from sun energy and a self recycle food production from own faeces, or create a army and implement a world dictatorship, or implement a world anarchy where no trust and security must be guarantee by any country or similar organization.

  111. Strategic goal of the NSA -- ERROR by coolsnowmen · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, I was researching to comment/argue with a previous post and typed into google "goal of the nsa"- and the first link was: http://www.nsa.gov/about/strategic_plan/

    Coincidentally that returned "Internal Server Error...unable to complete your request."

    HAH!

    1. Re:Strategic goal of the NSA -- ERROR by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      damit, it is back up now- Oh well. It was funny for me.

    2. Re:Strategic goal of the NSA -- ERROR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I was researching to comment/argue with a previous post and typed into google "goal of the nsa"- and the first link was: http://www.nsa.gov/about/strategic_plan/

      Coincidentally that returned "Internal Server Error...unable to complete your request."

      HAH!

      http://www.nsa.gov/about/strategic_plan/index.shtml

      Mapping .shtml as a index page candidate is apparently too difficult for the people they hire to do web server administration.

  112. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by cusco · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, the difference between how the world is supposed to work, and how it DOES work.

    The place where I'm working now really does do it the way they're supposed to (for the most part), and they cut tickets for everything and document the living crap out of all of it. After 17 years of working mostly alone with god-like access to almost anything I touched it's driving me insane.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  113. I can't imagine a worse scenario by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

    ... than a bunch of BOFH that used to work for the NSA.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  114. Somebody find John Connor by Phixxr · · Score: 1

    This is how Skynet is born.

    --
    ungggghhhh
  115. Public NSA statement = lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's a clue for the clueless. When the NSA pronounces ANYTHING in public, it is lying. Even the dumbest sheeple should be able to work out why. So what kind of idiots would even discuss such a statement? Ah- now we get to the real reason Slashdot (and similar forums) exists, and it certainly isn't enlightenment.

    The NSA is expanding faster than at any previous time. This is driven by TWO factors. The absolute rise of insanely cheap computing power, and the systems to use it. And the desires of the elites that rule the USA and other nations in the West.

    The people that really control the NSA have but one policy- "if it can be done, DO IT, and don't worry about how we might use all the new intelligence we gather". Although very few sheeple know it, we have been at this point before. Real modern full surveillance concepts began in the early 20th century, when it became apparent that the ENTIRE population of a nation was of some degree of interest to the rulers. Before political emancipation, the greatest part of a population was the tedious and uninteresting "serf" class- lacking votes or any real influence.

    So, a number of nations employed psychopaths who started to create full surveillance projects, with the intent of spying on everyone. In each case, when the implications of such an ambition became obvious to senior forces within the government, the projects were closed down in horror. But these happened long before the age of the computer.

    Now times are very different. No-one stands on the side of privacy, or an expectation of reasonable limits on government powers. The opposite logic is in play, encouraged by much grooming of the sheeple by the mainstream media. So the NSA can work with Microsoft to put a camera, microphone, and movement sensor system into the homes of millions of Americans, and no-one even raises an eyebrow. You are too boring for the NSA to monitor, the shills scream, even as the sheeple learn of the amazing extent of previous full surveillance NSA operations.

    The NSA gathers information for the use of others- and you should never forget this. The elite want to know, in real-time, what the sheeple are thinking, and how effective the latest mainstream media propaganda campaigns are proving to be. A blind man without a sheep dog cannot control a flock of sheep. The NSA are the eyes and ears of those that really control the USA.

    And then the NSA provides the ultimate leverage information for 'persuading' people who prove key to choose the 'right' courses of actions. Most people with power or influence are easily blackmailed. And the blackmail usually promises to reduce that power or influence, so it is almost always very effective. BTW why do you think it is that American politicians can legally engage in insider-trading? American politics is the dirtiest on the planet.

    As the NSA grows, there is a terrible consequence. The elites DEMAND that all barriers to such growth be exterminated. So, legal rights to privacy must be eliminated. Sheeple even THINKING such rights are a good idea must be changed by mainstream media propaganda campaigns. The sheeple must be converted into willing supporters of police state abuses. This creates an obvious vicious circle- or positive feedback, accelerating the abuses.

  116. AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who's going to pick up the slack? An artificial intelligence?
    I for one welcome our new privacy intruding, law breaking, artificial intelligent overlords..

  117. Oh, that's rich irony! by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    So Mr. Pot is worried about privacy? LOLOL.

    Call me when there's something noteworthy.

  118. Way to go, Mr. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he's running the NSA into the ground faster than any outsider ever could. Seriously, this guy might as well be wearing a sign over his head that says "1984" for all the good it will do to turn the NSA into an even more secret society.

  119. typical govt stupidity by charlesr44403 · · Score: 1

    I've seen overreactions before but this beats it all - get rid of 90% of those who know how it works and expect it to still work?

  120. Wow by kiriath · · Score: 1

    Just... what a frickin moron.

  121. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the people who are responsible for the security of your systems are not admins the are information securit7y officers. DoD split that up long ago

  122. Re:So then, this is the way you secure your system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That actually appears to be the plan. Unfortunately for them, they don't realize that said "intelligent robots" don't actually exist.

  123. THIRTY-NINE YEARS AGO TODAY! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    http://thisisnthappiness.com/post/57775093467/tricky

    Who else remembers the graffiti?

    "Flush twice, it's a long way to Watergate"
    and
    "Nixon: The Only Dope Worth Shooting"

    Pity. He now - despite paranoia and megalomania - seem innocuous after what came to us at the start of the following decade - and persisted ever since.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:THIRTY-NINE YEARS AGO TODAY! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ford was worse only a year or so later. Blatantly flying halfway around the world to take a bribe from the President of Indonesia (OK then - a Republican party "donation") to use the UN veto on Indonesia's behalf is like sticking up a sign that says "government for sale".

  124. IT'S A TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty simple...
    1. Announce that big layoffs are coming for sysadmins.
    2. Watch very closely to see which sysadmins do anything unusual or change their behavior/access patterns.
    3. Jail the ones attempting to collect/leak info.

    1. Re:IT'S A TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optional # 0.5, seed specific systems with various seemingly juicy but entirely false, and traceable, data.

  125. Obligatory simpsons follows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha Ha.

  126. What a selfish little cunt hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet he General Keith has an extremely small penis

    Let's go with the urban dictionary defition of Keith:

    "Possibly the ugliest male name in the entirety of the English Language. A name that nearly destroys the chances of getting laid for anyone who bears it."

    Ahhh that explains his extreme hunger for control - his inability to ever satisfy a woman.

  127. That's completely retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We want to keep doing bad things, so we'll have less people doing them.

  128. Lay off Obama instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I trust Obama less than any of the NSA sys admins.

  129. Real message to sysadmins by n7ytd · · Score: 1

    We are actively looking for 90% of you to let go. Best keep your ducks in a row and play by the rules or you'll be on the short list, Sport.

  130. Eye of the I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be required reading for all these fucking jerkoffs: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23322.The_Eye_of_the_I

  131. Could this have something to do with Haden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this have something to do with what former general Haden had to say about computer geeks, using the term as a perojative.

    Here is a hint, if your a computer geek, nerd, or viewed as one by the rest of society, the US government isn't your friend anymore. I think this shows what they think of us.

    Here is a hint, you are attacking your most productive, best and brightest for the gain or your greediest, dumbest and most worthless. This only lasts so long.

    Its fine, they are hiring elsewhere.

  132. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    The DBA's (with no root access) set up the encrypted database.

    And the DBA team is always there when a computer starts to type the encryption key password. You do plan to encrypt the key, right? And how do you make sure the admins didn't install a keylogger?

    At the real life, you trust whoever made your hardware, whoever wrote your softwares, whoever have physical access to your computers and whoever installs software on them. There is no way out.

  133. London's Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Spain you would say: "One works and all the rest look". With my experience in the English-speaking world I would say they follow the: "One works and all the rest suck him up". I suppose this guy's reasoning is pretty clear: the less workers, the less suckers... Unfortunately they will need to create another agency, sibling to the DEA (if it really exists, as I am TV talking), to deal with, speaking English, all the grease. It would seem an extraterrestrial plot, where they try to conquer Earth definitely, so they need the fat lady to sing. The more fat cunts, the more chances they get...

  134. NSA is not firing anyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're taking admin rights away from 90% of those who currently have them.

  135. Solid by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    That's hard core millitary logic right there. "lets not fix the real problem, lets just fire people who could point them out"

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  136. They are already overtaxed as it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA has more information then they can process. The solution, fire the people who would be responsible for processing it.

  137. Another experiment gone bad. by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    First it was basically technology and development, where corporations (most from Silicon Valley, just program managed by the big DoD firms), abused the arrangement by just delivering vaporware and overpriced consultants. Of course the tech eventually got there (at least by 2006) with the aftermath...

    And now with Snowden, it's shows the failure (?) of Eagle Alliance (EA was created to make IT into a COTS like effort, in the end to reduce IT costs and keep the agency 'current' in skillset); where it appears you had a group of competent IT admins, but regardless of right OR wrong, the bottomline truth is these admins had the same ethics as any IT guy in a Fortune 500 company. And we all know fortune 500 IT admins think with their convictions than follow the rules.

    Trust is one of the biggest things in the intel community, hence why it's a tight knit group and honestly a bunch of really nice folks. It's the orders they get from the politicians that make things messy, but you take an oath to trust and execute.

    1. Re:Another experiment gone bad. by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      It's the orders they get from the politicians that make things messy, but you take an oath to trust and execute.

      That's what they said in the German military too before and during World War 2: "Befehl ist Befehl.".

      That is no excuse.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders#Israeli_law_since_1956

  138. How do you fight the internal misuse of power? by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

    It is my experience that if you reduce the number of people involved in an activity it's easier for one person to subvert the whole system.
    Instead of having fewer eyes they should have enough cross checking eyes to prevent one person going rouge (without being detected at least).
    Fewer people = more possible abuses of power.

  139. How about cutting 100%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be a far more happy result for me. Why stop at 90% when you can just slash the whole program?

  140. Think again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think it is realistic to reduce SysAdmin by 90% unless they are not doing SysAdmin, or they are just goofing around most of the time. The more realistic way is to swear them in as agents, not "contractors", so that they have real dire consequences if they turn bad, just like those in Russia. And then figure out how to do the SysAdmin job with less people, and how to compartmentalize the systems and information so that people only get to access they have a real need to know. Letting people like Manning having access to all diplomatic data is crazy. You probably have to train the real agents with enough computer skills to post, search and retrieve data on their own, instead of relying on so called "techies".

  141. So the answer is more disgruntled ex-employees? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So the answer to a disgruntled employee blowing the whistle is a lot more disgruntled ex-employees?
    This should be interesting to watch. I'd better stock up on popcorn.

  142. They can because it's an outsourced mess by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Snowden was a contractor. It turns out the NSA is a sprawling outsourced mess possibly designed mostly to funnel money into the pockets of people that are to be "rewarded". It's a depressingly third world way of doing things. Expect a lot of social and family connections between those who chose the contracting companies and those running them.

  143. NSA firing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think if the NSA, could have fired 90% of the staff, it would have done so already. Not as easy as it sounds

  144. Option C is more likely by dbIII · · Score: 1

    C) The person making the announcement pulled an impressive number out of their arse without actually having a clue what is done let alone what can be trimmed.

  145. Cloud by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Cloud computing could be the culprit

  146. But... by Meski · · Score: 1

    Isn't the NSA all about promoting data leaks in others?

  147. Re:Amazed the NSA doesn't understand data security by Meski · · Score: 1

    So who other than sysadmins sets that database server up?

    Who backs it up? Who tests the backups?

    Who watches the watchers? (I can't be arsed looking up the fancy latin for it)

  148. if it is all so true about trust ... by dschinn1001 · · Score: 0

    Quotation of Alexander's saying : 'At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.' So you could fire the whole government and the whole administrations of government too ! All your staff at gov are actors, only the voters are real !

  149. pot calling the kettle black by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    "if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage"

    Odd the NSA didn't take that to heart themselves...

  150. Wrong operator by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Competent != (moral || lawful)

    You can be "moral" without being lawful (See: moral crusaders, given the elasticity of the definition of moral (I.E. Westbro Baptists and Islamic extremists both see themselves as moral) you can do some highly illegal stuff and still be "moral").

    Also, you can be lawful without being moral.

    You should have used the && operator, whilst you can be both moral and lawful without being a complete tosser it is very, very difficult.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  151. Why embarrass yourself with this again? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    claimed that steel can be melted by JP4

    JP4 + lots of paper + lots of wood dust + lots of oxgyen rushing in faster and faster as the fire grew. Then the steel frame softened in the heat (I'm sure you've seen a blacksmith in the movies so can grasp that idea), the burning building could not support the weight and the whole thing came crashing down so hard that it ground a lot of that aluminium, steel and wood to powder - which added to the inferno. Big surface area, big reaction - stuff burns.
    Your denial of this disgusted me especially since the tinfoil hat black helicopter 9/11 was a government bomb idiots could point to someone labelling themselves as an engineer to back them up.

  152. Irony and Idiocy by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    Firing SysAdmins because... "At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.'

    The most ironic thing is the sheer idiocy in their implied position that we, the people, are "ok with the NSA spying on us - as long as they have less people doing the spying."

    They really need to hire a very good PR firm if they want to foist such nonsense on us. Or perhaps they can just stop their spying program. I kinda have a feeling that doing so will cause the trust issues will diminish significantly. ;-)