US Military Will Soon Begin Testing NSA's New, Post-Snowden Security Measures (dailydot.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Military Will Soon Begin Testing NSA's New, Post-Snowden Security Measures (dailydot.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @01:13AM from the knocking-on-the-wall dept.

Patrick O'Neill writes: The U.S. military will closely review the NSA's security measures as concerns mount that foreign adversaries and independent hackers are targeting the American government in cyberspace. "We will determine whether National Security Agency processes and technical controls are effective to limit privileged access to National Security Agency systems and data and to monitor privileged user actions for unauthorized or inappropriate activity," Carol Gorman, the Pentagon's assistant inspector general, wrote in the letter.

72 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

they are all cows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:22 · Score: 0, Funny

Don't deny what's true!
Post-Snowden NSA by DrYak · 2016-01-12 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Indeed, if a lone consultant like E. Snowden could pull such a leak, one can imagine what entities with far more resources and know-how (like the Russian FSB / former KGB) have been doing for years.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  It's easier for someone without those "resources" to do such a thing because they can't be picked out from the crowd. Snowden didn't have any red flags in his life to be singled out and making any to match him would mean not trusting anyone. To stop someone like him you'd have to live in an absolute dictatorship with censored media and summary executions.
2. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  NSA motto: "In God We Trust, Everyone Else We Polygraph"
3. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, to stop someone like Snowden you don't need an absolute dictatorship. You need to restrict access to systems so that employees only have access to the things they need. You have to create an environment of professionalism where people don't share passwords. You monitor access logs. You know, the things that competent corporate IT usually does already.
  To stop someone like Snowden you just have to have adopted best practices (like the Real World) uses instead of a cowboy attitude towards security (like the NSA).
4. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Besides being a patriot who cares about civil liberties and the NSA following its charter to monitor *foreign* intelligence, not *domestic* intelligence, of course. Yes, people who actually follow the legal and ethical guidelines of the work you hire them for are always a risk to entrenched bureaucracies.
  Hey, wait, I know! Maybe if the NSA focused on intelligence data, instead of all private communications in the whole world, they'd have a bit more focus and could do a better job! But oh, wait, that would reduce the scope of the budgets of their project planners. Never mind....
5. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by shawn2772 · 2016-01-12 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, to stop someone like Snowden you don't need an absolute dictatorship. You need to restrict access to systems so that employees only have access to the things they need.
  That won't work if you're doing things that are morally outrageous, because employees that need access do need access, and if one of them develops a conscience there's no way you can stop them from sharing the information. With draconian measures you can make it hard for them to extract solid proof, but that's all you can do, and that's very hard.
  
  You know, the things that competent corporate IT usually does already.
  LOL. In 20 years in the business, what I've seen is that almost no corporate IT departments are competent to secure their own data.
6. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, if a lone consultant like E. Snowden could pull such a leak, one can imagine what entities with far more resources and know-how (like the Russian FSB / former KGB) have been doing for years.
  This. Information assurance is a Good Thing. Although I'm grateful to Snowden for his service to his fellow Americans in disclosing the abuses, I'm also glad that NSA is getting off its ass and securing its systems. (Although I wish the OPB had gotten off its ass and even made a half-assed attempt to secure its systems first, but I digress...)
  Like most things worth having, it actually requires effort, but secure computing is - or at least ought to be - the right of everyone who owns a computer. Even the government.
7. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by penguinoid · 2016-01-12 02:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Personally, I'm totally Snowden-proof, and I don't have a fraction of the resources of the NSA. To stop someone like Snowden, all you need to do is stop committing tons and tons of crimes.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
8. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to hold the NSA accountable for all the crimes they have been exposed in committing.
  They tried to shoot the messenger (literally) because the message was so freaking bad.
9. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-01-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than those with a conscience are whose with righteous fury for their own political side. It is trivial to insert an operative amone the thousands of agents with this access, who can report back to their politician boss on their opponents' strategy and network and planning.
  With little more than a check box of getting a warrant, and not even that for much of it that is still valuable, there are no technological barriers or even logging for later review by electrd officials.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
10. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  How dare the evil FSB try to hack the NSA, who have never hacked anyone or done anything wrong to any country, industry, business, or individual!
11. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  There is a single word in your post that is the cause of all of this.
  Consultant.
  Security services have been effectively privatized. The NSA is a pseudo-government commercial entity. With zero effective oversight and and a black budget.
  Snowden's leaks happened because he was an under qualified mook with too much access that grew a conscious. (And a mook for sure. Face it. It's been seduced by Putin and is serving Russian national interests in a propaganda roll. Not saying he didn't do the right thing but he's got a weak personality next to Putin.)
  At this point, the best we can hope for is that the next major national security data dump doesn't come from a subcontracted callcenter in India.
12. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by vux984 · 2016-01-12 05:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Whoosh.
  You missed his point entirely.
  a) His point is Snowden wouldn't compromise his trust in the first place, because he's not committing and concealing tons of crimes.
  b) His point is that even if Snowden did compromise him, and leaked his activities... well ... it would be an uninteresting list that practically nobody would care about it.
  As he said, he is *SNOWDEN* proof. He is not *hacker proof*.
13. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden was a Tier 5 Administrator --there's no way to restrict data access with that level of administrator rights. Systems can't run themselves, you must have at least some highly privileged administrators to manage and maintain them. There were very few individuals at Ft. Meade with that level of access and Snowden was one of them. This leak has nothing whatsoever to do with professionalism or lax security, it has to do with trusting the wrong people to administrate your environment.
14. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by nine-times · 2016-01-12 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  It's easier for someone without those "resources" to do such a thing because they can't be picked out from the crowd. Snowden didn't have any red flags in his life to be singled out...
  Right, Snowden didn't have any huge red flags indicating that he was a security concern. Whereas Russia always makes sure their spies are very clearly spies and have tons of red flags indicating that.
  
  ... making any to match him would mean not trusting anyone. To stop someone like him you'd have to live in an absolute dictatorship with censored media and summary executions.
  Here's the interesting thing, though: you're talking about a security agency that taps our phone calls and reads our emails because they don't trust anyone. So what are they doing trusting people? How did some random independent contractor have so much access and so little oversight that he could pull all of this information without raising red flags? And if they aren't able to secure all this information, they maybe they shouldn't be creating and consolidating it all into a single easy-to-search system.
  The most ironic part of your post is the suggestion that there needs to be an oppressive regime in order to stop Snowden, but Snowden did what he did in response to what he considered to be dangerous, corrupt, and potentially oppressive behavior by the government. You don't need a dictatorship to stop Snowden, but you need an open and free society to prevent Snowden from becoming a thing. To stop him, you just need to stop giving random people full admin access to your super-secret nefarious surveillance systems.
15. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by k6mfw · 2016-01-12 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  You know, the things that competent corporate IT usually does already.
  But do they? All these hack jobs could have prevented if they didn't shortcut proper IT procedures and budget.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
16. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about trusting or not trusting people. The spying IMHO is for "general purposes". It's default. They figure maybe they can use your private data, sometime, for something, so they collect and store it. It's more like not respecting the population than not trusting it; or maybe implementing a power relation that has lost the (already weak I would say) pretense of the government serving the citizenry.
17. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Not even if you tried really hard could you demonstrate any more clearly that you don't get the point, cold fjord. Do yourself a favor and fuck off.
18. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  No, to stop someone like snowden you need to stop doing illegal stuff then classify what you're doing as top extra super duper really secret and sack everyone who complains through official channels.
19. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  He is one of the only people within the NSA who DIDN"T violate the trust he was given. I second the fuck-you sentiment in other responses.
20. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by cold+fjord · 2016-01-12 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  So you think it is now "+5 insightful" to state that nobody can steal NSA secrets from me because I have no NSA secrets, and people that want to see NSA secrets would not be interested in non-NSA secrets stolen from me? . . . . . I'm reminded of an old Mad magazine bit in which Idi Amin demanded that idiocy be declared to be a form of intellect. It is also "highly relevant" in light of the story: "US Military Will Soon Begin Testing NSA's New, Post-Snowden Security Measures"
  He isn't "Snowden proof,' he is irrelevant.
  Snowden took the NSA contracting job with the intent of stealing documents from the very beginning - he has directly stated that. His theft wasn't motivated by anything he saw while working at NSA, including any claims of "illegal actions." His claims of making complaints are either misdirection or a farce. There is no proof of that, which is funny when you think of it. He managed to steal 1.7 million documents from many parts of the NSA and defense networks, but couldn't manage to steal a single email documenting that he tried and failed to have concerns addressed within the system. Also unexplained is why he didn't go to Congress.
  
  --
  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
21. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  "I missed the point but want my misunderstanding to be more relevant to the conversation"
  also
  "anything worth doing is worth doing illegally", is that right?
22. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong on both. Care to try again? Don't bother if you can't do better.
23. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden MASSIVELY violated the trust he was given. Epic. He screwed the entire US like few few spies have ever done. Benedict Arnold was a piker compared to him.
  You can stick your sentiments in your ear ... if you can find it. (You certainly can't find your ass using both hands.)
24. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody here is going to do YOU a favor any time soon. LOL
25. Re: Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  No - these "hack jobs" wouldn't have happened if they weren't doing illegal mass surveillance in the first place.
  Instead they chose to do so, and got caught by somebody that actually had a conscience. This is like a kid bitching his little brother that was supposed to hold the step stool snitched on him for getting into the cookie jar - he should stop bitching he got caught and recognize (and follow through not doing it again) that what he did was wrong
26. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's "war crimes", small change, big difference.
27. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by david_thornley · 2016-01-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what were Snowden's motives? Would he have done all that if he didn't believe the NSA was committing what he thought were crimes? Did he actually believe they were crimes? (The NSA actions are not unequivocally crimes.) Why did he release documents that embarrassed the US that just showed the NSA was doing its job?
  There's stuff on my system that I really don't want anyone else getting hold of, including some banking and tax information. Someone who broke in would find no evidence of crime, but stuff that would seriously inconvenience me if leaked.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
28. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by david_thornley · 2016-01-12 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  First, I don't see that they have definitely committed crimes. Some of that stuff is a matter of interpretation, and while I don't buy the NSA's interpretation I'm not the final authority here.
  Second, nobody is literally trying to shoot Snowden. He's wanted to stand trial and almost certainly be convicted and spend a lot of time in prison.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
29. Re: Post-Snowden NSA by k6mfw · 2016-01-12 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was referring to general IT support in a company that gets short-cut to save money and then people from outside can hack in easier because proper measures/procedures were not implemented. i.e. someone gets all the names, SSN, credit card numbers from company's files.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
30. Re: Post-Snowden NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  Do administration need to have access to EVERYTHING or just the files. Seems if they adopted a system like true crypt if a file was lost it could be recovered without the IT guy seeing what's in it. So even if he impersonate or steals credentials as he did he would just see the encrypted files unless the stored the key on the pc vs vs a cd locked in a physical safe
31. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by cold+fjord · 2016-01-12 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what were Snowden's motives?
  That would probably have been clearer if you would have had a seat at the pizza party he had at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong for his birthday.
  
  Why did he release documents that embarrassed the US that just showed the NSA was doing its job?
  
  Because it rendered some of those methods useless while causing diplomatic problems for the US and the NATO alliance. It is the sort of thing that someone schooled in the Soviet school of political warfare might do. Funny that Snowden is being guarded by the FSB, formerly known as the KGB, and his Russian lawyer is on the public committee for the FSB and a friend of former KGB officer and current Russian president Putin. I suppose it could all be a coincidence.
  Snowden's history shows that he was disaffected long before taking the job as an NSA contractor. I hear that the disaffected are sometimes recruited by foreign intelligence services.
  
  --
  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
32. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by Uberbah · 2016-01-12 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA actions are not unequivocally crimes.
  Then you are willfully ignorant of the 4th Amendment. Unequivocally.
33. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by cold+fjord · 2016-01-12 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever looked into the case of Kim Philby?
  
  --
  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
34. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by cold+fjord · 2016-01-12 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Much as most people here are willfully ignorant of Article II of the Constitution, its jurisprudence, and the scope of the 4th Amendment.
  
  --
  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
35. Re:Post-Snowden NSA by david_thornley · 2016-01-13 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I am well aware of the Fourth, and have thought about this quite a bit, so I'm neither ignorant nor willfully so. I could be wrong.
  I'm not saying they're not crimes. I'm saying that they are not unequivocally crimes. A lot of this depends on interpreting the law.
  The Fourth mentions searches. What is a search? Back then, it was simple: somebody searching your papers would go through them, reading them, and looking for something presumably specified by a warrant. Nowadays, what is it? Is automatic collection of emails a search, if no human sees them and no program checks them for anything, unless a warrant is issued? It wouldn't affect you. If a human looked at it, or if a program flagged one of your emails for something (logical fallacy, bad grammar, bad spelling), it could. It isn't clear that storing it is a search.
  The NSA has lawyers, and its own legal interpretations. I disagree with them, but I can't just brush them aside. There is a branch of government devoted to, among other things, interpreting written law, and that is the judiciary. They can make bad decisions, but they are the ones who make those decisions. As long as there is a legal interpretation that says X is not a crime, it isn't necessarily one until the courts rule.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Errr...thanks? by geekmux · 2016-01-12 01:30 · Score: 1

"...We will determine whether National Security Agency processes and technical controls are effective to limit privileged access to National Security Agency systems and data and to monitor privileged user actions for unauthorized or inappropriate activity," Carol Gorman, the Pentagon's assistant inspector general...
Well, nothing like starting this investigation in a timely manner. After all, by government definition the information that was leaked over two years ago only caused "exceptionally grave damage" to national security.
I suppose it's about time they got around to checking out the security controls...
1. Re:Errr...thanks? by gtall · 2016-01-12 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, coming up with new security controls, testing them internally for coverage, re-engineering them for holes should take...what...about an afternoon for you?
2. Re:Errr...thanks? by internerdj · 2016-01-12 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Welcome to the US. When something needs to be done politically then today is too late. Doing it correctly is never as important as doing something now. If we go through the proper process, the voters won't remember why it was a political success.
As Mr. Franklin said... by olsmeister · 2016-01-12 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Three people can keep a secret... if two of them are dead.
Got root? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:36 · Score: 0

So they changed the root password?
so ed helped us get secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:43 · Score: 0

no surprise there? truth+mercy=justice
It's too bad we're not... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:45 · Score: 0

putting post-Republican security measures into place.
1. Re: It's too bad we're not... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Humanity will never be safe until they're gone.
2. Re: It's too bad we're not... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  And we need to build an information architecture that is resistant against attacks by the Republicans.
3. Re: It's too bad we're not... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  And retain textual information of what life was like before Republicans if we ever hope to go back to a time of freedom. Without that, their plan to be the boot stomping on the throat of humanity may succeed. Future generations may not even be able to imagine freedom.
Good News by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:53 · Score: 0

The Military will be the first ones to have proof the government can't deny that the NSA is full of sick individuals who want to spy on Americans for their own profit, greed, and control.
All the better to by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 01:54 · Score: 0

keep our illegal \ questionable spying on YOU secret citizen.
Who is Going to Check up on the Military by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:10 · Score: 1

The military needs to worry about getting its own house in order. Private Manning was given access to a wide range of documents for no apparent purpose and the military only discovered he had abused that access when the the documents showed up on Wikileaks. Likewise they "caught" Snowden only because he made the documents public. We have no way of knowing who else leaked information or who they leaked it to. There is no reason to believe the US government is capable of keeping data secure, that includes the private data they are collecting on everyone.
1. Re:Who is Going to Check up on the Military by PPH · 2016-01-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Seattle Public Utilities - Recycling Division of course.
  You watch our grease, we'll watch your network.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Why not stop doing bad things? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 02:16 · Score: 0

If they just stop doing bad things, they don't have to worry about getting caught either.
No it was a Black Hoodie by laurencetux · 2016-01-12 02:58 · Score: 2, Funny

he normally wore a Black hoodie with a parody NSA logo done by the EFF
and kept a copy of the constitution ON HIS DESK
and nobody thought to check if this guy was going "Off The Rez"??
1. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. What an asshole. How dare he mock a US government agency that is breaking a number of laws and, in doing so, undermining core American values. And a constitution? No real American would want anything to do with that! I can't think of any reason that someone working for the US government would poses a copy of the constitution. Clearly he's a terrorist.
2. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  They shouldn't have anything secret if they don't have anything to hide.
3. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. What an asshole. How dare he mock a US government agency that is breaking a number of laws and, in doing so, undermining core American values. And a constitution? No real American would want anything to do with that! I can't think of any reason that someone working for the US government would poses a copy of the constitution. Clearly he's a terrorist.
  I'm sure the Native Americans (as well as others raked over the coals of U.S. history to this day) would take issue with your statement of "core American values".
4. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  How dare he mock a US government agency that is breaking a number of laws and, in doing so, undermining core American values.
  I thought that too... Then I watched the political process that followed the Snowden leaks and paid attention to the speeches that the politicians gave. The problem isn't that the NSA was breaking laws, quite the contrary. The problem is that the law makers and the President made the laws, classified them, then didn't tell anyone that it was all ok. Some people paid attention (EFF) who tried to sue the Government to learn what was going on, but since they were classified, the Government could cover it all up. ... Enter Snowden. It's hard to pay attention to the details, but so far, I haven't seen anything that indicated that the NSA broke the law. One could argue the Constitution, and that would be a very strong debate, but legally, it's not the NSA that dropped the ball here, it's our duly elected officials. Mental note, vote, vote early, vote often, vote informed.
5. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  I wasn't aware that the native Americans were for having a giant, overreaching government to spy on and manipulate everything they do in their everyday lives, but you raise a good point.
6. Re:No it was a Black Hoodie by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Also worth noting that 'radical constitutionalists' *are* a demographic that the FBI & NSA actually should be keeping an eye on if their situational analysis is going to stay consistent.
  When you encourage jingoism in the population, a legitimate problem arises in the overzealous... particularly if they see you as less jingoistic than themselves.
Cut the cord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 03:25 · Score: 0

Malicious intent and targeting sensitive info on american computers? Don't connect them. Sorry that's the only way. If you have sensitive info, it will be copied and accessed. Don't want that? Then don't create the documents.
Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 04:00 · Score: 0

to see the NSA and the U.S. gov painting themselves as the victims of hacking.
Here we go again by monkaru · 2016-01-12 04:18 · Score: 1

"and to monitor privileged user actions for unauthorized or inappropriate activity" Wouldn't that require "backdooring" privileged user accounts? I doubt normal administrative monitoring would warrant mention as something new, unless, the statement is just political puff 'n' stuff..
I found an image of it! by Lumpy · 2016-01-12 06:29 · Score: 1

https://bossip.files.wordpress...
It's their new system that is hacker proof. Every person using a military computer will have one of these with them

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What do you have to do to be in breach?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 07:53 · Score: 0

What defines "unauthorized or inappropriate activity"? I mean seriously, we already know that NSA employees were looking up their girlfriends. We know that contractors had essentially unlimited access. We know that the NSA listened in on the conversations of the leaders of friendly countries. We know that literally the entire surveillance system directed at US citizens, absent evidence and probable cause, is unconstitutional.
So what do they have to do to be considered inappropriate? Take dick pictures of the President? Send weapons diagrams to the enemy? Moon the Statue of Liberty??
The French Government by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-12 10:25 · Score: 0

Wants a back door.
So what has Special Ed has done that's wrong? by iq145 · 2016-01-13 15:05 · Score: 1

1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy. Sure, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to share more information in the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. People want to complain about the NSA and allegedly "spying" on them, but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda! The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on. They're not interested in photos of your baby or mom's recipes. Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, "spying" on you or terrorism on you? Snowflake did what he did for the fame (for the escape from obscurity that everyone wants... although most average people simply use Facebook). http://www.newser.com/story/17...
1. Re:So what has Special Ed has done that's wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-15 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy.
  
  I'll match your federal laws, then trump them all with the Bill of Rights. So, sorry, you lose, better luck next time.
  Even if the things you allege were true - and some of them clearly aren't - the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land, and protects ALL his actions. Any laws passed by Congress to the contrary are invalid when they come into conflict with the highest law in the land.
  Sleep much in your civics classes? Or is your post just propaganda?
2. Re:So what has Special Ed has done that's wrong? by RespekMyAthorati · 2016-01-15 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  The "founding fathers" of the U.S. were also traitors ... to their sovereign lord, King George.