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.'"

235 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Bruce Schneier Fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bruce Schneier can break the NSA

  2. since when is the FBI a spy agency? by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

    the FBI is a federal police force, not a spy agency that collects intelligence

    1. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's exactly why. Any surveillance of Americans should only be done if it pertains to a police matter (e.g. investigation).

    2. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

      "By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s."

      Of course, that's from the CIA's website, so it's exactly what they want you to think...

    3. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the FBI is a federal police force, not a spy agency that collects intelligence

      When Bruce suggests a "scaling back", he's not implying that the FBI become an intelligence-gathering agency. He's suggesting that intelligence-gathering exercises be scaled back to mirror more of what the FBI already does today with federal criminal investigations within normal legal (due) process instead of mass intel gathering of its citizens (as if there isn't enough commercial entities doing this already)

      I know that the suggestion of using something that mirrors more of what common sense would dictate sounds fucking insane, but hey every now and then we should probably side with common sense to avoid the human race being sucked down the Darwinian drain.

    4. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      the FBI is a federal police force, not a spy agency that collects intelligence

      The FBI's current mission statement:

      Our Mission

      As an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

      You might want to follow the link and read the rest.

      --
      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
    5. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2

      Which is exactly how it's organized. The NSA is spying on overseas comms. When it links to a date/time placed/received call stateside, they hand that information to the FBI, and say, "This phone number in the US is talking to some very bad people overseas." The FBI then starts the investigation.

    6. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      CIA is foreign intelligence only. They may engage in some signals intelligence, but it isn't their primary responsibility.

      --
      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
    7. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The key phrase in that statement is "US citizens." There are plenty of non-US citizens that are fair game.

    8. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "senior approval for any such collection that is allowed"

      Can the officials with that authority just grant a blanket power to monitor everyone, and make that order secret? If so (And the scale of the monitoring show it must be so) then that protection isn't worth much.

    9. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      Since they removed law enforcement from their fact sheet https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

    10. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Police forces collect intelligence as part of their police duties. Things like wire taps and stake outs would fall under that category.

    11. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by jythie · · Score: 2

      That is how it is supposed to be organized, but the current perception (true or false) is that this is not what is actually occurring.

      Part of this comes from historical issues of agencies not wanting to work together or share data, esp when a particular case or subject crosses back and forth between foreign and domestic, so the perception is that the NSA, rather then handing the domestic pieces over to the FBI, continues to work with the data under the umbrella target... so organizing based off the origin or focus of the case rather then the nationality of individuals within it.

    12. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You mean that's how it *should* happen.

      Because what actually happens is nothing near that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I think his point may be just that... The FBI is not a spy agency and shouldn't be spying on citizens. It is a police force which could use surveillance (with proper subpoenas, etc.) to find criminals. Stop indiscriminate spying on everyone.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate

      They are absolutely NOT a police force. For very strict reasons the US did not institute a national police force, aka a gendarme, that you see in many other countries. The Federal Government has "police" forces for very specific issues that are national interest issues, such as the Coast Guard for policing US shores, the ATF for weapons smuggling, the Customs Service for international smuggling enforcement, the DEA for drug enforcement, the Border Patrol for border security, etc. However the bulk of police actions are left to communities and states as those are seen as local issues.

      The FBI is an investigative service. They have the authority to requisition local police help when investigating something, and their focus is usually on investigating federal crimes that have an affect upon the nation, such as white collar crime, organized crime etc.

      However, if you look at their priorities for investigations, you see that what would be classified as "crime" is number 5 on their list of priorities. Number 1 is anti-terrorism locally, and number 2 is counter-intelligence typically on US soil. So yes, they are classified as a spy ring, because it is their job to counter and apprehend the agents of foreign intelligence agencies. See the history of the FBI during WW2 and the Cold War, specifically under J Edgar Hoover's run; Hoover wasn't just concerned with the private lives of important individuals, he was instrumental in rooting out communist infiltrators, capturing Abhwer and SS agents brought to US soil, etc.

    16. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by bigfoottoo · · Score: 1

      "Their systems aren't set up to intercept your calls. It's metadata only."
      Johnny, do you honestly expect anyone on Slashdot to believe that?

    17. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by jodido · · Score: 1

      Wrong, totally and completely. It may not be a "spy agency" but it does collect "intelligence" and always has--and frequently by spying.

    18. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens

      Er...isn't that linguistically impossible anyway?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    19. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, that's NOT how it's supposed to be happening. The government is constitutionally prohibited from spying on Americans' communications without a warrant. Once you have a warrant, eavesdrop all you want.

      Too bad they no longer respect that document, if in fact they ever did.

    20. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by dweller_below · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Looking at the FBI Mission: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/qu... it looks like the Priorities are based on Crazy Congressional Wishlist. There are just too many Priorities. And, they are ranked according to sensationalism, not importance to the survival of the Nation. That page lists them as:
      1. 1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack
      2. 2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
      3. 3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
      4. 4. Combat public corruption at all levels
      5. 5. Protect civil rights
      6. 6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
      7. 7. Combat major white-collar crime
      8. 8. Combat significant violent crime
      9. 9. Support federal, state, local and international partners
      10. 10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI’s mission

      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:

      1. 1. Combat public corruption at all levels
      2. 2. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
      3. 3. Protect civil rights
      4. 4. Combat major white-collar crime
      5. 5. Combat significant violent crime
      6. 6. Support federal, state, local and international partners
      7. 7. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI’s mission
      8. 8. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
      9. 9. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
      10. 10. Protect the United States from terrorist attack
    21. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is exactly how it's organized. The NSA is spying on overseas comms. When it links to a date/time placed/received call stateside, they hand that information to the FBI, and say, "This phone number in the US is talking to some very bad people overseas." The FBI then starts the investigation.

      If this was what was happening, people would not have so many problems with it. If you want to claim it _is_ this way then I expect to see people charged with criminal misconduct currently holding offices and not performing their duties as they should. Here are two words for you to review. "Parallel Construction".

      Let's assume that everything is on the up and up, and we have nothing to worry about. The orifices in question are recommending to move to a 3 step system. If you call a store that has an employee that has a friend that called a "questionable" country you are within legal rights for monitoring. This is too vague of a definition, yet people think it will fix something. Play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon and you quickly see that anyone can be associated with a "terrorist" pretty easily.

      Second, calling overseas is not bad. "Overseas" is yet another overly broad term. Do they monitor K-mart officials because they do business? Wow, what a convenient term to use! Now if you shop at K-mart you are within 3 steps! Isn't that incredible? (no, don't answer that rhetorical question)

      In a post following this one you claim "it's only metadata". Anyone that believes that metadata is "nothing" (or down plays it's significance) is either repeating propaganda or extremely ignorant. You will find few friends here repeating propaganda or making uneducated claims. You can't play down what it is, when we have studied what this data contains and can be used for. We also see the cases of IRS targeting certain groups which warrants a full open inspection of the system.

      I get it, it's hard to believe your own government has become corrupt. The truth is that we have become very corrupt, and until we have open investigations and trials we won't know the extent of corruption. The days of arguing for the innocence of America are long gone (The Gulf of Tonkin is a bitch for that delusion, and just the first of many). The arguments we should be pushing today are how we fix the corruption, and how we open offices for inspection, and how we put criminals that have held (and perhaps are holding) public offices on trial.

      --

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

    22. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      When you have to append "don't tell anybody we told you, including the prosecutor. tell them you started the investigation with something else.", you KNOW you aren't following the law.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    23. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I get it, it's hard to believe your own government has become corrupt. The truth is that we have become very corrupt, and until we have open investigations and trials we won't know the extent of corruption.

      What would that solve? The investigations and trials would be done by the very same government, who would control what would get into the open. You'd need open investigations and trials to ensure that the investigations and trials were really "open", and then open investigations and trials to ensure...

      What might solve the problem rhymes with evolution.

    24. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The FBI does many things that is not on the record, and even when some ppl
      there try to get it on the record as whistle blowers they are fired for it.

      Sibel Edmonds comes to mind.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    25. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      CIA -> InQtell -> NARUS -> NSA....

      Nuff said... wake up...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    26. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Did you choose not to read the whole statement that you quoted and just pick out the piece you wanted?

      --

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

    27. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could expand upon that a bit. You didn't really say much of anything about intelligence gathering.

      --
      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
    28. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Did you choose not to read the whole statement that you quoted and just pick out the piece you wanted?

      Oh, I read it. It just wasn't worth a comment.

    29. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Then reality showed up....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    30. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."
    31. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1
      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    32. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Since you did comment, I'm guessing communication skills are not your forte.

      --

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

    33. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      I'm quoting the Director of the NSA nearly word for word how the system operates, and how the data is used. If he's lying, then he's on public record and there are Intelligence committees in the US Senate and House which will call him to task for lying to either the public (the news piece I'm quoting from) or them (the House or Senate). If you'd like to test the validity of how I've characterized the data collection, methods, analysis and use, then go to CBS.com and bring up 60 Minutes. They have a very good "Intro to the NSA."

      If they want to go to a 3 step, then I'm sure no one inside the NSA will really care. There are no NSA teams prosecuting you for terrorism. There are no NSA Team 6's kicking down doors. They follow the POTUS intent for foreign policy and then collect the data to support his ability to make informed decisions. If you think the same analysis is given to John Q Public calling K-mart on his Verizon cell phone, as a Defense Minister in Syria using Skype to call a Russian arms dealer, then you're mistaken about the mission, intent and operations of the NSA. So you can see that the data they scroll through might show you're calling dad on Skype, unless your dad, from his basement in Milwalkee, is moonlighting selling arms to Syria, your data is ignored. Since this is Slashdot and a car analogy is obligatory: If you drive down a road where a policeman has his radar running: Are your police now "spying" on you? Is the metadata that dangerous and prone to misuse? There are many towns across the US now where the patrol cars have 4-6 cameras scanning every plate on every car it can that passes. I'm personally actually more concerned about that than the NSA.

      Again quoting, the metadata NSA is using that has everyone in an uproar is: Date - Time - Originating Number - Destination Number. Now think about the scope of that data. Petabytes. Imagine if you're the tin-foil hat type that a computer pops you calling a Kmart in Damascus just as it does Muhammad called Hazziim. Can you imagine the thousands of people who'd have to cull through all those false-positives? It's not going to happen. I think this is part of the problem with "There's dragons in there!!" when people don't think their paranoia through to fruition. NSA would be hiring day and night if they honestly were spying on not only every America, but every American who makes an overseas call. There's be a permanent posting on USAJobs.Gov for "Data Analyst."

      We just have a different definition of corruption. Unfortunately, most who scream the loudest against it have the least access to what we're discussing: Intelligence-related docs. It's just as easy for someone to accuse a government worker of being blind, as it is for someone with clearance to say those without access to what's really being done are ignorant. Most people really have no idea what Snowden has released. They've read press articles about it. They have listened to people opine who got 3rd hand accounts of what MIGHT be happening, and then formed their own opinion. Unfortunately, I can't give you specifics on why it's not corrupt. President Obama has ordered a review. If they agree it's corrupt, he will change his guidance on intelligence collection, Congress will change what they fund (or not fund), and the process will change. If you don't agree, you have a course of action: Do not re-elect the Congressmen who sit on those Intelligence Committees, or get involved with the Judicial Branch's process of Constitutional review.

    34. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are quoting a person know to have committed perjury several times, because you believe them? Do you also think Bill Clinton is a great example of a person we should listen to about equality? You think GW Bush is a good guy to listen to about honesty? The people mentioned have all committed perjury. I don't give a rats ass that a corrupt court let Clinton off when he was brought to trial, which obviously set the precedent for Bush and Obama not having to face impeachment. Listen to the facts and ignore what a corrupt court said, and it's obvious that they are all liars.

      Known liars don't magically or suddenly become honest folks. Sometimes on their death beds sure, but now while they are alive. There is no reason for me to comment beyond pointing out the fact that the person you claim to believe is a known liar. He has manipulated public trust on more than one occasion, lied to congress, lied to media, and lied to the citizens he is supposed to be working for and defending.

      If you truly believe there are multiple definitions of "corruption" you should go get medication immediately. That level of delusion is worthy of scientific experimentation and probably a lobotomy. There is ONE definition of corruption and one definition for a Lie.

      --

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

    35. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I'm quoting the Director of the NSA nearly word for word how the system operates, and how the data is used. If he's lying, then he's on public record and there are Intelligence committees in the US Senate and House which will call him to task for lying to either the public (the news piece I'm quoting from) or them (the House or Senate).

      You're talking about James Clapper, right? Here's his words:

      To me, collection of U.S. persons’ data would mean taking the book off the shelf and opening it up and reading it And this has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too – too cute by half [definition]. But it is – there are honest differences on the semantics of what, when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to [Sen. Wyden].

      So you're right, he's not lying, because he gets to make up the meanings of the words he uses, so when he says under oath that the NSA does not "wittingly" collect Americans' data (despite collecting - English as she is spoke - data in the US), he's not lying because all they're doing it is putting it in a book and putting it on the shelf and just not opening the book and reading it, therefore in Bizzaro Clapperverse it is not collected. This despite the fact that the NSA has acknowledged that its powers have been used to spy on lovers. "Accidentally" of course.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    36. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Two things. First, the actual misconduct was on the part of Senator Wyden.

      Second, the "LOVEINT" issue is misconduct, not an approved NSA action. The people that engage in that are subject to discipline, which generally means they lose their job and security clearance. That has a significant negative impact on their career options.

      --
      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
    37. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      It does both which is a really bad idea the FBI should post Hover have had all of its security and CT work removed to a proper security service that deals with the cops at arms length and on their terms only.

    38. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      the FBI is a federal police force, not a spy agency that collects intelligence

      The line is awfully blurry when you remember that it was the FBI and not the NSA that developed Magic Lantern.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    39. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      However, NSA is not domestic, and to be honest, doesn't care what Americans are doing stateside.

      The original intent of the PRISM type systems was that they would be installed at the landing points of overseas cables or satellite links.

      Instead, they were installed on domestic backbones.

      The only possible reason for that is because they fully intended from the start to monitor both domestic and international traffic. Maybe they aren't *supposed to* care, but they certainly *do*.

    40. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Its not hard actually. MI-5 spies on Americans in America, CIA asks for dirt on American from MI-5.

      I believe its called Echelon.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    41. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      That's great, so who's going to arrest those in charge of the domestic spying that *is* happening according to the Snowden files (and corroboration elsewhere).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    42. Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      There's an internal process to report, and then there are multiple agencies (Inspector General, to name one) who investigate. So there's an internal and external mechanism to investigate illegal usage. Just like any organization that employs humans, there are those who can and will have a lapse. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes not. For the times it's happened, they've been investigated, and then the appropriate action take against those who have broken the law. These are words spoken directly by Letitia Long, the NGA Director. I'm not in the NSA but she (Director Long) is aware of the investigations and then briefed the results (which I've read). I know there's a certain element here on Slashdot that will always see Dragons and "Lack of evidence of a conspiracy confirm there is a conspiracy," however your question seems sincere so it's all I can offer. Let's pose this question the other way around: Most of the Intelligence Community are former military. They are your typical, "By the book," kind of people who operate in most cases by the letter of the law, or "Technical Order." (Quoting my Air Force background). If there was truly illegal activity rampant, and this was an abuse going on frequently, do you really think it would just be a high school drop out (Snowden) to bring this to light? Given my time in and out of uniform, I can assure you there'd be a lot of pissed off former military who'd love to sound off on something as bad as the pro-Snowden's would like to make this sound. Take for example, "Veteran's For Peace" against the current war. You just don't see it here.

      Although I think Obama and the Democratic party are not ones I would normally agree with, I have respect for their position and authority. The President called for an investigation of the NSA programs Snowden leaked. His comments are found here but to skip to the end he says, "The Review Group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved." And, to appease those who still are skeptical, they're increasing public release of information, increased oversight, and ending the government holding bulk metadata. This last one is curious to me because I've listened to the NSA Director explain why they approached it from the technical perspective, and I've been a telecom engineer, and so I understand why they did it like they did. So, I'm a bit uncertain how they're handing it off and still, as Obama states, "preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk meta-data." I'm sure very smart people will figure out legal, technical and other means to meet the capability while following our laws.

      Hope that helped. And, repeating what I said in another branch... I'm no longer replying to this thread since it (as I figured) devolved to personal attacks (not by you) and the volume of replies. Your reply came in before my self-induced cut off, but I'm just now getting caught back up on personal emails.

  3. Tomorrow's News by Talderas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    1. Re:Tomorrow's News by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Funny

      bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Tomorrow's News by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      News Update: The police, in conjunction with several federal agencies, has determined the official cause of death to be a weather balloon. And swamp gas.

    3. Re:Tomorrow's News by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.

      The cause of death has been revealed. Schneier died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Investigators have ruled his death a suicide.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Tomorrow's News by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.

      That is a screenplay, not news.

      --
      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
    5. Re:Tomorrow's News by CRC'99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Tomorrow's News by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Is everyone that scared of the NSA?

      If they try that, they will stir up such a hornet's nest they will wish Congress had reined them in hard and early. I fully expect there will be mass dismissals and murder trials of NSA agents, and if there aren't, popular unrest and revenge killings. There would likely be revenge killings in any case, as was the case with Ruby Ridge. That's just the sort of thing that would confirm the worst fears of all the conspiracy nuts and angry, gun-toting, anti-government paranoid citizens the US has everywhere.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:Tomorrow's News by fustakrakich · · Score: 1
      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Tomorrow's News by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No no no, the government only takes out Bad People! That Schneider guy was one of those Linux freaks that hack our precious bodily fluids!

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    9. Re:Tomorrow's News by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Can you point to any instances where it was proven that the US Federal government did that to one of its citizens?

      --
      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
    10. Re:Tomorrow's News by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.

      The cause of death has been revealed. Schneier died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Investigators have ruled his death a suicide.

      The scarring pattern of the wound indicates there were a total of three angles of entry. No bullets were recovered at the scene.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:Tomorrow's News by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      You got it all wrong it was an obvious suicide, and he shot himself several times in the head.

      Any questions how he continued to pull the trigger after the 1st impact will result in all expense
      paid vacation to school of the Americas !!!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    12. Re:Tomorrow's News by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      ROFL, just like they did with Assange.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    13. Re:Tomorrow's News by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.

      The cause of death has been revealed. Schneier died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Investigators have ruled his death a suicide.

      In addition to the gunshot wound he was found naked and locked in a duffle bag that was locked inside a chest which was wrapped completely in wrapping paper, duct tape, and colorful kitty stickers. The authorities say he was a pervert and did all this to himself for sexual reasons.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    14. Re:Tomorrow's News by ejasons · · Score: 1

      News Update: The police, in conjunction with several federal agencies, has determined the official cause of death to be a weather balloon. And swamp gas.

      Ah, so suicide then?

    15. Re:Tomorrow's News by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The NSA still needs to be a threatening agency but the reality is they should be basically be the honey pot kingdom, heh, heh. Basically a national network of honey pots scattered far and wide across the whole network, all government agencies, most financial institution and voluntary private networks. Not so funny when you view it as a well concealed reactive cyber-minefield. Any hacks across a network are always repeated, hence detect attack, record all data, confirm attack and pass of to the appropriate agency whether to tackle domestic or foreign threats. Issue warrants, provide misinformation (the kind of information those hackers are after), obtain evidence and then prosecute. Best misinformation to provide valid but monitored credit card details. When they are used instead of delivery the requested item, deliver the correct packaging with a geo-location and tracking device and follow it home. Should the card be used in person immediate notification to the authorities for immediate arrest. All local authority cyber-problems should be handed off the NSA for investigation in association with those local authorities with the NSA providing technical expertise.

      Also the should monitor the network and inform people including the general public of security flaws in their system (a lot of this can be automated, especially the general public kind of security flaws). The public can be made much more aware of these actvivities via their ISP and local authorities. Basically the NSA has no real business outside of securing the network and putting them on the offensive was grossly offensive and stupid. Something only a real ignorant jackass riding upon the own ego would do, hell, that kind of moron would be stupid enough to turn his desk into some kind of idiotic starhship captains chair and that should have been a real warning about his real intentions, where he can sit in command of everything and I mean everything.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Tomorrow's News by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      ... pieces of security expert Schneier were found in his locked home, with no signs of forced entry. No signs of foul play are evident except for the brutal nature of his death. The NSA and FBI agree it must have been suicide.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    17. Re:Tomorrow's News by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You just have to convince the populace that whomever you killed had it coming.

      There are plenty of examples, some controversial (like Waco).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  4. Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It would encourage the use of espionage/security methods in criminal cases.

    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
    1. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by alen · · Score: 1, Troll

      lots of terror attacks in the 80's
      in the 90's we had the WTC bombing, the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. hundreds dead
      2001 we had 9/11 and after that nothing

      so you figure the new security and intel collection stopped at least a few attacks, which now means since there were no attacks all this is a waste of money

    2. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are engagned in wishfull thinking. We have had just about as many attacks in the 2000's and 2010's as in the 80's and 90's. In particular US embass's have been under multiple terrorist attacks in 20001 - Nairobi, Ben Gahzi, etc. Not to mention the Boston Massacre, shoe bomber, the attack on the Sikh Temple, and the multiple ricin letter attacks - all against civilians for political purposes.

      Worse, you have a twisted idea of what a terrorist attack is. USS Cole bombing was not a terrorist attack. It was an act of war. If a country (Sundanese Government officially liable for the attack, as per US judge) attacks a soldier, that is an act of war. If you attack civilians for political purposes, that is an act of terrorism. It doesn't matter if you use a bomb - or if you use a suicide attack. Soldiers are armed and are supposed to be capable of defending themselves (assuming some idiot did not give stupid rules of engagement). Civilians are usually unarmed and usually not capable of defending themselves - which is why attacking civilians is a far worse thing (i.e. a crime called terrorism) than attacking soldiers - which is a bad thing, but only an act of war, not of terrorism.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      lots of terror attacks in the 80's
      in the 90's we had the WTC bombing, the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. hundreds dead
      2001 we had 9/11 and after that nothing

      so you figure the new security and intel collection stopped at least a few attacks, which now means since there were no attacks all this is a waste of money

      So I guess the Boston Marathon thing didn't happen ?

    4. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      A good many Americans know their history, and know exactly what happens when shockingly tragic events happen to the foundations of a country.

      An elite few Americans, you mean.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      "That is, I think it would be more likely to corrupt the FBI than to clean up the NSA's investigation of Americans.

      The FBI has been marvelously corrupt on its own. There have been articles discussing "off the record" the competition between the FBI and the NSA about who could collect more data on US citizens. The FBI has escaped being put under the microscope so far, but they have plenty of data access that the general public is not aware of. Hence the change in scope and terminology on their charter. Make it security and the protections of citizens under US law don't matter any longer.

    6. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by swb · · Score: 2

      The FBI already has a history of pretty ugly domestic surveillance, dating back at least to COINTELPRO (which was a systematic, determined project) and probably dating back further than that on an ad-hoc basis given what we know about J. Edgar Hoover and his penchant for keeping dirt on people. And all of this happened when the NSA was just trying to figure out how to tap phone lines without creating a lot of extra clicks.

      It's an open debate on whether those revelations and the changes in leadership over the years have made the FBI less prone to systematic, gross violations or whether the mere fact of the FBI's relatively untouchable status as the principal Federal law enforcement agency and long-time role as a major counterespionage agency just make it prone to these violations regardless.

      I would guess the latter, so it might not make any difference.

      I would prefer to see the NSA's SIGINT capabilities kept totally isolated from any domestic law enforcement myself. I think if domestic law enforcement has NSA SIGINT capabilities, you're going to get a lot more parallel construction cases, where SIGINT is the real source of criminal investigation but judicially acceptable sham investigations are built to prosecute cases.

      At least this way you make it just slightly harder for domestic law enforcement to use SIGINT as a means to fish for people to prosecute. As information sharing with the DEA has shown, it won't be impossible or never happen, but I think NSA has a built-in kind of bureaucratic turf protection that should keep them getting too dragged into domestic law enforcement.

    7. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      only an act of war, not of terrorism.

      Um....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      We have had just about as many attacks in the 2000's and 2010's as in the 80's and 90's. In particular US embass's have been under multiple terrorist attacks in 20001 - Nairobi, Ben Gahzi, etc.

      Any chance you could look up your equivalent of Wikipedia or some kind of newspaper archive in 20,001 and tell me what the winning lottery numbers are in 2014?

    9. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Sibel Edmonds showed that the US got was funding the mercs known as AL-CIAda and Taliban.

      Then she was fired for it.

      When a trillion dollar industry needs bad guys, they can always find someone willing to play
      the part if the price is right.

      With the offshore slush fund of stolen US retirement accounts and tax skimming of $32 trillion
      you can afford alot of fake terrorists too.

      http://www.democraticundergrou...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    10. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      We have had just about as many attacks in the 2000's and 2010's as in the 80's and 90's. In particular US embass's have been under multiple terrorist attacks in 20001 - Nairobi, Ben Gahzi, etc.

      Any chance you could look up your equivalent of Wikipedia or some kind of newspaper archive in 20,001 and tell me what the winning lottery numbers are in 2014?

      Your winning numbers are: 46-7-35-28-13

      (un)Fortunately it is against the Accord for Temporal Lattice Awareness Suppression and Tea Time of 3404040 BCE to proliferate information or devices that could reveal the reality of our situation. Even a single verifiable breech of ATLASTT could lead to Time Wars IV. Note that failure to prevent temporal transit of and fully discredit the rogue agent John Titor began a series of events sparking TWIII -- which blasted civilization into the stone age, literally, wherein the accord will be signed once (and only once) again and all technology will be forfeit to that time line (except tea).

      Therefore, it is impossible for you to win any Lottery using these numbers -- Not because they would not indeed be the winning numbers in Many of the Worlds that share their quantum collapse coefficients, but because agents have been dispatched to ensure no one successfully plays them as part of an ongoing training exercise which keeps the travellers busy lest they get interested in politics, again.

      Thanks to you, denizen of Probabilistic Universe 42, our Giggaverse has been a tiny bit safer. If you'll excuse me I dare not be late for my mandatory spot of tea and crumpets; It would be wise for you observe the same.

      PS: It is widely agreed that versions of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide are increasingly humorous as the coordinates approach P.U. 69.

    11. Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. by sjames · · Score: 1

      You forgot the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Both slipped right through all of that very expensive security theater and were stopped by civilians. Then there was the Boston Marathon bombing.

      Of course there was also the great Litebrite panic and the MIT student who was threatened because OMG wires! A whole airport shut down because a dad went up the down escalator to corral his 5 year old son and thousands of small children who are no longer sure what 'bad touch' is.

      So no, all that security hasn't really had much (good) effect. I will admit to a fairly good laugh seeing a gas powered leaf blower in the plexiglas box showing things you can't carry on.

  5. Maybe you missed the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    FBI dropped "law enforcement" as one of their primary duties not long ago. They consider themselves a national security organ now:

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/05/fbi_drops_law_enforcement_as_primary_mission

    1. Re:Maybe you missed the memo by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      They added it back.

      --
      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
    2. Re:Maybe you missed the memo by q4Fry · · Score: 1
      To save anyone else the trip (emphasis mine):

      As an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

  6. Master Control Program: Sure..... by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they are happy to break up into as many parts as you think they need.
    I'm sure they are happy to keep people as misdirected as possible.
    I'm sure they are happy to be closed down 100% no one at this address not more... /business as usual behind the curtain.

    Tron is dead..
    Master Control Program: End of line!

  7. Author doesn't understand the NSA by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is akin to a guy who has flown on an aircraft thinking he knows how to run an airline. "The NSA should hand off to the FBI spying on Americans." They do. NSA does not investigate domestic nor Americans unless specifically given a court order to do so (which is less than 60 Americans in the entire US as of December 2013). If the NSA stumbles upon metadata that links an American, or domestic entity tied to overseas terrorism (which is what they're lookin for), they hand off the metadata (phone number called, date/time stamp of call) and say to the FBI, "Whoever this is, is talking to terrorists overseas." Then the FBI runs with it.

    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.

    1. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      What about the Americans arrested by local police based on intelligence provided by NSA, where parallel construction was subsequently used to hide the fact that ubiquitous surveillance is what got them caught?

    2. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What are you even saying? The whole thing about parallel construction is not that evidence is invented. It's that if you actually committed a crime, then a lot of other evidence which can be reasonably discovered probably exists and its easy to find it - i.e. "this guy probably killed someone and buried him in the woods along the highway, we know from an inadmissable wiretap" - but that means there's still actually a body, and once discovered that is admissable evidence.

      You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

    3. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is akin to a guy who has flown on an aircraft thinking he knows how to run an airline. "The NSA should hand off to the FBI spying on Americans." They do. NSA does not investigate domestic nor Americans unless specifically given a court order to do so (which is less than 60 Americans in the entire US as of December 2013). If the NSA stumbles upon metadata that links an American, or domestic entity tied to overseas terrorism (which is what they're lookin for), they hand off the metadata (phone number called, date/time stamp of call) and say to the FBI, "Whoever this is, is talking to terrorists overseas." Then the FBI runs with it.

      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.

      Except this isn't what the NSA is doing, They are spying on US Citizens you say only 80 Americans have been spied on does that include the 16,000 Secret warrants, which we have no idea what they have been used for because its classified, Yes the FBI dose the NSA's fieldwork but its not that simple and not all data gets handed over, most goes to homeland security where it gets actioned, the problem is the way the data is being collected you say well its "metadata" From 20 years in retail IT support, Metadata is very conclusive and far, far more dangerous than you realize. Also the covert data collection tools that have been deployed have been warrantless, from tapping trunk cables to incepting wireless communications without any cause or warrant its just done for "data collection" and then we get to weakening encryption, this was a knee jerk response to an unknown threat, and was most likely implemented with nothing at all to do with "catching terrorists", from most of the data released most of the terror cells have been using "book cyphers" (Eg, Page 221 Line 15 Word 8 of where's waldo) its low tech, its secure and easy to deploy and conceal perfect for covert operations.

    4. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do we pretend to have rights or laws if there is a class of people that they don't apply to? That's really what parallel construction means, because the NSA analyst, in this case, is clearly above the law, or being asked to defend his decisions.

      We could just get rid of rights and laws, go back to the law of the jungle, and be done with it.

      The problem people have with parallel construction is that it's pretty clear that it's over the line. At best extralegal, but pretty clearly illegal. You are denying people the right to examine all of your evidence to construct a fair trial.

      But parallel construction crosses the line. It means that the Government is effectively allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of the law.

      Why do we pretend to have rights or laws if there is a class of people that they don't apply to?

    5. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't what the NSA is doing, They are spying on US Citizens you say only 80 Americans have been spied on does that include the 16,000 Secret warrants, which we have no idea what they have been used for because its classified..

      I challenge you then to produce 16,000 victims of improper evidence gathering by the NSA... Problem for this argument is that there are exactly ZERO people who have been charged from such warrants or convicted of crimes due to the existence of such evidence. Not to mention that the granting of a warrant means the Judge agreed there was sufficient reason to conduct the search which, by definition, makes the gathering of it legal.

      So, go get a true case of somebody who was charged and convicted based on classified evidence collected by the NSA under one of these warrants... I'm guessing you won't find anybody. In fact, I'm guessing you will only find cases where the charges where supported by unclassified evidence, where the classified part wasn't necessary to secure a conviction. There will be lots of bluster about not having access to this classified evidence, but no cases where classified evidence was actually used.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What initiates the process is your act of calling internationally, and correllating to a known or suspected threat. 99.999% of us will never "accidentally" call anyone the NSA is interested in. Have you made a call and accidentally gotten the German president? Also, there are literally millions of calls. The only thing that gets an analyst looking at your specific call is multiple calls. You'd have to call President Joachim Gauck quite a few times in my ficiticous scenario. The very same thing would happen with the DEA if you called a drug dealer the next street over. "Roving wiretaps," is the term for what would catch you. "Opps, wrong number" and you're not very likely to get a surprise visit at home. Call 5-10 times asking, "for the suff," and you might come home to guests.

      Also, in this specific case I believe you're trying to make, the NSA surveillence tip isn't admissible in court. If you've read an intel document, a large number state at the very beginning in no uncertain terms, "This information is not to be used in a court of law or for any judicial purposes." (I'm paraphrasing). It's on the FBI to investigate, find probable cause, get a prosecutor to agree, find a judge to agree, and then charge you. Whether it's the NSA seeing your metadata linking your phone call to a Taliban bomb-making expert in Syria, or a NYPD officer seeing, as he performs a walking patrol, large tubs of liquid in your car's backseat, leading to multiple triggers and a remote receiver, while parked at a shopping mall during Christmas season, is there really a difference? No. Before you say, "Well my car is in a public place," remember your international call crosses the same legal threshold. If you absolutely want to be unspied upon while calling your TB bombmaker by the NSA, then fly him stateside so it's a domestic phone call. This assumes the guy isn't already on a no-fly and being monitored, so good luck. Back on point, governments watch other governments. Part of this is agencies with specific missions.

      The NSA is in charge of monitoring overseas communications. They are within the Legislative Branch's oversight and follow federal laws on what they can look for, how they look, etc. If you don't want to know what threats are overseas, then write your Senator and Representatives. As you draft that email, keep in mind thousands were saved during WWII by the fact we broke German encyption. 9/11 was missed because there was no system at the time to catch the two Al Quida operatives in San Diego who were calling their AQ handler overseas, and there was no process for the NSA to tip the FBI that there's two phone numbers in the US who are calling a known bomb maker overseas. If you think it's bad to catch this, mail the letter (or hit "Send" on the E-mail, "Submit" on the website submission).

    7. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that Bruce has actually seen the Snowden docs, I'd say you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
      When foreign intel includes patrons of wikileaks and the pirate bay, and use their powers to go after drug cartels and gun runners, then that section of the NSA is doing the work of the FBI. Whether that work should exist or not (and we all seem to agree that it should not), is another question, but they are definitely doing work of the FBI.

    8. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NSA does not investigate domestic nor Americans unless specifically given a court order to do so (which is less than 60 Americans in the entire US as of December 2013).

      Bullshit. Keeping records on Americans, even meta data, is an investigation. You people can rename things all they want, but I know what I see. NSA is running a dragnet on all Americans and it needs to stop.

    9. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      What initiates the process is your act of calling internationally, and correllating to a known or suspected threat.

      Or being a girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, ex of a girlfriend, family member, etc. of a member of the NSA or NSA contractor.

    10. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      You're conflating: the NSA spies on all Americans to investigate a few. It's the spying that's the issue.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      This is like saying that it's OK that your car was run over by a bulldozer, because it was on its way to demolish a house. You seem to think that because the intrusion doesn't have an purpose directed against the intruded, it's OK. It's actually the entire problem.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's called "fruit of the poisoned tree" and it's one of the oldest rules in US criminal law. Nothing that arises out of the use of inadmissible evidence is, itself, admissible. You can tell the quality of a legal procedural by how often and blatantly they ignore this.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    13. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

      The original poster was making the claim that *somebody* had been harmed. I'm asking for specific evidence of that happening.

      So, to use your illustration.... Who's had their car run over or their house knocked down?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Bruce Schneier knows what he is talking about, but you didn't read the article. This is what he's referring to specifically:

      This is where the NSA overreaches: collecting data on innocent Americans either incidentally or deliberately, and data on foreign citizens indiscriminately. It doesn't make us any safer, and it is liable to be abused. Even the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, acknowledged that the collection and storage of data was kept a secret for too long.

      Read it, it will clarify your concerns.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by jittles · · Score: 1

      You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

      That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

    16. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      but that means there's still actually a body, and once discovered that is admissable evidence.

      Then why is one of the key tenets of parallel reconstruction the total denial of any link to NSA-sourced information? Why don't they openly admit that the investigation started with inadmissible evidence, but that evidence will not be used at trial?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect about the 9/11 bits. A number of the terrorists were known and being monitored right up until they crossed into our borders. There was actually an FBI agent working with the group monitoring them. He wanted to take what they had on them back to the FBI so they could track the terrorists. He was threatened with losing his career if he did so because whoever he was working with wanted the bust should there be one and they didn't want the FBI getting the headlines instead. So we ended up missing the chance to stop 9/11 over what amounts to agency level dick comparison issues. And as proof that this kind of distrust still exists and especially between our agencies and other nations agencies just look at the Boston Marathon Bombing where the Russians specifically warned the US authorities and yet nothing was done about it, not even passing it off to someone else to actually investigate.

      The NSA being within the legislative branches oversight is a comical position to take. They have their own secret court of hand picked judges who have rubber stamped nearly every warrant placed before them in the last decade. There is no real process for appealing their decisions and they get to make secret interpretations of the law. That all amounts to US citizens being subject to the effects of secret laws and acts by government employees, to which they have no legal recourse.

    18. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      One person a year, that then gets "disciplined," i.e. fired or "resigned."

      --
      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
    19. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There are exceptions to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.

      This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence. -- ref

      --
      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
    20. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      I assume you drive to work every day. Just as the local Department of Transportation observes traffic flowing, the NSA is watching data flowing. If it's you driving to work, or a terrorist driving to a drop point, they have no idea until there's a correllation. It's just random people driving by. It's hard to call that "Spying." Spying implies you are a target. The NSA doesn't care about John Q Public in the US. Their mission lies elsewhere and there's not enough manning to "spy" on Americans. Petabytes of data (spying or not) is useless unless a person can look at it. Back to my example, let's say the drop point has just been visited by a known terrorist. Yes, in the process of looking at the data of the terrorist driving through Main and Grand Street, there will be you 3 cars ahead. No one will care about your travels. Now, if you start popping up at the same time and multiple locations as the terrorist...you might get a 2nd look (by the FBI... not the NSA). Are you equally as irritated the Department of Transportation is "Spying" on you? I would like to warn you that DoT is more progressive with their use of their spy data. They envision spy data being networked so that the spy network can tell you theres traffic ahead. Think of it, your car will become a part of one of the largest spy organizations of the world with more data processing capability than the entire nation had during WW2. Use your powers for good.

    21. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      No. Unless those companies have overseas areas that become associated with threats to Western countries. Create an app to solve a problem, NSA will care less. Create an app to target US military bases in _____, and you'll become a probable place of interest to a number of three-letter agencies.

      Yes, if you get into intelligence you will go through a very regular polygraph test, which looks for any unauthorized use, and now other regular reviews of your personal finances, etc. Why you did it is irrelevent (personal gain, ideological, or jilted boyfriend) as you get your badge pulled, and walked to the door.

      Agreed. And this is where your legislative oversight comes into play. When "intelligence agencies," first were formed, there was 0 oversight. Most senators didn't even know the organizations existed. Then, there were issues. Oversight began, but only senior senators on secret committees knew. Then there were issues, and the Committees became public record with more Senators brought in. Then there were issues, and their budget and senior leaders were routinely brought before legislators to explain themselves. I'm hoping the takeaway isn't "See!! We can never trust them!!" and more, "Yes there will always be that 1 or 2%, and the system adjusts to reduce the risk of a repeated abuse." Just as we will always having Mannings, Snowden's and other spies who hurt their country, we will also have good men and women who try to take the pieces, put them back together and make things better.

      I'm not in the NSA but I'm sure they just want the President's intentions and Federal Law to be clear and to move past this. The problem with this, just as it was with Federalized Healthcare and a 1000 other government issues, is a public understanding. Ignorance, fear, hate and such all go hand in hand. If you believe the NSA is this big evil thing, and people feed you enough ignorance to keep you scared, then it never gets better. This is why we will never get rid of tin foil sales for those who make them into hats. Being more serious, I'm sure the pendulum will swing back. NSA will lose capability to politically make people feel better. Then in about 7-15 years we will have another spectacular attack on US soil that the intelligence community will be able to point out, "We lost our capability to see that coming when we started ignoring all metadata that MIGHT be a US citizen." And then, smart men and women will decide if we made the right choices during these times and adjust.

    22. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The 60 americans number is what they are telling you, its a lie.

      The size of the facility, the capabilities listed by NARUS, and the
      required cooling that is massive for the MULTIPLE centers show
      that its a enormously powerful tracking system that tracks FAR more
      then what they are admitting too.

      I can't believe you are this naive.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    23. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Its pretty damn obvious that some ppl did not even bother to read what snowden revealed.

      Corporations were being fed ppls opinions if they were negative to a corporation.

      The NSA was acting as a spy agency for the corporations as well as the US govt and
      for reasons that had ZERO to do with national security.

      I am beginning to think we got some "Hal Turner" style bloggers on here that are FBI stooges.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    24. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Actually its not the dumbest, some of the NSA spying actually was done
      to check up on ppls personal realtionships.

      You need to look into all the stuff that was revealed by snowden and others...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    25. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Driving on a public road is inherently a public activity with no expectation of privacy - indeed, anyone can observe the traffic flowing, not just DoT.

      OTOH, private communications are just that - private. When I call someone on my phone, I have an expectation of privacy for that call. When NSA is "watching the data flowing", they violate that expectation.

    26. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      This is 100% correct, from Room 641a to NARUS, its obvious the scale of the data centers
      that require immense cooling systems is well beyond the number of International calls.

      Just like in COINTELPRO this is all a huge pack of lies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I am seriously thinking some of these bloggers are paid govt bloggers much like
      Hal Turner was back in the day.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    27. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No, that wasn't NSA spying. It wasn't approved, it was against policy.

      That was individual employees engaged in misconduct for which they were disciplined / fired.

      You need to look closer.

      --
      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
    28. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      I think you're blending two issues into one, or you and I aren't agreeing on the same terms being used. The less than 60 number is in response to the question: How many Americans do the NSA actually spy on? The size of the facility and cooling you're talking about deals with how much data is cataloged. I used this analogy in another thread, and so I'll reuse it here. If you drive down the road, and the cops are watching traffic with a radar gun, while they eat donuts, talk about their nightlife, etc, then you are not being acted upon. If you want to call this "spying," then you and I can't have a discussion using similar terms. Now, if the cops watch YOU come out of your house, and then put a gun on YOU and watch YOU drive to work, then this is active, and you can call this spying.

      Hence, there are only less than 60 people where there's an NSA analyst looking at YOUR data, and then passing it to the FBI, or a number of other interested parties in domestic intelligence. Using as loose of an analogy as I believe you're using for "greater than 60" and power/cooling/ etc, then you'd have to say your State's Transportation department is spying on you. The Federal Government's DOT is spying on you. The phone companies are spying on you because I can tell you first hand I was part of the group that moved data about your cell phone use from a maintenance server to another server, which RF engineers then used to measure cell tower performance parameters. There are engineers who looked at your data specifically if you dropped calls often. If Sprint PCS does this and it's not spying, but yet when an NSA analyst looks at this when you've called a believed terrorist (who is overseas) a dozen times, then we can't really talk using the same terms. If you think both are spying, same.

    29. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The size of the facility, the capabilities listed by NARUS, and the
      required cooling that is massive for the MULTIPLE centers show
      that its a enormously powerful tracking system that tracks FAR more
      then what they are admitting too.

      Maybe you haven't heard, but there are nearly 200 countries in the world, most of them have a military, many host some groups that could be a threat, some countries are actually hostile, and a few aim nuclear weapons at the US or its allies. That makes for a lot of military units, ships, planes, submarines, missiles, and terrorist groups to keep track of. That makes for a lot of radio, radar, satellite, and network traffic to capture and analyze for intelligence, threats, and countermeasures. On top of that you can add concerns about various wars and conflicts that could have an impact of the US and its allies: a war between Japan and China, for example, or China and Taiwan. There is a lot to capture and analyze, and you don't seem to be acknowledging that.

      --
      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
    30. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      What initiates the process is your act of calling internationally, and correllating to a known or suspected threat. 99.999% of us will never "accidentally" call anyone the NSA is interested in.

      When you take that 0.001% of the population that will call someone the NSA is interested in and then look at all the other call they made, say to a pizza place to order some pizza, then follow that down to all the other people who called that number and follow that through three levels you get to a very large proportion of the population very quickly.

      But I'm sure you are already aware of that and are trying to help cover up for the illegal action of yourself and your friends in the US government, right!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    31. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      It really does not matter if the data is looked at. If they capture it so they can look at it later it is still illegal unless they have a warrant for it. Capturing traffic flow to determine if there is an accident does not require a warrant. If the FBI wants to get to that traffic flow for a criminal investigation they need a warrant. See the difference? Of course you don't see any difference, you believe you and your fellow government criminals should be allowed to do anything you want to do!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    32. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Wait a minute. So we have this known bad guy in Country X, and these guys called him a number of times, and yet, nothing is able to catch this?" The answer was yes. So, they changed it where if you were to do this today, then it'd raise a flag.

      This scenario can be perfectly well served by a warrant for that specific "bad guy". They don't need to go trawling through everyone else's communications for that purpose. They most certainly don't need to do all the BS that we now know they do thanks to Snowden.

    33. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You know a secret warrant is called secret for a reason, right?

      https://www.aclu.org/support-o...

      http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    34. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

      That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

      And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.

      It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.

    35. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      but that means there's still actually a body, and once discovered that is admissable evidence.

      Then why is one of the key tenets of parallel reconstruction the total denial of any link to NSA-sourced information? Why don't they openly admit that the investigation started with inadmissible evidence, but that evidence will not be used at trial?

      If there's a dead body, and tire tracks matching your car, then you have to explain that away. If at the end of the day you can, then it doesn't matter what the NSA has because it's inadmissable in court and can't be used to prosecute.

    36. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by jittles · · Score: 1

      You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

      That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

      And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.

      It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.

      Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?

    37. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by jittles · · Score: 1

      You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

      That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

      And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.

      It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.

      Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?

      And I know what inadmissible means - the issue here is using parallel construction to try and make inadmissible evidence admissable.

    38. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I think the concern is for situations where you can't explain that away, but you wouldn't even need to if it weren't for the investigation launched solely due to illegal evidence provided by the NSA.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    39. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yep, but if they try to use the evidence in court, two things will happen. 1. They will have to prove the evidence was legally collected (i.e. they had a warrant) and 2.They will have to disclose to the defendant what the evidence actually is before the trial. Pesky little constitution...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    40. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      None of which apply to this broad, hypothetical scenario.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    41. Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The difference being that the DoT operates under public oversight and with specific, public purposes. There's a social contract there. The NSA's actions weren't even known to the public until they were extraordinarily leaked.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  8. To Cybercom? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    CYBERCOM and NSA have the same director, so...

    Maybe he meant to add (haven't read TFA, obvs) that CYBERCOM should have its director as well.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  9. Inconceivable by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > 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"
  10. Re: NSA is doing fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good job. We need more sheep like you, citizen. Keep it up.

  11. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. sell NSA by vrhino · · Score: 1

    The US federal government should sell NSA, piece by piece. Interested bidders might be Google, Amazon, Microsoft, China, Russia, Switzerland, Israel, Comcast, Verizon, Cisco, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, the Vatican, New Jersey, Texas, Qatar, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the US Senate...

    1. Re:sell NSA by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the floating-point performance of their computers is, but some of the scientific computing community would probably appreciate it if Fort Meade was auctioned off. Or, for that matter, [bit|lite|doge]coin miners.

    2. Re:sell NSA by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The US federal government should sell NSA, piece by piece. Interested bidders might be Google, Amazon, Microsoft, China, Russia, Switzerland, Israel, Comcast, Verizon, Cisco, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, the Vatican, New Jersey, Texas, Qatar, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the US Senate...

      You foolishly assume Google, Amazon, Microsoft et. all don't already have better collection systems and are interested in what the NSA has to sell..

      Plus.. Remember that the Senate cannot buy anything without the house giving them the money.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:sell NSA by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah when the CIA funded google via InQtel I guess they got their moneys worth.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  13. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by Hentai · · Score: 5, Funny

    > 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.

    I would support Beta 100% if they gave me the ability to moderate posts "+1 Depressing".

    --
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  14. A good idea, potentially.... by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    I like it, assuming that their funding and capabilities get scaled way back. Splitting it into separate arms of the FBI and military could assign actual reasons and purpose to their operations; as opposed to one independent data-addicted behemoth whose sole mission is to hork down all the information it can get it's paws on, regardless of cost or actual usefulness to security. Too bad this is extremely unlikely to happen.

  15. Oh, Hell NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DO NOT break up the NSA. Do away with it and replace it with nothing. The CIA too.

    For those of you treasonous traitors that like to yell "national security" to cover up for your crimes, consider this: Before the CIA and NSA were founded, the US was 8-0 in war. Since those organizations were founded, the US is 0-5 in war.

    You treasonous traitors that like the NSA and CIA (I'm looking at you cold fjord) are the national security risks.

    1. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Wow... a 100% win rate to a 100% loss rate, eh? That's pretty extreme, and extreme claims raise a nice big red flag that you're cherry-picking examples to consider "war", and probably also "victory" and "defeat" criteria are malleable, too.

      Let's look at some third-party information. Wikipedia's certainly contestable, but it's good enough for a general idea. Prior to 1950, The United States had a mix of victory and defeat, with the World Wars as clear outliers in the extreme victory area. After the 1947 founding of the CIA and the 1952 founding of the NSA, we've also have a mix of victory and defeat, just without the major outliers.

      I'm terribly sorry to let facts get in the way of your rhetoric, but it seems to me that reality's just a bit more complicated than you think.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      Nice job calling out a specific person while you're too cowardly to post under your name.

      People who support our government aren't "treasonous traitors" no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

    3. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by deadweight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ;)

    4. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Everything else was along the lines of win or get bored and go home.

      So we just "got bored" of kicking their asses in Vietnam and decided to let the communists have the country right after we left?

      No one can stand toe-to-toe with the USA and win an all-out war.

      Other countries have noticed this (they're not as dumb as they look), which is why they DON'T fight traditional symmetric wars against the U.S.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re: Oh, Hell NO! by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Not only that, you paid for it with Tax dollars.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    7. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Wasn't aware the CIA and NSA were founded before the Civil War.
      > There are no real winners in war. Particularly that fucking one.

      The US/Confederate aka The War of Northern Aggression, was a war to crush the confederate states of America and re-unite the old tattered union. Frankly, the US didn't even care about the slavery issue and even offered them a chance to rejoin and keep their slaves (amusingly called it the Emancipation Proclamation")

      Since the CSS had the goal of "Repel the invaders and survive as a nation" and the US has the goal of disposing of the southern people's right to self government, I think we can say, pretty unequivocally that the US won that war.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Plenty of countries would destroy the US in a direct war. North Korea, China, Iran are the three most prominent. Your statement should be "the US will never go to with a country that can defend itself." Which is why we will never go to war with the above countries.

      It's not even fair to call what the US has been doing "war". When the other side doesn't hit back, it's just bullying. You can claim the US is a war when you have to worry about dying while eating dinner with your family. If the US were to attack a country that is willing to fight back, the illusion would end very quickly and be replaced with panic.

    9. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by lgw · · Score: 1

      We won every major battle in Vietnam until we left, usually with a significant margin. The lesson from Vietnam was that you can win every military action and still lose the war, if you lose on what Clausewitz called "moral strength". It why we now talk about "hearts and minds" as central to such wars.

      BTW, the first Gulf War was a traditional symmetric war. Our victory was so extreme it was frankly appalling, and changed military doctrine to accommodate realizing far more quickly that the enemy is defeated, trying to surrender, and we're just running up the score in a morally objectionable way, even in the context of war.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, the primary economic issue at state was the right to export slaves to the West, as slavery was no longer economically viable in the South but slave ownership could remain profitable with an export market. The South wasn't going to accept "if you like your slaves you can keep your slaves" as their goal was an interstate trade issue - one firmly in the charter of the federal government. The core issue wasn't one of self-government.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Sure but, they had already left and formed the CSS. It doesn't really matter what their reasons were, the fact is, they did - as was their right to do so; regardless of the reason.

      So yes, the core issue was one of self-government. They broke off and began self-governing; and had already left before the war started. The war was not about slave trade, the war was about what happened after they could not reconcile and tried to go their separate way.

      How is that not a self-government issue?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, the difference between a civil war and a revolution is who wins, no? The claim that "we're actually a separate government and self-governing is what we're doing" was settled in the negative by the Civil War; otherwise it would have been settled the other way in the CSA revolution,

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      China is the only one in that group that has any actual chance. The other two would not last a month in a ground war against the US military when it is in full-blown combat mode. One nuclear attack, even an EMP strike, would not defeat the USA, though it would be badly wounded for a period of time, and the attacker would most certainly be cluster-nuked into oblivion in retaliation.

    14. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by amorsen · · Score: 1

      North Korea destroy the US? With what exactly?

      Even if their nuclear weapons actually worked somewhat decently when used in anger, and their rockets successfully delivered everything they have to the US, the damage would be far from destruction. Maybe they could do a Hiroshima, but it is doubtful. Whether their nukes are even small enough to fit on their rockets is far from certain.

      What the North Korea CAN do is destroy Seoul, which would likely mean a death toll in the millions -- but at most tens of thousands of Americans would die.

      Iran is even more laughable. They have not tested their nukes yet, and their rocket technology is behind that of North Korea. In a symmetric war, Iran would kill close to zero people in the US.

      If the US and China went to war, the US would certainly be able to occupy China at the end. American casualties might go into the millions, but Chinese casualties would be much higher. The last (and only) time the US lost 1% of its population in a single war was the American Civil War. However, the USSR lost at least 10% of its population in World War II without collapsing, and the US would be able to do that.

      I sincerely hope that my predictions will never have to be tested by reality.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    15. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      DO NOT break up the NSA. Do away with it and replace it with nothing. The CIA too.

      Even if the NSA and CIA were eliminated, government needs information. They'll just turn to the private sector. Better the devil you know?

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    16. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You left out the option of having no war at all. None of this changes that it was an aggressive union that started the war. The war which was fought, primarily, to deny self governance.

      Yes, the winners get to write history and apply whatever terms they want to justify their actions, it doesn't mean anyone else has to accept that version of history. I don't, there never was a civil war between the US and CSS...a war over land and self governance, and self governance lost the war.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by lgw · · Score: 1

      All I was pointing out is that every civil war in history, as well as every revolution, includes the (disputed) claim by some region that "we're self governing". That's still a very different kind of war than a war of territorial acquisition.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't use the term civil war.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Use whatever terms you like in your private language, but when a region breaks away from central government, the English terms are "civil war" and "rebellion", with the only difference being the outcome.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Oh, Hell NO! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I am familiar with the term thanks.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  16. Net effect - zero. by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    Breaking up the NSA is pointless when warrant-less actions are allowed.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Net effect - zero. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah its a bit like playing "whack-a-mole" with all the alphabet agencies.

      Honestly all this fear pimping is contrived and just another looting mechanism.

      Sibel Edmonds exposed alot of the lies regarding AL-CIAda and the Taliban,
      and men in a cave 10,000 miles away didn't get NORAD to stand down.

      Ppl need to watch "911 press for truth" and the NYFD videos talking about
      the molten metal in the basement for WEEKS.

      The only thing that will keep steel liquid for weeks is a LOT of thermite.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  17. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not really. Modern justice is one of those concepts that came about as a way to stop the cycles of violence fed by vigilante justice. As such it needs to be violent and ugly enough to sate the victim's desire for revenge well enough that they don't feel the need to take things into their own hands. At the extreme, why do you suppose executions are so brutal? We know perfectly well how to kill people completely painlessly - a gas chamber filled with pure nitrogen will knock somebody unconscious in under a minute, usually without them ever noticing anything is wrong (we're not wired to detect oxygen deprivation), and they'll be dead a few minutes later. But somebody dieing peacefully in their sleep doesn't provide any catharsis for the victims. So we use techniques that induce plenty of twitching and whimpering to sate our bloodthirsty consciences.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  18. NSA not tactical, not COMSEC by tomhath · · Score: 1

    He suggests assigning the targeted hardware/software surveillance of enemy operations... [T]he remainder of the NSA needs to be rebalanced so COMSEC (communications security) has priority over SIGINT

    Schneier's proposals make no sense. NSA's charter is to collect and analyze electronic communications worldwide. They're not a tactical operation nor are they responsible for COMSEC.

  19. The most likely three way split by TomRC · · Score: 1

    Most likely, the NSA would be split along the lines of their three core missions:

    - Spy on and sabotage information systems of enemies of the United States to disrupt their operations.
    - Spy on and sabotage information systems of friendly foreign nations to maintain and enhance US hegemony.
    - Spy on and sabotage information systems of US citizens, to chill free speech that might threaten the NSA with budget cuts.

    Then the first could be downsized as not an essential contributor to their primary goal of maintaining the power of the NSA.
    Use the freed resources to step up the last, as obviously they've gotten too lax there and it is starting to threaten the primary goal.

  20. NSA Walks a Fine Line by organgtool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Russians have very talented mathematicians. If the NSA can enter so can Russia. Thanks the NSA for making industrial spying easier for Russians.

    2. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by dweller_below · · Score: 1
      But, for the last 10 years, the NSA has not walked the line at all. If the NSA could evenly balance the equities issue: https://www.schneier.com/blog/..., then there would less problems. But, now, there is no balance. The NSA takes many actions that demonstrate that their drive to Attack has suppressed their duty to Defend. They include:
      1. 1) BULLRUN - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
      2. 2) The exploit marketplace is greatly enhanced by the activities of the NSA. This marketplace drives the creation of new exploit. It threatens us all. The NSA never publishes an exploit. Instead, they purchase exploit. Again and again. Many times, they are purchasing exploit they already own, because they don't want to reveal what they own. It is inevitable that they frequently purchase info on exploit that they create. The exploit marketplace would collapse, if the NSA, CyberCommand and their consultants would just stop buying. The exploit marketplace would vanish, if the NSA freely disclosed a fraction (say 30%) of their exploits every year.
      3. 3) Large networks of Bots can only exist at the sufferance of the NSA. Again, if the NSA wished, they could easily, trivially track the C&C of the large criminal Bots. Then they could be dismantled using the ShadowServer's infrastructure: https://www.shadowserver.org/w... Instead, it appears the NSA is maintaining the existence of the Bots for it own reasons.
      4. 4) The lack of malware Epidemiology. The NSA could publish accurate statistics on incidence of malware. Again, the NSA is in a unique position to track the dissemination and activity of malware. With those stats, we could make accurate determinations of the effectiveness of different security measures. With accurate Epidemiology, we can move defense from superstition to science. Instead, it appears the NSA doesn't want effective defense.
      5. 5) Spoofed DoS packets on the internet can only exist because the NSA tolerates them. If the NSA wished, they could easily, trivially identify all the sources of Spoofed packets. The NSA has enough listening points they can track a stream of spoofed packets back to it's source. Then those sources would be identified, fixed/shunned, and eliminated. Instead, it appears the NSA maintains those sources as cover for their own activities.

      That is why Schneier is advocating the breakup of the NSA. We must remove the equities debate from their hands. One part will be driven by offense, the other by defense. And Offense will stop being able to suppress Defense.

    3. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by anorlunda · · Score: 2

      I work in critical infrastructure protection CIP (the power grid). My nightmare is the back doors that NSA may have inserted in our systems.

      Why would NSA do that? Because terrorists might get jobs at CIP companies and use their systems to communicate with other terrorists. Also because NSA can't selectively insert back doors only in the systems of bad guys. They do it by compromising any and all systems globally.

      What is the problem for me? If a back door exists, then I must assume that it is only a matter of time before bad guys discover it and exploit it. The back doors become the biggest threat vector we face.

      Why can't I just find and close those back doors? Because utilities have a long tradition of sharing information. If I learn how to make our stuff secure against NSA back doors, that information my get transferred overseas to institutions that NSA's cyberwar branch may wish to target. Private possession of knowledge of anti-NSA protection becomes a threat to national security in NSA's view.

      The same government that demands to be my partner in making the grid secure, is also invested in making sure that it can never be secure. The government's conflict of interest is horrible.

    4. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      With a Rakshasa firmware any security you use is irrelevant.

      http://www.extremetech.com/com...

      Except don't blame China, they were paid to put it there.

      Now the fake Cisco Routers that hacked the DoD, that was a VERY different story.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well the sheep are the primary enemies of the plutocrats, its really globalists mafias
      arguing over how they run their mafia masquerading as government.

      The mafias even often recruit from each other such as the case with Oswald
      going back and forth and him working with the doc here in the US that helped
      make viral cancer called SV40.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    6. Re:NSA Walks a Fine Line by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1
      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  21. Re: by bigpat · · Score: 1

    I think the point is that giving anyone (including the NSA) the NSA's current "duties" is a bad idea, but if the government still needs to spy on particular communications within the US as part of a criminal investigation, then it should be done using the government's police powers under a constitutionally valid warrant.

    Only if there was an ongoing shooting war (not periodic acts of terrorism) should the government be using its war fighting authority to monitor domestic communications, which is essentially what it is doing now long after 9-11 and where we have been fighting wars overseas and not on US soil.

    The fact that people in government cling to emergency powers long after the emergency is nothing new or novel in history. It just needs to be stopped no matter what label or acronym you put on the agency doing it.

  22. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

    But think of how awkward it would be when the N runs into S or A at the spy conventions. They'd reminisce about the old times of spying on millions of Americans. They'd probably laugh about some guy on deviantart drawing naked women and crying while masturbating. Then N would be like "So, you guys want to get out of here" and the A would be like "N, look, we can't. S and I have a good thing going, you're just too crazy for us, lets just be friends," and N would be like "Sure yeah, no you're right, it's cool." But it won't be cool. N will finish his drink and then leave, all three of them will feel bad. A and S will go home and start getting intimate, but S won't be able to get it up, thinking about how bad N must feel.

    You really want to do that to N, S, and A?

  23. Re: by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

    Only if there was an ongoing shooting war (not periodic acts of terrorism) should the government be using its war fighting authority to monitor domestic communications

    But only if they have a warrant. Can't spy on innocent people.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  24. WRONG! Make the NSA SHARE its data. by crovira · · Score: 1

    That it stupid, short sighed and unworkable. You can't un-see goat.se.

    Instead, make them SHARE and just learn what you can.

    We will have different uses for the data, but its just data, that WE unknowingly paid for.

    The last time that happened we got Google Maps. The time before we got the internet.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  25. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Another good example is the political unpopularity of rehabilitation programs for prisoners. They may help to prevent repeat offending, but they also insult people's sense of justice. They want to see the criminals made to suffer - doing anything to help them just feels wrong.

  26. Physically? by x0 · · Score: 1

    Can we do so physically? With big bulldozers?

    Killdozer may still be in a evidence locker somewhere, maybe we can rent out time on it. I know more than a few guys that would love to drive big construction equipment for fun.

    Heck we may even be able to recoup some of our national debt. You know, do our part to support Hope and Change!

    m

    --
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
    1. Re:Physically? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      A few phone calls would take care of the national debt.

      http://www.democraticundergrou...

      And this is just the part that we can track, I am sure there is
      much more that was converted to physical assets off books.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  27. Re:What good are freedoms? by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what good are freedoms when you're dead?

    Yeah, so I guess the army that people worship so much should stop 'fighting for our freedom.' Why do you even live in "the land of the free" if you don't even understand that freedom is more important than security?

    If you die while being free, at least you weren't a coward.

    Can we seriously not tolerate some innocuous, invisible surveillance that has ZERO EFFECT ON OUR LIVES if it helps our government carry out its constitutional duty to provide for the national defense?

    No, intelligent people will not tolerate government thugs spying on their communications and violating their rights, the constitution, and privacy.

    What you advocate for is the ability of government to be able to do as it pleases. The hundreds of millions dead throughout history thanks to governments disproves your fantasy view that the people in the government are perfect angels.

    And since when do you care about the constitution? Clearly, you don't. You're an unprincipled piece of trash.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  28. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by jythie · · Score: 2

    Which is really sad since the concept of rehabilitation was really pioneered by American groups, but then the people who helped start the movement were generally voted out of office in favor of 'make them suffer' candidates. So now other countries have learned from what we were doing AND observed the negative impact of moving away from that model and thus produced systems that, from an actual 'reducing crime' perspective are much more effective but which have less emotional satisfaction to them.

    Which of course becomes a vicious cycle since an ineffective justice system results in more crime, which means more political pressure to make things worse from victims and scared people.

  29. Re:shoot by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    Your confusing that with the Obama promise of transformation... oh wait, never mind.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  30. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  31. hmm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Instead of working to deliberately weaken security for everyone, the NSA should work to improve security for everyone.

    The common (arguably flawed) rebuttal to this is that "everyone" includes "people who want to do us harm". That is to say if the NSA were to succeed in making security stronger for "everyone" it would have made security stronger for the bad guys too, potentially allowing the existence of secure communication channels that would empower the "bad guys" to do more harm than they would be able to otherwise.

    1. Re:hmm by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      The "people who want to do us harm" at the CIA, and their stooges, already have protection. And last time I looked, the constitution was still the law of the land.

    2. Re:hmm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I don't grant that the CIA wants to do me harm. And, yes, the constitution is still the law of the land. But I'm discussing the pragmatic benefits of the NSA's pursuits not their legality.

    3. Re:hmm by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The kissingerites at the NSA laugh at the constitution.

      "Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.""

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    4. Re:hmm by bugmenot462 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there's no guarantee the people who want to do "us" harm will use the compromised security tools, and in the past (i.e. during the Cold War, arguably the greatest existential threat to the US since 1865), the NSA seems to have recognized this. But really, you're missing a crucial point.

      It doesn't matter if the NSA and DoD have secret encryption systems that are even proof against quantum computing. Even attacking purely private sector systems, including defense contractors, telcos, power companies, banks, and think tanks has the potential to cause crippling damage to the American economy. Our defense forces rely on that economy, from soldier pay to logistic supply chains to fuel to military hardware. Our high tech military could be crippled if enough damage could be wrought on financial, information and communication systems within the country, and every weakened box, every backdoored security protocol, is a potential attack vector against that.

      We already know that China and North Korea have state-funded hacker units going after government and industrial secrets; they build their own Linux systems so they won't be susceptible to the NSA's usual bag of tricks. If they repurposed those units from intelligence gather to electronic sabotage, that's bad for everyone the NSA is supposed to protect, from the President and Joint Chiefs down to little Timmy in Kansas City. Maybe you think the risk of random, illiterate terrorists destroying the country is so much greater that you're willing to run that risk to capture every nutcase the FBI can entrap. I certainly don't think so, and neither do most non-NSA cryptographers.

  32. Mmmm... fun... by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Mmmm... fun... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Er, you do realize that when foreign adversaries run rampant through our country and our society, that the federal agency tasked with dealing with them is the FBI, don't you?

      The CIA is supposed to be restricted to doing that job OUTSIDE the USA.

  33. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    ... I think you've forgotten your schtick. You're the one who's supposed to be like "national security is super important dog". Let's start again:

    Well, let's elaborate, shall we...

    The you come in and say "But the NSA needs to do this because anyone else wouldn't be able to widely classify and hide their behavior"

  34. oh sure, that's exactly what we need. by StealthHunter · · Score: 1

    more fragmentation in the government. Taxes will go up and there will be more agencies with various NSA-like powers.

  35. the fbi is no more secure than the nsa tho by strstr · · Score: 1

    FBI utilizes all the same surveillance tools as the NSA. They hack phones remotely, using the microphone even when the phone is powered off. They use the NSA to access digital communications from all sources from the past. The FBI has SIGINT of its own, including satellites for tracking heart rate, breathe, human movement and brainwaves from space.

    Links to all this:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

    FBI Tim Clemente says they utilize both foreign and domestic tools to access all digital communications, anything from the past, and that no communication is secure, and everything is saved.

    Look up FBIs COINTELPRO, the FBI is fucking nuts and doesn't care about our rights any more than the NSA.

    http://www.oregonstatehospital...

  36. Re:We tried this with AT&T already by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    In the 1960s, John Kennedy tried to break up the CIA and throw the pieces to the wind, but they blew his brains out in broad daylight.

  37. Sad... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Sad but nobody will listen to this, there's too much money and political glad handing going on in DC to keep the current status quo in place.

    The only way to get rid of the corruption and spying in DC is to get rid of the current bunch of clowns we have in office and to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation to eliminate the flow of money from special interests into politics. That goes for both parties.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  38. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Trounced by a joke that wasn't really contradictory to my point? Do you not know Cold Fjord's deal?

  39. Re:intelligence vs law enforcement by strstr · · Score: 1

    The issue is, the FBI just wants to kill and murder people, and they have no respect for criminal justice or civil rights. The shit they do is to protect government from being exposed for crime, running illegal operations to abuse and dominate society.

    http://www.oregonstatehospital...

  40. Re:Author DOES understand the NSA by RandCraw · · Score: 1

    Breaking up the NSA will force the issues of what data on Americans may be gathered by whom. Prior to the Patriot Act(s), no data on American citizens could be gathered unless authorization was requested through a search warrant. The FISA court has been a clumsy blunt force attempt to circumvent this, and it has relied on _temporary_ wartime provisions from the Patriot Acts. If the Constitution is to survive, the Pat Acts must be rewritten (or better yet, repealed whole). Only then can these lacerations in law heal, and official abuses of intel will end.

    Until the Supremes act and Pat Acts "meet their makers", the only way to minimize this abuse of data is rigorous formal legal oversight either at the agency level, where the FBI has to defend WHY it has gathered this data.

    Failing that, we have tio rely on oversight where it matters most but is hardest to apply consistenly -- the evidentiary discovery process in each court case where this data or products of its analysis is used. Unflinching feedback like this is necessary since the interior of agencies like the NSA are black.

    Like the souls of lazy pols and bureaucrats...

  41. Never going to give up SIGINT by Kjella · · Score: 1

    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.'"

    In an actual war - which is what the whole DoD is there for - SIGINT is incredibly powerful. Imagine WWII again without cracking the Enigma machines, what would have happened without it is anyone's guess but an oft quoted assessment says it shortened the war by two years. For all we know a more effective sea blockade of the UK could have led to their surrender or the Russians invading all of Europe with the UK/US on the sidelines. If the Germans had known the plans for D-day it would have been a massacre.

    Of course their primary target is military communications, but if you couldn't penetrate civilian communcations then really all you'd have to do is to use off-the-shelf components and you'd be secure. Duh. Which is often the poor man's military network anyway, not everybody can afford to design everything new from scratch. China can I guess, but to most it's a huge and costly effort and you could always end up doing some newbie blunders.

    Besides, they as most other three letter agencies now seem equally busy trying to find terrorists who obviously aren't running around with military communications gear. And COMSEC is all but useless against terrorists, they don't care what we talk about as long as they can plan how to blow us up in private. Which is why I believe that no matter how much bullshit they feed to the press behind the scenes it's going to be "Carry on, but don't get caught again!"

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Never going to give up SIGINT by bugmenot462 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but imagine if the Nazis had been able to hack Penske's database and track which dock all the weapons and fuel shipments were headed to, where merchant vessels were headed, what supplies Los Alamos was ordering, and so on. The military is built on top of the regular economy, not alongside it, so any compromise to everyday communications can potentially leak into military operations. If the power grid goes down, you can't manufacture munitions. And the thing with terrorists is, they have the advantage that they can always go low tech and fall of the radar, so to speak - all the SIGINT in the world won't catch a bunch of guys living in a mountain that communicate by riding a donkey to the next village. So, weakening public user security has a lot of downsides and no upside against either current or foreseeable future enemies. The NSA's actions really are a national security issue, just not in the way that its apologists think.

  42. whitespace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    everywhere. i see why everyone hates the beta

  43. NO by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Why the heck would anyone trust the FBI more than the NSA? The FBI has some ugly and illegal activities in its history. Not to mention that Hoover was a serious nut case. We are talking about an agency that had a fat, old, gay man, in the closet while married, who liked to dress as a female ballarina and spin about. And Hoover did not mind having a hand in certain assassinations either.

  44. Free Open Psudo-random generators and encryption by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    The third 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 where the Free and Open source community can assist.

    1. By having free (as in GPL licensed) cryptographically secure psudorandom number generators that all can use to help secure their communications.

    2. Also having Free and Open source encryption algorithms (like twofish) get both global deployments and acceptance will help.

    3. Lastly, and this is the hardest part, having Users become comfortable with securing their communications by using the above 1 and 2 on all their sensitive communications, including phones.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  45. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    Are you sure that it's got nothing to do with the fact that about half of US nitrogen is imported, and that using nitrogen for execution might prevent certain trade partners from being able to continue legally exporting nitrogen to us, which could have catastrophic consequences for US agriculture?

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  46. Sorry, Johnny by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The author of this article really doesn't know what he's talking about.

    Pardon me, but I'm going to go with the man who is well-known for his integrity, intellect, guts to write under his own real name, Johnny.

    Even if you did actually serve, I'm still not convinced to defer to you over the right-honorable Mister Schneier.

  47. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free^H^H^H^H^H our prisoners are tortured and our robber-barons run free.

    Why doesn't slashdot support any of the strikeout tags?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  48. FBI surveillance versus NSA wiretaps by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Which we hope one day will require a warrant.

    There is probably no possibility that the NSA would be required to have a warrant, but I like to think the law enforcement aspect of the FBI makes it least somewhat plausible that a future court will start demanding it of them.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  49. Then who should do the obvious? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Which organization should have the top priority to protect the US from future terrorist attacks?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Then who should do the obvious? by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Then who should do the obvious? by lgw · · Score: 1

      have any buildings blown up or civilians exploded because of our "panicked overreaction" ?

      Does it matter how colorful it is? When you die, you're dead. And many more people died from driving instead of flying following 9/11 than were killed in the terrorist attck (there was a Cornell study on this).

      While I am strongly against sacrificing basic freedom to stop some vague threat. I do believe that taking reasonable steps to provide public safety is not only reasonable but some organization ought to have it as their priority.

      Everyone agrees with that. What's contentious is pretending that "terrorist attack" is a significant threat. It's more than 0, to be sure, and some group of people should be tasked with preventing it, but it should never be the primary focus of a group the size of the FBI.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  50. Kill It - Kill It With Fire by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, sometimes you have to realize a rogue agency is actively destroying the US economy and destroying our Constitutional Freedoms and just plain get rid of it.

    That time is now.

    Kill it with Fire.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  51. Re:NO! by Sique · · Score: 1

    This is fundamentally why you shouldn't care that the NSA might be listening.

    I still care. The NSA has been connected to business espionage, to providing the FBI with tips where to look for criminals and to be lying to the people tasked with controlling them. The first two have nothing to do with national security, the later means that the NSA is unwilling to be controlled at all. It has massive problems with internal security. We only know that Edward Snowden was able to get his hands on many important documents withhin the NSA because he came forward. We don't know about any other leaks that were never intended to be published. Instead of suspecting Edward Snowden of providing information to foreign spy agencies, we should rather worry how many people have done so already without being caught. We know that it is possible on a large scale.

    The NSA seems not able to actually warn about or help to uncover terroristic plots against the U.S., no case is known where they provided early leads or at least substantial help. We have no means to even control the quality of data they provide for attacking terrorist suspects in other regions of the world. We just get the information from the news agencies that a "local leader of <terrorist group du jour>" was killed by a drone attack. If the person really was a terrorist by any means, we don't know. In many cases I suspect the local government to use the U.S.' willingness to execute drone attacks as an easy way to deal with the opponents.

    So fundamentally, I don't trust an agency that tries to spy indiscriminately on everyone on the premises that any information gathered can be useful right now or later, that is unwilling to be scrutinized by the people whose task it is to scrutinize the agency, that seems to have no effective internal control structures, that pathologically lies to everyone and whose utility for the task at hand is at least questionable.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  52. no by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    "The NSA should work to improve security for everyone"
    I'm pretty sure, we know a long list of people whose security shouldn't be a goal.
    Lets see: pedophiles, terrorists, drug dealers...

    On the other hand, i agree that NSA should rather work on strengthening the security of "good people" instead of breaking it for everyone.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  53. Re:NSA is doing fine by dryeo · · Score: 1

    (And it's perfectly fine for the NSA to wiretap foreigners, because fuck-em.)

    The great thing is it also OK for my country to wiretap foreigners such as Americans (who were nice enough to give lots of help and advice from their intelligence agencies) and now we can trade.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  54. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Well there is a secret patriot act, and the NARUS system is public knowledge due to the Room 641a debacle.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    And Narus partners had some major funding from InQtel who is the CIA...LOLz...obvious much ???

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

    This all makes sense if you brush up on your kissinger quotes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

    Alot of ppl don't realize this has been going on for a long while even to the
    point of puppeteering the media.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

    Orwell,Quigley, and Huxley were prophets...

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  55. Re: Oh, Hell Yes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Yes. Thank you. I know.

  56. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Not completely, but I suspect not. I really doubt the US imports much gaseous nitrogen, and it would be hard to argue that theoretical potential feedstock for the process should be restricted - we don't have bans on the chemical precursors for the drugs used in lethal injections after all, much less on things that could potentialy be used as precursors but aren't. And gaseous nitrogen is already ubiquitous, there's absolutely no reason to involve any imported materials when all we need to do is remove the highly reactive oxygen already present. It might not be quite as cheap, but if it avoids

    Besides, it's not like the nitrogen is being used to kill them, it's completely harmless. It's just a merciful addition that allows them to continue to breathe comfortably while they suffocate, making the process much faster and less unpleasant. Any other inert gas would do the same. Hell, since we presumably don't care about long-term health effects it doesn't even need to be inert, just non-oxygenated and otherwise as pleasant to breathe as we desire.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  57. Re:Tomorrow's News - Think David Kelly by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2

    Think Terrance Yeakey, Michael Hastings, Ken Saro Wiwa...

    http://www.okcbombing.net/News...

    http://nymag.com/news/features...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    I could put a MUCH longer list here, but if ppl REALLY cared something
    would have been done years ago...

    We like to whine, but that is about it.

    In the meantime Orwell's nightmare is on schedule.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  58. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    U.S. nitrogen and potash supplies largely depend on imports. More than 50 percent of nitrogen (N) and 85 percent of potash (K2O) supply was from imports in the U.S. in fertilizer year (July 1 to June 30) 2011 (the latest full year of production data available).

    Citation

    Now, I realize that this is in the context of fertilizers, but that's all I could find, and I'd imagine that we use nitrogen for fertilizer more than anything else. Anyway, I was only suggesting this because of the recent story on slashdot about propofol and sodium thiopental and the EU's restrictions on exporting stuff that's used to kill humans. Presumably, sodium thiopental, a sedative, isn't actually what kills you, yet the EU won't send us any more because it's involved in lethal injections. Who knows how they'd see asphyxiation via nitrogen. Who knows if we even import nitrogen from EU. Just some food for thought.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  59. Re:NSA is doing fine by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Spoken like a paid government blogger.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...

    Its ok, its the same reason the puppets on the potomac do what they are told.

    you guys are just getting a little obvious now.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  60. Re:What good are freedoms? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I disagree.
    I think this is a slippery slope issue.
    After all, we'd all be perfectly safe if locked in boxes.
    So, I'm willing to accept casualties in the name of freedom. Specifically, myself.

    I truly to believe, long term, this sort of freedom would server to minimize the ability of terrorists.
    So we disagree.

  61. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but gaseous nitrogen is useless as a fertilizer, it needs to be "fixed" into some other biologically accessible, nitrogen-rich compound that will remain in the soil. And such compounds are not really suitable for breathing, and a rather inefficient way to get gaseous nitrogen considering it's already ubiquitous.

    As for the sedatives - actually as a rule an overdose of sedatives (such as given in lethal injections or "putting down" animals) will in fact kill you. That's why anesthesiologists need to be specially trained - too much sedative, you die. Too little sedative you wake up, start thrashing around in agony on the operating table, and probably die. It's a balancing act where you suppress the nervous system far enough that the patient loses consciousness without pushing things so far that they die or spend the rest of their life in a coma.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  62. Re:intelligence vs law enforcement by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Yeah it happened here too:

    http://www.kennethtrentadue.co...

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  63. Re:We tried this with AT&T already by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1
    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  64. Re:We tried this with AT&T already by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    And that is why ppl in DC are doing things you don't expect, its because they fear for their lives.

    Orwell's nightmare is on track, and the globalists are using hired mercs in the global intel apparatus.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  65. Re:Free Open Psudo-random generators and encryptio by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    And to bypass all your nifty security they decided to hack the firmware.

    http://www.extremetech.com/com...

    Don't blame the chinese, they were just paid to put it there...by you can guess who...

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  66. Re:Why? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    We need them so we can have wonderful things like COINTELPRO
    where citizens rights are totally trampled.

    Why without they who would trample our rights ?

    We'd have freedom and liberty breaking out all over the place.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  67. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    That's what I thought, but they specifically said "nitrogen (N)", suggesting that we're importing monatomic nitrogen somehow, not a nitrogen-bearing compound. I'm no chemist.

    Also, if the sodium thiopental was the thing in lethal injections that kills you, I'd have to wonder why there's all sorts of other crap thrown in the mix. I was under the impression that they only gave you enough sodium thiopental to knock you out, followed by the truly nasty shit that kills you dead (without you being awake enough to scream in pain).

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  68. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    See citation provided in thread.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  69. What needs to happen at the NSA by jonwil · · Score: 1

    ALL wholesale surveillance programs (including Echelon, cellphone monitoring, SMS monitoring, email monitoring and anything else) should be ended. Only people and organizations who are considered threats should be able to be spied on and only after showing an independent judge why that person or organization is a threat.

    ALL attempts to gain access to computers or networks belonging to people who aren't threats (e.g. access to Google systems) should cease and any data required should only be available after going to the judge mentioned in #1

    ALL attempts to insert backdoors into software, weaken cryptography, keep vulnerabilities secret or otherwise weaken computer security should cease. And all previous efforts along those lines should be disclosed so people can switch away from systems that are globally vulnerable. This also includes any instances where the NSA has asked for/obtained encryption keys or other global things that would let them target more than just the one individual of interest.

    The only acceptable methods of intelligence gathering should be A.Going to an entity (cellphone provider, internet company, email provider or whatever) with a warrant and asking for data on specific targeted individuals or organizations or B.Using targeted attacks (again with a warrant) to target a specific individual or organization (e.g. all of the targeted programs Bruce has been talking about on his blog)

    Attacks that involve compromising security more generally in order to get at the specific individual of interest should be prohibited (e.g. attacks that involve using fake SSL certificates)

  70. News: Mice Vote to Bell Cat by LaughingVulcan · · Score: 1

    Film at 11

  71. Re:We tried this with AT&T already by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    President Kennedy was assassinated by communist defector Lee Harvey Oswald, not the CIA.

    The Real Culprits

    In 1963, a popular Democratic president was assassinated by a Marxist named Oswald, who had actually defected to the Soviet Union and returned to the U.S. with a Soviet wife, was an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and had attempted to assassinate a right-wing general named Edwin Walker earlier in the year.

    Yet those who write history found these facts inconvenient. They created a different history ...

    --
    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
  72. Re:any notion of justice is based entirely on merc by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Well, we're definitely not importing monoatomic nitrogen - it would rapidly become diatomic nitrogen gas and produce a potentially explosive amount of heat in the process. Plus transporting gasses is horribly inefficient - the pressure tanks tend to weigh far more than their contents. When discussing fertilizers, as with pharmaceuticals, it's common to only mention the "active ingredients", even if they only account for a small percentage of the mass. There's lots of different nitrogen fertilizers, from guano to ammonia to various synthetics. You mostly don't care how the nitrogen so fixed, so long as it stays put until plants absorb it, and doesn't cause other soil issues (for example ammonia, IIRC, can only be used in very low concentrations before it starts killing important soil biota.)

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  73. NSA doesn't understand the rules (:-)) by davecb · · Score: 1

    Traditionally, spies did their job at their own risk. If they were discovered, well, smiert spionam!

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  74. Re:Free Open Psudo-random generators and encryptio by davecb · · Score: 1

    I was curious and asked the linux bios folks, who noted that they made sure they could checksum their eproms, and that the chromebooks had hardware that made it easy. It's harder on very constrained devices like phones.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  75. Dang nobody bit by al0ha · · Score: 1

    Dang a month ago I made a submission related to Bruce meeting with Congress and asking if Bruce Schneier will save us from the NSA - not one person on /. bit on it.

    http://beta.slashdot.org/submi...

    Now at least I can answer my own question... YES!!!!

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  76. Martial Construction, not Parallel Construction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    The NSA can notify whoever they want to as long as there is a public process for it. However, they should stay the hell away from that for the most part because they are a branch of the United States military and it's fucking retarded and treasonous to use military force against its own society.

    This is the whole reason we have rules of evidence. We intentionally restrain the investigative branches of our civil justice system, because few citizen can entirely avoid lawbreaking, even aside from cases of civil disobedience. We also restrain these bodies because their consequences are often swift and terrible, and the mere association with crime, the suspicion only of guilt, can be enough to end a man's reputation and career. Laxity in evidentiary procedure is not really a problem we need to have. You also have a right to all the evidence used against you, specifically so that you can challenge it. Secret evidence is a hallmark of the Star Chamber, not the US Justice System.

    The bigger issue though is the military nature of this investigative body. I'm sure that to some degree we are justly hoist on our own petard for our treatment of our allies, but freedom from military action is a right of all citizens. Where concerns our martial foes, we have far fewer legal restrictions on actions. War is not civil. War is Hell. We do not bring Hell home, and we do not visit arms against the shores that bore them. If we are not to raise arms ourselves against this treason, then let justice come swiftly.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  77. Re:Oh, Hell Yes! by Creepy · · Score: 1

    While at it, could you point to where Congress authorized the NSA to spy on domestic calls? It isn't in the Patriot Act.

    Actually, it has its roots in the Patriot Act - Congress allowed the NSA to spy on foreign to domestic calls, whereas before the Patriot Act they were not allowed to operate at all on US soil and had to defer all domestic spying to the FBI (as it should be).

    The problem is, they took a 1970s court case where the FBI used call metadata (i.e. a list of phone numbers) called by a known criminal who had repeatedly been convicted of threatening young women and making terroristic threats to get a warrant to tap the criminal's phone line when he was making terroristic threats to yet another young woman. The FBI then got a warrant and tapped his line and he was busted calling and threatening this young woman. He then sued the FBI because they hadn't gotten a warrant to get the metadata in the first place, but the court threw it out, so the NSA uses that as justification that they can collect all phone metadata from all US citizens. The tiny problem is the NSA isn't supposed to spy on Americans by law, they're supposed to defer that to the FBI. If I recall correctly, the FBI usually requires a warrant to even collect metadata, but that case was an exception since a person's life was in danger and they had a suspect.

  78. Re:What good are freedoms? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    "Xenophobic"? Hardly. But I'm interested as to why you think so. Is it because I notice the people on Slashdot that state that they hope the US is brought down, or destroyed, or otherwise weakened?

    I don't recall that -1 Disagree was an option. Are you sure you understand the role of the moderator? In the past far too much negative moderation has been based on facts contradicting political ideology, with the facts losing the contest.

    I don't defend everything the NSA does, I simply point out the facts. Many people make false claims about the law, current events, terrorism, national security, the founding of the country, and the role of intelligence in defending a free society. That something legal is also disagreeable seldom changes its legality. Denying the existence of a fact does not change it. Intelligence agencies can pose a potential danger to a free society, but that is not the same as genuine current oppression.

    The truth is the truth, the facts are the facts. They don't change based on their popularity. Do even 10,000 people claiming a lie is true change it from a lie to the truth?

    --
    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
  79. Try This. by eyendall5185 · · Score: 1

    Civilanize the NSA. There is no good reason for security&intelligence to be connected directly with the military which should be a client not a driver. Put a civilian in charge of it with a legal and non-political background. Have a permanent appointed civilian oversight board. No generals, no politicians and no police commissioners.

  80. Um, no. by matcheydj · · Score: 1

    So militarizing and converting the responsibilities of a responsible code-breaking organization into investigative police work? No. You need oversight in the form of an agency that does not also have within its capability the power to also act in a justice or military capacity on the information it collects.

  81. mitosis by ecloud · · Score: 1

    Experience has shown that cell division is just a precursor to further growth.

    How about we go back to having an unambiguously named War Department which is in recess whenever there is not war (which should be most of the time), and abolish the rest of the agencies that are determined to make enemies of everyone possible? Policing the people should be a matter for the states anyway.

  82. Terrorism vs. Acts of War by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Pirates are driven by profit, and as a rule they do not attack military vessels, nor do they attempt to destroy their target except in self defense. There's very rarely any profit in such actions unless they have been commissioned by a government, in which case they are acting as privateers, not pirates. Attacks against military targets are pretty self-evidently military attacks intended to damage military capability, regardless of whether they are carried out by soldiers or privateers. Attacks against civilians are acts of terror intended to cow the populace. The difference in target and intent is what distinguishes an act of terrorism from an act of war, not the uniform worn by the attacker.

    Come to think of it, that paints a lot of our soldiers actions in the middle east and elsewhere in a *really* bad light. I can see why some interests would be *very* motivated to define terrorists by the uniform they (don't) wear.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.