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

Conflict of interest is just what they do

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do

[CPUmonster]

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.

Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Re:Conflict of interest is just what they do

[bwcbwc]

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..

Would you rather the Chinese pay him?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

In Soviet Russia...

[alexkaskasoli]

... oh... never mind

Admiral Michael Mccconnell and Booz Allen deja vu

[sjwest]

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

Department of Homeland Pork

[Required Snark]

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

They might as well be Wall Street bankers.

USians need 2 jobs to make a living

[Urkki]

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?

Resigned

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

For God's sake, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Call it "truth in lending"

[oDDmON oUT]

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

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:Soon, this will be normal

[RabidReindeer]

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.

Why is this not illegal?

[Coditor]

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

Keep digging

[Anonymous Coward]

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.