Slashdot Mirror


How the NSA Profits Off of Its Surveillance Technology

blottsie writes: The National Security Agency has been making money on the side by licensing its technology to private businesses for more than two decades. It's called the Technology Transfer Program, under which the NSA declassifies some of its technologies that it developed for previous operations, patents them, and, if they're swayed by an American company's business plan and nondisclosure agreements, rents them out. The products include tools to transcribe voice recordings in any language, a foolproof method to tell if someone's touched your phone's SIM card, or a version of email encryption that isn't available on the open market.

4 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. I can't quite decide by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know that the default majority slashdot opinion is, and for good reason, that everything the NSA is poisoned with malicious intent. But I can't actually decide if making useful security tools available is somehow against our citizens' interests.

    I mean the compounding factors of large corporations, and big dumps of money, and selective availability all suggest problems too, but in a circumstantial way.

    I can't make up my mind this time.

    1. Re:I can't quite decide by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the things which concerns me, is you're putting all powerful surveillance tools into the hands of private corporations.

      Those corporations can then use and abuse that technology in ways which may ignore the law, and bypass any oversight.

      And then if the NSA has included in their contract a share of the take, or simply invoke the PATRIOT act to demand it ... then you can effectively have government outsourcing things they're not legally allowed to do out to private industry, but then it doesn't break the law when private industry hands back the data they'd not have been able to collect legally.

      At which point, they can basically do an end run around the law, and the people who are tasked with oversight.

      And since we know they already lie to the people who are supposed to be overseeing the ... I have zero way that you can treat an organization like this as anything other than a rabid dog.

      At this point, I think the only way to get the truth out of the NSA is to waterboard it out of them. Because they've demonstrated they don't give a damn about providing it to us.

      I rank this as being massively creepy, and with legal implications which boggle the mind.

      And, yes, I do come down heavily on the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum. But paranoia doesn't preclude malfeasance, especially when there's already evidence of malfeasance.

      Big Brother is scary. Big Brother in bed with private industry is terrifying.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I can't quite decide by sabri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The NSA has done a lot of things over the years, most of them

      Funded by the taxpayer already.

      Now if companies are paying the NSA to get access to their research, they're paying twice: once as a taxpayer, and now as a "customer".

      If the technology can be declassified, the information should be public property, as its research was funded by the taxpayer.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. My first thought was - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's ok right? I mean technology transfer to the public sector is a good thing. But then I thought, wait a second, why should this only be available to a few select businesses who can afford to pay for it? This work was funded by the American taxpayer. These businesses then acquire it without having taken the investment risk and cost of R&D. So basically, they've (the businesses) foisted their development costs off onto the American public, with the explicit and directed complicity of an agency that's supposed to be working in the public's interests. If the tech transfer is a good thing to do (irrespective of value judgements of the actual tech and its usage), then it should be made available back to the entire American public, not to give a competitive edge to selected corporations.

    So yeah, I have an issue with the ethics of this.