Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ex-NSA Director Keith Alexander's Investments In Tech Firms: "No Conflict"

Posted by timothy on from the picking-winners dept.

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.

29 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. They must have impressive dirt on politicians... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  2. That's right. There is no conflict of interest by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    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!”
  3. Conspiracy by koan · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  4. IronNet Cybersecurity is the ethics issue by demachina · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  5. 'No conflict' by kheldan · · Score: 2

    ..in a pigs' eye!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:'No conflict' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ..in a pigs' eye!

      NSA representatives would NEVER lie to us would they?

    2. Re:'No conflict' by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Why not? It's pretty much their job description.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Thousands of dollars? Big spender by Nutria · · Score: 1

    More importantly, nowadays for your typical upper-middle class Washingtonian, $10,000 is bordering on chump change.

    I'm surprised the IG would even notice it!

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  7. Re:They must have impressive dirt on politicians.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe that's why search and seizure are supposed to require warrants?

  8. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Maybe by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Informative

      They benefit in at least three ways:

      1) Direct contributions.

      2) The Revolving Door

      3) Trading on insider information.

      There are many other ways I'm sure, smaller and more subtle. But these are the big ones AFAIK.

    2. Re:Maybe by davydagger · · Score: 2

      Nothing is going to change because in our us vs them election cycle issues like this are:

      1. not brought up by either major party.
      2. Major party partisanism is strong, they don't vote on the issues, they vote on attacking the other guy, and fear. Few people inside the party are willing to listen to any message that doesn't come dirrectly from party HQ, in fear that it might be sabeteurs working for the other party, or they might be labeled as such by over zealous partisans, and their friends might stab them in the back.
      3. No minor party really stands a chance for election.
      4. If they did, they'd be attacked by both parties with information campaigns denouncing the third party as fringe, lunatics, and terrorists, by affiliated news media.(its pretty damn obvious that both major parties have affiliated news-media as propaganda)
      5. Allegations which will be substainalized by the FBI doing an "investigation".(read set-up operation)

      The only way to bring up an issue is to go through the Media companies in the face of PR, paying millions to have celebrities, and someone in either party consider your platform, and the 10 o'clock news won't denounce you as a terrorist with no one to back you.

    3. Re:Maybe by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      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.

      Maybe for you, but for me I'm voting against 90% of the incumbents. Won't matter, but at least I pay attention and try.
      / live in CA
      // explains a lot
      /// how in hell has Boxer survived for so long? Woman is a retarded idiot.

    4. Re:Maybe by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only that, seems like for the last 10-20 years I haven't voted for the candidate I like most, but for the less evil candidate. They all want to fuck me up the ass and I'm forced to choose lube or no lube.

    5. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Not only that, seems like for the last 10-20 years I haven't voted for the candidate I like most, but for the less evil candidate.

      You are part of the problem. That is short term thinking.

      Always vote your conscience because the only way change happens is when the party is afraid of losing votes. Your vote for the 3rd party candidate who won't win will still have 100x more impact than voting for the two party status quo because elections are one and lost on the margins.

      Lots of people thought Nader spoiled Al Gore's chances by "stealing" democratic votes. But what really happened was that the democratic party lost those votes all on its own. It was just a matter of needing a candidate that better represented their values. When Nader came along, those voters finally had a way to register their dissatisfaction in a way that the democrats couldn't ignore (the way they do non-voters). The democrats reacted by becoming more like the Green party. Many people would say they didn't go far enough, but without Nader there to "spoil" the election, it would have meant even less change. Political change is a long slow process, don't be fooled by the hype, who wins tomorrow matters a whole lot less than what choices will be on the ballot 10 years from now.

    6. Re:Maybe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What would you expect to change? If the past 14 years proved anything then that it doesn't matter jack shit what side of The Party is ruling, you get the same crappy situation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Maybe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Voting Dem instead of Rep, or Rep instead of Dem is ... well, did you play Zak McCracken? And got into the back room of the Telco? It's like pulling that switch on the dumbification machine there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Maybe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In case you don't know it, this is what I mean.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Maybe by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      When you are director of the an NSA that goes wildly out of control a fourth way becomes available

      4) Gather intelligence of criminal activities of major corporations (involving those corporations, politicians and government departments) and upon leaving extort security consulting fees to keep those secrets, well, you are securing their information are you not?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  9. Re:Thousands of dollars? Big spender by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    No, you just can't read:
    $50,000 Synchronoss,
    $15,000 Datascension
    $15,000 Pericom,
    $15,000 in RF Micro Devices

    That's closer to $100k.

  10. Re:it's the age of IP investment by phayes · · Score: 1

    The problem is that Timothy is a link baiting /. editor intent on turning it into reddit.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  11. Re:They must have impressive dirt on politicians.. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    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.
  12. Re:Could or Would They Say Anything Else of Their by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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.
  13. Re:Hey by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    They would be doing a damn poor job if they didn't hide anything from us. It's basically their job description.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Seen as more useful than not by dbIII · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. Does he brew beer too... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    ...in Nova Scotia?

  16. thanks goog by samehfr · · Score: 1

    thanks goog thanks goog http://www.sharng-3g.com/vb/

  17. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ROFL, the same shit as Mrs Rice sitting on Dropbox board. Simply put: you drop the service like a hot potato lol.

  18. If the NSA tells you not to worry... by asimons04 · · Score: 2

    If the NSA tells you not to worry, that's probably when you should worry.