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?

Comments

Admiral Michael Mccconnell and Booz Allen deja vu

[sjwest]

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

Soon, this will be normal

[FridayBob]

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.

Re:Soon, this will be normal

[mx b]

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.

Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do

[penix1]

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.