Slashdot Mirror


NSA CTO Patrick Dowd Moonlighting For Private Security Firm

First time accepted submitter un1nsp1red (2503532) writes Current NSA CTO Patrick Dowd has taken a part-time position with former-NSA director Keith Alexander's security firm IronNet Cybersecurity — while retaining his position as chief technology officer for the NSA. The Guardian states that 'Patrick Dowd continues to work as a senior NSA official while also working part time for Alexander's IronNet Cybersecurity, a firm reported to charge up to $1m a month for advising banks on protecting their data from hackers. It is exceedingly rare for a US official to be allowed to work for a private, for-profit company in a field intimately related to his or her public function.' Some may give Alexander a pass on the possible conflict of interests as he's now retired, but what about a current NSA official moonlighting for a private security firm?

83 comments

  1. playing positions on two teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    God bless team America competitive workball. Go Eagles!

    1. Re: playing positions on two teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go Redskins!

    2. Re:playing positions on two teams by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Few probs though: God is not American (in fact he IS not), your team America does not include you (sorry for the surprise), and Eagles are neither Amercian nor bald, nor bold. Again sorry.

    3. Re: playing positions on two teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god doesn't exist and therefore has no nationality

    4. Re: playing positions on two teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dew yew hate our freedumz?

  2. Conflict of interest is just what they do by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conflict of interest is just what they do - ever wondered why there's a vast web of private contractors with points of failure (or patriotism) such as Snowden when it should really be a tight military operation? It's all about rewarding cronies. Retiring and getting millions funnelled into your pockets is far more lucrative than being promoted a rank.

    1. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflict of interest is just what they do - ever wondered why there's a vast web of private contractors with points of failure (or patriotism) such as Snowden when it should really be a tight military operation? It's all about rewarding cronies. Retiring and getting millions funnelled into your pockets is far more lucrative than being promoted a rank.

      The cynical position is probably right, but I certainly wouldn't trust a serving NSA member to help secure my systems, their mission statement basically guarantees they're going to create backdoors either directly or suggest configurations which leave loopholes.

      This little venture would be a good way to get inside the banking system to install access points for the NSA, and they even get paid to install the spyware.

    2. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would trust them to help secure my systems from everyone but the NSA. Seriously, look at the number of companies in the last year or so that had major hacks costing them millions in real money and countless more in future consumer revenue. I bet they would all gladly make a deal with the devil to have kept their data safe at the expense of an NSA backdoor.

    3. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More likely a direct funnel to keep the flow of information going from the NSA to Keith Alexander. This flow protected by existing information.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would trust them to help secure my systems from everyone but the NSA. Seriously, look at the number of companies in the last year or so that had major hacks costing them millions in real money and countless more in future consumer revenue. I bet they would all gladly make a deal with the devil to have kept their data safe at the expense of an NSA backdoor.

      Yeah, because the NSA knows how to secure themselves, right?

      What happens when every US banking backdoor gets leaked unknowingly?

      Shit will make Edward Snowden look like a wallet left in the bathroom when the entire US banking system is hacked overnight. You think Goldman Sachs can fuck up the global economy? Try that on for size.

    5. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      There is no conflict of interest, grifting IS what the NSA and national security theatre in general is all about.

      PS The level of respect given to these 3-letter agencies is some kind of bizarre joke, they are incompetent. When is the last time the NSA or CIA did something useful? Why does the US lurch from crisis to crisis? Because they never see anything coming! Spy vs spy shit that affects only the honor and security of spies, that's all they're good at.

    6. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by CPUmonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just paid to install the spyware but PAID up to a million USD a month! That's unreal! No wonder he is moonlighting. He is getting paid many times over his yearly salary to kill two birds with one stone. I don't see how this can be legal, but then again it is the NSA.

    7. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by operator_error · · Score: 0

      Retiring and getting millions funneled into your pockets is far more lucrative than being promoted a rank.

      The converse is also true. It simply isn't possible to enlist in the service past 39-42 years of age. Also, never underestimate the power of attrition. Now that you now, profit(!), right? God Bless America.

      But seriously, think about the *many* that have truly made sacrifices for the entire country.

    8. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

    9. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the company claimed that it was charging clients 1 million a month.

      That's not the same as 1 employee being paid 1 million a month. They never claimed that.

    10. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by CPUmonster · · Score: 1

      I never said he was making 1 million a month. If the company is charging one client 1 million a month (and I assume they have at least a few clients) then you know he is making a very nice paycheck. Especially since he is the CTO of the NSA.

    11. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What would or should be illegal about it though? I mean as long as they are not using government resources for private gain and do not use the threat of government action to entise these contracts there should be nothing illegal about working more than one job. I guess not allowing conflicts of interest crop up might be troublesome but government employees do this stuff quite often whether it is side money, campaign work, or charities.

    12. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government regulations include a clause that there cannot be an APPEARANCE of impropriety. This includes not being able to accept gifts of over $50. Accepting a salary from another company might be construed as a gift...and if it's for knowledge you have from your job, or for expertise you have from your job, or better service because of your job, it is a gift!

      Police aren't supposed to accept gifts either, but many do. The NSA might get away with such breaking of regulations because people who can expose them are afraid of reprecussions.

    13. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by penix1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What would or should be illegal about it though?

      He is using government property for private gain. Namely his access to classified information. Information that will allow him to demand a higher salary that he wouldn't have without that inside access. Also, we have no idea YET if this private company has any government contracts with the NSA since that info would also be classified. Watch for this tidbit to come out much later.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    14. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Not just paid to install the spyware but PAID up to a million USD a month! That's unreal! No wonder he is moonlighting. He is getting paid many times over his yearly salary to kill two birds with one stone. I don't see how this can be legal, but then again it is the USA.

      FTFY.

      If you don't like it, get off your couch and go get arrested for civil disobedience somewhere.

      Lazy Americans not standing up for their rights are going to be peons who can't afford even basic education or medical care before long.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Teun · · Score: 1

      You mean like the common American 'Rent a Cop' who wears his government supplied uniform and weapons while off shift?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    16. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It's about getting Uncle Sugar to pay your help to service those million-dollar contracts for you ;-)

    17. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information that will allow him to demand a higher salary that he wouldn't have without that inside access.

      The Free Market Works!!!! God Bless the USA!!!

    18. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You mean like the common American 'Rent a Cop' who wears his government supplied uniform and weapons while off shift?

      Locally, he also wears his duties and responsibilities along with them. Just on someone else's dime.

      BTW, you forgot the car. He (or she) usually gets to keep the car, too.

    19. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      They have no choice. Congress decides how much money they spend on what.

    20. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean as long as they are not using government resources for private gain

      Huh? The Utah data center alone is $1.5 billion worth of government (i.e. taxpayer) resources.

      Add the salaries of everyone "under" him, which is the direct reason he has the title to get this kind of gig, and the private gain is obvious and egregious. I'd almost say "obscene", but I'll wait for slightly more detail. Slightly.

    21. Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do by bwcbwc · · Score: 2

      Actually, if this is truly a private company, he's in clear violation of Federal anti-corruption laws. At least that's what they keep hammering at us in the corporate "pin the liability on the employee" training.

      From my POV the more likely explanation is that "private" security firm is an NSA front. I doubt this company would get much business outside the US, with so many NSA ties already known. So my guess is that they use it to funnel NSA technologies and data to other government agencies that can't obtain them (legally) by other means..

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    22. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by Teun · · Score: 1
      Yeah I know you're a cop 24/7/365, April 1978 I was in the London, Kentucky courthouse when a local cop was accused of entering a house without search warrant.

      He wasn't wearing anything to make him out as a cop, he was off shift and thought as a private person he could get away with it but was sentenced harsher because as a cop he should have known better.

      The whole story was funny like hell and I truly enjoyed it.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    23. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "he was off shift and thought as a private person he could get away with it but was sentenced harsher because as a cop he should have known better."

      That was 1978.

      In 2014 he'd have been exonerated and the householder convicted of resisting arrest or some other trumped up charge (or dead, with the cop patted on the back and given a bonus).

    24. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In a lot of areas, the rent a cops are mandated by law under certain circumstances. In others, general security guards can be more efficient. We put on a benefit for a friend who wrecked his motorcycle trying to avoid a young kid chasing a dog into the street. We had to estimate the number of people that would be there and hire one rent a cop for every 50 people. We could have security and bouncers outside the rent a cop but needed 1 rent a cop for every 50 people because of the location and that we were permitted to serve alcohol.

      Anyways, when you do contract out rent a cops, you generally strike a contract with the law enforcement agency rather than with the cop himself. You actually pay the law enforcement agency and they pay the cop for you. At least that is how it works around here. In our case, it was explained that what we wanted to do was going to require an extra police presence so we had to pay for it. In hind sight, we should have skipped the beer because I think it was what added most of the costs. Only about 40% of the take in was able to be applied to the benefit fund.

    25. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, get off your couch and go get arrested for civil disobedience somewhere.

      But that may mean travel and getting testicles squeezed by the TSA!

    26. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, get off your couch and go get arrested for civil disobedience somewhere.

      But that may mean travel and getting testicles squeezed by the TSA!

      Squeezed a little now if you act, crushed to paste in the future if you do nothing...your choice :-)

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    27. Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I can only despair from afar at what you guys have lost and wonder why so few of you even bother to get off your arses to vote. I've also avoided visiting thanks to the TSA etc - I've soaked up enough rads without getting exposed to a radiation source set up by unqualified monkeys and not checked by any third party, let alone the consequences of maybe getting sick in a country where health care is a minor and relatively poorly funded side effect of insurance.

  3. It is exceedingly rare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for the Italian corporatism of the USA to be so readily admitted. Usually the revolving door is something one passes through from time to time (although other items may pass underneath the door more regularly when everyone's pretending to look away), not repeatedly through the day.

    1. Re: It is exceedingly rare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article says that the hire is under review by the NSA. This should be under review by Congress. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem where top secret security clearances are involved.

  4. Would you rather the Chinese pay him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He is obviously for sale, so consider it the least worst case.

  5. In Soviet Russia... by alexkaskasoli · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... oh... never mind

  6. Admiral Michael Mccconnell and Booz Allen deja vu by sjwest · · Score: 5, Informative

    Should not this old case get a mention too ? Snowden worked for him.

  7. Department of Homeland Pork by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Funny
    Secret budgets, no oversight, no accountability to any external body. What else would you expect?

    They might as well be Wall Street bankers.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Department of Homeland Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secret budgets, no oversight, no accountability to any external body. What else would you expect?

      They might as well be Wall Street bankers.

      They can't touch a Wall St Banker for the quantity of money the bankers ripped off from the public.

  8. USians need 2 jobs to make a living by Urkki · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's been said by many, that in the US you need two jobs to make a living. I guess for many people it is X-Mart job during the day, Mac Burger job during the night, but this proves, that also the rich people need two jobs to make ends meet. I suppose this is an equal opportunity thing, so good?

  9. Communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big red flag of: Our software is secure except for the prying eyes of the NSA....
    I still wonder if Americans believe they're not a big fat communist scare of a country, yeah, yeah, we hear your anti-communist sayings, but really, aren't you just one? ( -__-)

    1. Re:Communist by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Under communism there is no private sector, thereby solving the problem of government officials moonlighting for private-sector companies. ;-)

  10. How much will get funneled to O-Daddy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We know undreds of millions went to the Clintons. We can only guess what Chaney/Bush got rewarded (but guess high), although we know how well their reign rewarded Halliburton stock.

    I suspect O-Daddy may well make a cool billion. It willl come packaged in books and million dollar speeches, maybe, but it will come. A lot of banksters and bombers owe him a bundle...and he knows it.

  11. Resigned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amazing how all the comments are merely mocking and resigned to the fact this is happening. This should outrage you, a public official at the top of the NSA has taken on another (very high) paying private section job. This guy should be fired. Policies should be put in place to stop these people from screwing the public purse. I expect he is paid substantially to reach that level, it's a very small leap from reselling your secrets to private companies to committing treason with foreign governments.

    1. Re:Resigned by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "This should outrage you, a public official at the top of the NSA has taken on another (very high) paying private section job"

      As a non-citizen, non-usa resident, it just underscores my perception that the USA is at least as corrupt a place as India, China, Russia, or Nigeria or (add another 20-30 countries in here).

      The only difference over the last 20 years is that it's coming more and more into the open with virtually no punishments meted out, whilst other countries are mostly undertaking efforts to stamp corruption out because it's damaging to their economies.

  12. For God's sake, think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    These people are just trying to make our world a safer place.
    Why doesn't anyone think of the children?

    Please pay them more money for a safer world!

  13. Call it "truth in lending" by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just eliminates the time frame Beltway insiders have typically had to wait while spinning through Washington's revolving doors.

    It also serves to legitimize the fact we live in a corporatacracy.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  14. Soon, this will be normal by FridayBob · · Score: 5, Informative

    With so much corporate money involved in US politics these days and the revolving door being such an integral part of the system, we should have expected this. After all, the difference between the revolving door and what Dowd is doing now -- being on both sides of the door at the same time -- is only a matter of perception. If nobody in power objects, then this will soon become normal.

    If we want to fix things, then there's only one solution: Get money out of politics! Vermont and California are the first two States to call for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution to require all election campaigns to be publicly funded and end corporate personhood. It may seem radical to some, but this is the only way to reverse the series of disastrous Supreme Court decisions, ending with Citizens United and McCutcheon, that got us into this mess.

    1. Re:Soon, this will be normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how your solution to corruption is censorship. Yep, the best way to prevent this is prevent people from putting on ads for campaigns unless the federal government deems them allowed.

      The only thing this is likely to solve it making it illegal to point out this is happening, which might be your objective.

    2. Re:Soon, this will be normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If we want to fix things, then there's only one [wolf-pac, CU McC] solution:...]

      I'm sorry, your cure is worse than the disease and only treats the symptoms to begin with. Packing legislatures and bureaucracies with committees of carefully selected (and by who, eh?), politically-correct "community activists", "stakeholders", and so on is Not Going Fix A Damn Thing. It will make things that much worse, in fact. It already has. Now, you may think otherwise, and surely you're entitled, but you'd be damned wrong. I could give examples and arguments, but for now I'll just point to the State of Georgia, which has had, for example, a Community Planning law for about 25 years now, which requires each county and municipality (now being subsumed by more banker-tractable "Regions") to have Planning Committees constituted as above, advised periodically by cadres of economics, poli-sci, and public administration profs from GA Tech or the Carl Vinson Institute at UGA, responsible for producing Comprehensive Land Plans and such, as opposed to property owners exercising their right to do such things solely or in cooperation with one another. You know, eliminate such quaint, outdated notions like market forces, rational self-interest, creativity, and so on, and replace them with modern, foundation-approved,corporatist academic direction.

      I should note that these committees are selected, not elected, by incumbent powers-that-be. Not exactly what you'd call democratic. Be that as it may, how have Georgians fared as a result? I invite readers to visit the state, venture outside Atlanta metro and its fingers extending to Columbus, Macon, Augusta, Athens, Savannah, and Brunswick to judge for themselves. Once you get outside the zones of banker-favored urban sprawl, now being held up by the suspension of disbelief being put forth by the Fed, things are pretty grum. It's shocking how far small towns have fared, and to realize how much more advanced my parents and grandparents were, in terms of civic knowledge and participation, than my generation, and I'm no spring chicken.

      Even in the cities, most people are on the dole, one way or another. They are not engaged in any productive activities, just getting by waiting month to month for a check or an EBT deposit from the treasury or the state. Engaging in any kind of activity independent of the usual suspects and incumbents is shot down in a hurry, unless you are superhumanly persistent or able. Or just ruthless yourself. It could all be very depressing, but ironically it has led to a situation where you can often write your own ticket, if you know what you're doing, and you're willing to do right by people. But it is hardly what most people would call a "recovery", much less growth, for the economy as a whole. The nearest area of growth to me is Statesboro, home to Georgia Southern University, but all the growth is in predefined, sanitized, homogenized, corporatized, and franchised areas, mostly around the uni, favored by the bankers and central planners. The rest of town is filled with stagnant and even decaying areas. You can get a good deal on commercial rents, there, I guess.

      My point is: all of this is exactly the result of previous ventures into "removing money from politics". We all know they were self-serving shams, of course, but they made for such noble hand-waving, didn't they? I don't see that your favored proposals are one bit different. Just more so, maybe.

      In my view it would be much better just to have a real Treasury Dept. printing real Treasury notes and minting silver and gold for general circulation again. You know, just make the money honest again, as it has not been for a century. It's not surprising that social and civil rights injustice follows from economic injustice, and it seems obvious that restoring economic justice might have salutary effects elsewhere. You could do a lot worse, and looks to me like the bunch you favor are trying. Sorry.

    3. Re:Soon, this will be normal by mx+b · · Score: 3, Informative

      I like how your solution to corruption is censorship. Yep, the best way to prevent this is prevent people from putting on ads for campaigns unless the federal government deems them allowed.

      In what way is it censorship? The proposed constitutional amendment can be seen at this link. Note that there is nothing that says you can't put out ads or campaigns; no one in government has to approve your campaign. The only restriction is that CORPORATIONS are not people with voting rights and therefore cannot contribute money to campaigns. Which makes sense; a corporation is not a thinking entity, "it" only does what its CEO and upper management decide. Effectively, the corporation becomes a vehicle for the opinions of upper management, which the new amendment to the constitution will say is wrong. The CEO can have whatever opinion he wants as a private citizen, and back any campaign he wants as a private citizen, but he is NOT allowed to use the money and influence of his company to spread his message further -- it is an unfair advantage over the rest of the voting public and subverts true democratic debate and processes.

      The only thing this is likely to solve it making it illegal to point out this is happening, which might be your objective.

      Again, nothing about this amendment stifles a citizen's rights, only CORPORATIONS (which we declare are not people). You still have full 1st amendment rights, for example, and are free to speak out against government. We just require that you disclose publicly who you gave money to as a private citizen; you aren't allowed to funnel money through a company anymore to hide the fact that you are donating way more money than the average person (which is what some are doing with corporations and PACs, effectively using them to skirt already on-the-books current election law on donation limits). We want to make sure every citizen has the chance the speak up, rather than only the elite that can go around laws with the corporations.

    4. Re:Soon, this will be normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Note that there is nothing that says you can't put out ads or campaigns; no one in government has to approve your campaign.

      I didn't read anything else you wrote. Supreme court ruled on Citizens United becase me as a private citizen was NOT allowed to put on a campaign ad for someone within 90 days of an election, end of story. That was the ruling. You idiots keep yelling "corporate personhood" crap that had NOTHING to do with the ruling. The law was censorhip, pure and simple and you are upset that it got overturned because you agree with censorship.

      I've asked about 100 liberals to explain how it isn't censorhip and they can't answer. All you do is repeat talking points that have no relevance to my point and that is all you did as well. You want a dictatorship and not to allow people to speak up against it and you hate the 1st amendment because it prevents you from getting your way. Citizens United did more for the 1st amendment than the ACLU ever has in its entire history.

    5. Re:Soon, this will be normal by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Put more simply:

      Corporations allow a privileged few to speak twice when ordinary people can only speak once.

      And to say things that not all of the members of the corporation might agree with.

    6. Re:Soon, this will be normal by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Right now it costs about $1 billion to run for president, and that money comes almost entirely from corporate interests and ideologically interested billionaires. It turns out that you can buy elections by spending enough money.

      So a handful of billionaires and wealthy interest groups are taking over the government and running the country.

      Is that a problem for you? Or do you think that's the way it should be?

    7. Re:Soon, this will be normal by nbauman · · Score: 1

      We already make it illegal for foreigners to take out ads to support one side in an election. The Saudis or the Chinese can't contribute money to a political action committee.

      Is that censorship? Is that acceptable to you?

      Or do you want foreign governments -- say, Russia -- to be able to contribute money to our election campaigns, and not have to disclose it?

      Right now rich foreigners are buying $100-million pied-a-terre penthouse apartments in Manhattan, and $100 million artworks at Southeby's. Would you like them to start collecting Congressmen too?

    8. Re:Soon, this will be normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Citizens United is that the SC defines any group of people as a "corporation" , which is not even close to its common meaning.
      The common meaning of "corporation" is that of a legal entity that protects investors in a
      business from being held personally responsible for the corporation's debts.
      The idea that this legal entity should be treated as a citizen, free to give money to politicians, is absurd.
      Of course, then there is the fundamentally foolish notion that money can be considered to be a form of "protected speech".

  15. Why is this not illegal? by Coditor · · Score: 2

    I find it hard to imagine with so many laws in the US that this is not only illegal but a felony?

    1. Re:Why is this not illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to imagine with so many laws in the US that this is not only illegal but a felony?

      Is it not already incredibly clear that people at the NSA have absolutely no concern for what is legal and what is not?

    2. Re:Why is this not illegal? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It is illegal.

    3. Re:Why is this not illegal? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      In the 21st century USA, any such laws would immediately be annulled if it suits those in power.

  16. Keep digging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You'll likely find that Alexanders employer is the NSA, and his company is just a way for them to distance the illegal stuff with a layer of corporate fluff.

    Seriously, which bank would pay $1 million a month for advice on protecting their network given by a non-techie? No bank would, so if there's money going into his company at that level, its not for the claimed purpose. Alexander had a long history of flouting the laws of surveillance, and this company could be nothing more than a front for the NSA to continue its illegal stuff while cloaking it in non-accountability.

    1. Re:Keep digging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking along the same idea, probably a coverup entity to gain intelligence.

    2. Re:Keep digging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this company could be nothing more than a front for the NSA to continue its illegal stuff while cloaking it in non-accountability.

      You got it exactly wrong. This is a front for the NSA to continue its illegal stuff while cloaking it in acountability. It's like the insurance fee collection department of the Mafia. It's money that actually is running through accounting since it would be a bit difficult to hide those amounts from bookkeeping.

      And there is indeed an actual return value in the reduction of risk, where risk is the cost of an incident times its probability of occurence. Normal insurances work by offsetting the cost of an incident. Mafia and Alexander work by controlling the occurence.

  17. Uh yeah, no by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Of all of the things to be pissed about in DC, this isn't one of them IMO. This isn't the revolving door between regulator and the regulated industry. This is just some high level guy in government moonlighting in a mostly unrelated industry to make some coin on the side. This should be no more offensive to most than a GS14 or GS15 technical staffer taking out a contract with a big corporation on the side to make some extra bucks.

    One thing the people crucifying Alexander and his company seem to forget is that if he's actually parlaying his background at the NSA into making the banks better at security, then that's a net gain for the American people. Be pissed all you want about what he did in the past, but the fact is for all we know he's also advising his clients on how to become more "NSA-proof" on the down low. I would be very surprised if he a bank offered him a lot of lucre to make them harder for intelligence services to breach that he'd suddenly turn that down and go squealing to Fort Meade now that his paycheck comes from the private sector.

    1. Re:Uh yeah, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine protecting the USA, at least at such a high rank, is a full time job. If he doesn't have enough work to do then take a pay cut and work part time - he wants the best of both worlds, just greedy.

  18. New breach every week - what's the money for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what are companies getting for their money, anyway? There's a new security break every week. They ought to spend \$1m/month on better security, not talking heads.

    1. Re:New breach every week - what's the money for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it like protection money.

      You wouldn't want anything to happen to that nice bank of yours, would you?

      Or think of it like, "hey, we can hire the NSA guys to be our 'security'".

  19. Why would it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What the NSA does is illegal, any claims the Patriot act allows it is a lie.
    Holder refuesed to comply with a Congressional sopenia, which is illegal and was not prosecuted.
    The IRS illegally targeted individuals illegally, no one has been prosecuted and the FBI is refusing to do any additional investigation.
    2000 guns were illegally shipped to Mexico by the ATF with 200 murders committed by them, no one prosecuted.

    There has been a history over the last few years to not prosecute illegal activity by the executive branch. Many here on /. called anyone named if they wanted any of the above crimes prosecuted. Not sure why now you all care.

  20. Administration agnostic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no fan of Obama's presidency but this is just they way it is done in the D.C. cesspool. More evidence of why ethnic cleansing is not always a bad thing. In this instance, the ethnicities needing cleansing are career politicians and bureaucrats.

  21. Think of the revolving door bearings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so much easier if you can start your bribe-financed alibi jobs while on the job.

    The NSA is one of the largest organized crime subsidiaries of the U.S., specializing in blackmail. Close ties with Alexander's "that's nice private data that your company is working with. Wouldn't it be a shame if something bad happened with them?" business only make sense and give both the past and future jobs of the U.S. professional liars and blackmailers more weight.

    At the speed the revolving door between crooks in- and outside of the government has been operating, it did not provide a noticeable airlock anyway. So breaking it open altogether is just being efficient.

    There is no danger that any copies of the U.S. Constitution will be stolen from the building: they have been safely locked away in a secret prison.

  22. Nice haveing such an undemading job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you can do other jobs on the side. I have zero free time with my job... but then I'm not the CTO of NSA so I am expected to perform.

  23. he's doing what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think that the CTO of the NSA is a full time job. I bet the taxpayers are paying him a full time salary. If he runs out of things to do have him sweep the floors or something. I'm a taxpayer and I demand full time work when a full time position is paid for with tax dollars.

  24. Backdoor channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way the NSA would allow this to happen is if it serves a government purpose -- there's no benefit for them to allow him to moonlight otherwise. The banks are being infiltrated by foreign hackers, and the NSA can't just go to them and tell them that. By having him work at this security company, he can strengthen their systems using classified info without revealing the exact details.

    1. Re:Backdoor channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By having him work at this security company, he can strengthen their systems using classified info without revealing the exact details.

      Bullshiiiit. Guess we know who YOU work for.

  25. Department of Homeland Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Secret budgets, no oversight, no accountability to any external body.Ã

    Sounds like the local po-po.

  26. I for one welcome this track & trace by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Do unto them as they do unto you.

  27. Major Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both Alexander and Dowd can be targeted for extermination under current US Federal National Security laws.

    A befitting end to these worms.

  28. Why is this not illegal? by nbauman · · Score: 1

    I find it hard to imagine with so many laws in the US that this is not only illegal but a felony?

    America isn't Europe.

  29. Same with Fascism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does that make us a Commi-Fascist regime? We seem to have the 'token handouts' to the public to make us just like the USSR, so :)

  30. Outrageous by IndieRafael · · Score: 1

    If this is legal, I don't know how. I've spent decades working in Washington, DC and heard of all kinds of scams. If he were just an advisory consultant, OK. But he's the CTO, who has enormous power in specifying technologies, affecting contract decisions, etc. Even if this is somehow legal, it's by the flimsiest of rationales and the lawyer who wrote it should be investigated.

  31. urgh... by MPBoulton · · Score: 1

    Surely the CTO needed the permission of his organisation (and therefore the US government) to have a second job (i.e. employment contracts usually require this). Who granted this permission and why aren't they being made to explain this clear conflict of interest in public to a committee of democratically-elected officials? Oh right, it's the NSA...