Slashdot Mirror
Schneier: Break Up the NSA
New submitter BrianPRabbit writes "Bruce Schneier proposes 'breaking up' the NSA. He suggests assigning the targeted hardware/software surveillance of enemy operations to U.S. Cyber Command. Further, the NSA's surveillance of Americans needs to be scaled back and placed under the control of the FBI. Finally, he says, is 'the deliberate sabotaging of security. The primary example we have of this is the NSA's BULLRUN program, which tries to "insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communication devices." This is the worst of the NSA's excesses, because it destroys our trust in the Internet, weakens the security all of us rely on and makes us more vulnerable to attackers worldwide. .... [T]he remainder of the NSA needs to be rebalanced so COMSEC (communications security) has priority over SIGINT (signals intelligence). Instead of working to deliberately weaken security for everyone, the NSA should work to improve security for everyone.'"
That is, I think it would be more likely to corrupt the FBI than to clean up the NSA's investigation of Americans.
The real problem is priorities more than anything else.
The events of September 11th panicked us Americans, and we decided to overspend and over-allow security.
We need to realize that the number of terrorism related attacks are relatively SMALL and to cut funding for all things that invade our privacy - starting with the TSA.
When you limit their funds, they spend their money wisely on clear and present dangers.
When you give them unlimited funding, as we have been doing, they spend it on any wild-ass crazy possibility, which means they investigate people and cases that are clearly and obviously not terrorism related.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That's exactly why. Any surveillance of Americans should only be done if it pertains to a police matter (e.g. investigation).
CyberCommand, a command I'm very familiar with as prior-Air Force, doesn't have a reason to take over what the NSA does. The author of this article really doesn't know what he's talking about.
> That is, I think it would be more likely to corrupt the FBI than to clean up the NSA's investigation of
> Americans.
Corrupt the FBI? The FBI are as incorruptible as the proverbial satan. We are talking about the people who have so precious little to really do that they go around creating criminals to arrest. These are the people who go after little shit online troublemakers and find mentally unstable people who they can shove a bomb in the hands of.
Corrupt them?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well, let's elaborate, shall we. I think the number of possible satisfactory solutions to the NSA problem are infinite. This plan, like every other one that would work all fall on unshakable premise. Congress needs to pass legislation removing previously granted powers(then do something else, apparently, to mollify those who are actually scared of terrorists, in this case move those powers to law enforcement).
This one premise, though, has shown zero chance of happening. Those in congress critical of the NSA's behavior mostly seem interested in using it as an attack chip for the republican party in the next couple elections, and so leaving the power in the executive plays to their needs. The executive, for their part, have either bought, or are willing to attempt to sell, the pragmatism line, and the laws passed by congress say it's legal, so they don't see a need to change anything by fiat.
Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.
Thats too much work... They just need to pay some young girl a few grand to say she was raped by him. Oldest trick in the book....
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
The NSA does not necessarily want you to be insecure. As a matter of fact, I have downloaded documents from their web site with tips on how to configure my OSes to be more secure (and I don't recall any of the tips requiring me to install any additional software, which definitely would have raised a red flag). It is in the best interest of the NSA that the computers that protect sensitive data in all public and private sectors be secure from outside threats. With that said, it is also in the NSA's interest to be able to access as much data from these same machines as they can possibly gather. Therefore, they walk a tight line where it's best when everyone's security is loose enough that the NSA can get in, but tight enough to keep less sophisticated groups out. Based on systems such as BULLRUN, it seems that the NSA has become more concerned with gaining access for themselves over encouraging tight security.
Congress needs to pass legislation removing previously granted powers(then do something else, apparently, to mollify those who are actually scared of terrorists, in this case move those powers to law enforcement).
So to use your terms, Congress needs to pass something to mollify the people scared of NSA?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I just love the thought of the FSB, Mossad, MI5, and just about every other foreign intelligence network on Earth (and those are merely the legal ones) running rampant throughout our country and society without the CIA to check them. Gosh, that'd be so much fun to just lower our guard and take punches! Oh hey, maybe those other nations would be so friendly towards us once we dismantled our intelligence apparatus that they'd willingly leave us alone! And forswear corporate espionage to boot! Dismantle the NSA, yes. Spread it out amongst the other agencies, yes. But don't disarm us completely. The CIA has screwed up a lot, so has the FBI--but they're still good ideas to have in place. We as a society have to reassume the responsibility, and the maturity of overseeing the operations of those two agencies on an appropriate basis.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
From 1776 to 1945: AFAIK we were all wins except the War of 1812, which was just a giant clusterfuck. We only won after the buzzer, so the shot doesn't really count. The other side didn't really win either, so all in all a waste of resources. 1946 - present. Korea was tie. Everything else was along the lines of win or get bored and go home. No one can stand toe-to-toe with the USA and win an all-out war. What they CAN do is just make sure they start with a third world dump that can hardly be made worse by more fighting and just not quit. We'll get bored and leave sooner or later ;)
I understand your point. Only problem then becomes, "OK now what?" Following your scenario, let's say they start tracking you stateside, after you've made an international call to known or suspected threats overseas. Their systems aren't set up to intercept your calls. It's metadata only. So, they collect reams and reams of your phone calls to mom, the store, work, co-workers, and one or two known threats. Now what? They don't have jurisdiction to go to a FISA court, and a judge would laugh them out of the room with, "We know he made 100 phone calls to Abdullah Muhammad," for probable cause for anything. Now, if we're talking about CIA and FBI, then you have a great point. Domestic spies would be handled by the CIA and FBI, where information sharing becomes an issue. However, NSA is not domestic, and to be honest, doesn't care what Americans are doing stateside. Now, an American flies to Syria for "spiritual training," and you've crossed into their domain of interest.
1776 was won by the French. They spent a billion livres, dozens of ships of the line, thousands of troops, tens of thousands of muskets, cannons, gunpowder, money.
The war of 1812 was the one Napoleon was fighting. The US involvement was minor, and the defeats by land were more than ignominious enough to make up for the sea victories.
Vietnam was a loss, and a staggering waste of lives.
No one tries to stand toe-to-toe, it's easy enough to make the country destroy itself. Usama bin Laden won the war against terrorism.
At this point, I think we can all clearly see that Terrorism only has as much importance as we create for it. If we don't regard it as important, the Terrorism threat goes almost entirely away. If you were to rank these Priorities according to what most impacts the survival of the Nation, I believe it would look more like:
None, until and unless the damage from terrorist attacks exceeds the damage from panicked overreaction to terrorist attacks.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Since Hoover.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."