Slashdot Mirror


NSA's Former General Council Talks Privacy, Security, and Snowden's 'Betrayal'

blottsie writes: In his first interview since retiring as general council to the NSA, Rajesh De offers detailed insights into the spy agency's efforts to find balance between security and privacy, why the NSA often has trouble defending itself in public, the culture of "No Such Agency," and what it was like on the inside when the Snowden bombshell went off. He describes the mood after the leaks: "My sense of it was that there were two overriding emotions among the workforce. The first was a deep, deep [feeling] of betrayal. Someone who was sitting next to them—being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing—could turn around and do something so self-aggrandizing and reckless. There was also a deep sense of hurt that a lot of what was in the media was not entirely accurate. Questioning the motives and legality of what NSA employees were being asked to do to keep Americans safe—all within the legal policy construct that we've been given—that was difficult for the NSA workforce."

212 comments

  1. "Policy construct we've been given" by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So as long as my boss tells me it's okay to torture people and routinely violate the Consittution, it's okay?

    Fuck you, cowardly anti-democratic traitor.

    1. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as long as my boss tells me it's okay to torture people and routinely violate the Consittution, it's okay?

      More like as long as my boss tells me that what I am doing isn't torturing anyone and doesn't violate the Constitution, I'll believe him.

    2. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is NSA in the torture business? I thought that was the other three letter agency...

    3. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article seems like a lot of spin.

      Doesn't give any details, basically citing that he isn't allowed to divulge details, about how and why people are protected by mechanisms like FISA, yet we've already been shown how much of a rubber stamp the FISA courts are, and still the NSA games the system to stymie what little oversight they have.

      All of those bums should be prosecuted for breaking the law, but since the powerful protect the powerful, and power corrupts them, no one will ever laying charges against all the law breakers in the oval office and three letter government groups.

      Just remember they hoover up as much as they can to retain it for 15 years. So it is disingenuous for these guys to yap about not using broad net. The moment you step out of line they will use all the power they have to crush you, and go back up to 15 years to do so.

    4. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by boristdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think a key phrase is "being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing"

      So he admits they just think that they are helping keep people safe. Or that they have convinced the lower echelons that public safety is their goal, when higher-ups like him know better.

    5. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0, Troll

      Snowden isn't exactly all white as snow either - look at the shit that just came out from Snowdens bag of goodies about the UK spying on Argentina between 2006 and 2011.

      Argentina invaded UK sovereign territory in 1982, got the shit kicked out of them by the British armed forces and thrown out of that territory, but has been very vocal and belligerent about it ever since. There has been successive escalations from Argentina ever since, including blocking medical flights, forcing South American companies to stop trading with the Falklands and other acts. Oh, and the repeated claims of ownership over the islands themselves. Just last week they again tried to claim jurisdiction over the Falklands by threatening to prosecute any oil company that drills for oil in Falkland Island waters.

      So, Snowden, in what world is spying on such a nation in such circumstances not justified? Why would you release details on justified intelligence gathering operations?

    6. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Well, he could have just said, "what people at the agency are doing", but you would have picked on that wording too.
      The truth about the NSA is just so much more boring than the B-movie plot scenarios slashdotters come up with.

    7. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Not only convinced them so, but now using them in an attempt to gain sympathy from the public

    8. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 2

      They support and enable it. By all records, they do not do it themselves.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by LessThanObvious · · Score: 2

      Darn Snowden and his outdated sense of patriotism. I guess he didn't get the memo that the Bill of Right's was downgraded the legal status of "Just a suggestion". It should have been clear to him that the American people couldn't be trusted with knowing what the government is doing to them. Good thing they already got all that money budgeted, because if there is one thing we know it's that once a program is a line item on the budget it can't be stopped.

    10. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My grandparents on my mother's side where both part of some 3rd Reich organizations. They believed back then they were doing good and in hindsight never were sure they could have seen what they were really doing and supporting at the time they did it. Gave them a life-long extreme distaste for politics, because they realized it is easy to trick people into doing utter evil while they think that do good. The NSA workers that felt betrayed are lacking that insight, and they do so in a situation where finding out what it actually going on is much easier.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Nice little propaganda piece that tries to put emphasis on an absolute side-show. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. Rajesh De and EVERYONE who works at the NSA is a fucking traitor.

    13. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Ve vere yust followink orders!"

      Time to watch Dr. Strangelove again, which perfectly captures the atmosphere inside this little man's bubble.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    14. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everything you need to know about authority and your fellow man(including myself):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage

      My first contribution is that "doing the right thing" is usually ambiguous and that inaction is almost always a safer behavior than risking taking action only to later discover you were misguided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

      My second contribution is that society presents "moral courage" as a virtue precisely because it is so rare and irrational and is therefore a last line of defense for herd protection against predators(and insider threats) that depend on predictable(Read: rational & self-interested) behavior to extract unearned rent from the flock. This glorification is a self-centered form of "you go first buddy" with much less sarcasm and much more cowardice.

      Wolves resenting sheep-dogs shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Knowing the difference is the hard part since they look very similar to each other & both probably believe that they are acting in the best interest of the sheep(but not necessarily the farmer...). My hypothesis is there is no better heuristic for receiving good compensation than positioning yourself such that you find yourself battling with such ethical quandaries. The pay is normally increased until people stop resigning in disgust. Under those circumstances I normally try to determine how seriously the authority figures took a work of satire:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

      My third contribution is that it remains to be seen if Snowden "did the right thing" and in the absence of complete information we are left to wonder if he was a wolf or a sheep-dog.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

      When your neighbors conceal themselves in a defensive fog it's a prudent question to ask if you're living next to Burt Gummer or something more sinister. Under those circumstances it becomes a matter of faith on whose interests are being protected beneath the cover of concealment, but you have the benefit of a historic track record to form an opinion.

      My fourth contribution is that if Snowden expected a hero's welcome he learned a valuable lesson about moral courage and the pursuit of glory.

      My fifth contribution is that the people who have the ability to change the status quo are assuredly removed from poverty to distance their sentimental bonding from the people who are not benefiting from the world as it is.
      http://historum.com/european-history/20506-louis-xiv-s-reasons-palace-versailles.html

      My sixth contribution is that people who play mercenary to tyrants should learn to differentiate between history lesson and morality tale(another form of bleating from the sheep):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

      If just-deserts were the usual outcome they wouldn't be so important to tell children about... The reduced capacity of Hollywood to quench the blood-lust has lead to some really classic lynch mobs forming on twitter. Nothing pleases a crowd like a good gallows construction or lion feeding.

      Statesmanship really isn't so hard to figure out. Writers go to great lengths to communicate the rules of the game. Its sort of entertaining to watch but once it got boring I decided to watch Slashdot and YouTube comment threads for the lulz. So much crab mentality. Very delicious.

    15. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, really. You're part of one of the most evil organizations on the planet, and your feelings are hurt because someone pointed it out.

      Cry me a fucking river.

    16. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The right thing" is a myth. Good guys vs. bad guys are just a matter of perspective with the roles being narrated by the winners and losers who are benefiting from the change or trying to create a favorable environment for one that hasn't started.

      There is no "wolves vs. sheep-dogs". Just desperate people trying to advance their interests and alliances between temporarily loyal people. The harder they work, the more they need to scratch some itch.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

      All human progress is predicated on an individual's discomfort overlapping with the opportunity to align social benefit with favorable circumstances for relief of whatever it is that is ailing them.

      All human behavior is movement away from a stick towards the promise of a possibility that life will become less unpleasant(without the need to face up with an existential conclusion).

    17. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Pointing out that justified intelligence actions are being damaged is a side show? What world do you live in? Snowden can justify releasing information about immoral intelligence gathering, but what about when the intelligence gathering is legitimate and within the purpose and intent of the agencies involved?

      Releasing details about legal intelligence operations is throwing the baby out with the bath water and puts Snowden in a very different light - he justifies his actions by saying he wants to raise awareness of illegal actions by the various government agencies, and yet he has also released details of actions which don't fall into that category.

      Hardly a "side show" when it calls into question his justification, now is it?

    18. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, he's betraying the UK? That's a proud American tradition.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Yes, fuck them.

      "being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing"

      Surprise assholes. We need people to keep us safe from YOU.

    20. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by msauve · · Score: 2

      You do realize that Snowden only gathered the info, and it's journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras who vet and release the information publicly?

      Are you talking about the same Falkland Islands which the British took over from the Spanish who took them from the British who took them from the French? I'm not really seeing any valid claim to "UK sovereign territory," only a claim by force. Argentina has a reasonably legitimate claim based on geography instead of imperialism.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    21. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Years ago this would have invoked the godwin rule; but when a society is obviously following the same path, that gets pushed aside by common sense. It's really too bad that common sense isn't so common anymore. Secret Courts, Secret warrants... The fact is now that Hong Kong or Russia or wherever is a better safe haven than America, for a Whistleblower exposing something so Completely Unconstitutional that people should be in prison for it, and are still in charge, or recently retired, as this Asshole is. Nixon obviously didn't have enough balls; unlike today's crowd.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    22. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does an Argentina-UK conflict have to do with US taxpayers? Nothing? Well, in that case, stop spending our money on the Falklands unless the UK pays us for doing their work.

    23. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My grandparents on my mother's side where both part of some 3rd Reich organizations. They believed back then they were doing good and in hindsight never were sure they could have seen what they were really doing and supporting at the time they did it. Gave them a life-long extreme distaste for politics, because they realized it is easy to trick people into doing utter evil while they think that do good. The NSA workers that felt betrayed are lacking that insight, and they do so in a situation where finding out what it actually going on is much easier.

      Remember, Goebbel's propaganda wasn't primarily used to fool other nations, but to fool the Germans themselves.

    24. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      News Flash from 1917 - The British are now a key American ally, as are Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

      Screwing key allies is a bad idea, so of course Snowden screwed them all by stealing and leaking top secret information on their intelligence programs.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by oobayly · · Score: 1

      What information about the UK spying on Argentina was actually released? All I heard was the UK did it, and I'd struggle to find somebody who seriously thought they weren't doing so in the first place. The idea that the UK only did this between 2006 and 2011 is laughable - I'd expect the government to make as much effort to know whether it's just bluster from Argentina for exactly the reasons you detailed.

    26. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree, I think the presentation that Russia may be safe for a whistleblower is only true if the whistleblowing was not blown at Russia. I am willing to bet the US would have provided the same safe-harbor had the roles been reversed (until it became politically expedient to do otherwise, which may still come to bite Snowden in his current situation).

    27. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      The British have claimed the Falklands since 1690.

      The Falklands are well outside of customary territorial waters for any country, let alone Argentina.

      The people of the Falklands have voted to remain British in referendum.

      Is your position based on anti-Imperialism rather than will of the inhabitants of the islands?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is a little tricky.

      Yes, we British don't really have an historical right of ownership of the Falklands, it's not like they are on our doorstep, or even in our hemisphere. However, the Argentinians have never had a presence on the islands (except for the famously brief war) and their only interest is in the oil reserves suspected, and now being found, in the surrounding waters. The war was also an attempt by the Junta to boost their flagging popularity in Argentina and a corresponding opportunity for the Conservative government to boost their own flagging popularity in the UK. There are no white hats in this fight.

      The only tangible facts are that the people who now live on the islands voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty and that Mrs Thatcher had bigger balls (and better-trained special forces) than the Junta.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    29. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      > "The right thing" is a myth. Good guys vs. bad guys are just a matter of perspective with the roles being narrated by the winners and losers who are benefiting from the change or trying to create a favorable environment for one that hasn't started.

      Prepend this with "Imagine a world ..." and read it in a James Earl Jones voice and you got one hell of a summer movie trailer.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    30. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      So he just handed a fuckton of information over to unvetted people?

      How is that not the same as releasing it? Its still Snowdens responsibility. But I can see from my down modding above that certain twats dont want it pointed out that their messiah has flaws, and isn't the perfect little shit they profess him to be.

      As for Argentina having a claim, sorry but there is no such thing as a claim based on geographical vicinity, and imperialism doesn't come into it as Argentina was created through imperialism in the first place, And the British claim predates the creation of Argentina anyhow.

    31. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit! He's an attorney, he works for the NSA / Government. His retirement doesn't mean diddly in regards to what he can or cannot say. And everything he has said is bullshit.
      Betrayal?!?! - Yeah they felt betrayed, because they (and especially those at the top) are all doing wrong and false things.
      Hurt, media accuracy, safety and jobs?!?! - Yeah, the media hasn't even started to portray the REAL situation of the above, to give voice to the precious real few in the non establishment who are suggesting real "safety" solutions.
      Government is full of shit and lies and waste.
      Snowden is a hero!!!
      We need more Snowdens.

    32. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by msauve · · Score: 0

      "Is your position based on anti-Imperialism rather than will of the inhabitants of the islands?"

      So, you support Russia taking over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    33. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if they do believe that they are doing some good, that doesn't excuse the constitutional violations.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screwing key allies is a bad idea

      Apart from the fact that you're replying to a joke that you've totally missed, the NSA's own files as revealed by Edward Snowden shows that we have done just that by spying on allies and breaking treaties we have signed in the process by doing so.

      So maybe you should get on the horn with your buddies in Fort Meade and tell them to stop screwing our key allies.

    35. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Both Crimea and Eastern UKRAINE were the occupied territory of a friendly nation. Russia conducted a war of aggression which began by inflitrating special forces to begin its military conquest. Putin has admitted this, and stated his willingness to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to seize Crimea. Should we also consider the rigged election that Russia held? Do you really want to go there?

      That wasn't the case in the Falklands.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    36. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by msauve · · Score: 0

      " the Argentinians have never had a presence on the islands"

      Unless you consider that the Spanish had claims earlier than the British (via an agreement with the French, who were there first), that Argentina was previously held by Spain, and that independent Argentine claims date to the early 19th century attempts at settlement.

      "The only tangible facts are that the people who now live on the islands voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty"

      Are you related to Vladimir Putin? He says the same thing about Ukraine.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    37. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by msauve · · Score: 1

      He realized he was not in a position to personally vet the info. He turned it over to well respected professional journalists.

      You don't know your history very well, either.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    38. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      listen, Dick-head, the boots that need licking are in DC. shouldn't you be there instead of here?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    39. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Falklands are political ruse to distract voters in Argentina from the countries other problems. It's even sadder to fall for the ruse if you are not Argentinian.

    40. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me ONE thing that has been released that shows anything the NSA is doing is legal.

    41. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the diplomatic incident of the time where the US was giving intelligence information about the UK to Argentina at the start of the conflict. That didn't go down well. US intelligence is a shambolic pile of agencies working at cross purposes and sometimes even against foreign policy.
      A notable historical fuckup was part of the CIA supplying guns to Castro before the Cuban revolution while another part was trying to stop him. For more recent stuff see playing both sides of Israel and Hezbolla.

    42. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But, big BUTT here, the people at the NSA and people with university degrees, supposedly well educated and well informed people so the excuse but 'I'm stupid' doesn't really cut it. They knew they were breaking the law, every single last one of the lying asshats, they knew they were betraying their fellow citizens, there is no escape from that. What Snowden, was the one and only properly informed individual in the whole NSA including contractors, fucking bullshit. We are talking literally tens of thousands of co-conspiring criminals, obeying orders is no excuse, it is illegal to obey an illegal order and they are as guilty as the politicians who ordered them to do it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    43. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Argentinians saw the opportunity due to Thatcher's defence cuts and thought the UK would not have to capability to deal with the insult.
      The joke was on them because the cuts took a while to occur so they ended up being hassled by Harrier jets that were to be sold to the USA from the deck of an aircraft carrier that was to be sold to Australia.
      Not enough UK troop transport? Cruise ships did the job.

    44. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Rather obviously. However, the same techniques, only somewhat modifies to changed circumstances and language, are now used against the US population, and it is falling just as much for it as the Germans did back then. People do not learn one bit from history, it seems.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    45. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you've built for yourself a worldview in which altruism does not exist, and the only ultimate motivations are entirely selfish. My condolences.

      In reality not everyone is nearly so steeped in psychopathy, though it does sometimes seem a necessary precondition to accumulating substantial wealth or power.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    46. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Are you are so stupid as to think the people of the Falklands, who having been forced to fight for it, have an almost unhealthy dedication to being British, need the same faked election tricks to vote to stay British? Even if you think that they are stupid no one should doubt what they think about Argentina. How is this in any way the same as the position of the people taken over by Putin, with military force and murder?

      2. Argentina's ability to continue holding claim to the islands is dependent on it's ability to assert that the the British settlers drove the Spanish settlers off with violence, a claim which is contradicted even by Spanish sources on the events which lead to the Spanish settlers leaving. in short even if you accept their (probably false) legal arguments which permit them to continue such an old and unused claim and their (false) assertions that those currently living on the islands can legally be ignored under international law, you still have to face up to a case based on bald faced lies. So again, what has this to do with Putin?

    47. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > People do not learn one bit from history, it seems.
      Nonsense - here we are having this conversation, along with millions of other Americans, long before things have gotten as bad as they did in Germany.

      Nevertheless Barnum's law still applies: You can fool most of the people, most of the time.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    48. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well stated. Of course, as we have a constitution that clearly protects us from these types of searches and seizures, it's much easier for American citizens to know when they are doing bad stuff, even IF they think it is for the right reason.

      Kind of makes our country look as bad as some of the dictatorships we look down our noses at.

    49. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      His well respected journalists have been on a non-stop crusade against the US since well before Snowden ever came into the picture. Important and controversial issues require balanced and impartial presentations and that certainly has not happened. They, like a lot of people, have decided that the US is always wrong and they refuse to entertain or even acknowledge any information that might weaken or possibly contradict their firmly held beliefs and editorial positions. They have released the information piecemeal over time to ensure their continued involvement for as long as possible.What has never been released or highlighted is any information that might show the NSA activities in a more balanced way. Domestic and foreign intelligence agencies are a fact of life in today's world. Arguing the US should shit can it's intelligence agencies while publicly releasing detailed information about every clandestine program around the world strikes me as a real bad idea Balancing security against individual freedoms is difficult and that balance is tested every time a lapse in intelligence or security practices allows something bad to happen. I just hope some future attempts at balancing security and individual freedoms includes repealing the security directive that requires me to take my shoes off at the airport.

    50. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you said progress i read nkvd. rot in hell.

    51. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bingo. sparta has won over magna charta. all the fun of collectvism brought to you by nsa.

    52. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by davester666 · · Score: 1

      they outsourced it to people who did it because they liked doing it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    53. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget binney and manning. there are indeed some people upholding germanic freedoms written down in magna charta.

    54. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like letting the water out of loch ness.

    55. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boohoo. russia protected russians against the lemberg and kiev nationalist bastards and their petty brutality.
      it is just that lemberg and kiev have sold ukraine to new york, so that all the mainstream liars support those bozos.

      the same brutality happened to germans in belgium, czechoslvakia and many other places.

      more power to russia !

    56. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are all doing this. Read the news ya jag.

    57. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in other news, you like it up the ass.

      What a crock of shit.

    58. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They didn't and don't outsource torture because they are a signals intelligence agency. SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE, or SIGINT for short. That's radio, internet, satellite, and what have you. You're thinking of HUMINT, or HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. That's WAY outside of the NSA's lane. CIA, for example, is a HUMINT agency. That's why they have a special operations component, etc.

      NSA, since they are a signals intelligence agency, doesn't have any "black teams," they don't have guys with guns, they don't kick in doors, etc. That's not their job. At all.

      I really can't understand why this is such a difficult thing for people to grasp. Different intelligence organizations do different things. If you can't grasp that, you'll never have even a basic understanding of how intelligence or even governments work. It's like thinking the Department of Transportation mandates beef quality. It's retarded.

      Source: I worked in SIGINT for six years.

    59. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by davester666 · · Score: 1

      If there is one thing we have learned over the last few years, it is that the NSA hasn't met a limit they haven't crossed. And they've been doing it since their inception.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    60. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with limits, it's logistical. Same reason the Army doesn't do boats. It's not their job.

    61. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by davester666 · · Score: 1

      http://www.stripes.com/news/sail-army-the-unknown-career-field-of-us-army-mariners-1.214294

      There's an official term for it: Mission Creep

      It's not enough to just help find the bad guy, you also have to help punish him or get information from him about the next bad guy.
      And it's not enough that there are a bunch of bad guys outside the US, there are some within the US. Gotta catch those guys as well.
      And it's not enough to only catch terrorists or spies. Since we're looking at EVERYBODY [because anybody could be a terrorist], might as well also go after the everyday crimes.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    62. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at the institutional level, definitely not in a statistically significant portion of 'overall proceeds'

    63. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so touchy comrade. Learn to identify satire.

      Did it provoke thought? If you closed your mind to the ideas defensively then maybe that should give you pause on what perspectives you are incapable of empathizing with.

      If you can't empathize you can't understand. If you can't understand, you can't predict.

      Useful at Nuremberg where a blood debt must be paid but not especially useful if you want to survive. Your ideals will ring hollow under provocation if you fail to torture test them with opposing views.

    64. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware the Army has very, very small littoral capacity, logistical in mission. And divers, for that matter. It was supposed to be more an example of organizational nature than anything else, but fine. I take your meaning. Poor example.

      Mission creep is just that, overambitious changes to mission, not changes to organization. My original point was not that what you're talking *doesn't happen,* it's that that particular job would be done by the CIA, FBI, ATF, DEA, or the armed forces. *Not* the NSA. If the President decided to change their mission, the NSA wouldn't shy from doing it, it's just not their turf as it stands now.

      Basic breakdown of responsibility.

      CIA - Foreign HUMINT. Authority ends when target reaches "US Person" Status. That is, a person who either A) A US Citizen or Permanent Resident, B) On US or US Territory soil, or C) Acting on behalf of an organization that more than 50% US Person-owned.
      FBI - Domestic law enforcement, HUMINT, and SIGINT
      NSA - Foreign SIGINT. While NSA engineers are essentially responsible for developing and maintaining the apparatus (mass intelligence dragnet), it's more of an overall DoD/State thing as all of the Intelligence Community uses it in some capacity of their mission, as well as various shared collection tools.

      Britain: MI5 - Domestic HUMINT and SIGINT
      MI6 - Foreign HUMINT
      GCHQ - Foreign SIGINT

      See the separation? This is not to say there isn't an overlap, there is. Nor is to say there aren't exceptions to jurisdictional authority, there is (though those always require fairly high-level authorization, generally the DNI or a court with SCI clearance)

      Look, I'm not here to defend what the NSA has done, what they've created, or what represent about our current state of government or society. I'm just saying that the contention that the NSA either tortures people or has it done on their behalf is flat-out wrong, and I'm trying (possibly failing) to explain why. Anecdotally, the entire time I worked there (2011-2014, NSA/CSS - Hawaii), I never saw any indication of this being done, never heard of it being done, never heard talk about maybe doing it in the future. I think I would have, the IC are a chatty bunch among themselves, more so than most corporate cultures. Honestly, the most secret squirrelly thing that happens are the people that have to plant something in a country that would really rather they didn't. And that's just quiet, intense, and scary, not flashbangs and M4s.

    65. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between screwing the government and screwing the country. snowden screwed the governement, but as a patriotic citizen of the UK, I feel that was richly deserved and very necessary. He certainly didn't screw the country.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    66. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fight for global supremacy wash the ultimate goal and a cause for everything else that happened at that time. From that viewpoint they were not doing anything more evil than their Russian, English or US counterparts, for example.

    67. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often wonder about the mentality of Americans on online forums. Your comment is a good insight.

      The US stands out among first world countries as being extremely violent with a prevalence of psycopathy and narcissism. You are a good example of this.

      Over here the vast majority recoil at the mob mentality prevalent in American discussion, even suggesting the death penalty for a mass murderer will get you singled out as being a poor excuse for a human being (and rightly so). We give half of everything we earn to ensure that everybody in society is properly looked after and cared for regardless of what they have to offer the herd. People are happy to do this, it is both altruistic and in everyones collective interest.

      The problem with Americans like you is that you have no heritage, no identity, no historical culture worth remarking on. As a society you are immature and foolish but with the power of modern technology grown out of proper societies over time. The most stable prosperous places on earth have all learned over long periods of time that you need a balance of socialism and capitalism to move past primitive society, you need a balance between the collective pursuit and the individual pursuit or you will fall by a tragedy of the commons or be ruled over by sociopaths and narcissists (like the US currently).

      America is in the midst of an identity crisis and it is ugly as humanity can get. Again, you are a good example. You are failing and it will get ugly on the streets in the coming decades, history has shown how and why and the pattern is clear. That will be your fault. I have no idea how you can fix it, or if it is fixable without a lot of bloodshed. Judging by history, probably not.

    68. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Did you know that before the Falklands war the British government was negotiating giving most of the islands back to the Argentinians? The plan was for the small inhabited part to remain British and self-governing, but for the rest of it to become part of Argentina and an agreement on things like access to the surrounding waters to be hashed out. It would have avoided a war and satisfied both sides.

      Unfortunately both sides seemed to want a war at that point. Neither side would wait for negotiations to progress, and both sides wanted to show their military strength.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    69. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You do realize that these discussions are going into databases that will be used to select who gets it first, right?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    70. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enemy identified ... Setting phasers to liquefy....

      Yet another willing dupe who believes the NSA's mission has something to do with outside forces. No asshole..... The NSA's purpose is internal social control with the ultimate aim of securing state power.

      BZZZZfffftttttt

    71. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key enemies, you mean! Their international anti-freedom spy network can now assist each of its members in tracking movements of immigrants, environmentalists, activists, indigenous people ... All of those other groups fascist scumbags like yourself would like to see disappear...

      Too bad motherfucker! Fuck you and your handlers!

    72. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, way to add nothing at all to this discussion. The shit we are doing we learned from everybody else. So we are not alone, it's happening around the world. Take off your blinders.

    73. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So he admits they just think that they are helping keep people safe. Or that they have convinced the lower echelons that public safety is their goal, when higher-ups like him know better.

      Or he's simply pointing out that - correctly or not - the NSA sees themselves as the good guys. Just like both Hitler and Churchill did. Admitting your self-image is subjective doesn't mean admitting it's wrong, much less purposeful self-deception.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    74. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, if you had the choice between being British and Argentinian, which would you choose? Totally different ballgame...

    75. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Europe is such utopia, then why do Muslims integrate into American society without nearly as much physical and social violence as in Europe? Why have European Muslims and European Fascists found common ground? I mean, it's becoming increasingly common for radical Muslim youth to have swastikas! But probably this stuff isn't permitted to be discussed in Europe.

      Also, Americans only pay a few percent less than Europeans in taxes. The only substantial difference is that we stupidly piss away much of it on defense. (Cue idiots who'll claim we defend Europe using that money.)

      Yes, we are a more violent society in many important respects. But that's only if you define Europe as the far Western and Northern Europe. Include Southern Europe, Russia, etc (from whence we get many of our immigrants) and the picture isn't nearly as rosy. If you only compared yourselves to New England, for example, you wouldn't come out looking so rosy.

    76. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think it would be fascinating to spend an evening at the pub with you while you explain your thinking on this (over a few pints). Consider... During the Blitz, when German bombs were falling on British cities, who was being screwed? Was it the British government, or the ordinary Britons under the bombs? During the Troubles, when the IRA set off bombs in Britain, who was being screwed? Was it the British government, or the ordinary Britons near the bombs? During the 7/7 attacks who was being screwed? Was it the British government, or ordinary Britons near the suicide bombers? In coming years, when the Security Services are unable to read messages sent by those who plan to kill Britons, and as a result are unable to disrupt those plans as they have been able to in the past (resulting in many arrests and convictions), who is it that will be screwed? Will it be the British government or ordinary Britons near the bombs? Could you be one of those ordinary Britons?

      Are your values such that it is ok for other ordinary Britons to be slaughtered en mass, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you?

      The security services are like a dam holding back waves of trouble. The head of MI5 has previously stated that they can barely keep up. That was before Snowden's theft and leaks had much direct impact. Now the leaks are having an impact and the security services are likely to be breached on a more frequent basis. When that occurs, who will be screwed? The dam holding back waves, or the Britons living "down stream"?

      Snowden royally screwed Great Britain.

      Speaking of royalty, as a patriotic citizen of the UK, can I get a "God save the Queen!" from you?

      Shall we have Jerusalem ?

      Our enemies are stronger because of Edward Snowden’s treacherous betrayal
      Edward Snowden leaks have left Britain 'wide open' to terrorist attack warn spy chiefs

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    77. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody ever things of themselves as the bad guy even when they are . After all there is always the justification that their Behaviour is worse!

    78. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      There are a zillion departments in the NSA. Saying they all knew they were breaking the law is a wildly stupid and inappropriate allegation. Additionally, the vast majority of what they do is perfectly legal.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    79. Re: "Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no answers here... any time there is a question that's actually hard, he hedges or changes position(going from the nsa should be more transparent about how it does things' to 'it's not possible to talk about how the nsa operates'

      I think the most absurd thing is talking about nsa employees feelings on the debate. To be honest, I don't give a flying fuck how they demoralized they get about the talk surrounding them. A significant portion of the American prior think their work is illegal, or harmful, or overly invasive. I would not silence simple discussion for some spook's apparently fragile feelings.

    80. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You know I was alive during the troubles, right? And living in London.

      Are your values such that it is ok for other ordinary Britons to be slaughtered en mass, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you?

      Nope. We've lost 52 people (I'm not counting the lost terrorist lives) to terrorism in the last 10 years. That's an average of 5 per year. How many lives have we lost because some fools decided to spend those billions on terrorism rathern than road safety which kills about 1800 per year.

      IOW, you're deciding that you'd prefer us to be slaughtered on mass, while invading our privacy for the privlige of it.

      Could you be one of those ordinary Britons?

      Yes I could. But I'm a rational person who is able to quantify the risks. Your hyperbole aside, I also know that in pretty much all cases these people are already kown to the authorities and not due to the widespread snooping. The murderers who hacked the head off a soldier were known to the authorities. How much did that help? Not one bit. So how mich would snaffling my emails help? Not one bit.

      The head of MI5 has previously stated that they can barely keep up.

      Of course they do. It's their reason for existence on the line. They're not exactly neutral. In other news, $RANDOM_GOVERNMENT_DEPARTMENT says it's very important and needs more money.

      Um, I also know what Jerusalem is without a video. Yes, I have sung it at the end of a very nice silver-service dinner.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    81. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Well, he screwed up the fact that the US is screwing up their allies, so that makes him a meta-traitor?

    82. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, it's a conspiracy to overthrow the US. You forgot that it was evil commies who are responsible, ones who want to take away all your freedoms.

      Your paranoid rantings show how well you've absorbed the propaganda.

    83. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      A lot of gerk and nerds knew the truth and where commenting on it many years ago, again stupidity is not an acceptable excuse, before quarter done government reports. Oh well, maybe stupidity with regard to quite a few NSA agents is a viable excuse, your choice ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    84. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      I hope you hold the same policy toward everyone in a large organization. A few people make a mistake and you hold everyone in the organization accountable with the added "there's no excuse" bullshit.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    85. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Rather obviously. However, the same techniques, only somewhat modifies to changed circumstances and language, are now used against the US population, and it is falling just as much for it as the Germans did back then. People do not learn one bit from history, it seems.

      People are people. Social engineering works. Training can help against specific and obvious threats, but history isn't much help if the very information you have access to is only partial or wrong to begin with.

    86. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If it gets that bad, indubitably. Still, one must speak up now if there's to be any hope of avoiding that outcome.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    87. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by mcswell · · Score: 1

      You need to take your meds. That or your tinfoil hat is crooked.

    88. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree on that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    89. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I said nothing of the sort. Nobody is trying to overthrow the US government. I only said there needs to be a balanced approach when evaluating the activities of the foreign intelligence agencies. When passing judgments you need to include both the pros and cons in the discussion but the problem is all you ever see are the cons which makes any decision or opinion from that discussion suspect.

    90. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Key allies? You mean 51st states.

      When the US government placed Realpolitik above its Constitutional principles, "ally" ceased to mean "friend".

      So keep in mind that Snowden didn't screw America's friends; the US government did that much earlier and what's left of it hasn't stopped yet.

    91. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't blame them; they are just following orders.

    92. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by 101percent · · Score: 1

      History will judge them my friend. The teleprompters, makeup, and wardrobes only have a limited effect.

    93. Re:"Policy construct we've been given" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment are terrible science and used really shitty methodology. In both cases, the experimenter was part of the experiment, several "guards" were actually pretty nice (but he left that out of the report, and bullied some of them into being meaner, but only while he was looking).

  2. Counsel vs Council by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_counsel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_council

    1. Re:Counsel vs Council by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      This.

      I usually don't get on people about common typos like their and they're, but this is something an editor should catch. A counsel and a council are two completely different things.

    2. Re:Counsel vs Council by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could forgive council and counsel, but if you are a native English speaker and don't know the differences between "there", "their", and "they're" you should just smash your head in with a mallet right now. You're not worth the oxygen you consume.

    3. Re:Counsel vs Council by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1
      their they're!

      oops!

      (fellow grammar pedant here)

      I just wrote to Peter F. Hamilton begging him to employ an editor to revise all of his excellent books with the correct use of which and that

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  3. The irony is so thick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "The first was a deep, deep [feeling] of betrayal. Someone who was sitting next to themâ"being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doingâ"could turn around and do something so self-aggrandizing and reckless"

    Yeah like you betrayed our trust by spying on us all.

  4. How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That feeling that someone finally caught them doing what they knew most people would consider unconstitutional? Nobody experienced that within the NSA?

    1. Re:How 'bout.. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As explained in the article, the staff of the NSA does not have carte blanche to just spy on people. They operate based on requirements. Now, those requirements might cause information to be collected in a way that is unconstitutional, let's face it, they're doing a job. The feeling that they are doing something earth shatteringly wrong is not one that you get in a bureaucracy like the NSA because they're generally only privy to a compartmentalized section of it. Similar sorts of things happen all the time with regimes where large bureaucracies support activities such as intelligence gathering, or "special activities".

      That means that any particular person working there believes that their little bit of the work is helping their country. Without a full insight into the project, they will not feel that the criticisms leveled at the Agency are leveled at them personally. Instead, they believe that Snowden is making their job more difficult, which honestly, he is. It's a matter of perspective. Easy for those of us with no involvement or investment in the NSA to take a strong view against their employer, but for those who earnestly work to do their job there to aid their country, they're going to feel like they're being betrayed. Some of them might, like Snowden, have a larger view and rebel against it, but do would not have his access.

    2. Re:How 'bout.. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the staff of the NSA does not have carte blanche to just spy on people

      They had to create an entire CATEGORY of spying called LOVEINT because so many of them were spying on their spouses, partners or potential dates. While the semantics over what was 'authorized' can be debated, that large numbers of agency personnel had access to the data to troll at their leisure without fear of reprisal still hasn't been refuted.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:How 'bout.. by khasim · · Score: 1

      While the semantics over what was 'authorized' can be debated, that large numbers of agency personnel had access to the data to troll at their leisure without fear of reprisal still hasn't been refuted.

      And, apparently, there were no safeguards set in place to detect such activities.

      It SHOULD have been easy to have a few internal people randomly checking the legality/applicability of searches.

      From TFA:

      Those who don't pay too close attention think the NSA is out there gathering up whatever it can without rhyme or reason. But, in fact, [collection] is in response to things called intelligence requirements, which are made through a big, formal process across the executive branch, by which different parts of the policy apparatus articulate needs for information.

      If those statements were accurate than Snowden's "betrayal" would be meaningless.

      You cannot have it both ways.

    4. Re:How 'bout.. by kuzb · · Score: 1

      They say they don't have a "carte blanche to just spy on people", but the issue becomes when you can effectively make everything classified nobody can check to see if you're following the rules. From the Snowden leaks it's obvious they do not follow the rules.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    5. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As explained in the article, the staff of the NSA does not have carte blanche to just spy on people. They operate based on requirements. Now, those requirements might cause information to be collected in a way that is unconstitutional, let's face it, they're doing a job.

      > The NSA operates by rules
      > Fuck the rules if they get in the way!

      A perfect summation of Fort Meade policy. Bravo sir.

    6. Re:How 'bout.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even if their daily grind gives them no personal access to the objectionable work being done; only stupidity or willful ignorance would prevent them from learning about and thinking about what the NSA does in the same way the rest of us did.

      Somebody who just pushes buttons or spies on North Korea or whatever wouldn't have any reason to develop an on-the-job sense that they were doing the wrong thing; but when you can't open a newspaper without seeing reports on 'NSA basically spies on all the stuff, all the time, at home and abroad; FISA is a sad joke, massive domestic dragnet, etc, etc.'; the fact that you don't feel like you do bad things at work is irrelevant to your consideration of whether your employer does some deeply troubling work.

      In fact, if they do feel 'betrayed'; it's hard to argue that they aren't explicitly identifying with the actions of the agency; even if their job is unrelated to the ones that caught the public eye. Given that those programs were effectively certain to operate with impunity for as long as they wanted if they went undiscovered(even with public knowledge, they've been substantially resistant to any real change); there is very little room for a "Well, those programs are wrong but Snowden should have opposed them more responsibly!" position that isn't bullshit. Filling out a form and dropping it in the suggestion box or sending his boss a worried email or something would have been indistinguishable from doing nothing, in terms of effect.

    7. Re:How 'bout.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It's also a nicely crafted piece of doublespeak: 'carte blanche to just spy on people' suggests a right to just chose somebody for whatever reason you feel like and just start spying on them, for whatever reason. As far as we know, unsystematic picking of random targets isn't something that the NSA does a lot of, and it may well be something they don't have legal authority to do.

      However, pretty much the whole point of public displeasure over what the NSA has been doing is that its programs are sufficiently broad, and the inclusion criteria sufficiently trivial, that essentially everyone, everywhere, all the time, is probably covered. They don't need the right to pick you out of a hat for personal attention, because they act like they have a mandate to get what they can on everyone, just daily course of business.

      It's well done. Deny that you do something largely irrelevant to what you are actually accused of; but in a way that sounds similar to denying the occurrence of the consequences of what you actually do.

    8. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And, apparently, there were no safeguards set in place to detect such activities.

      Apparently that isn't true since they have detected and punished the 1-2 people per year that act out in that manner.

      If those statements were accurate than Snowden's "betrayal" would be meaningless.

      Please explain your logic there. The quoted section would make Snowden's betrayal even more devestating, which it is.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will believe that the NSA has adequate oversight over its own employees as soon as James Clapper resigns or is indicted, charged, and convicted of perjury.

    10. Re:How 'bout.. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The large percentage of people who have been 'disciplined' over misuse have self-reported their offenses...i.e. they have no idea of the scope.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that losing your job and security clearance (for cause) counts as discipline, not 'discipline'.

      So you think that the fact that individuals had a chance to cooperate with investigations and admit their wrongdoing implies that there was no other way they would be found out? You can believe that if you want to, I guess ....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:How 'bout.. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      there's my boy fjord! wondered when he would come along.

      he's the slashdot equiv of fark's bevets.

      only thing missing is the doctored up tarot card...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:How 'bout.. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Self reporting != admitting it to people already looking into something.

      There wasn't any investigation even started with most of them...until they came forward.

      That does not bode well since *most* people aren't going to self-report.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation. Things are stricter at actual intelligence agencies, including the use of polygraphs. (Spare me the discussion on them.)

      Ordinary commercial companies do things like log SQL querries, and perform audits. I would expect nothing less at intelligence agencies. Being discovered would only be a matter of time for comptuer misuse. Even Snowden's activites were detected although he managed to lie his way out of it helped by the nature of his job.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discipline would have been legal charges. Letting them get another government job somewhere is 'discipline'.

    16. Re:How 'bout.. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation.

      so, clapper was investigated and found to be guilty of lying to congress? when does his sentence in prison start?

      look, if you want to be taken seriously here on slash, you have to stop YOUR lying.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things are stricter at actual intelligence agencies, including the use of polygraphs. (Spare me the discussion on them.)

      So why did you bring them up then? They're bullshit and don't work.

    18. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation.

      so, clapper was investigated and found to be guilty of lying to congress? when does his sentence in prison start?

      look, if you want to be taken seriously here on slash, you have to stop YOUR lying.

      Let's review what I wrote:

      Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation. Things are stricter at actual intelligence agencies, including the use of polygraphs. (Spare me the discussion on them.)

      And here is evidence:

      Periodic Reinvestigations

      The whole thing about Clapper is you trying to put words in my mouth, and falsely claiming that I'm a liar. You seem to be providing evidence that you have an integrity problem.

      Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone on the Clapper thing since you can't be bothered to come to a deeper undersanding of Wyden's underhanded dealing on your own.

      Clapper and Wyden: Scenes from a Sandbagging
      Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

      `

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some apparently were prosecuted. But where do you get this "letting them get another government job" from? Did you miss that whole lose your job and security clearance for cause thing? That doesn't equal getting another government job.

    20. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aren't very savy, are you?

    21. Re:How 'bout.. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And your proof that these LOVEINT 'self-reporting' incidents were the result of periodic reinvestigation is....what?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    22. Re:How 'bout.. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I would expect nothing less at intelligence agencies.

      That's cute. You believe government with no oversight is competent?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    23. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Feel free to read the NSA IG's letter in this story:

      NSA offers details on 'LOVEINT'

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    24. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You think that a major agency in the Department of Defense, headed by a 4 star General/Admiral, with a budget in the tens of billions of dollars that provides information to the President on a daily basis receives no oversight? And it can't figure out how to do log files and periodic audits?

      You might be inhaling a little too much of that pixel dust.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, pretty much the whole point of public displeasure over what the NSA has been doing is that its programs are sufficiently broad, and the inclusion criteria sufficiently trivial, that essentially everyone, everywhere, all the time, is probably covered. They don't need the right to pick you out of a hat for personal attention, because they act like they have a mandate to get what they can on everyone, just daily course of business.

      The NSA had become the fucking Stasi. Snowden called them on it, and this asshole feels "betrayed".

    26. Re:How 'bout.. by cbhacking · · Score: 0

      So... a practice so common it generated its own nickname within the agency led to all of 5 instances of internal discipline, none of which resulted in termination for cause / dishonorable discharge (loss of clearance may result in losing your job, but it's not the same thing by far as actually getting fired for cause, certainly not in anything run on a military structure). None of them resulted in criminal charges for wiretapping or violation of the CFAA (doing it using work resources doesn't actually constitute protection under those laws if you didn't have authorization to do it). One person simply retired, scarcely a punishment!

      Meanwhile, this practice (which, again, is common enough to have a fucking nickname) happens an average of seven times a day, but they're "mainly inadvertent" according to the NSA, and let's not talk any more about that particular disclosure, mkay?

      Thank you for linking that, though. It's really polite of you otherwise-worthless scum to go out of your way to demonstrate just how much scum you are (for defending those actions). Die in a fire, please, and leave the world a better place.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    27. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quoted section would make Snowden's betrayal even more devestating, which it is.

      No, it isn't. Stop making statements dressed up as factual when you damn well know they're not.

    28. Re:How 'bout.. by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      You apparently didn't comprehend much of what you read, or understand it in context. So called "LOVEINT" constitutes about 12 cases in 10 years. That isn't "common" in any meaningful way for an organization of over 10,000 people. Losing a security clearance means you aren't going to be able to handle classified information which means you can't work at an intelligence agency. People certainly were punished. How did you miss this?

      One "received a reduction in grade, 45 days restriction, 45 days extra duty, and half pay for two months. It was recommended that the subject not be given a security clearance."
      One "received a reduction in rank, 45 days extra duty, and half pay for two months. The member's access to classified information was revoked."
      One's "database access and access to classified information were suspended."
      One "received a written reprimand."
       

      Would you like to give up a months' pay?

      The "seven times per day" incidents weren't LOVEINT, and as noted were "mainly inadvertent." That is things like making a typo in name or phone number queries resulting in bringing up the wrong information. (You don't make 7 typos per day, do you?)

      Die in a fire, please, and leave the world a better place.

      You can help make the world a better place by trying to improve your poor character, giving to charity, and improving your reading comprehension. In the meantime I'll continue to try to provide good information and correct the ignorance and misconceptions of people like you.

      Have a great day.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    29. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is a logical sounding red-herring. Everyone in third-world India knows about Snowden. Every time an NSA employee sits at his desk, he must get the question in his mind - pretty strongly - is this work of mine going to be used against American citizens?

      If they say they don't, they are lying.

      They want the prestige, the salary, the power, or they love the fact that they are part of the special few who watch the rest - corruption of mind through power. The last option is, of course, cognitive dissonance, but I don't think that is so easy for highly educated and qualified NSA pricks.

    30. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      including the use of polygraphs. (Spare me the discussion on them.)

      Then don't bring them up, you pathetic apologist for a facist dictatorship.

    31. Re:How 'bout.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the meantime I'll continue to try to provide good information and correct the ignorance and misconceptions of people like you.

      You'll also continue to be an apologist for one of the largest intelligence organisations that uses methods the Stasi could only dream of.

      You're not protecting the free, you're supporting the oppression of them.

      You have distinct signs of being a sociopath. There's only one thing for it - swallow a bullet, and the rest of us will be better off.

      You're not making the world a better place until you do.

  5. Ditto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worse than the betrayal of your agency spying on us innocent citizens...?

  6. Feel free to quit by oic0 · · Score: 1

    If they all feel that we are just completely unappreciative of all their hard work spying on us, they should all quit... or go on strike atleast.

  7. Cry me a river. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    I don't want to hear about how things are inside the NSA so much as what Congress is doing to fix these laws that can be "misinterpreted" so badly. It's easy and low-friction to just accuse the NSA but the blame belongs on the shoulders of congress, both those members doubtlessly complying due to the availability of blackmail material and those complying because they want to be the top dogs in a 1984 universe.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re: Cry me a river. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i do think we have reached roman state of affairs. notice the worshipping of violence, drugs, golden calfs, devilism and sodomy

  8. "Editors" - council/counsel by schnell · · Score: 1

    A council is a group of persons who meet to decide things. A counsel is an attorney or other advisor. I'm pretty sure this story refers to the latter. This is not exactly an obscure or little-used difference of homonyms - please correct.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  9. My first interview question by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What aren't you in prison, rotting right next to all the other NSA leaders who betrayed their country and its Constitution?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:My first interview question by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      "What aren't you..."?

      Never mind.

      There are (at least) two appropriate answers here.

      1. The world inside your head seem to be an inversion of the world outside your head.

      2. Every NSA leader that has betrayed the US and its Constitution is in prison. (Get the drift?)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:My first interview question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Every NSA leader that has betrayed the US and its Constitution is in prison. (Get the drift?)

      Please, just stop, Cold Fnord. I can barely even breathe I laughed so hard at this.

    3. Re:My first interview question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was probably just a type try 'Why' instead of 'What'

  10. so sad by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 1

    "We let this man into our very own bunker, where we monitor everything that everyone says, even our bosses," said Rajesh De. "And then he went and told our bosses what we were doing. Let me tell you, it was a deep,deep sense of betrayal."

    1. Re:so sad by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      serpico was also shunned by his peers and bosses...

      you just have to wait a while for history to realize who was really a good guy and who was not.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  11. Re:Auschwitz Guards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is too insightful for Godwin's law to apply here.

  12. There are no whistle blowers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no whistle-blower at ethical and moral institutions.

    People at bletchly Park knew that people were going to die in German attacks. They didn't warn these people because that would show the Germans that their codes were cracked. This was the belief in a greater moral outcome resulting from keeping quiet. The NSA doesn't have that moral high ground and thus... You get whistle blowers.

    Simply put, the NSA is an ethical challenged institution. If it weren't, they would have nothing to fear.

  13. SBS sprong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Sanctimonious BS meter just wrapped its needle around the peg!

  14. Straw Man Detected... Legal !== Moral by tomxor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was also a deep sense of hurt that a lot of what was in the media was not entirely accurate. Questioning the motives and legality of what NSA employees were being asked to do to keep Americans safe.

    People who confuse or purposely use law as a synonym for morality are not to be trusted... The focus could not be more clearly on morality in this case.

    1. Re:Straw Man Detected... Legal !== Moral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While "purposely" is an abominable construct, the nature of living language is that it changes, and many cromulent new words.

    2. Re:Straw Man Detected... Legal !== Moral by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Morality and ethics is what is about right and wrong. "The law" is about how the people writing it want the others to behave and quite often what the others should think. The law has absolutely no connection to morality or ethics (just look at some examples), but the claim of it being so must be the most successful global propaganda campaign of all time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Straw Man Detected... Legal !== Moral by tomxor · · Score: 1

      ...the nature of living language is that it changes, and many cromulent new words.

      Do not twist my argument into one of pedantry, the semantic differences between "legal" and "moral" are not subtle, they are well defined concepts and not sensitive to the constant change that a language is subjected to. So let me be perfectly clear:

      This is not someone misinterpreting a word, this is someone hiding behind the rules of others to avoid debating what is right and wrong. Rajesh De's argument is they had permission, the argument of the majority is their actions were wrong.

      I challenge you to replace the words pertaining to legality in Rajesh De's quote and have it not sound like complete horse shit.

  15. Re:Auschwitz Guards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, they were part of the "team keeping people safe", for narrow definitions of "people" and "safe".

    This reminds me of an account (and go fuck yourself if you eant to "lol Godwin" - it has nothing to do with argument validity) of a Jewish man who joined an SS division after hiding his heritage. He talked of the great spirit of camaraderie and tight loyalty, but that if anyone had found out he was Jewish, they'd have killed him without question.

    Organised evil is all about a strong sense of loyalty to your co-conspirators - because that is all that's left when there's no conscience to lead you.

  16. Policies are not safeguards by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you read the article, he talks about how they have "policies" against indiscriminate snooping. But it's all a lot of talk. For example, he says the FISA court "can be quite harsh" in their written opinions -- as if this were a real consequence. Maybe it's a big deal for a lawyer, but there's an extremely large cultural divide between lawyers and non-lawyers.

    No one will be reassured by any of these statements. Nor should they be, if this is the best story the NSA can tell.

    1. Re:Policies are not safeguards by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you persist in this behavior we shall write you another stern letter.

      Scary.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Policies are not safeguards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one will be reassured by any of these statements. Nor should they be, if this is the best story the NSA can tell.

      What he doesn't tell you is that:

      a) the NSA's charter is they can do anything not disallowed (in other words, directly opposite the Constitution) [1]
      b) even after routine law-breaking, things are legalized after the fact [2]

      So even when they have broken the law, that doesn't really mean anything, except the next administration will pardon them
      all and it continues.

      Any lawsuit is meaningless because by the time it takes to float its way up, it is "all legal" and tossed out.

      [1] "my time with the nsa" article
      [2] "no place to hide" greenwald

    3. Re:Policies are not safeguards by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is just like all people that have been part of a truly large evil: Denial, misdirection, lies. They never want to acknowledge they did wrong.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Policies are not safeguards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, he says the FISA court "can be quite harsh" in their written opinions -- as if this were a real consequence. Maybe it's a big deal for a lawyer, but there's an extremely large cultural divide between lawyers and non-lawyers.

      It is not about him being a lawyer. It is about how that's the worst thing someone in authority has ever done to him. He simply can not imagine something worse because he's never personally experienced anything worse. That's an entirely too human reaction. It takes a lot of effort to see anything beyond your own personal experiences.

    5. Re:Policies are not safeguards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article:

      When there is a vacuum, people will naturally think the worst; we all do that.

      In the context of the U.S. Dept. of Edu. actively using Soviet/Pavlovian/Skinnerian techniques of conditioning (brainwashing, literally,
      no exaggeration!) [1] for the past 20-30 years (perhaps more like 50, maybe more...the techniques go many years back) ... why should ANYONE trust government "intelligence agencies" building profiles of people will be used for "good."

      The damage is already done...has been done...continues to be done.

      Where is the track record of the U.S. government? All down the tubes. You start brainwashing peaceful citizens, I don't care if it is for
      communism or atheism or Christianity or democracy or the economy...a line has been crossed. Why is this acceptable behavior, still? [3]

      Not directly related, but there are PLENTY of valid reasons to be concerned about "data gathering" and "profiling" people...from U.S.
      government past behaviors, no need for comparisons to Nazis or the KGB etc. -- we literally do brainwash people in the U.S.
      right now.

      What are they protecting in the first place? The "U.S." is pretty much all gone at this point. Asleep at the wheel, or they are all incompetent...there is not much in between that is left at this point.

      Romney says the NSA "tells us when other nations are spying on us" but no, they don't. They sit back and let it happen, because
      brainwashing U.S. citizens for international education == more $$$ for global corporations.

      The U.S. literally IS Soviet Russia at this point in time.

      [1] "deliberate dumbing down" is a good start; "mastery learning" "outcome-based education" "flipped classroom" "khan academy"

      [2] "none dare call it treason" mentions Allen Dulles' previous attempt at the failed "League of Nations" circa 1919... why
                exactly was a future head of a U.S. intelligence agency clamouring for "world government" again? There is also an implication Russia
                was/has been kept around for so long, to keep people in fear, grab more and more power. There is no "God" without a corresponding
                "Satan" basically, other nations have played the role as needed.

      [3] don't have a link, but if you look at somewhat-recent incidents where the U.S. Military was accused of "conditioning" U.S. politicians into
                more funding for various wars, there is mention that the U.S. signed onto many U.N. agreements against torture...except in the realm of
                psychological torture; per U.S. laws, if there is no "physical harm" it is not "torture" ... not that the U.N. is the arbiter of everything...simply
                that brainwashing U.S. citizens may very well be "legal" since there is no U.S.-agreed-upon rule it is not (believe there were previous bills
                and acts to that affect, they were obsoleted...e.g. recently an overturned act allows State Dept. propaganda media meant for foreign
                consumption can now be broadcast in the U.S. ... under the theory U.S. citizens being allowed to see such things means more
                oversight...but the same act was also about not using "Soviet techniques" at home...)

                point being the U.S. does actively brainwash citizens at home, during "peacetime" ...

    6. Re:Policies are not safeguards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point being...just look at the sorry state of U.S. education and brainwashing...look at the Snowden-released documents
      yourself...

      Evidence abounds the NSA and CIA pretty much do only exist for promoting "world government" (world communism) and financial
      espionage...that is all "communism" has ever been about..."one world"

      They do not serve U.S. interests or independence at all.

      I would have less of a complaint against U.S. intelligence agencies if they actually served the U.S. and its goals...
      they serve the cause of world communism (fixing markets for global corporations) and don't seem to do much else.

      They cannot stop a Soviet infestation at home...what does it matter what "outside" threats they keep out?

      U.S. intelligence agencies at this stage are either:

      a) completely competent, know exactly what they are doing, planned the destruction of the U.S. from the start
      b) only care about money, don't wish to see the U.S. die, but don't really care either way
      c) heads in the sand, misled and lied to, only believe what their superiors tell them, are restricted in the information
              they are allowed to see

      There is just little room for much else...they have and continue to fail, the last 20-30 years, to stop Soviet takeover
      of education (thank Reagan for much of that)...and you can go back 100 years and see England Fabianist influence
      with apparent OSS-sponsored treason.

      I am not arguing politics nor even economic systems, nor do I even per se have anything against communism (worldwide and importing into the U.S. is another story...brainwashing of people is another story too)...nor do I necessarily even care about the U.S. constitution or its laws or tastes...simply put, the U.S. intelligence agencies have all failed. Those are the facts, aside from anything else.

      The only logical conclusion, except complete incompetence, is the stated goals of U.S. intelligence agencies have absolutely nothing to do with their real goals, which is overthrow and destruction of the U.S. , which is rigging world economies, which is making global corporations happy and sanctioning anyone who does not agree with world communism or who strives to have independence, their own
      currency, not be part of the U.N. , etc.

      I advise anyone to look at the evidence yourself -- I am hard-pressed to see an alternate conclusion.

    7. Re: Policies are not safeguards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      marxism was invented in the bankster capital of london. go figure.

  17. Rajesh De...Fuck You... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Rajesh De, you are so full of shit. The truth is you spineless fucks have been taking the country over and implementing some of the worst totalitarian wet dreams the world has ever seen. Most of it was illegal, in a position of National Security that is akin to treason. Any nation is a product of the laws an the ethos upon which it was built, the minute you undermine that, for whatever reason, you are the enemy, you are the traitor.

    We all know this is systemic throughout the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon. Mainly driven by corporate greed and morons that couldn't tell the difference between true patriotism and criminal activity if it came up and slapped them in the face. The reason that you are so worried about the "team", is because if they knew what you bastards were doing to Americans, US troops, your allies and the general public, they would put bullets in you.

    Everyone knows that you guys represent a small group of investors; arms dealers, oil barons, etc., and you don't give a flying fuck about the American people. As long as the cash is rolling into the bank, that's all that matters.

    All this bullshit about compartmentalised secrets to protect the nation, when you are telling the Chinese and Russia everything in detail behind closed doors. As long as the public is kept in the dark, then you and your ilk remain in political control of the US. But the facade is crumbling, you can't hide an oligarcy forever, especially as it decends into chaos.

    Good luck you fuck, die well.

  18. balance between security and privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    efforts to find balance between security and privacy

    That must be a short article, on par with "famous Jewish sports legends".

    1. Re:balance between security and privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  19. Rajesh De by stox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your first and absolute responsibility is to the Constitution.

    The NSA has failed miserably in that role.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Rajesh De by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Don't you think that ..... never mind. I keep forgetting that these posts really aren't about facts and reasoned discussion but rather about emoting, spleen venting, and the Two Minute Hate. Carry on.

      Boooo NSA! Hissss! Teh Traiterz!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Rajesh De by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice retort fagot

    3. Re:Rajesh De by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drunk on state Kool-aid are we?

      Your mother you should fuck!

    4. Re:Rajesh De by bigfoottoo · · Score: 1

      cold fjord, in the interview Rajesh De used the words "collect", "collection", "collecting". Since your evidently are thoroughly informed about NSA activities, can you tell us EXACTLY what these words mean within the NSA?

  20. In related news... by aralin · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Lucifer complained about God's betrayal and claimed that Hell has got to be hot, which is fully within the framework he is supposed to operate in and there is really nothing he can do about it.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  21. Keep Americans safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeezus, who the hell does he think he's kidding? No, the NSA mission is not to keep Americans safe, its to serve and protect the increasingly convergent interests of the global elite.

    1. Re: Keep Americans safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is why they drum against putin. this man is not wholly corruptable by money international.

      they have all nations in their pocket except russia ad china.

  22. Re:Auschwitz Guards by gweihir · · Score: 2

    The rhetorics and practices of "keeping our people safe" and "fighting the enemy" are well polished. The 3rd Reich did not invent them, they merely perfected them. The books by Goebbels are still used to train people in that business. The NSA employees that cannot see what they are part of are just more useful idiots. There is an endless supply of useful idiots that are willing to believe without verification or question if the propaganda just comes from some authority. These people make the building blocks of any totalitarian, fascist or otherwise extremist state or organization.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Afaik, Rajesh? You broke your OWN rules... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: The NSA isn't chartered to do domestic surveillance, the FBI is (were the latter to do it, that'd be another matter entirely - NOT that I 'champion' gathering data on *EVERYONE* as being right - it's not: INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY!).

    * I do however, understand 1 thing: EVERY "gathering of men" (from fratboys to world ruling councils etc.) has GOOD people, & BAD people - it all depends on THEIR "point-of-view" (or, rather, that of their MASTERS they kow-tow to) - some of your people are probably APPALLED as well as what you said... they're the GOOD ones (those who are appalled).

    APK

    P.S.=> Feel free to correct me where I am off/wrong here... apk

  24. Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh boo hoo for the agency that is so non-constitutional. Every one of them should be fired and the entire organization rebuilt from the ground up, though I doubt this will happen.

  25. He's not going to badmouth the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would hire a lawyer that has a history of speaking poorly of previous clients? This article is nothing more than a free commercial for De.

  26. Thanks for joining us tonight by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    Tonight on our program, a man who made his living defending the practices of a massive extra-legal spying organization will defend the practices of that organization. But first, a look at sports.

  27. Four Points by ikhider · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) The NSA is aware of computer software vulnerabilities and exploits by other unscrupulous entities, yet they hoard this information rather share with the public (they are mandated to protect). Imagine how much safer American computers would be from say, phishing and ransomeware that affects even public institutions like schools should the NSA actually try to help them. 2) A lot of NSA espionage resources are dedicated to industrial espionage of foreign entities to maintain economic hegemony for a handful of corporate interests rather than American business at large. 3) Retroactive punishment. Web activity is stored and mined should future laws be broken to retroactively punish a populace or build profiles. For instance, someone takes part in a protest such as the occupy movement. That person's web life becomes an opportunity to search and find anything incriminating, no matter how trivial. 4) Mandated sharing of raw intelligence gathering with Israel, without reciprocity. Rather than empowerment, the NSA seems more of a repressive regime tool.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    1. Re:Four Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5) The NSA has actively undermined encryption standards losing the trust needed to perform their job securing our own infrastructure.

  28. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Questioning the motives and legality of what NSA employees were being asked to do to keep Americans safe ...

    Translation: We were just following orders ...

    ...all within the legal policy construct ...

    Translation: ... because 'war on terror'.

    I don't want to use Godwin but the parallels are frightening. The USA's slide into Nazism is mentioned in the 'End of America' but there is a difference. In 1930s Germany there was a campaign of violence to enable a political coup. In the USA, the politicians happily enabled secret laws, secret prisons, suspension of 'habeus corpus', torture, mass surveillance, mass robbery and a 'guilty until proven innocent' policy.

  29. Legal and right are two different things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a matter of whether or not it's LEGAL, it's a matter of whether or not it's RIGHT.

  30. spelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Counsel, as in general counsel or legal counsel is spelled counsel.

  31. Difficult for them? by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, fuck all that crying. It SHOULD be difficult for them. Anyone with as much power as the NSA should have to account for every damn thing they do on domestic and friendly soil. Fuck the delusional workers who think they're doing the public a great service. It's time for them to wake up and understand that they're goddamn pawns in the game of circumventing democracy so the rich and powerful can stay rich and powerful.

    The NSA broke the public trust in a major way, and they deserve all the criticism and skepticism they get.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  32. I still like em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone still actually remembers the '90's and the lucidity that came along with them, you might also recall the vastly different attitude Americans had toward government secrecy. It was essentially EXPECTED that they were keeping huge secrets from us, regarding aliens, physics, psychology, etc.

    Now we seem to have entered a deep sleep in which all of that is forgotten and all we take are opinions we picked up from the media pundits.

    Sure it's easier than facing the truth, but how many of you out there seriously don't remember how different the intellectual climate was before those towers fell?

  33. Stanley Milgram approves this article. by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    n/m

  34. Damn Snowden!!! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Damn that Snowden and his betrayal of the trust of an agency whose modus operandi is betraying trust.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  35. Playing the victim card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, the poor, poor people at the NSA. They blatantly violate the highest law of the land under the flimsiest and most twisted of policies. They can pretend all they want that what they are doing is legal, but NOTHING congress or even FISA does can make it so... not without a constitutional amendment. And we are supposed to feel bad for them? I think not. They are not the victims here... the millions, nay billions of innocent people they just can't help spying on are the actual victims. I don't care if they think they are protecting people, the evidence suggests they are doing the opposite.

  36. Counsel or Council? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the original poster means counsel....

  37. Re:Auschwitz Guards by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    In the face of real enemies your rhetoric falls apart.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  38. NSA assumption that the means justify the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're so deeply closeted and out of touch with the meaning of ethical public service that they don't even recognize when the means they use hit at the very heart of the freedom and democracy that they are supposedly protecting. It is indeed sad.

    Rajesh just doesn't seem to realize that his agency is doing wrong, nor that the NSA's actions are so far beyond the pale that Snowden's whistleblowing was an absolutely necessary action for righting a wrong. "Betrayal" of sociopathic actors in government is every citizen's duty, part of protecting their government's integrity.

  39. Let me chuckle a tear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Someone who was sitting next to them—being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing—could turn around and do something so self-aggrandizing and reckless"

    That explain the lack of mirror in the NSA HQ.

  40. It's All Rumor Until Someone Is Under Oath by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 1

    I've heard the accusations and the self-serving denials and the spin of crusading bloggers. Get someone on the stand, under oath, subject to cross-examination, and then we'll have something to talk about.

  41. Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who work at "No Such Agency" go to great lengths to stay within the lines of the 4th amendment, U.S. laws, and policy and procedures. Folks on ./ can stand on their soap box and scream foul all they want. Folks on ./ are not inside those walls and are off base with their venom. -signed someone who knows how it is

    1. Re:Reality check by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The NSA likely has far more of a need for a reality check. The omniprescence of human stupidity alone means that nobody should have the kind of power that they have, especially without serious objective external oversight and a robust system of protections for whistleblowers, including employment within government agencies or with clients. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to leave the country. They should get a bonus and a promotion.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  42. Enron accountants felt betrayed too by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Time to get rid of those toy soldiers and replace them with real ones.

  43. HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet it WAS difficult talking yourself into taking away privacy, and condemning encryption to "save you from the terrorists"

  44. Re:Auschwitz Guards by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaand fail. In the face of an existential threat from enemies, maybe. But nothing like that is anywhere in sight. Hint: You have been successfully manipulated, and you are not even aware of it. Makes you one more "useful idiot".

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  45. Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Work for NSA and become a lying piece of shit.

  46. Not Securing America by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    "He is a good German..."

    I believe the guy, at least partially. Probably a lot of NSA drones are honest, decent people that knew very little about all the dirty shit that the agency is pulling. In an organization that size you can't keep secrets very long unless you can compartmentalize information. There are probably a lot of low level people who work for the NSA because they believe in protecting America.

    Of course that makes the small group(s) of filthy fuckers that are in the know and driving this stuff all that more guilty, for doing illegal shit in the first place, and then conspiring to cover it up. If I ran the DOJ, I would fire off a massive witch hunt to convict everyone in charge at the NSA with treason. Hang the lot of them, they have done more to damage US internal and external interests than Snowden could ever manage.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Not Securing America by byrdfl3w · · Score: 1

      If I ran the DOJ, I would fire off a massive witch hunt to convict everyone in charge at the NSA with treason. Hang the lot of them, they have done more to damage US internal and external interests than Snowden could ever manage.

      A cunning plan sir, with just one minor fault: As soon as any of the NSA bigwigs heard of your plan, your mangled dead body would be discovered shortly thereafter, blamed on "suicide" or an "unfortunate accident", well before your first witch hunters could even get their shoes on.

    2. Re:Not Securing America by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't even stop there. Couple of recent stories have pointed up a new NSA hack. They are right into the US postal service. All the computerised mail and parcel handling computers have now been hacked and pawned by the NSA. This is resulting in seeming completely random police raids on individuals who do a suspect amount of letter and parcel postage, extremely violent raids, as the Evil Empire is desperate to fund more tax cuts for the rich by stealing 'er' confiscating the assets of the middle class, the drug war must continue. Happy posting in the US the NSA is watching you and passing on the info to law enforcement for violent action (never put the return address on the back, simply don't).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  47. Three hundred sixty five degrees by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

    ...burnin' down the house

  48. counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you have little credibility if you can't do something basic like spell

  49. The real solution will never be implemented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First we need a real set of whistle blower laws, so that new Snowdens can report stuff that is against the law, like he tried to report but got ignored. These new laws need to say in effect:
    - No entity can do things that are against the law, not even secret entities that try to claim they are above the law. Report them the instant they try.
    - Everyone above the "lowest company position that has knowledge of the infraction" likewise has knowledge and goes to jail. No plausible deniability.
    - Everyone is required to declare anything they know of that is against the law or be guilty of simply not reporting it if nothing else.
    - You can't just "interpret" the words to change the law.
    - Everybody that breaks a law pays for it; none of this lying to Congress with no penalty. None of this "CEO takes a 50M golden parachute and retires." None of this scapegoat goes to jail and it's business as usual.
    - You can't just hire an entity in a different country to do something that you are not allowed to do yourself (GCHQ spying on things NSA is not allowed to spy on). "I didn't know how they did it" is not an excuse.
    - Now how do you do this so that an upset ex employee can't just cause mischief for mischief's sake.
    - Now how do you handle a country that has no such rules. We may need to make laws that say XYZ can be done and say it publicly. What about countries that clandestinely do XYZ and say they never do it?

    I wonder how much the TLA's troll here.

  50. Hope this is not exactly what he said by X.25 · · Score: 1

    "being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing"

    If this is exactly what he said, then haha.

  51. Re: Auschwitz Guards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nazis felt to be threatened by the mortal enemy of communism. and indeed millions of people were killed by the commies for just being what we call farmers these days.

    so....humanity sometimes is a meatgrinder

  52. NSA AND MORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not see Americans going to the streets and protest against the NSA abuse, or the continuous drone killing on Presidential orders, or the training and arming of jihadists to fight US unfriendly states.
    Americans do need a reality check, before some nutcase in Washingtoin starts WWIII.

  53. Ahhh... cold fjord! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was missing you! Where've you been all that long?

    > I keep forgetting that these posts really aren't about facts [...]

    The NSA having trampled over everything sacred in our democratic and state-of-right constitutions isn't a fact because...?

    > emoting, spleen venting, and the Two Minute Hate. Carry on.

    You're talking about yourself here, right?

  54. The NSA has No American Style Checks and Balances by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    If our founding fathers were alive to learn NSA is doing, they would be grabbing their muskets from the walls!

    Shame on you NSA.
    Shame on you Congress for empowering them to do it.
    Shame on us for re-electing them.
    Shame on them for brainwashing us.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  55. Uh... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    Counsel, not "council."

  56. Thank God For Snowden by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Seriously, those that deliver information to the public are heroes. Our nation must no be so weak kneed that we need secrets. Voting means nothing when the public has no right to know. Example : Does our military need more funding or less funding? How the heck can we know when we do not know the capabilities of our military? Some senator preaching in the senate may make all kinds of claims but that may be based on bringing home the pork chops rather than military needs.

  57. Irony by NotBorg · · Score: 1

    deep sense of hurt that a lot of what was in the media was not entirely accurate

    Coming from an agency who's entire public record can be summed up by the words "not entirely accurate" ...

    ...

    ...

    Shit, dog, I got nothin.

    --
    I want this account deleted.
  58. This guy is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At giving non-answers to questions. I quit reading halfway through, but I don't think this guy gave even a single meaningful answer to any question that was asked.

    He is good at giving non-answers that seem like answers, I'll give him that.