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.'"

19 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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]
  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.