Slashdot Mirror
NSA To Scientists: We Won't Tell You What We've Told You; That's Classified
MojoKid writes One of the downsides to the news cycle is that no matter how big or hot a story is, something else inevitably comes along. The advent of ISIS and Ebola, combined with the passing of time, have pushed national security concerns out of the limelight — until, that is, someone at the NSA helps out by reminding us that yes, the agency still exists and yes, it still has some insane policies and restrictions. Earlier this year, the Federation of American Scientists filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the NSA. The group was seeking information it thought would be relatively low-key — what authorized information had been leaked to the media over the past 12 months? The NSA's response reads as follows: "The document responsive to your request has been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and has been found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The document is classified because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security." The NSA is insisting that it has the right to keep its lawful compliance and public disclosures secret not because the NSA is made of evil people but because the NSA has a knee-jerk preference and demand for secrecy. In a spy organization, that's understandable and admirable but it's precisely the opposite of what's needed to rebuild American's faith in the institution and its judgment.
The US Government is now allowed to use propaganda against its own people due to the NDAA. They don't want us to know what propaganda they are using against us.
Screw "American's Faith." You need to start worrying about the world's opinion about your intrusive spies.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
First, there are the knee-jerk responses of an "Intelligence" organisation never wanting to let anything truthful be known about it, and particularly detesting FIOA requests. Traitors. Then there is the bureaucratic response of never saying anything lest you be accused of inaccuracy.
But there also is a real security concern for the agency involved -- in answering "what did you release", they burn clandestine "leakers" as stooges. I do not think Snowden was a deliberate leak, but unless proven otherwise I assume about half the leaks are plants.
Telling people (including 'enemies') which 'leaks' were authorized and which ones were really leaks could give people all sorts of interesting information -- including which disinformation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H leaks to trust and which ones not to.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
The president can fire the head honchos at NSA and put Ron Paul or even somebody sane in charge if he wanted to.
Somebody who reads too many blogs will reply "civil service act". The civil service act forbids firing a covered employee because they didn't donate to your campaign. He can fire them for any other reason. The act is only about one page, read it if you like.
> NSA has a knee-jerk preference and demand for secrecy. In a spy organization, that's understandable and admirable but it's precisely the opposite of what's needed to rebuild American's faith in the institution and its judgment.
Very well said. In the security arena, and I think intelligence as well, the default position is "need to know". You only give information to people who have an operational need to know that specific piece of information. See also "loose lips sink ships". That makes perfect sense from an operational security perspective. HOWEVER, the US is supposed to be a representative republic, where the government os accountable to the people. These two facts do create a natural tension, and finding exactly the right balance is difficult.
I'm reminded of just after 9-11 there was criticism that the CIA, FBI, and NSA hadn't coordinated well, sharing information. Had they shared information with each other freely and effectively , 9-11 might not have happened. However, we are now being reminded that there's a good reason you don't want your spy agencies getting too close with your domestic law enforcement. You don't want the resources and tactics of the NSA to be used for domestic law enforcement. There are some tactics that might be good to use for spying on the Russians and China, but shouldn't be used to investigate Tommy Chong. We forgot that in our calls for more inter-agency cooperation after 9-11. Some of these things require just the right balance.
Doesn't matter. The long term bureaucrats will just work around whoever gets appointed until the next president appoints someone else. The head honcho can dictate policy, but they don't actually implement it and don't really have a way to ensure that it does get implemented.
Like most positions at a similar level, the director is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. I just double checked that to make sure I wasn't remembering incorrectly. He's supposed to get recommendations from DOD first. Of course, he appoints the head of DOD, the Secretary of Defense, and he appoints someone who is very loyal to him as Sec D.
If the CIA, NSA and other secret agencies were actually effective at their job and did what they profess to do efficiently and the oversight could just tamper with that efficiency, I might, ... might... buy your argument. But they do not. They are wasting resources, producing no significant results and still want their secrecy. Maybe it is time we tried it differently.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
"exceptionally grave damage to the national security"
For fucks sake. Get rid of the toy soldiers and replace them with real ones.
The president can fire the head honchos at NSA and put Ron Paul or even somebody sane in charge if he wanted to.
You assume that the people at NSA isn't completely paranoid/batshit insane. They look at absolutely everything as conspiracies and power games and everything is allowed in the name of national security.
I wouldn't put it above them to assassinate a president if they think that he is acting in a way that puts the nation at risk, for example by dismantling organizations that they think are vital to national security. After all, protecting the US against terrorist are more important than a president that can be replaced anyway.
Well, Israel was more something that was blamed on the UK by the Arab world. What alienated them to the US was the douchbaggery that followed. I think one of the key turning points was the thing in Iran, with the US propping up Reza Pahlevi to be the Iranian dictator. To illustrate just HOW hated he was, imagine your option being that guy and some right wing religious nutjob, and you, as a secular, normal person, thinking the nutjob is the lesser evil. That was basically the situation in Iran 1979. If you interview some people who got out of there after the coup, you'll learn that a lot of them didn't support it because they liked the Ayatollah so much, but that the general sentiment was "no matter what he's like, he can only be better". Only later they learned that they jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
And that was but the start. Then arming Saddam to "solve" that problem (after all the US first made Iran a state with a VERY modern and huge army that could have easily overrun the rest of the Arab peninsula, so they needed someone to neutralize that risk), backstabbing him when he wanted to decide for himself what dictatorship to attack. Along with the transport of the mujaheddin to Afghanistan in the 80s to fight the Russians only to turn against them when Russia was no longer the enemy (and we needn't score off them anymore) because they were no longer convenient.
The US has a history of (ab)using people in the region for some 30 years now. Well, it's not like they wouldn't have a history for mistreating some "foreign" nation. I guess in about a century we'll get to hear some half serious and utterly dishonest apology and the Arabs get to build some casinos on the dunes that we decide they may keep.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.