Slashdot Mirror


US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Arik Hesseldahl writes that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that the NSA tried to penetrate and compromise Tor, but it was only because terrorists and criminals use it, too and our "interest in online anonymity services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies." It was all legal and appropriate, Clapper argues, because, "Within our lawful mission to collect foreign intelligence to protect the United States, we use every intelligence tool available to understand the intent of our foreign adversaries so that we can disrupt their plans and prevent them from bringing harm to innocent Americans. Our adversaries have the ability to hide their messages and discussions among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same social networking sites, encryption tools and other security features that protect our daily online activities." Clapper concludes that "the reality is that the men and women at the National Security Agency and across the Intelligence Community are abiding by the law, respecting the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation safe.""

4 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Officials learn terrorist and criminals use cas by pipatron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored (serial numbers on every bill, cameras in every ATM and store), and controlled (demanding proof of ownership for depositing cash at a bank, removing the possibility to actually use cash for buying travel documents).

    Much like they are working hard on trying to make sure Tor can't be used anonymously.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  2. Re:There you have it, folks... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If voting could change anything, I guess it would have been identified as a threat to our safety as well.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:There you have it, folks... by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no REAL difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both want to take away our rights and give them to the government. They both want to spend too much. They both want to grab more and more power. They both ignore the Constitution. They are both working very hard to to turn our nation into a fascist police state.

    The two-party system is broken and has been for a very long time. Nothing can really be fixed until we have a fundamentally different kind of voting system that allows other parties to participate. And since that is not in the interest of the two-parties, it will be a cold day in hell before that changes either.

    And yes, I vote at every election. And usually it is for any non-Democrat non-Republican I can find. I might be throwing my vote away, but at least I am trying.

  4. Re:I feel safer... by julian67 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "a future tyrant who will commit more atrocities than all of the terrorists combined."

    Future?

    The atomic detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened almost 70 years ago.

    Did anyone count how many non-combatants were bombed and napalmed and otherwise killed in S.E. Asia in the 60s and 70s?

    How many civilians have so far been killed by conventional warfare and by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    How about counting the number of birth defects caused by depleted uranium weapons in Iraq?

    What about all the people who were tortured and kidnapped or "disappeared" by US sponsored forces in south and central America in the 70s and 80s?

    I haven't done the maths but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the numbers of casualties caused by anti US terrorism even looks like a pinprick next to the hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-combatants killed by the US in the modern era, and I am really confident that still holds true even if one completely disregards the use of atomic weapons over Japan.

    I don't think one can fairly describe any particular modern US president as a tyrant because domestically they have all been subject to elections and held more or less accoutable (or can be), but the behaviour of the US in relation to other nations has often been tyrannical and brutal. If Caesar came back today he could easily understand various US campaigns in his own terms, including such noble qualities as self aggrandisement, greed, cruelty, curiosity untroubled by ethics, and good old vengeance.