Slashdot Mirror


Mathematicians Uncomfortable With Ties To NSA, But Not Pulling Back

An anonymous reader writes: When we talk about how the NSA operates, it's typically about the policymakers and what the agency should or should not do. It's worth remembering that the NSA is built upon the backs of world-class mathematicians, whom they aggressively recruit to make all their underlying surveillance technology work. A new piece in Science discusses how the relationship between mathematicians and the NSA has changed following the Snowden leaks (PDF). But as Peter Woit points out, these ethical conundrums are not actually spurring any change. This is perhaps due to the NSA's generous funding of mathematics-related research.

The article talks about the American Mathematical Society, which until recently was led by David Vogan: "...after all was said and done, no action was taken. Vogan describes a meeting about the matter last year with an AMS governing committee as 'terrible,' revealing little interest among the rest of the society's leadership in making a public statement about NSA's ethics, let alone cutting ties. Ordinary AMS members, by and large, feel the same way, adds Vogan, who this week is handing over the presidency to Robert Bryant, a mathematician at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. For now, U.S. mathematicians aren't willing to disown their shadowy but steadfast benefactor."

13 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shame on them

    1. Re:Shame on them by weilawei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. It's blood money they're taking.

    2. Re:Shame on them by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense, they're just following the most basic of mathmatical formulas:

      Money > Ethics

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Shame on them by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't say that he's hypocritical,
      Say rather that he's apolitical.
      "once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
      That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

      --Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Shame on them by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Work for the fascists, become a fascist yourself. There are times where you have to take a stand or become part of the forces of evil.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Shame on them by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the subject of the NSA funding mathematical research, I'd describe myself as somewhat wary but generally indifferent. What would concern me is what strings might be attached to the money. Can the researchers publish results in the open literature from studies funded by the NSA? If so, then fine. Otherwise it hurts on many levels. Not only would the NSA stifle the sharing of research results, but also the researchers themselves would have their careers impeded by non-publication, or co-opted into more classified NSA work because they couldn't find funding elsewhere without a publication record.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Shame on them by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense, they're just following the most basic of mathmatical formulas:

      Money > Ethics

      Put another way:
      Ethics = Brain(Money)

      There are rational arguments in favour of the NSA's spying, it's in the Mathematicians' interest to adopt those arguments.

      Given the choice between a) giving up a ton of money and feeling morally sound, b) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally compromised, or c) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally sound, most people want to choose c, and since it's a lot easier to change ethics than sources of money the morality is the part that's going to adapt.

      Hell, I'm from Alberta, oil sands central. A massive portion of our economy comes from oil. Even though I believe in global warming and my work only has a secondary connection to oil & gas there's still a part of me looking for reasons to justify our continued extraction. I have no doubt Mathematicians are playing with similar rationalizations.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Shame on them by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that the mathematicians in the direct employ of NSA should take a long hard, look at their own ethical code, but the fact of the matter is, the NSA provides lots of funding for university mathematics departments. For research that is open to public scrutiny. From TFA, $4 million goes to a grant program administrated by the AMS and things like undergraduate research programs and number theory conferences. The NSA is just throwing money at mathematicians on the off chance that they discover something useful to national security.

      If the AMS were to sever ties with the NSA, there goes $4 million of funding for public mathematical research in a puff of impotent outrage.

      I'm all with you when it comes to not working for fascists, but we're talking about public research here, for the enrichment of all humanity. Not shady spying stuff.

    8. Re:Shame on them by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And this is not one of them. No compelling case for it being one has been made.

      Most people interested in the topic are too busy shouting anti-American slogans to actually discuss the moral implications and formulate counter-arguments to the arguments in support of the nanny state.

      They don't realize that they're the NSA's best friends, akin to the UFO nuts who helped the Air Force keep certain aircraft research programs secret after crashes that killed test pilots and could have exposed the programs.

      If these fools were more serious about creating change than patting themselves on the back, the first thing they'd do is start speaking out against pejorative attacks on anybody that disagrees with them. You have about 0% chance of changing people's minds when you start calling them names instead of talking to them, and if you place yourself on the same "team" as people calling names, then anybody who disagrees with you can write you off without question. They may not know the truth about whatever the Government is doing, but they can easily dismiss anti-social bullies.

  2. It's called self-interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many entities have significant funding that they are willing to dump into basic mathematical research?

    Engineering and applied science programs can probably find any number of industry partners at home or abroad. I expect mathematicians have the most limited pool of well-financed donors.

  3. I RTFA by waspleg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TL;DR - Money talks (except when you ask the NSA how much they get/spend).

  4. Re:Question... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what exactly distinguishes one of these mathematicians from a common whore?

    It is completely different. When a common whore provides services to her client, the client does not use the results of those services to invade anyone's privacy. Stop insulting whores.

  5. Oh, by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like the elliptic curve cryptography that they backdoored and then pressured the NIST in to backing so that millions of people's data was both available to them and also potentially at risk to any 3rd party to find out about it? The one that's specifically mentioned in the article?

    "But the agency appears to have created its own back door into encrypted communications. The computer industry, both in the
    United States and abroad, routinely adoptssecurity standards approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But in 2006, NIST put its seal of approval on one pseudorandom number generatorâ"the Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator, or DUAL_EC_DRBGâ"that was flawed. The potential for a flaw was first identified in 2007 by Microsoft computer security experts. But it received little attention until internal NSA memos made public by Snowden revealed that NSA was the sole author of the flawed algorithm and that the
    agency worked hard behind the scenes to make sure it was adopted by NIST. "

    Yes, beneficial to society indeed...