Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NSA Director Keith Alexander's Investments In Tech Firms: "No Conflict"
Presto Vivace (882157) writes "No conflicts appear to exist" among Keith Alexander's investments, the NSA said. "New financial disclosure documents released this month by the National Security Agency (NSA) show that Keith Alexander, who served as its director from August 2005 until March 2014, had thousands of dollars of investments during his tenure in a handful of technology firms." Don't worry, the NSA assures us that there was no conflict of interest.
What's supposed to be the problem here?
That is the only possible reason why they basically can do as they like, violate nay laws they do not like, lie under oath, etc. all without any consequences whatsoever. The basically form a "state in the state" with its own laws. For a few historical examples where such evil machinations lead, look for example at the events leading to WW2 and the role of the "Wehrmacht".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Why don't we ask someone else now?
It's not that the NSA has lost all credibility, it's just that we like second opinions.
This is, and has always been, perfectly normal procedure in the intercourse between government and business. Business needs a way to enforce its contracts, so they create a "state", with uniforms and badges, and big ass guns. And they use "philosophers" (advertisers) to pitch the whole thing. What is the problem?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That is all.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You all need to realize that this is exactly what Bush did. Invest heavily in military war stock and then start a lengthy expensive war in the middle east -- afghan && iraq lolololol when will everyone wake up - this entire planet is all about money and that's it. nothing else matters. pretty sad...
Most of the ethics questions around Alexander involve his company IronNet Cybersecurity. He founded it when he retired. He's charging big banks $1,000,000 a month to protect them in cyberspace, and its not exactly clear what he has to offer to justify the price tag, other than classified insider knowledge of cyber threats from his NSA years, he probably shouldn't be selling to the highest bidder.
@de_machina
so what's the problem? He's only doing what thousands of others are doing, and that's playing the market for his nest egg. I do the same, it's safer than a pension fund or a bank account right now - both of which stand to be raped hard by the State, as has already happened all over Europe. What's next? Going after clerics for buying stock in fountain pens?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
..in a pigs' eye!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Please tell me that is just a bad summary?
Nobody is going to risk their career over $10,000
Thousands? Really. Try over 600 thousand US dollars. Just the facts, please.
Maybe that's why search and seizure are supposed to require warrants?
N. National
S. Socialist
A. Anti-humanitarianism....
Because of there assault on Human Rights, as defined by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Maybe they do.
But the American public just doesn't care and they are more concerned with the distraction issues. People get sucked into propaganda.
In November, nothing much is going to change. We'll still have a shitty Congress because people think all the others suck but their guy and there are the folks who hate the otherside so much, they won't dare for them - you know the whole lesser evil bullshit.
What we should be asking is how ARE the Congresscritters benefiting from this. Keep in mind that most Congressmen are quite wealthy and have many business interests. Meaning, these NSA investments with taxpayer money is quite possibly going into those Congressmen's pockets. The same goes for wars.
The political class is playing the American for the rubes that we are and people do not ask the hard questions.
Doesn't the NSA have more of a negative effect on tech stocks?
You don't need dirt on politicians in order to get away with lying under oath. It works just as well to have done them some favors in the past, and/or be in a position to do them favors in the future.
All of governance is united in a cooperative effort to further their own wealth and power.
...because all the relevant documents are classified. Merely asking about them makes you a security risk as you are not supposed to know. What was your name again? We can do this the easy way or the hard way...
We should be scared if ex-NSA director "DOESN'T" invest in tech firms or if he is investing in non-NSA contracted tech firms.
Either case means that he doesn't trust tech firms with his money because he knows they are shit.
So what is the best hope against them. Someone getting this information and then releasing it so everyone knows where the skeletons in the closet are and what bodies are buried? If it is revealed they have no power anymore.
No.
If the NSA says so it must be true. I doubt they're hiding anything from us.
"You've got yourself a chip in the big game now. You're gonna tuck that away, you are going to save that for a time when your own ass is on the line and then you're gonna pull it out. And I'm going to cash it in for you. Right?"
That, or a slow descent into a full Police State (the US is already a partial one) and then into Fascism. Economic collapse within 10 to 100 years after that (nobody is productive in Fascism) and then 50 to 100 years of rebuilding, unless the fascists decide to sterilize the planet when they see that they have lost.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Far too specific. More likely, it's classified and we're not cleared to know whether they could or would.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or just seen as more useful than not, enough so that it would be political suicide to clean things up because it would be framed as "damaging America's security" by the other side in politics. It would take someone very brave in politics to do it - seen any? It's the same reason the TSA is still allowed to squeeze your balls instead of being shut down and replaced by a much smaller number of professionals.
...in Nova Scotia?
thanks goog thanks goog http://www.sharng-3g.com/vb/
Reminds me of this documentary about the mining of Coltan in the DR Congo...
The official there was in charge of authorizing mining licenses but was himself a private business owner, with interests in mining projects and also offering services to "facilitate" the process of acquiring new mining licenses. When asked by the journalist if he didn't see a conflict of interests in his situation he answered that at most there were synergies, because what he learned in his public activity made him more proficient in the private sector, and vice-versa.
If the NSA tells you not to worry, that's probably when you should worry.
That is when I start panicking.