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.

11 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. 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
  3. '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 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.
  4. 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?

  5. 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: 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.