Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA Firing 90% of Its Sysadmins

Posted by Soulskill on from the because-angering-sysadmins-has-worked-so-well-in-the-past dept.

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."

71 of 634 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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?

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

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

    7. 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
    8. 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

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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?
    12. 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..."
    13. 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?

    14. 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.

    15. 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.........
    16. 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.........
    17. 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. . .

    18. 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
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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
    23. 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 ;-)

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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
  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 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.

    3. Re:At the end of the day by aliquis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are we sure Keith Alexander isn't a cylon?

  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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, ...".

    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
  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. 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 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!
    3. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. Umm by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about REDUCING 90% of the ILLEGAL data tapping instead?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.

    4. Re:ever hear of best practices?! by aztracker1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Competent != (moral || lawful)

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    5. 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.........
    6. 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".

  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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!
  20. Re:The actual deterrent by tolkienfan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wanted to go see a freer society?

  21. 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...

  22. 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!