Slashdot Mirror


NSA's Best Are 'Leaving In Big Numbers,' Insiders Say (cyberscoop.com)

schwit1 quotes CyberScoop: Low morale at the National Security Agency is causing some of the agency's most talented people to leave in favor of private sector jobs, former NSA Director Keith Alexander told a room full of journalism students, professors and cybersecurity executives Tuesday. The retired general and other insiders say a combination of economic and social factors including negative press coverage -- have played a part... "I am honestly surprised that some of these people in cyber companies make up to seven figures. That's five times what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes. Right? And these are people that are 32 years old. Do the math. [The NSA] has great competition," he said.

The rate at which these cyber-tacticians are exiting public service has increased over the last several years and has gotten considerably worse over the last 12 months, multiple former NSA officials and D.C. area-based cybersecurity employers have told CyberScoop in recent weeks... In large part, Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions.

"What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

412 comments

  1. Cue the hipocrisy... by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

    You can't have it both ways.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All well and good. The NSA possibly protects us from our enemies. But who protects us from the NSA? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

    3. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA, the National Anti Security Agency.

      They're so secret they use the same acronym as NASA to throw the public off.

    4. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All well and good. The NSA possibly protects us from our enemies. But who protects us from the NSA? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      But so far the NSA hasn't been protecting us for our enemies. In fact, they are doing so bad at protecting us, the Russian had no problem making everyone vote for Trump. So either the NSA is doing a good job or the NSA fails badly at it's mission.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president." - Ayup - The NSA should have ensured that Hillary was prez. They slipped up bad.

    6. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a nice troll you have there. You've completely made up two positions and then put them in opposition to each other.

      I don't know of anyone hoping for the agency's destruction. I know I don't. I understand that they have an important roll to play in national security. What I do want is the ability to examine the effectiveness of their actions. What I do want is the ability to hold them legally culpable when they screw up and target the innocent and unwary without legal justification. The line used in the blurb is akin to "They were following orders" which doesn't hold moral or legal water. And maybe that's why they can't get the best and brightest anymore. If you can't find the justification to yourself to keep doing the job, maybe it's the job that needs to change.

      As for the agency itself, this is not an either-or position and I would hold the same position for the FBI and CIA. We, the people, need to be able to examine fully the actions of our government and decide for ourselves if this is what we want. Hiding the results by reproducing them in triplicate, losing two copies, burying the third in soft peat for six months before recycling it for fire-starters isn't doing that.

    7. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly the way the NSA wants it put out there, as a either/or thing. "Give up your freedom or the Russians will get you!". Stop that. The NSA should quit spying on the citizens and collecting a vast database of everybody and everything they do. There are police to police the citizens, the NSA should keep to spying on enemies.

      Oh, and the workers at NSA are not heroes at all. Best case they are jack-boots "just following orders". Worst case they are weasels and snitches.

    8. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enemies like, European countries, and other countries, who have never attack you or anyone else? The NSA is into espionage and sabotage, not protection.

    9. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

      No US government has believed, upholded and understood the Constitution since the National Security Act of 1947.

    10. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      You can't have it both ways.

      How is it hypocrisy to say you don't like hacking by both the NSA and the Russian government???

    11. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the NSA has focused more on hacking and putting make sure crypto is weaker than it should be. Some algorithms are even no longer used due to this reason. If the NSA was seriously trying to protect the country they would be working to make sure the USA systems are much better protected and that means better security by default and better crypto.

      The NSA could have worked to make Windows, OSX, Linux, Android, iOS and internet of things stuff more secure by default and pushed for real security standards and tools in programmers to help make the software more secure.

      The USA is simply a higher value target than other computer systems due to the money in the economy and we will never gain as much from being able to break into other systems as they have to gain breaking into our systems.

      The NSA has failed at helping protect the country and destroyed almost any security work they do try and do since they have no credibility anymore. It will take decades to repair the damage if they even try at all.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    12. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary: The NSA has a limited resources. It is reasonable to question, if the resources are well spend on wide scale surveillance, and if it would not be better spend on defensive capabilities, which might have reduced the influence of an external agents on the political system.
      It is indeed questionable, how much influence it had. But recent events don't paint a good picture on the counterintelligence capabilities of the NSA.

    13. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the perfect troll. Say something obvious, and include over the top cynicism. It's the pattern for a large percentage of +5 mods here.

      Say something that people agree with emotionally, not factually, get +5, and now everyone has this opinion reinforced. People on the fence are swayed because it was agreed with by at least 3 others.

      And the worst part, factual replies are buried because they have had less time to be moderated. So rebuttals don't appear as prominently.

      It is groupthink, and it happens every day. My point is to recognize it not as a communication strategy, but as an ego strategy. Why else state the obvious? Yes there are people focusing on this facet, and others on a different facet, and those cannot be aligned. Obvious, oversimplified, and unnecessary.

      But you can't argue against it, because facts get buried, and people are fact resistant anyway. So we get the perfect troll. The unintentional, trolling for ego stroking and upmods. And it flies under the radar, as it isn't the classic troll for replies. It's beautiful, in a twisted way.

    14. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is actually one of the major criticisms(right after the whole 'makes grim mockery of the 4th amendment' class of problems) of the NSA's choice of focus.

      When they focus on doing security their work is viewed pretty favorably. When they tolerate(and even create, as in the case of Dual_EC_DRGB) vulnerabilities in order to preserve their ability to play offense; they not only raise serious questions about government surveillance; but they actively sabotage the 'security' part of their mission in exchange for some surveillance data of questionable utility.

      There is absolutely nothing contradictory about opposing the NSA's enthusiasm for playing black-hat while also being of the opinion that, if anything, we need vastly more information security work being done. Espionage isn't of zero value; but it is a very dangerous choice of focus when we depend on computers as much or more as anybody else; and mostly use the same basic hardware and software. We have had very little reason, aside from some vague handwaving and 'trust us' to believe that the NSA's (admittedly technically impressive) exploitation of the fact that security is mostly awful has done us even close to enough good to offset the harm done by the fact that security is mostly awful.

    15. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      Seriously, WTF is this comment and why is it (currently) +4 Interesting?

      #1. Many, many people who have been most critical of the NSA's activities have been skeptical of the claim that Russian hackers are the sole reason Trump is president. This includes Glenn Greenwald as well as many in the security community who don't take leaked reports of CIA briefings at face value. I'm not seeing anyone who is anti-NSA spying wholesale accepting the CIA's story. So the premise of your point is not correct.

      #2. Even if they DID accept the Putin story... There is no inherent conflict between not wanting a "huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times" and wanting an agency to protect against foreign attack (if one has occurred, which as I said is not certain).

      #3. The NSA has done very little that would have prevented the hacks, while actually having done very much to weaken national security-- the kind of thing that facilitates break-ins. They have compromised security algorithms and pushed the RSA to accept them as standards. They have deliberately inserted weaknesses into Cisco products. There are numerous examples of this. If the "Russians" has hacked us because of weak technology, the NSA very well could be to blame. The assumption that they're some kind of shield against attacks appears to be backwards.

      #4. Podesta's emails were reportedly hacked via social engineering. Explain to me how you think the NSA's role has been stopping human beings from typing in their own Gmail login information when tricked to do so.

      #5. Finally, elucidate on the connection you make between a "huge spy agency tracking Americans at all times" and an alleged nation state hacking campaign. What the hell does the surveillance state agency spying on all citizen activity have to do with these hacks? If anything, the alleged influence of Russian agents in our election occurred WHILE the mass-spying is occurring. Therefore, by your logic, the NSA should stop all spying to stop Putin. Right?. Right??

      In short, your post makes no sense, it is not "insightful"-- it connects dots that don't have anything to do with each other. Worse, it is in some ways dangerous because it is really an attack on questioning authority. There is zero contradiction in opposing an all-powerful state surveillance agency on one hand vs. a corrupted electoral system on the other.

      Not to mention that those reports of foreigners meddling in our election originate from an agency with a notorious decades of history in... well, meddling with foreign elections.

    16. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's the perfect troll. Say something obvious, and include over the top cynicism. It's the pattern for a large percentage of +5 mods here

      I've noticed this pattern here for quite awhile. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether its the poster who knowingly makes such a comment (karma whoring) with the certainty that it will receive +5 mods because he appeals to the confirmation bias of the moderators, or whether its moderators with agendas looking specifically for such comments to upmod in order to manufacture the appearance of a group consensus about particular topics.

    17. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The corrupt doublespeak is worse than that:

        "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

      Yes...and by that definition so were the SS, KGB, CIA, Mossad, Ministry of State Security, etc

      Just being a good little government toadie does not make you a hero - especially one who sits behind a desk in no danger at all.

      Fuck the NSA.

    18. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a false dichotomy.

      The issue is protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, whether from interference from foreign powers or unaccountable elements in our own government. Or is government automatically our friend now? Who exactly is trying to have it both ways?

      So there is really only one issue: the liberty of Americans. Granted you can't do a perfect job, and at some point you're taking away more liberty than, statistically speaking, you're saving. That's when you've gone too far. And I suspect this may have a great deal to do with the morale of the techies in the agency, who understand this better than the political mandarins they report to.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want the NSA to be disbanded, destroyed if you like. They can't seem to tell the difference between "us" and "them" therefore they are inappropriately spying on "us". Now you know someone who wishes for them being removed.

    20. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the NSA protects anyone against hackers? We've already seen that they would rather keep their own surveillance capability instead of fixing bugs, at times even making encryption weaker......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't clear, I'm much more concerned about the people without intentions. There are people with agendas, but I think there are more who don't know that they do. They do things, and often can't describe why. They influence, and are dangerous. Intentions become transparent over time.

      Commenting, upmods, and moderating are all tiny rewards, and can work on the subconscious brain easily, and efficiently.

    22. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retard modded +5 insightful on slashdot. big fucking surprise.

    23. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Say something that people agree with emotionally, not factually, get +5, and now everyone has this opinion reinforced. People on the fence are swayed because it was agreed with by at least 3 others. And the worst part, factual replies are buried because they have had less time to be moderated. So rebuttals don't appear as prominently.

      And you just explained the Trump campaign and victory.

      For example, fundamentally, both candidates agreed with rust belt voters that jobs were fewer and declining. Clinton told them about progress and that those jobs were probably gone for good, but they would get help learning and getting new jobs that would be better suited to the changing world. Trump blamed job losses on immigrants, greed and (in general) "others" and told them he would get their (same) jobs back. Clinton's statements are (probably) more based in reality, but Trump's makes people feel better - about themselves and their future - and reassures them that they just can keep going like before -- without having to learn new skills, get more education or be better prepared for the future. (I sympathize, but who among us here doesn't understand the need for continuing education and learning new, possibly different, skills to stay relevant in the workforce?)

      Then, to digress a bit, Trump and Pence bribe Carrier with $7M (over 10 years) in tax breaks to save ~1000 jobs and the employees rejoice - ignoring the fact the those Indiana employees just paid that bribe themselves. So lucky that Pence is (was) Governor of Indiana.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    24. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scottish ex-amazon workers. Brexiters. Calwtfevers. 'murkins. Jerbs.

    25. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There are people with agendas, but I think there are more who don't know that they do

      I think that may be for most commenters, but I disagree about that being the case for moderators.

    26. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Trump won because of his appeals to racism and sexism, and his vicious misogynistic lies about Hillary Clinton. He won because a large percentage of the country is hateful and does not share progressive values.

      You can't persuade them, because they're racists, and racism is an irrational feeling. Instead, you fight them, by mocking them, and trying to turn out your own base. We give up on any attempt to actually appeal to Trump voters' concerns and interests, since racism is not an interest worth appealing to. Who could support people who voluntarily vote for the KKK's preferred candidate?

      They laughed at the Nazis in 1928, the man with the funny moustache and his gang of silly brown-shirted thugs. They weren't laughing so much in 1933. Things could be the same when it comes to the man with the funny hair and the orange face. Hah... Hah... Hah... Oh shit. We know Donald Trump is a man without a conscience. Yet we have just handed him near absolute power (in part enabled by the joint Democratic/Republican expansion of executive branch authority over the years). For all we know, there could be death camps on the horizon.

      Trump inspires people by appealing to their nastiest, most inhuman and unneighborly instincts. This is why he won.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even before it was not much better. Especially the top brass of the NSA is totally detached from reality. When I read " Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions. " then I can only say this is self-inflicted. The NSA did indeed engage in unconstitutional mass surveillance and other illegal activity. So far they did not admit to it, did not ask for forgiveness, and above all have absolutely nothing to show for given the billions in tax dollars that they wasted all these decades. It is one of these useless self-fulfilling three letter agencies that accomplish nothing.

    28. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Khm, I want NSA destruction. I also want FBI destruction. I also want IRS, FHA, HUD, FDA, EPA, FDIC destruction. I want to see the Fed shutdown, I want to see all government programs shut down. I want to see full demolition of income and wealth transfer. I want all welfare to stop to corporations and to individuals. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, dep'ts of education, agriculture, small business, dept of interior, all of it - I want all of it to be shut down.

    29. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cyber-technicians"? What kind of white-washing is that term?

      Maybe most of those technicians or lower-ranking people have noble intentions. However, their leaders have very questionable policies. The turnover perhaps shouldn't be in technical ranks, but the leadership. And a bunch of those people should probably be in jail for abusing their power.

      A lot of the problems I have with the N.S.A. are that the organization isn't doing what it's supposed to do: spy on foreigner actors. I don't think any U.S. gov't agency should be spying on U.S. citizens in general. If the F.B.I. wants to track a suspect(s), that's one thing. Focused surveillance is expected and obviously covered. But the blanket spying that's been going on for years is unconstitutional and unethical and entirely unnecessary.

      If the N.S.A. leadership is worried about morale and attrition, they should set the agency back on the right path. They should also change the leadership to people who will manage the agency for the purpose it was intended for. In the meantime, I don't know if I care much that the leadership is losing sleep over this. They need to lose sleep somehow over the implications of their unconstitutional practices.

    30. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And you just explained the Trump campaign and victory.

      No, dumb ass, it was the Russians that handed Trump his victory.

    31. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by hattable · · Score: 1

      That is because techniques, tools, and procedures were given away to our adversaries!

      --
      OMG facts!
    32. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

      The Constitution hasn't mattered since the Civil War. What a court declares as "Constitutional" matters far more than anything else. At some point we as a nation need to accept that the Constitution is outdated and ill-suited to function as the blueprint of our government. We're a Federalist nation in name only as the Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something or they just stick and carrot states with federal funds when that's more convenient.

      Back to the original point, the checks and balances that are worked into the Constitution also do a poor job of actually providing checks and balances in our bi-partisan environment. Check and balances have just become partisan tools both parties use to attack the other when they can get away with it. When it comes to protecting citizen's rights, both parties seem to agree that doing so isn't in their best interests, so various federal bureaus and agencies are permitted to do as they see fit. In essence, Constitution or no Constitution, no one watches the watchmen. Romanticizing the Constitution is detrimental to our rights as it feeds into the lies and illusions the government wants to distract us with.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    33. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      If the NSA was seriously trying to protect the country they would be working to make sure the USA systems are much better protected and that means better security by default and better crypto.

      At one time, this is exactly what they did. Read up on the history of DES S-boxes sometime.

    34. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very meta.

    35. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some, perhaps much, of what you say may be true, but I think you're painting with too wide a brush. I think Van Jones said it better on the Dec 5th episode of The Daily Show:

      “You have a core of people who were actually delighted by some of those inflammatory comments,” Jones said of Trump supporters. “Those people, I would call bigots. But then there were the people who found Trump’s words distasteful, but not disqualifying, because they had so much other economic pain and problems that were not being talked to, and those were the people that cost us the election.”

      On those who “felt that the elite had sold them down the river in both parties,” Jones admitted, “They weren’t wrong. We did not give them an opportunity to come to our side the way we should have.”

      “Everybody that voted for Trump was not voting for every crazy thing he said,” Jones added, saying that many voters were “holding their noses” when they cast their ballots on both sides of the aisle. Because of that, he said he has faith that they will stand up to Trump if and when he tries to enact some of his more outrageous policies.

      “Listen, Trump is much worse than anybody in this country is willing to accept,” he said, “but a lot of his voters are much better and I don’t want to give them away.”

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    36. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...our bi-partisan environment...

      A democracy cannot work properly with only two major factions. It is too close to the one party system.
      Look at Swiss democracy for an example.
      And turn off that TV.

    37. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then, to digress a bit, Trump and Pence bribe Carrier with $7M (over 10 years) in tax breaks to save ~1000 jobs and the employees rejoice - ignoring the fact the those Indiana employees just paid that bribe themselves. So lucky that Pence is (was) Governor of Indiana.

      Don't forget the other half - Carrier commits to investing $16M in the factory. Sounds great! Until you find out that the investment is for automation. Those people are going to lose their jobs to robots instead of Mexicans. You watch, they are going to laid off long before Carrier stops getting that free $700K/year.

    38. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who tells you they aren't racist is either lying to you, or lying to themselves.

      That's because being racist isn't a black and white, binary state. Its a continuum where people are influenced by their racist leanings some more than others. Its also situational. Many of those same people voted for Obama both because they were sick of Bush and because he didn't talk like the typical black politician (jackson, sharpton, etc). Trump revved up their racism, but that doesn't mean racism is the only thing that determines their decision making.

    39. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    40. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump. It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns. Clinton in Merkel's pocket, aligned with globalist-Euro interests and big money, is bad for Russia. Trump is only looking out for the USA, he's not beholden to Euro masters or Wall Street, so he's the logical choice for Americans.

      It's incidental that Russia favored a nationalistic US president.

    41. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clinton said generally (rarely ever actually talking directly to rust belt workers because her campaign took those lifelong Democrat voters for granted) that manufacturing jobs were gone forever and that was a good thing because trade is good for everyone. There was some lip service done to suggest retraining and better jobs were coming at some point, but nothing remotely specific. That was her basic message on the subject and she didn't spend a whole lot of time discussing it.

      Trump talked directly to rust belt blue collar workers, telling them that decades of trade policy - much of it championed by the Clintons - was rewarding and accelerating moving American manufacturing jobs overseas at the expense of the American worker, but that he would reverse that policy and stem the flow and even come up with ways to bring jobs like that back to the US.

      Somehow we act surprised that so many of the second, third, even fourth generation blue collar rust belt workers who spent decades doing the one job they know, the one job their fathers and grandfathers knew, the job that put food on the table and a roof over their family's head, who always voted for Democrats because Democrats were the union worker's best ally, who have watched their friends and family members lose those great jobs in droves, who've watched entire factories and factory towns disappear before their eyes, who sit at home every night wondering how long they have before their only means of earning a living wage disappears - we're surprised that these voters abandoned the candidate who told them it's better this way and voted for the candidate who promised to fix it.

      Or we just call them racists and sexists because we're pissy our candidate didn't win. Either way, it's total bullshit. Rust belt blue collar workers have voted solidly Democrat for generations because Democrats helped them put food on the table. Their entire way of life is now under threat, in no small part because of the work of Democrats (and to be fair, Republicans too!) on things like trade policy. It should be no surprise they'd get on board with just about anyone who will throw them a lifeline, especially when the other side is only offering to throw them a boat anchor.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    42. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rant, but Trump didn't win "Rust Belt", he won the wealthy vote.

    43. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 0

      Still waiting for Van Jones to openly, publicly apologize to those voters he painted with the broad brush of being part of some ridiculous "whitelash" on election night. Based on the CNN series where he went out and spoke with those rust belt workers, I do think he actually gets it now that for most of them, this was entirely about putting food on the table. Yet his words still stand, and so long as he allows them to stand uncorrected, he's a lousy hypocrite.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    44. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting that a comment is marked as 'troll' because the author lists things he finds desirable.

    45. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Interservice rivalry.

      Once it became apparent that the FBI was in the sack for Hillary, other intelligence services couldn't openly support her.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not possible. I've been told repeatedly that the wealthy are only 1% and the rest of us are poor.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      So, under Obama we are 180 degrees from the constitution. But Trump is 180 degrees from Obama. Therefore under Trump we will line up exactly with the Constitution?

    48. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      "But so far the NSA hasn't been protecting us for our enemies." But, how do you know that? Maybe they have protected us from thousands of attacks, but nobody is perfect so we only hear about the ones that slip through. Or maybe not. But how would we know? They could be doing an outstanding job or a terrible job at protecting us and we would have no idea either way.

    49. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      But who protects us from the NSA?

      Ha! We thought of that. That's why we have the meta-NSA, whose job is to spy on the NSA and try to figure out what they are up to. But you didn't hear that from me.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    50. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1, Troll

      "The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump. It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns. Clinton in Merkel's pocket, aligned with globalist-Euro interests and big money, is bad for Russia. Trump is only looking out for the USA, he's not beholden to Euro masters or Wall Street, so he's the logical choice for Americans.

      It's incidental that Russia favored a nationalistic US president.

      You left out the part where Trump had a far more difficult relationship with the truth than Clinton. And he kept calling the media -- the only independent group with the resources to fact-check him -- he kept calling them "corrupt" and "scum of the earth." Get ready for four years of this. Trump will keep dissing the media, getting to his "people" first via Twitter, and doing everything he can with the powers of the Oval Office to control what is perceived as the truth.

      As for Russia liking Trump, they hated Clinton more. That was hardly a secret.

      And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    51. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point we as a nation need to accept that the Constitution is outdated and ill-suited to function as the blueprint of our government.

      ... said every tyrant ever. There's a process for amending the Constitution. It requires a supermajority for a reason. The fact that a slim majority can't run rampant over the 49% is a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell your employees to break the law, ignore the Constitution, then complain that the public has negative feelings about them doing what you told them to do?

      Either he's in living in another world in his mind, or thinks people are REALLY stupid.

      Well, maybe both.

    53. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other three-letter agencies get occasional lip service whenever the US Feds breathlessly declare that one (or more) of them have foiled some attack. You know the drill: it may be propaganda or the purist sort, but they trot out some spokesdrone to make the announcement at press conferences anyway.

      You also get assurances that agents from such-and-such agency are protecting Times Square on New Years Eve, some political rally, or . . . you know, whatever.

      The NSA never gets credit for any of that.

      Whether by design or quite by accident, gub'ment propagandists never give a boost to the NSA. Never. Not even when there's a botnet takedown or what not.

      Hell individual researchers and university staff gets more credit for those.

    54. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > that for most of them, this was entirely about putting food on the table

      Eh, cut it out with the economic insecurity canard.

      Trump lost the portion of the vote coming from people making under $50K/yr.

      Furthermore, at the county level - children earning more than their parents was correlated with larger trump gains.

    55. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billionaire cabinet appointees would like to have a word with you.

    56. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At some point we as a nation need to accept that the Constitution is outdated and ill-suited to function as the blueprint of our government.

      ... said every tyrant ever. There's a process for amending the Constitution. It requires a supermajority for a reason. The fact that a slim majority can't run rampant over the 49% is a feature, not a bug.

      Here is the amendments I'd add, in no particular order.

      1) Districts must be drawn by simple algorithm with no inputs beyond simple population density. The mathematicians can tell help us figure out the details before the formal text is written.

      2) The presidential election must be done by the popular vote. The artificial construct of electors distorts the value of peoples votes, making some more valuable than others, and making most effectively worthless. This goes against the principles of our democracy. States are not people. Corporations are not people. People are people.

      3) All national elections must use either ranked voting or must vote multiple times to insure that the clear best choice is achieved.

      4) Voting must be open two weeks prior to the final day. Obtaining any kind of required ID must take no more than one day and have no cost to the voter. In the case of a presidential election, if at least one state supports voting multiple times to determine the best choice, the final vote must be cast no more than two weeks after the normal end date.

      5) Everyone is allowed two hours paid time off to vote. Your employer may verify that you voted, but of course not how you voted.

      6) All national elections require a paper ballot trail. The ballot may be printed by a computer, but must be shown to the voter prior to submitting the final vote.

    57. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, except for the part where Trump won't keep using Twitter. He may go to the trouble of getting himself banned from it, or he may just quietly drop it, but one way or another the @realDonaldTrump account will no longer be active by Christmas 2019.

      The reason being, he's made a lot of promises by that medium, and the last thing he wants, going into the next election, is for someone to try holding him to them. So he needs to create a distance between himself and that record.

      You may think people will remember he used Twitter. And of course many people will, but not all. By the time of the next election, his faithful will be saying "those weren't him". And because they'll say it repeatedly and emphatically, some people - particularly the young, who have no memories anyway - will believe them.

    58. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And notice that Alexander still didn't state that the NSA wasn't spying on all the people all the time -- he just complained that the press shared the idea with we, the people.

    59. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who watches the watchers that are watching the watchers?

    60. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Polling guru Nate Silver, editor of FiveThirtyEight, said exit polls had done an “awfully bad job” on Tuesday night, initially predicting a Clinton landslide. Why should anyone believe the shit CNN exit polls now?

    61. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Granted you can't do a perfect job, and at some point you're taking away more liberty than, statistically speaking, you're saving.

      It's easy to quantify at least some of these things. For example, let's take the TSA. Let's forget all the various abuses of the system, "lost" (or stolen) items, how Americans are forced into indignities that past generations would have found outrageous, etc.

      Let's just focus on time. I remember going through airport security before 9/11. Yes, there were sometimes long lines, but it was frequently quick and easy. Now, let's just say the TSA adds on 5 minutes per traveler over the old security methods, which I think is overly generous to the TSA, but let's run with it. (It also doesn't take into account how most people now feel that have to arrive at the airport a LOT earlier than in the past, just in case security is slower that day. Really, we're probably losing more like 15-30 minutes, maybe more, due to that increased planning.)

      On average, the U.S. has served approximately 800 million air travelers per year since 2001. Over 15 years, that's about 12 billion passenger trips. 5 minutes wasted in TSA security is 60 billion minutes of lost time.

      Now, suppose we had a terrorist event and people were killed. How much time would be lost to those victims? Let's be generous and say 50 years/person is obliterated on average if they are killed. Taking just waking time of 16 hours/day or so, that comes out to about 17.5 million minutes of life lost if someone's killed in a terror attack.

      Collectively, since 9/11, we've probably lost the collective "lifespans" of around 3500 people just waiting in line... and that's a conservative estimate.

      Now -- obviously people will say, "That's an unfair comparison -- if someone dies, all sorts of really bad stuff can happen to the family, etc., so it's not reasonable to compare loss of life to just loss of time waiting in line." That's true. But those 5 minute inconveniences also add up. Sometimes people miss flights. Sometimes people forget items (or have items taken away) in security that were intended as gifts or to bring job to family members during a trip, or just to enhance someone's life or avoid inconvenience in more minor ways. I personally know someone who missed seeing his mother before she died because he showed up to airport security and (in his rush) had forgotten ID, so he missed his flight. It was emotionally devastating for him.

      Could the negative effects created by that lost time for ~3.5 MILLION traveler trips waiting in a TSA line add up to the bad stuff suffered just by the family members of ONE person who dies prematurely, as I'm calculating here? It's tough to say, but looking at 3.5 million trips through the TSA line, I can bet there are number of pretty dire situations that occur too, due to security delays.

      Okay, but say you still aren't willing to buy that analogy that the freedom in time we're losing is equivalent to more "victims" in lifespans lost than 9/11. How about ACTUAL deaths, indirectly caused by the TSA? For example, it is well-known from polling data and studies that there ARE a greater number of people who choose to travel by car rather than by plane since 9/11 to avoid security at airports -- whether they're actually annoyed at the security or just because it introduces significant delays that now makes car travel more reasonable for shorter trips.

      But auto travel is much more dangerous than air travel. Various attempts have been made to quantify the number of extra deaths that could be attributed to this, and some studies have suggested as many as 500 extra deaths per year, though I think that sounds excessive.

      But the point isn't what the actual numbers are -- statistically, we KNOW that more people make that choice to avoid airport security after 9/11, and we KNOW that auto travel is riskier, so there have been some deaths... very likely more deaths than the TSA has apparently prevented (a

    62. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But who watches the watchers that are watching the watchers?

      Turtles?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    63. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care whether the NSA tracks Americans. I don't want them to track me and they have no right to so.

    64. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Rough summary of your post: instill fear in the voters, and they will flock to an authoritarian who claims to be the only one who can save them.

      http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    65. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about surveillance, not protection.

    66. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you want the northeast and California deciding who's President and nobody else matters, right? Because that's what you get when you forget that this is the United STATES and elect a President your way.

      The way it works now is a feature, not a bug.

    67. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      Aha! No, it's watchers all the way down.

    68. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by guruevi · · Score: 0

      Our "enemies"? It's funny that the organization that exposed corruption within the Republican party about the Iraq war is being branded as an enemy for exposing corruption within the Democratic party about the US elections.

      Talk about being influenced by the media - Russian involvement was completely spun out of nothing by the Clinton campaign and no evidence was ever offered. To date the only evidence so far about the source is a US dignitary claiming it was an internal leak.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    69. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you want the northeast and California deciding who's President and nobody else matters, right? Because that's what you get when you forget that this is the United STATES and elect a President your way.

      The way it works now is a feature, not a bug.

      I'm sure you'd be real happy if the decision was made by TEXAS

    70. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care whether the NSA tracks Americans. I don't want them to track me and they have no right to so.

      You're perfectly free to attempt to wage war against the US and defeat it.

      Good luck with that.

      Please let us know where to send the flowers for your funeral.

    71. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The NSA could have worked to make Windows, OSX, Linux, Android, iOS and internet of things stuff more secure by default and pushed for real security standards and tools in programmers to help make the software more secure...

      By "more secure", do you mean strong enough to protect the US from its enemies, and yet weak enough for the NSA to ensure it can continue to spy in its citizens?

      Your simplistic solution gleams over that rather obvious component of their mission, hence the reason security in general is shit, and why the NSA is about the last entity who's going to lend a helping hand.

    72. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by geoskd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't have it both ways.

      Of course it goes both ways. The various government agencies have been vastly overrstepping their bounds in pursuit of achieving their legal mandate, and the Russians have been actively tampering with our election. The problem is not that the NSA is doing their job, it is the actual job they have been mandated to perform is unconscionable.

      In response to his "they are heros" statement, I say no, they are no better than the German soldiers who performed the Nazis work. Those soldiers were also given a legal mandate to perform their jobs, and they performed their jobs well. Very few of them ever stood up and said that the job itself was evil. The few US government agency employees who have stood up and said this is wrong have been persecuted by the government instead of being hailed as heros. The very fact this guy can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys is a very ominous sign for our country and indeed the world at large.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    73. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everyone persist in the myth that job losses are not attributable to immigrants? It is absolutely true, and yet of course it is not the whole truth.

      Illegal immigrants take jobs on the low end of the pay scale, which both displaces American workers and depresses pay. The Americans who would be doing those jobs have to work up the ladder but since they're not as trained or experienced it depresses wages there too. Plus they're simply not as good, which increases the desire and need for automation and/or lowered expectations on the part of customers. Ordering food at a fast food joint did not used to totally suck. The people were of a higher skill level.

      The rest of the truth, and Trump at least partly touches on it while nobody else does, is that outsourcing, offshoring, hiring of illegals and general corporate greed are also job killers. We need strong financial and criminal disincentives to that behavior. Trying to get the congressional criminals of either party to address that has been impossible. Now it might happen at least in part.

    74. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

      That's more or less what Snowden has shown, that the NSA has gone off the rails in their megalomanic ambition to collect everything about everyone. And you can be sure that a lot of people who work at the NSA have paid attention. And that they have a lot less patriotic pride to motivate them now, which helps if you get paid more elsewhere. And Obama has given the NSA more power and is now transfering that power to Trump.

      So it's plausible that they don't want to be any part of it anymore, but it's still speculation. What if these people who are leaving are now just going to do the same job as contractor? I have no idea. You sure can't trust Keith Alexander on it because he's in complete denial: oh, so it's just an image problem. A PR issue!

      "What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

    75. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by buss_error · · Score: 1
      You can't have it both ways.

      Actually, not only can one have this both ways (somewhat), it's likely the correct thought. I'll explain: The invasive probing into the average American's lives are much deeper than most believe, and there is no real value for this vis-a-vi security and protection from terrorism. From the standpoint of stopping this illegal (well, we think it's illegal, we really don't know because they won't publish the laws they are using to authorize it, and the courts refuse to grant standing to challenge the laws) breach of privacy. So, on that head, yes, the NSA, CIA, FBI, CBP, ICE, marshals, and DEA at least need to be either reigned in or abolished, and likely more.

      From the standpoint of actually stopping terrorists, it's not such a good thing. Luckly, there aren't many terrorist operating in the US. How do we know that? Because do you think for one red hot second they wouldn't be crowing from the rooftops about "how we protected you from these evil doers" if they had anything more than plots they make up and entrap mentally ill people into? Of course not.

      As for public sector pay, those same people that voted for President Elect Trump are, for the most part, the very same people that scream about "fat cat paychecks" for useless and lazy drones . I know. I used to work in the public sector. I've been called a fat pig with both trotters in the trough, stupid, and worse, been spit on and otherwise assulted. Why on earth would I not quit and take 120%, 250%, 400% pay raise or more to work in the private sector? None the less, I stuck it out for many years because I felt I should do something for my fellow citizens. In the end, I had to capitulate and get more money, more responsive leadership, and less political football craziness. My gain is your loss.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    76. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one time the NSA was useful for increasing security. At one time this country was worth a damn and we hadn't had all our wealth and prospects stolen by the kleptocratic sociopathic corporations, their leaders, and their representatives in government too.

      Time to fix all of that.

    77. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Sure, SOME people might do that. But most people I know (who range Libertarian to Conservative) are neither that concerned about the veracity of the claims that Russians were responsible for the leaked Hillary campaign emails OR concerned that the NSA is bleeding some talent right now.

      As far as I'm concerned, the NSA serves a useful purpose, but it's one of those organizations that's been entrusted with a whole lot of power. Our government has a history of doing that at times, and inevitably, it comes back to haunt the general public when boundaries are overstepped and too many leaders aren't willing to reign them in again. I think we have this with today's FBI to an extent, and I put the Federal Reserve in the same category. The ATF has proven to abuse its power too (although they've been a bit more quiet in recent years).

      I find it interesting that much of the anger over Wikileaks and the Hillary email isn't even attempting to debunk what was leaked as fake, edited or wrong. It's all focused on outrage that it leaked. So in other words, the truth got out and people reacted to the facts that were revealed. Funny, but I'm pretty ok with that.

      As details come out (much of it thanks to Snowden) about just what the NSA has been doing, it's easy to see why people might be upset. There are entire categories of communication content that were being monitored wholesale. That implies that they've got way too many people on the payroll, as that was never the NSA's purpose. By comparison, that would be like your local police department engaging in surveillance of every single resident in your community, in a "proactive effort to stop crime".

    78. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by andydread · · Score: 1

      The problem is people keep blaming the fucking NSA when they are just doing what politicians ask them to do. ITS NOT THE NSAs fault. it's the fault of POLITICIANS that you people keep voting back into power. The PATRIOT ACT was not written by the NSA. Yet it's the NSA that keeps getting dumped on in places like slashdot and and the greater media in general. All the memes and talking points single out the NSA as the bogey man and not the fucking politicians that have tasked them to do shit they shouldn't be doing. BLAME THE FUCKING POLITICIANS for gods sake. instead of making jokes about the NSA spying on citizens how about making jokes about mccain, grayham, obama, bush, etc. It is they that deserve the bad name not the NSA. Jesus christ.

    79. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're perfectly free to attempt to wage war against the US and defeat it.
      Good luck with that.

      I'm pretty sure Julius Ceasar, George III, and pretty much anyone high up in Nazi Germany or 1940s Imperial Japan would have said the same thing concerning those who opposed them. Ultimately they were all wrong, as will you be if you think it's a good idea to run around pissing people off to soothe your own ego.

    80. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      While I agree the election process must be reformed, I think the big problem with the Constitution is the structure of our government as a whole. We need a new type of legislature (the Senate doesn't exist for any reason in its current form and the House is full of dunces beholden to various interests). We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level. It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.

      Overall, though, I'd want for a new constitution to be as limited in scope as possible. To account for the unaccountable, though, there should probably be some provision for drafting a new constitution every one hundred years.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    81. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't going anywhere, and soon, Google will deliver working AI unto them and the wholesale automation of oppression can begin!

      We all know it's impossible for the NSA to be listening to every conversation of every person in the country, there aren't enough people in the agency to do it. Which is why, like any good technology-fetishist, they're turning to AI and automation to do the dirty work for them. Even better, the fucking thing doesn't even have to work properly. False positives will be blamed on "faulty software", swept under the rug, and back to business as usual.

      I mean, who wouldn't want a hyper-intelligent automated system to be connected to the backbone of the internet to make sure no-one does anything they're not supposed to? They can finally realize their dream of listening in to each and every man, woman, and child to ensure Right think at every level of society and they won't even have to break a sweat to do it. The computer is always right, and when the computer targets you, sorry Charlie, that's the end for you! We don't need evidence, the computer said you did it and the computer doesn't lie, it can't, it's a computer!

      PRAISE BE TO GOOGLE AND THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING DIGITAL OVERMIND!

    82. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they give up the DB, what are they going to connect Google's DeepMind to? Don't fool yourself, whatever commercial AI is being demoed right now, they've already built one ten times more sophisticated for the DoD with the goal of hooking those AI spies up to the NSA's obscenely huge data feed.

      You're a fool if you think this "AI revolution" is going to benefit the common plebe in any way, just completely fucking stupid. It will end up being the most efficient tool of oppression mankind has ever produced. And idiots are excited about it. I would weep for humanity, but frankly, we had it coming.

    83. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you want the northeast and California deciding who's President and nobody else matters, right? Because that's what you get when you forget that this is the United STATES and elect a President your way.

      The way it works now is a feature, not a bug.

      What your basically saying is those that own more land deserve a larger say. Where have I heard this before?

    84. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      What I got out of the whole Snowden situation was confirmation of the fact that everyone who is really competent ends up contracting. Snowden worked for Dell, Booz Allen and a couple other companies.

      I am sure that the best and the brightest are figuring that out.

      The fact that "cyber security" is the buzzword of 2017 is also feeding into it. Every major and minor consulting firm in the US is trying to start up a cyber security practice. There are more positions to fill than people to fill them.

      If the NSA really needs the talent, they will pay for it. It's called "staff augmentation". And Dell, Booz, and the rest of the MIC contractors will be happy to fill those positions with contractors.

    85. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The NSA did indeed engage in unconstitutional mass surveillance and other illegal activity. ....

      This is missing the forest for the trees. The unconstitutional surveillance could potentially be aimed at protecting the USA. The key thing that matters is that the NSA is part of the defence forces of the USA and they have been a) weakening the security of systems used by the US, e.g. by messing around with crypto systems and b) knowing about a load of weaknesses in US computer systems and holding them back instead of using them to force the developers to do fixes c) spending their money on mass surveillence and failing to secure the communications of the US military which is one of their actual main jobs.

      The level of failure involved in the Office of Personel management hack seems to have been missed. Russia, China or both have an indefinite source of blackmail material and sources inside the US military. The present which may never stop giving. Probably avoiding an of the above failures would have stopped this. Very few in the NSA made the decisions which caused this, however many could have acted to stop it and many many more could have whistleblown what was happening. I think that if I worked for the NSA I'd be embarassed.

    86. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      That assumes that the NSA actually performs its duty of protecting the US against these attacks. Considering that the NSA seems to spend a lot of time deliberately breaking security standards and illicitly backdooring equipment, etc., it's easy to argue that they actually do more harm than good in that department. Consider all the sound and fury over Hillary Clinton's mail server. Where were the NSA, or other federal agencies in all that? Was there anyone trying to take steps to make sure that the communications of the secretary of state were secure, or was the NSA more concerned with making sure that it could snoop on everyone, not caring who else could snoop?

    87. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton said generally (rarely ever actually talking directly to rust belt workers because her campaign took those lifelong Democrat voters for granted) that manufacturing jobs were gone forever and that was a good thing because trade is good for everyone. There was some lip service done to suggest retraining and better jobs were coming at some point, but nothing remotely specific. That was her basic message on the subject and she didn't spend a whole lot of time discussing it.

      Trump talked directly to rust belt blue collar workers, telling them that decades of trade policy - much of it championed by the Clintons - was rewarding and accelerating moving American manufacturing jobs overseas at the expense of the American worker, but that he would reverse that policy and stem the flow and even come up with ways to bring jobs like that back to the US.

      In other words, Clinton was straight with them and Trump cozied up to them and lied out of every orifice.

    88. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once it became apparent that the FBI was in the sack for Hillary...

      Where are you getting this idea? Maybe "in the sack" means something different from what I think it does? As far as I can tell, the CIA director actively tried to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected. Given the thin margins of victory, it's actually quite possible that Clinton might have won if it hadn't been for the FBI director actively working against her.

    89. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I don't know of anyone hoping for the agency's destruction. I know I don't.

      Then you haven't been reading very much, and you are not the intended target of the poster you are replying to.

    90. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to show for it? Have you worked at the nsa? I love how people assume they do nothing but spy on citizens. For just one example, they have saved thousands of lives of our soldiers in the middle east. They have helped track down, stamp out and prevent thousands of insurgents for murdering people who are your fellow citizens. What have you done for the country?

    91. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.

      No. We know because we know a) that both the Republicans and the Democrats were hacked by the same hackers and b) the hackers, for some reason, decided not to release the interesting stuff about trump and c) there's a 75% chance (or more) that they were Russian. So Trump is 100% sure beholden to the hackers and they are most likely Russian hackers.

    92. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like trump is a selfless angel. There are so many conflicts of interest that are kind of hard to ignore. If he really believed in helping the country, he would have liquidated his assets. I love how he is taking money directly from the government by staying at his own hotel. Do you really think he is giving all the government employees discounts?

    93. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      The CIA says the Russians were working to get him elected; they didn't say they were the "sole reason".

      Whether the Russian interference mattered or not is another question; I think probably not. But to deny that they tried is foolish.

      Watch out for confirmation bias. It's insidious.

    94. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

      nasa if the shoe fits wear it

    95. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The United States is a union of states. We are already far too close to being ruled by popular fads, the popular election of the President would make the current situation worse.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    96. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even worse, horror of horrors they exposed how much the NSA spies on their own. Those with the most privacy at the NSA, fucking worthless political appointees, those with the least privacy, everyone else. From the earliest youth every child is taught that those others children who spies on others, who tattle on them in the most exaggerated fashion for the least infringement, those who say one thing to the face whilst saying another behind their back, those who spread lies, are truly awful and are best to be avoided at all times. Even as children they know, that those kids will grow up to be perverts, sick people never to be trusted.

      I am sure many leave not just for the money but to feel clean again, all their efforts tainted by the corrupt worthless political appointees. They know their real job is not securing the nation for the majority, but the suppression of the majority by an insane psychopathic minority.

      Uphold justice, uphold democracy, uphold freedom and you are a hero, do the opposite of that and you are nothing but a slimy quisling minion, trusted by none, including those who employ them and spy on them like no other. They also toss them aside and destroy them based upon the slightest accusation whilst political appointees get away with murder, actual murder, with a pat of the back for a job well done.

      We will know we those left are true heroes, when they refuse to obey illegal orders and haul the corrupt political appointees before the courts, as well as the corrupt politicians passing on instructions and never to forget those corrupt corporate executives feeding the psychopathic egos and lust driving all this insanity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    97. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      But who protects us from the NSA

      In the past executive branches appointing total idiots who were more interested in having a Star Trek set designer make things look cool than actually doing their job. That was a considerable brake on the effectiveness of the NSA.

      Let's face it, they are toy soldiers that couldn't even see the Arab Spring coming it's little more than a massive playpen and welfare scheme. Replace them with a small number of real soldiers trained for those roles and you'll see something more effective.

    98. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Landowners have a stake in the success of the country. Renters have much less of a stake, and are far more likely vote in a manner that makes the maintenance of property difficult.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    99. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Instead of going for the Godwin and getting ignored there's a bunch of people he can be compared with such as Franco, Mussolini and many more.

      Here are some things to watch for written by someone who knows more about the topic from personal experience than hopefully we will ever know.
      Trumps sidekicks tick a few of those boxes.
      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

    100. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't get is since Trump is more "elite" than most why did people vote for him to "send a message" to the elites? Didn't they notice? Didn't they expect the obvious Trump move of Wall Street and Multinationals packing out the executive branch?

    101. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I joined the secret antiDragon squad, not a single dragon. Wyvern, chimera or hydra attack has succeeded. I personally also stopped five trillion planet sized asteroids from entering a collision course with earth. Also, I negotiated with God to spare us another four weeks.

    102. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a few more years.

    103. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Informative

      And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.

      Complete nonsequitur.

      Furthermore, if there were anything even hinting at a flaw in Trump's tax returns, the already-established-as-corrupt IRS would have "leaked" it.

      Remember, Trump does business through corporations he controls. His personal tax returns could easily show nothing but salaries from dozens of corporations. Of course, then you'd be screaming that the tax forms of those corporations must be publicized also.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    104. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      rust belt blue collar workers ... that he would reverse that policy

      He never said how and that he was one of the people instrumental in the process that outsourced their jobs in the first place.
      Didn't they get that they were being lied to?

    105. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Please don't use "in the sack" and "Hillary" in the same sentence, it's nauseating.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    106. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The same CNN poll also says that Trump won among those who were male, who were older, and who were white. I.e. those less inclined to be emotional, who were more experienced, and who didn't have an axe to grind.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    107. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 1

      The NSA appears to be incapable or unwilling to do anything to stop "Russian hackers" and has arguably helped them out by promoting a vulnerable and broken internet security culture.

      --
      Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
    108. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    109. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump ran businesses; he didn't set US trade policy and he didn't pass free trade agreements. Did he outsource jobs himself? Absolutely, though his response to that has been that he acted as any businessman would - reacting to changes in the marketplace which occurred (at least in part) because of US trade policy and free trade agreements. Did Trump ship some blue collar jobs overseas? Certainly. Was he "instrumental" in the process? No, just one of many business leaders who did it to save a buck. Does that make him a saint? Of course not.

      As for the rust belt workers getting that they were being lied to, there's two pieces there. First, Trump was the only candidate in the general election even talking to them. Whether he was feeding them lies or not, the other candidate was arrogantly explaining to other audiences how great free trade (and all the outsourcing that comes with it) was for America even as blue collar rust belt workers were losing jobs in droves and scared shitless that they (and the families depending on them) were going to be out in the street any day now. Trump may have fed them a lie about saving their jobs, but at least he talked to them and didn't try to "elite-splain" to them why losing the only jobs they've ever known and that put food on their tables was a good thing.

      Second, none of us can yet say for certain that Trump was telling them lies. We can assert that even if he reverses US trade policy, there's enough inertia in play to continue bleeding blue collar jobs and the jobs that left won't come back. We can further assert that even if outsourcing were somehow halted that automation would still put a sizable portion of those rust belt workers out of the job all the same. But the fact is that we won't know for sure until a) we see what he even does (and what Congress is willing to go along with) and b) what impact those actions actually have.

      And I'm not saying you must or even should "give Trump a chance"; I'm simply commenting on what got us here. And if Democrats want to have any hope whatsoever of retaking much of anything in 2020, they better stop painting the rust belt with a broad brush of racism and sexism accusations and start figuring out what they're going to offer those voters on the economics front to win them back. If this election should have taught the Democratic party anything, it's that a large part of their critical core voters is made up of people who don't vote blindly for "D", but rather who vote for whomever they think will help them keep putting food on the table. And that whomever can include a real asshole if it's their only option, as evidenced by all the lifelong Democrats who showed up at the polls in November and cast a vote for Trump.

      Democrats/liberals/progressives need to stop calling them stupid, naive, racist, sexist, and all the other crap flying around and start coming up with a way to address their needs. These are hard-working people watching their entire way of life crumble before their eyes. Help them or lose them, along with every election until they're all dead generations from now.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    110. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Actually we can. The NSA has been acting unconstitutionally so has compromised their own credibility. The fault is still on them for creating the environment in Which Putin/Trump could rise.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    111. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      So basically you want the northeast and California deciding who's President and nobody else matters, right? Because that's what you get when you forget that this is the United STATES and elect a President your way.

      The way it works now is a feature, not a bug.

      All I think is needed is a majority. the candidate who gets the most votes wins. You obviously like your canddate to win regardless of the rest of the country. If you cannot get a majority of the votes, why should your candidate win?

      I do fully understand that the party who received less votes in teh past several elections for president are orgasmic over the electoral college version that allows them to take power via minority. A great gig when you get it.

      It's because you are inhernently undemocratic.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    112. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have absolutely nothing to show for given the billions in tax dollars that they wasted all these decades. It is one of these useless self-fulfilling three letter agencies that accomplish nothing.

      Negative. They gave us this Comedy GOLD! Recruitment Video featuring, babe learning neural networks 101, App Dashboard Dev who uses C/C++ and ASM (a little Java on the side), and the King of the Hipsters!

      It just goes to show how out of touch these people are if our best intelligence agency thought that was an appropriate recruitment video. I thought it was a parody at first, but it's real. Maybe you don't think that's worth trillions of tax payer dollars, BUT I DO. It is now immortalized as what not to waste tax money on forevermore.

      If you try to hire a bunch of rooster haired SJWs, then your intel agency is going to have a bad time, mmmkay?

    113. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      While you're reading about the S-boxes, make to make note of their recommendation to reduce the key sizes (they were recommending a reduction from the proposed 64 bits to 48 bit keys). The conflict between their two roles have always been an issue.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    114. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the leaker was executed

    115. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by cdwiegand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way we have it right now, liberals in Texas need not vote - their vote does not matter. End of story. Same for conservatives in California. Because their vote is rounded out, they are not represented in the role of President. You can say they can vote for the House and Senate, but those are often rounded out as well with gerrymandered districts.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    116. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Trump had a far more difficult relationship with the truth than Clinton.

      Neither Clinton nor Trump have a good record of truth. So much so that any discussion of lesser of liars is past comical. This is like calculus where we learn about the limits and how things can approach zero but never quite get there, just get closer and closer. Would it help if we called Clinton at lying = infinity and Trump at infinity +1? Because that's essentially what these two are.

    117. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      I was trying to avoid any specific position. This is always true, on all sides.

    118. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by execthis · · Score: 1

      And isn't it funny that, while its totally incidental who or wtf Russia "favors" or not, what isn't incidental is wtf Russia actually does, which isn't being given nearly as much coverage in MSM. Meanwhile Hillary sells off 20% of US raw Uranium reserves to Russia but again, that's not covered in MSM.

      MSM is the enemy. Period.

    119. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, politifact is a pretty capricious arbiter of truthiness. I've seen claims out there that they have given "mostly true" and "pants on fire" to the same claims by different politicians, and the last article of theirs that I bothered to read tagged a claim as "mostly false" (with the needle right on the border of pants on fire) but actually supported the claim pretty convincingly in the article itself.

      And that is why I stopped paying attention to them; They have an agenda (or, maybe only some of the fact-checkers do, it's difficult to say). Maybe you can trust the article text itself, but the truth-o-meter is completely arbitrary.

    120. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who guards the guardians?

      You should really brush up on your latin, dude.

    121. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to spread your brainwashing cancer

      If you want to enter a discussion come with your own words

      retard

    122. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the word you're looking for is upheld

    123. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by will_die · · Score: 2

      You didn't read the linked to article and apply basic reasoning to see that they cherry picked speeches from both of them to build up the list and then compared the number of get that article.
      It is a worthless article.

    124. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      What an awful argument. Yes we can have it both ways. We can respect our rights and still defend against foreign attackers.

    125. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Trump lobbied - a lot.
      Think about that instead of thinking of an imaginary wall that kept him out of the process. He was a part of it.

      As for reading in a lot of things between the lines and building a strawman in my name - why bother? I've been through the "rust-belt" thing long before this site ever started but cannot get how naive so many have been. No point trying to put me in the Democrat box as part of your strawman construction, this is your fight not mine and up to you to get off your arse and vote for the future of your country next time.

    126. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I.e. those less inclined to be emotional, who were more experienced, and who didn't have an axe to grind.

      "i.e." my ass.

      Those are the very people with the biggest axe to grind. The cliche about "get off my lawn!" is explicitly about that cohort.

      In a changing world that belongs to the young and brown those old white men are the most fearful of change. They are the ones who oppose gay marriage. They are the ones who lose their shit because people are speaking spanish, or chinese at the market.

      And, as an old white man yourself, you know that's 100% true. Don't even try to deny your racial animus.

    127. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'd also prefer to scrap the president/congress system we have, where any party besides the big two is effectively powerless. A Westminster-style parliamentary system gives the smaller parties a legitimate chance of affecting policy by making them desirable allies in forming a coalition government. The ability of a no-confidence vote in the sitting government to toss out the whole damn lot of them would also be very nice; considering the times that the vice presidential pick was a calculated move to protect the president himself from threat of impeachment by being every bit as bad, if not worse (Bush #1 / Quayle, Bush #2 / Cheney, Trump / Pence.)

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    128. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something

      Its not the Commerce Clause that's the problem. (The Commerce Clause is inevitable the moment commercial transactions cross state boundaries.) The problem is the Wickard vs Filburn SCotUS decision, which basically decided the Federal gov't could regulate commerce within the state (violating state sovereignty).

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    129. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level.

      Ah yes, so one day we can aspire for the American educational system work as well as VA funded hospital care.

      It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.

      While I can generally agree with that notion, economic management by the US federal gov't has not gotten to the point where it can equitably redistribute funds to every US citizen. (Thank God.)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    130. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns.

      Bullshit. The US rejected a neocon warmonger in 2008, an investment banker in 2012, and the Democrats decided to run a candidate that essentially promised to be the handmaiden of both (among her many other problems). Given a choice of steadily boiling to death, or going full dumbass with a low possibility of a better life, the significant portion of America decided the latter.

      The American public would have re-elected Obama for a third term over Trump, if the CotUS had allowed it.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    131. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > I sympathize, but who among us here doesn't
      > understand the need for continuing education and
      > learning new, possibly different, skills to stay relevant
      > in the workforce?

      I'm really tired of the seeming requirement to throw out "I sympathize" platitudes when talking about the "too cool for school" crowd who refuse to learn new things. Frankly, I don't sympathize. Because I *DO* understand the need for continual education and skill development. At no point in my career that I can recall have I ever *not* been learning new skills, whether through formal classes or self-directed study and practice. Even as I learn those new skills, I'm also watching the news and trends to determine what *new* new skills I will be learning next year. I simply can't fathom not learning new things. Even when I retire, I expect to be finding new things to learn, even if they're only hobbies. And I don't see why I should have a lick of sympathy for someone who thinks they're entitled to make an entire career out of one skill set, never expanding, never advancing, never developing.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    132. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      The NSA has two jobs.

      Spy on enemy communication
      Protect USA communication

      They seem be be focusing entirely on the first one and doing almost nothing for the second one. Since USA communication is higher value (due to the larger economy) and the monetary damage and enemy can inflict it makes more sense to focus on the shield aspect.

      I realize they have a conflict within their core goals and right now it seems they focus almost exclusively on the sword part.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    133. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > better jobs were coming at some point

      The thing is, those better jobs are already here. Take Apple, for example, since they seem to be everybody's whipping boy for "moving jobs to China".

      When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in in 1997, the company employed about 8400 people; which includes their former in-house manufacturing operations here in the US and in Cork, Ireland. Apple now employs about 116,000 people... better than an order of magnitude more... *not* including their outsourced manufacturing in China. And these are better jobs. These are engineering jobs, programming jobs, operations jobs. Have you driven though Cupertino recently? Damn near every single bit of office space in the town has an Apple logo on it. And they also have offices scattered across Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and a few other places in the valley. Their new "space ship" headquarters isn't *replacing* their existing offices. It's just shuffling some people around and freeing up space for them to hire even MORE people. And those will also be engineering, development, operations, design, marketing jobs and the like; much more stimulating and fulfilling than assembly-line grunt work. So, when the design, engineering, software, marketing, and management is all done right here... and these are better jobs to have than is manufacturing... why is it such a big deal where the iPhone is actually assembled?

      If you care, the source for my numbers wrt/ employee count and such are Apple's annual 10-K filings to the SEC:

      http://www.annualreports.com/C...

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    134. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by net28573 · · Score: 1

      You've got that backwards. The current electoral college system silences the votes of conservatives in California and Democrats in Republican states. By removing the electoral college, you allow votes to actually mean something.

      --
      RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
    135. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... when talking about the "too cool for school" crowd who refuse to learn new things ...

      I was also thinking, but didn't state clearly, of people that lack easy (easier) opportunity to learn new and/or different things. People getting by, working hard for less, may not be particularly able or enthusiastic about spending money or time they can ill afford in the short term for the benefit of the long(er) term. It's a tough needle to thread. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who had choices, chose poorly and are being left behind.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    136. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a false dilemma. The NSA does not have to spy on US citizens without a warrant to protect us from foreign powers. I'm not claiming that Russian hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president, but you absolutely can have it both ways.

    137. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you want the northeast and California deciding who's President and nobody else matters, right? Because that's what you get when you forget that this is the United STATES and elect a President your way.

      Presumably, the idea is that whoever gets the majority vote will win the election. Sounds like democracy to me.

      The way it works now is a feature, not a bug.

      If you really do not like democracy, then yes, you are right.

    138. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465

      Our media's fact checking. Even Snopes will label something Trump says as 'False', then spend 10 pages not debunking it.

    139. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      So is the complaint about people leaving the NSA or about them leaving the NSA subcontractors?

    140. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by whodunit · · Score: 1

      And the Clinton Foundation has?

    141. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      You can't have it both ways.

      Where is the problem with that reasoning? It would only have been a problem if NSA actually had prevented Russian hackers from messing with the election.
      If they spy on the American people without protecting us and our democracy from foreign entities, why shouldn't we hope for the destruction of the NSA?
      You need to actually fulfill your purpose to be wanted.

    142. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's not blame the demographic that has sat around on their asses for three decades refusing to get any sort of education or improve themselves to the point where they might have something to contribute to a modern economy.

      Let's blame the entire rest of the planet for not ensuring that they can keep jobs that machines took over years ago.

    143. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need no stupid constitution as long as we have a Smart Man running the government.

    144. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And he kept calling the media ... he kept calling them "corrupt" and "scum of the earth."

      And they are. The media are controlled by the Zionists. And the Zionist lobby is the biggest part of what is wrong with America. Get rid of the Zionists in America if it is going to be great again. Hopefully Trump realizes this.

    145. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

      Trump believes in 180's. So this should be easy.

    146. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by houghi · · Score: 1

      And if that does not work, what then? There was tea thrown into a harbor because there was taxation without representation.
      Those people who where so smart said: we do not agree with the rules, we make our own rules. They disagreed with the processes.

      Furthermore he said nothing about a slim majority, he talked about the fact that what people who are dead over 200 said might be outdated. Most people just keep saying it is relevant, because it is what is currently in use.

      Those people could also have said: well, the processes are that we have taxation without representation, because that is what it is and if we want to amend that, there are processes that need to be followed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    147. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can also add:
      7) any topic brought up with 10% of population signatures (even electronic) is automatically enlisted for referendum. Any subject voted by referendum cannot be overturned by politicians or another referendum for at least 10 years.
      8) benefits for members of congress, executive and justice are set by the people by referendum and subject to change only once every 10 years as a result.
      9) any consumer protection agency is appointed by referendum and not by president or other political body.
      10) constitution changes are only permitted by referendum

    148. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Landowners have a stake in the success of the country. Renters have much less of a stake, and are far more likely vote in a manner that makes the maintenance of property difficult.

      If this is true at all, it is only to the extent that "the success of the country" is defined in average -- as opposed to median -- terms. Which is meaningless to a large (and increasing) fraction of the population, unless you subscribe to the non-obvious (and empirically false) assumption that capital and wealth "trickle down" somehow.

    149. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that ended in the 1860's, when various states attempted to secede and were prevented by federal military.

    150. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Subcontractors lack leadership authority to change NSA policy.

    151. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The American public would have re-elected Bill Clinton for a third term over Trump

      Fixed That For You

    152. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Then, to digress a bit, Trump and Pence bribe Carrier with $7M (over 10 years) in tax breaks to save ~1000 jobs and the employees rejoice - ignoring the fact the those Indiana employees just paid that bribe themselves. So lucky that Pence is (was) Governor of Indiana.

      And that never works. I can guarantee you that they'll be back in a year or two with their hand out for more money. You don't need to be Nostradamus to predict that. Australia tried that with its car industry, Ford and GM produced cars in Australia that they couldn't sell anywhere else and rather than logically, letting it die quickly the government threw hundreds of millions of dollars at Ford and GM just to keep the plants open and save 2500 jobs. Every time they ran out of money they went back to the govt and asked for more or "thousands of jobs would be lost".

      Ultimately the taps were turned off and the companies left anyway. For the A$2.17 Billion we gave to General Motors/Holden alone we could have paid the pension of it's 1,200 odd manufacturing workers for years... or better yet, re-skilled them.

      ignoring the fact the those Indiana employees just paid that bribe themselves. So lucky that Pence is (was) Governor of Indiana.

      Its worse than that. it means other people are paying to keep them employed in a business that isn't making money. Its $700 per worker, per year. Even though their individual taxes would pay for that it still creates a shortfall the rest of us have to pick up.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    153. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      So do the vast majority of NSA employees, as in every government bureaucracy. the only ones that can make policy are the high-level political appointees. The rest are the people that have to carry out the policies, as best they can. If you can only follow orders, why not be paid a large amount of money rather than a small amount of money?

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    154. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It was the least untruthful thing he could say.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    155. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're 100% right. But what you're missing is the location of the jobs you describe both at Apple and at plenty of other companies. They tend not to be in swing states. So most politicians can't be arsed to even acknowledged them, much less care about them. They tend also to be in blue states such as California or blue enclaves within red ones such as Austin. So when politicians do bother to notice them, for the democrats we're little more than a fundraising source. And as far as the republicans are concerned, these workers are nothing more than a bunch of un-American godless commie mutant traitors who want to abort the baby jesus and make it cry before eating its stem cells; so we can all go burn in hell, or if they're being especially charitable maybe just be kicked out to the other side of the wall.

    156. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, so one day we can aspire for the American educational system work as well as VA funded hospital care.

      That might still be better than the current system where you're billed $40K for a minor procedure. Wait, no insurance, we'll settle for $20K cash. Oh, you have insurance? We'll bill you $8K. The insurance settles for $5K and everyone's happy and makes money? Why wasn't it billed at $5K in the first place, and why charge the highest rate to those most likely to not be able to afford it?

      While I can generally agree with that notion, economic management by the US federal gov't has not gotten to the point where it can equitably redistribute funds to every US citizen. (Thank God.)

      The interesting word in your sentence, "equitably", leads to many potential lines of thought. What does that mean? Does everyone get $1? Does everyone get total$/population? Something in between? Something proportional based on '?'? There's so many options in your statement that without qualification it is much like the "everyone should have access to healthcare/food/water/air" statements which are all statements designed to evoke an emotional response without really addressing anything approaching a real question or solution.

      In reality, what I'm imaging we're discussing is something along the lines of a base income and base healthcare (which, btw, the VA exceeds in significantly no matter how bad the service times are in some areas of the country)

    157. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Trump won because of his appeals to racism and sexism, and his vicious misogynistic lies about Hillary Clinton. He won because a large percentage of the country is hateful

      Sing this loud and proud every single day. I can't wait for that permanent Republican super-majority.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    158. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remove the party affiliation from the ballot and the ability for a party-line vote, and watch what happens as democracy re-asserts itself.

      It would also be really nice to have a limit of 5 years maximum at time of election into any job (yes, president 2 terms, senators 1 term, representatives 3 terms max) and to only allow the president to serve 2 terms consecutively. Removing re-election concerns from Congress might make them focus on actually serving the people instead of their re-election money masters.

    159. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an incredibly ridiculous post that can only be explained by lumping together exaggerated reports in the media and having no actual knowledge of the successes and failures of the organization outside of a tin foil hat filter.

    160. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      Not only that, but who watches the watchers?

    161. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me an article where the NSA is or has been involved in investigating the Russian election involvement. I thought it was the FBI. Thanks in advanced.

    162. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for this perfect demonstration of a strawman fallacy! I needed that.

      The NSA does not need to spy on all Americans to investigate any particular crime or attack; that's like saying the FBI needS unfettered access to the private properties of everybody, all the time to investigate smuggling.
      That's what warrants are for. The target does not have to be informed and it works for time sensitive situations like kidnappings, so it should work in "internet crime" just as well.

    163. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol if they gave a fuck about russian hackers I might be impressed. People report hacking activity to those faggots all the time. You can see govt secrets passing over TOR, you can see what's hacked, you can collect authentication.

      They're notorious for not giving a fuck and they do nothing to stop it. It's most important to collect as much data as possible. Why? Well you tell me why the fuck it would be good to have embarrassing information on literally everyone.

    164. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure those won't be the same people.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    165. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is deeply flawed and in need of major reform, particularly around anything to do with elections. It gives pets to states that states shouldn't have and prescribes a two year term for the House of Representatives that now acts little more than a driver of corruption. Only two Senators per state is now utterly ludicrous. This is why the Constitution gets ignored: It's to hard to change and it hasn't kept up with the real world. I can't that changing until the Constitution changes.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    166. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by djinn6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? Since when does renting make you less American? You realize the majority of renters are young people who haven't yet acquired enough money to buy a house? People who are the children of land owners? They are the people who will be impacted by public policy 50 years down the road, and they have every reason to vote for a better future for America.

    167. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the season for treason

    168. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where in the Constitution is the right for any State to leave the Union?

    169. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump lost the portion of the vote coming from people making under $50K/yr.

      Because "food on the table" for that portion comes in the form of a big, fat government "We despise you, but if we give you free money, you'll vote for Democrats, and btw, Repubs are racist" check every month.

    170. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid response. U know how many US soldiers have died in China in the last 10 years? None. How many died in Russia? None. Don't go to war under false pretenses and the NSA won't have to 'protect thousands of troops'.

    171. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, the NSA does not protect average Americans from ANYTHING, what they are 'supposed' to dois manage signals intelligence (us getting it, them not getting it) for the US Government.

      And, the recent laws passed by the US Government shows that the government considers (largely) citizens to be a threat to it. So, those citizens that see this voted in Trump because he is NOT a career politician.

      maybe you were asleep?

    172. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      If the NSA didn't have their heads so far up the American public's collective asses with the electronic surveillance equivalent of an electron microscope, maybe they would have the time to, hmm I don't know, defend us from foreign cyber attacks?!?!

      We can have it both ways. We can have an NSA and protection from foreign forces attacking us through the global communications infrastructure. We just have to have politicians who follow existing public law and the constitution rather than secret laws and secret interpretations of the constitution which allow our government officials to justify spying on the American people.

      All we have to do is get the infrastructure of the NSA directed toward overseas interests and origination, rather than moving into your living room. It really is that easy.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    173. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It seems you are saying "Since we no longer abide by the Constitution we should abolish it." Even lip service to the Constitution is sufficient to maintain some of the freedoms which we are inherently entitled to.

      What would you replace it with? And would you entrust the re-launching of the American political framework to the very people who transgress their own oaths and the Constitution daily as a matter of expedience?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    174. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Our government sees retired veterans as the greatest potential enemy of the state, thus their treatment. They are an armed, trained, and in many cases, rigidly Constitutional in their thinking. Government overreach is tempered by the presence of these people more than you might think.

      Also, the only reason the VA is so bad is because all of us let it be that way. If we complained as much about the VA as homosexuals did about wanting the right to marry, we would have done something about it already.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    175. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our current president-elect did get a majority of the votes. The electoral votes, which come from the states. He won more states. That's been the agreement for literally over 200 years. The president is not elected by the people, but by the states. Don't like that? Then change it. Write your state and national representatives and senators. The process can be amended.

      But stop bitching that it's undemocratic. She got more runners on base, but he got more across home plate. Guess which method everyone agreed to base the final score on before the game even began? Because I definitely didn't hear all this before the election. Complaining about the rules after the fact is poor sportsmanship. So get over the results of this one, and if you think it's truly unfair, get involved in trying to change the process rather than just bitch and moan online.

    176. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Remarkably introspection-free, accusatory, and inflammatory postmortem examinations of the election outcomes, like this one, are the reason why you morons will continue to make the same mistakes over and over, ad nauseum.

      There used to be a populist angle to the left that was a catch all for those disenchanted with the raging-capitalist/conservative/religious-right triumvirate that is the republican party.

      Now those moderates that want a party to go with are too busy dodging accusations of white privilege, outright racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, mexiphobia, misogyny, etc. to be able to assimilate into the party of the left.

      As you ratchet up the groundless accusations and give them the impetus of a political movement and encourage and support their indiscriminate and (even worse) intentional misapplication for political gains, you alienate people who would otherwise be on your side.

      Being the voice of those who are seeking redress from the government is a good thing. Taking that voice and condemning others in a baseless and destructive fashion gets you thrown out of the political system, as it should.

      A better way to put this: there are innumerable things you can use to criticize the established right in the US. Resorting to name calling and inflammatory statements that color entire groups of people as "deplorable" and "racist" and "sexist" just because they have conservative underpinnings, are white, and are male is just fucking stupid. If that is the best criticism you can muster for the right in the US, and if that is what it takes to get the support of the left leaning, minorities, and women we are all well and truly fucked. Trump will be a two term president and the CEO of Exxon/new secretary of state will be the next president.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    177. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that, as a liberal in a state that hasn't gone Republican in a long time, my vote is pointless. If it was going to make a difference in how my state votes, the election's already decided by other states. Nobody seems to care about the popular vote, which I can influence very slightly.

      If you're not voting in a swing state, you have no influence on the Presidential race.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    178. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

      You can't have it both ways.

      What about those of us hoping for the destruction of the NSA while also not claiming Russian Hackers are the reason Trump is president? We only want it one way :)

    179. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump.

      You don't know that. There is some evidence that some places with vulnerable voting machines had their totals altered, and the Russians had the motive and the capability. Russians may have altered totals so that, effectively, some people who voted Clinton were counted as voting Trump.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    180. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is missing the forest for the trees. The unconstitutional surveillance could potentially be aimed at protecting the USA.

      Violating the Constitution in this way is necessarily bad. That is the most important matter, at least if you value our constitutional form of government. It would be bad to violate the highest law of the land even if the unconstitutional surveillance helped protect us. Your mentality leaves open the possibility of accepting unconstitutional and unethical mass surveillance.

    181. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Those jobs are not coming back, and trade agreements don't matter. It's in general no longer profitable to run a large factory that pays a large number of people a decent wage, since it's cheaper to automate most of the jobs away. We've still got a tremendous amount of industry in the US, but it doesn't provide nearly as many jobs as it used to. If the US had stopped producing things, it might have something to do with trade agreements.

      For the economy as a whole, this is a very good thing. For many people, it really really sucks, but their only hope is to get help to change their skills to be more valuable in the modern economy.

      We went through the exact same thing with agriculture in the 1800s. US agriculture is tremendously productive, but there are a really small number of agricultural jobs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    182. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's also the issue that it used to be easy to make decent money without all that many skills if you were willing to work hard. Factories took in a lot of people for assembly lines. I'm not thinking of many such jobs anymore, and many of the people who are in trouble may not really have the talent to do well in today's job market.

      We may be at the point where, with all the retraining we theoretically need, lots of people will simply not qualify for the jobs there are.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    183. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The NSA developed SELinux; give them credit for that. Their record on cryptosystems is more mixed. When the DES was being developed, the NSA proposed changes to make immune to a form of cryptanalysis that nobody outside government agencies understood, and they also suggested reducing the key length.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    184. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      I bet Obama would have won by a wider margin.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    185. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way we have it right now, liberals in Texas need not vote - their vote does not matter. End of story. Same for conservatives in California. Because their vote is rounded out, they are not represented in the role of President. You can say they can vote for the House and Senate, but those are often rounded out as well with gerrymandered districts.

      The alternative is to have people in the big cities control the course of the nation. The votes of those who live in the suburbs or in rural areas won't count.

      Take a look at the NY Times election maps: the big cities voted blue, and most of the rest of the country voted red. That's not an accident.

      There are reasons that demagogues target big city populations. The big cities have a lot of poorly educated people - since well educated people who are raising children move to the suburbs or the smaller cities (a big city is a terrible place to raise children). People that are ignorant or dumb are easily manipulated. Not the group any sensible person wants determining elections.

      Worse, the preponderance of welfare recipients are found in the cities - and that group has very different interests than the rest of society. They don't understand responsible spending as individuals - not entirely their fault, the US education system sucks, and the political system allows the credit card companies to bribe the government for favorable policies. Unfortunately, that also means typical big city residents don't understand the implications of debt on a larger scale as well. The result is massive government debt - with all the corruption, ethics problems, and other negative implications for society that follow from having a large debt (something economists have documented at length in recent decades: it's no longer believed that such debt is harmless - not that any sensible person would ever have believed such a thing).

      Worse, the big cities are riddled with corruption - and the voters that live in the big cities are as a result far more tolerant of corruption in general, because they're used to it (and many of them benefit from corruption in their local area). Not a good recipe for competent voting decisions.

    186. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Once it became apparent that the FBI was in the sack for Hillary,

      Really? Well they sure did a shit job of it. The "November Surprise" of Anthony Weiner's laptop did exceptional damage. Did they just change their minds?

    187. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Trump played people exceptionally. The biggest crazy moment in the whole election campaign to me was Trump swindling people into thinking he's not one of the elitists that they railed against. That he's not in the top 1%.

      But this is really a part of a larger Republican narrative, one that Ayn Rand promoted: this notion that "elite" refers ONLY to government insiders, and people who use government power to influence business. For them, a businessman, no matter how wealthy, cannot be considered "the elite." That label can only be applied to the big bad government.

    188. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting on bell curve. That's new.

    189. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was covered on John Oliver. That wasn't in her department and had nothing to do with that. Are you I'll informed or just spreading shit?

    190. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With reference to the "two hours off to vote", ID and early voting, my state has solved this by voting by mail.

    191. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a tectonic shift in an industry which effectively constructed the middle class of this country and upon which the entire concept of the American dream is based. One could literally finish some level of schooling (in many cases, not even high school until much later) and get one job that you kept your entire life and which paid enough to buy a decent house in a decent neighborhood, put a car in the driveway, modern appliances throughout, and buy everything needed for a wife and 2, 3, even 5 or 6 kids. More often than not, most or all of those kids did the same thing: finished some level of schooling and went to work doing the same job as dad or something quite similar. Entire towns and even cities were built around this model. Generations of families were built around this model. And not for a tiny number of niche workers in some remote and isolated part of the country: this was the backbone of the United States' economy.

      I'm not disagreeing with the substance of what you've said: changes are happening and the old models are rapidly losing their economic viability in most cases. But until the political leadership recognizes the immense cultural and even psychological impact of these changes and provides a specific, actionable, immediately tangible path to a positive outcome, any promise to preserve what has been for a long time is going to get a ton of traction. And when I say immediately tangible, I mean to say it has to be actively happening and visible. These are not the types to be swayed by a 12-point plan of some possible future concept. They need to witness their friends and neighbors actually transitioning on the path to whatever the model may be (perhaps construction and maintenance of these automated factories as part of it?) before they'll be convinced.

      So either show them a path forward or promise them a path backward. I don't think anything else is going to resonate with them and I don't think Democrats can win much of anything without them. If state and local Republicans figure this out before Democrats do, watch for a big shift there too. And once they're out of power, those state and local Democrats aren't going to have much ability to put a path forward into practice. I fear Republicans may be perfectly happy to just keep making promises of a return to the past, since they're free, quick, easy, and (at least for now) work.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    192. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All well and good. The NSA possibly protects us from our enemies. But who protects us from the NSA? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      But so far the NSA hasn't been protecting us for our enemies.

      That you know of. When they are truly successful, you will never know what could have happened.

    193. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A promise of a path backward is a lie. We're talking about people who will accept a big lie from a known liar rather than the truth. Never again will it be possible for someone without much education to reliably get a job in a factory, work in it until retirement time, support a house and car and family, and get a pension.

      The way forward is painful and uncertain. It requires getting these people to have skills useful in the modern economy. This is going to be a really hard sell for a fifty-year-old who was planning to retire from that factory that closed. It's going to take education and work to acquire a skill that may or may not be in demand, won't be acquired by everyone in the program, and may require moving to make any money out of it. We're not talking about inherently stupid or uncreative people here, but we're talking about people who really didn't value intelligence or creativity for making money.

      So, it looks to me like you're saying that there's going to be a large number of permanently disaffected people who are easy targets for dishonest politicians. I'm not disagreeing with this, but it's not a good situation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    194. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      ... said every tyrant ever. There's a process for amending the Constitution. It requires a supermajority for a reason. The fact that a slim majority can't run rampant over the 49% is a feature, not a bug.

      Does that include the slim majority composed of law enforcement, the courts, and the politicians?

    195. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What hacks have the NSA prevented? I count zero. What number do you come up with? You're claiming the NSA protect our people and organization from hacks. They don't, and I don't believe they even claim to. There is no "both ways".

    196. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.

      I seem to have missed that section in the tax forms, can you kindly point out where the tax forms show who you are beholden to?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    197. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the NSA's charter do you?

      The NSA is meant to do espionage and protect the country. Both jobs are delegated to the NSA.

      The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). NSA is concurrently charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare.[8][9] Although many of NSA's programs rely on "passive" electronic collection, the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through active clandestine means,[10] among which are physically bugging electronic systems[11] and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software.[12][13] Moreover, NSA maintains physical presence in a large number of countries across the globe, where its Special Collection Service (SCS) inserts eavesdropping devices in difficult-to-reach places. SCS collection tactics allegedly encompass "close surveillance, burglary, wiretapping, breaking and entering".[14][15]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    198. Re: Cue the hipocrisy... by execthis · · Score: 1

      The article raises an important issue. Why is it that the best and brightest minds - people like ultra-entitled graduates from places like Stanford - go on to become the biggest parasites in society forming companies like Enron, instead of viewing it as their duty to use their talents to benefit their fellow man and/or serve their government?

      It's not just about this one instance of people wanting more money, it's about a problem of societal rot that is draining America and causing it to split ever more intensely between the entitled and non-entitled classes.

      I was just thinking yesterday about how more in more socially cohesive countries with much lower Gini coefficients than the US people take that cohesion for granted, whereas in America people aren't really even aware of the absence of such cohesion and its massive benefits, so used to its absence are they.

      I admire anyone who chooses the relatively unglamorous path of serving in the military - especially in times like these when there are all these other, shiny, glamorous paths that can be taken. As much as people don't like war or militaristic foreign policies, that is quite a different thing than the actual people who spend their careers protecting our country.

      Hopefully under Donald Trump the schism will decrease. It's interesting how traditionalist values of the AltRight fit into all of this. There's the yearning for the past - and I think back to the past when the most brilliant minds in the country considered it their privilege to serve our government and work on things like decrypting codes or designing bridges.

    199. Re:Cue the hipocrisy... by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to be crying "Russians!" and I have a lot I'd like to say on the topic of the NSA. On the other hand, I've a planned vacation coming up and I'd hate for the family to be denied boarding passes as retribution for saying something too negative about the wrong people. It's already bad enough that I read Linux Journal as a part keeping up on topics for my job.

      But screw principles. We need to believe in Paladins with absolute power to make somebody feel safe.

  2. No Suprise by coastwalker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Given that Trump is about to use the NSA to get back at people who have argued with him over the years it is hardly surprising that people are getting out before he gets inaugurated.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    1. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump doesn't need the NSA. He just hired Santa, and Santa knows who's been naughty or nice.

    2. Re:No Suprise by SpankiMonki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given that Trump is about to use the NSA to get back at people who have argued with him over the years it is hardly surprising that people are getting out before he gets inaugurated.

      I, for one, look forward to the WikiLeaks dump of Rosie O'Donnel's e-mails.

    3. Re: No Suprise by Type44Q · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That would suggest that, his angry demeanor notwithstanding, he makes strategic decisions based on emotional impulse. His current achievements would suggest otherwise.

    4. Re:No Suprise by Britz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People over here in Europa defended the NSA spying on the basis that it isn't a dictatorship, but a democracy doing it. So it's all good. To which Snowden replied that the surveillance state has become a "Turnkey Tyranny".

      Will Trump be the one that turns that key? Find out after the commercial break, when "The Apprentice" returns.

    5. Re: No Suprise by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      That would suggest that, his angry demeanor notwithstanding, he makes strategic decisions based on emotional impulse. His current achievements would suggest otherwise.

      Dumps on Boing after Boeing CEO talks about trade with China
      Dumps on Carrier union rep after said rep call's him out for misleading figures
      Dumps on SNL just because he doesn't like their parody of him.
      Dumps Megan Kelly because he didn't think she treated him fairly.

      Which of these is strategic and not emotional?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:No Suprise by Kohath · · Score: 1, Troll

      Maybe he will start with people who did not care when the Obama Administration used the IRS to "get back at people".

    7. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Trump is about to use the NSA to ...

      The rate at which these cyber-tacticians are exiting public service has increased over the last several years and has gotten considerably worse over the last 12 months

      Unless the folk at NSA are so good at predicting the future that they knew Trump was going to win several years in advance (and the less connected ones only found out during the last 12 months) you might want to find another explanation. Really, this 'Trump caused X' barrage makes him look second only to God in making things happen, which is the last thing the already ballooning ego of this president-elect needs. Well, his ego might need it, but everyone else on the planet doesn't.

      OTOH, if the NSA really knew about Trump so far ahead of time, it makes one wonder what exactly is going to happen in the future that has their running away from such an interestingly oracular organization.
      /s

    8. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I hope there's no images

    9. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people are cheering and agree with every single one of these. How is that not strategic?

    10. Re: No Suprise by LanceMcGrath · · Score: 1

      None of them are strategic. All are emotional. Not that I agree with the GP, but you picked pretty poor examples.

    11. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that didn't happen. Old school conservatives were not fact-free zones. That sure has changed. But it does seem to be working so keep up the lies alt right.

    12. Re:No Suprise by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'm sure "that didn't happen" will be said about anything Trump does too.

    13. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump summed it up best: "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him"

      If not emotional, he's at least purely transactional.

    14. Re:No Suprise by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      People over here in Europa defended the NSA spying on the basis that it isn't a dictatorship, but a democracy doing it. So it's all good.

      The NSA did what the BND, the DGSI, and every other European spy agency have been doing forever: it spied on both citizens and foreigners. The only thing that was noteworthy about the NSA is that, unlike Europe, US spy agencies are not supposed to spy on Americans. That's something Americans can get upset about; it is of no relevance to Europeans.

      So, please spare us your misguided and misinformed "defense". If you want to advance the cause of privacy and fight the surveillance state, start at home.

    15. Re:No Suprise by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Isn't it the NSA that runs the Santa Tracker? NSA probably stands for Not Santa After all.

      Oh, that was NORAD.

      Never Mind!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    16. Re:No Suprise by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Trump doesn't need the NSA. He just hired Santa, and Santa knows who's been naughty or nice.

      Santa is a flying immigrant with a beard. He won't be allowed into the U.S. - duh.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    17. Re:No Suprise by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Given that Trump is about to use the NSA to get back at people who have argued with him over the years it is hardly surprising that people are getting out before he gets inaugurated.

      Luckily, we can just block the NSA on Twitter. Problem solved.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re: No Suprise by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you seen the list of people he has appointed to his transition team? They are not what you would call rational choices.

      It's not like he is a genius businessman either. He started with more than most people would have made in a lifetime, and kept on getting cheap loans from his dad, and still managed to go bankrupt multiple times, and his more successful ventures were sued for being racist or simply huge scams. Trump University is not the product of someone who is good at building effective businesses, it's the product of a scam artist whose main skill is high pressure sales tactics.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old school conservatives were not fact-free zones.

      No, that'd be modern "progressives."

    20. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retard

    21. Re:No Suprise by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Funny

      Santa is a fat old white man. He won't be allowed to oppress any longer.

    22. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading too much fake news? Except maybe GCHQ the European agency have no mandate or even legal permission to spy on their own citizens, quite similar to the US.

    23. Re: No Suprise by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irrational people like you won't see them as rational. You made up your mind before he did.

    24. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Santa's elves work in a sweatshop!

    25. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turnkey surveillance state? yes and no.
      it isn't just cyberspace and software. there's also some real "boots on the ground" elements involved.
      zero-days can do alot but if you want to intercept lots and lots of "meta" data and maybe get around default firewalls
      you need real physical access and equipment in the right places because installing millions of zero-days might ring some alarm bells.

      some of these "sneaky equipment places" are not on american soil and thus need the good-will of a foreign state.
      if these states should feel that america is "turning the tyranny" turn-key and they feel oppressed they can still jank
      the physical equipment.
      so now politics come into play to maybe keep a certain financial important region with lots of network data in a scared mode
      so that they will play nice and not question some dusty piece of computer equipment in a closet else there might be
      bombs and explosions and war-ships on the horizon...

    26. Re: No Suprise by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Echelon had that solved 60+ years ago.

      The spooks just spy on their neighbors citizens. The neighbor's spooks are spying on their citizens. They exchange information. Constitution, shmoonstitution.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Irrational people like you won't see them as rational. You made up your mind before he did.

      I'm sure amimojo had made his conclusions about trump's character long before today. After all,we've had a 500+ day election campaign, not to mention his decades of media exposure, for us to come to conclusion about who exactly trump is.

      But that doesn't mean he can't observe that trump's appointments live down to those conclusions about trump's judgment.

      Your's was a very rational response... for someone who can't dispute the facts. Instead you resort to a substance-free personal attack. That's a tactic I've seen a lot on twitter lately from a certain well-known twit.

    28. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they poor examples? Or are they just examples?
      There is nothing stopping someone from responding with a list of strategic examples.
      So far, nobody has. Maybe because they are so far and few between that not even the trumpkin horde can come up with one.

    29. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but choosing Ben Carson for Dept of Housing and Urban Development, because he may have lived in public housing is like saying someone who has had brain surgery is qualified to run a neurosurgery department.

      That is one definite example of 'not a rational choice'

    30. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't know very much about Europe do you?

    31. Re: No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His love of the generals is also sadly revealing.
      As a kid he got kicked out of regular school for acting-up so his unloving father sent him to military school.

      He's appointing all these generals because he's seeking the approval of the same father surrogates he had at military school. The man is such a sad walking ball of neediness and insecurity. He thinks he can get love and respect transactionally - he marries models and spends money on them expecting love in return when all that can really get him is to be treated like a glorified john. He hopes by making the generals work "for" him he will have their respect when nothing could be farther from the truth. Meanwhile Bannon whispers sweet nothings in his ear and pulls his strings like a marionette.

      And despite all that happening in plain view his loyal subjects think he's some kind of genius playing 4D chess when its really trump who is getting played by all those people around him. Its only a matter of time until we end up with a 21st century version of the teapot dome scandal.

    32. Re:No Suprise by mjwx · · Score: 1

      People over here in Europa defended the NSA spying on the basis that it isn't a dictatorship, but a democracy doing it.

      What is the opinion of Io and Ganymede?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, they'll photoshop you first

    34. Re:No Suprise by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      But, since he is coming through the porous northern border there will be no one to stop him!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    35. Re: No Suprise by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Tit for tat" conditioning of the press and public? Could it be that he is a closet genius, maybe a savant innately applying the rules of game theory to the business and political realms? How else can you explain his inexplicable business acumen, social influence, and election to the presidency?

      Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! I just made a plausible allusion to the possibility of unplumbed depths of Donald Trump's intellect. Of course we all know he is an abominable moron with no qualifications whatsoever and signifies the death-knell of the American Experiment. Were doomed!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    36. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People over here in Europa defended the NSA spying on the basis that it isn't a dictatorship, but a democracy doing it. So it's all good.

      The NSA did what the BND, the DGSI, and every other European spy agency have been doing forever: it spied on both citizens and foreigners. The only thing that was noteworthy about the NSA is that, unlike Europe, US spy agencies are not supposed to spy on Americans. That's something Americans can get upset about; it is of no relevance to Europeans.

      So, please spare us your misguided and misinformed "defense". If you want to advance the cause of privacy and fight the surveillance state, start at home.

      Wow. You aren't particularly skilled at reading comprehension, are you?

  3. paltry government salaries? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    Snowden made something like 200,000 a year to be a sys admin. That is high even in Silicon Valley.

    I'd say the NSA is more like Bernie Madoff's organization. Everyone makes such stupid high salaries, they take the money and stfu.

    1. Re:paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden was a contractor. Direct employees are restricted by standardized government pay scales.

    2. Re:paltry government salaries? by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Snowden made something like 200,000 a year to be a sys admin. That is high even in Silicon Valley.

      Snowden did not work for the NSA, he workde briefly for the CIA but took a private sector job for Booz Allen, and was then contracted to the NSA

      Private contractings a whole different kettle of fish. And I suspect a lot of these leaving govt jobs are leaving to go work at private contractors wherein they'll just end up back at the agency they where at before albeit as a contractor, and costing the govt 3x as much, and none of the accountability required of federal employees.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden was a contractor... he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton.....contractors get paid 3 to 4 times their government counterparts.. So trust me these NSA guys who are leaving do get paid a paltry salary.

      And as a contractor myself who does work with the NSA, one of the reasons for people leaving that is not being talked about. Is the incredibly over burdensome requirements, procedures, oversight, and plain hoops one has to jump through to do their job.

      I refuse to do any jobs that on or around Fort Meade, as you are made to feel like a prisoner with every move or decision you make is logged, tracked, audited, scrutinized, and debated. Life is a living hell under these rules... That is why their leaving.

        Thanks Snowden....

    4. Re:paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once they're in the private sector they're only accountable to the market, which is how it should be.
      --
      roman_mir

    5. Re: paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't make 200k. A few of my frinds worked in that industry for some time and from what I hear - even the best sysadmin with all the right clearences are making at most ~120-150k + Benefits.

    6. Re:paltry government salaries? by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Now we know why the government is so happy to see IT salaries drop. No one want to leave their job security to go to a private job that will soon be outsourced. They just didn't move fast enough to keep their employees. Those that are leaving will soon be back when they find out what is happening to the jobs they think they are leaving NSA for.

    7. Re:paltry government salaries? by drew_kime · · Score: 2

      Once they're in the private sector they're only accountable to the market, which is how it should be.

      The point is the the three letter agency isn't accountable for what they do, which is why they're willing to pay three times as much to get them.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    8. Re:paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've pinpointed it, the circle jerk of intelligence contractors knows no bounds of decency and continues to grow, destroying the world along side it.

    9. Re:paltry government salaries? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Snowden was a contractor... he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton.....contractors get paid 3 to 4 times their government counterparts.. So trust me these NSA guys who are leaving do get paid a paltry salary.

      And as a contractor myself who does work with the NSA, one of the reasons for people leaving that is not being talked about. Is the incredibly over burdensome requirements, procedures, oversight, and plain hoops one has to jump through to do their job.

      I refuse to do any jobs that on or around Fort Meade, as you are made to feel like a prisoner with every move or decision you make is logged, tracked, audited, scrutinized, and debated. Life is a living hell under these rules... That is why their leaving.

          Thanks Snowden....

      Thanks *Snowden*!?!?

      What the hell are you smoking, dude?

      Or were you fine with the NSA violating the shit out of people's rights, you're simply upset that since Snowden revealed their criminal acts, the NSA is trying to prevent others working for the NSA from whistle-blowing and revealing further lawlessness, and those measures to prevent their lawbreaking from being revealed inconveniences you?

      If you actually do work for the NSA, YOU and people who think like you in the agency are the ones responsible for Snowden and the impending castration of the NSA's powers and capabilities to spy on US citizens wholesale.

      People who think as you do should never be or have been allowed to be anywhere near any sort of government power. You and your ilk are the embodiment of the tyranny the Founders predicted and warned us would arise. You deserve a fair trial and a prompt and clean hanging if found guilty. Nothing more.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:paltry government salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as anyone familiar with contracting shops knows, the actual worker gets nowhere near the billing rate.

      Snowden may have been billed out by Booz Allen at $200K/year, but is likely to have received a fraction of that as pay. Or, if he was actually receiving $200K/year in pay, the bill-rate to the NSA was likely in the $400-500K/year range.

      Contracting firms have always operated this way, it is how they remain profitable.

  4. A lot of reasons, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't call it "low morale" if people are leaving because they can make more money elsewhere. Patriotism loses to greed every time, and that security clearance is worth a hell of a lot more than the privilege of being able to read some foreign official's emails.

    1. Re: A lot of reasons, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USG depends on intangible amd benefits to offset the low pay. Low morale detracts significantly from these.

  5. Really? .... Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The amount of ignorance it takes to spy on foreign and domestic politicians, defy the decree of the Supreme Court, throw your misbehaving employees in jail and demonize the one that was smart enough to leave the country AND then claim the media is to blame for "Taking everything you say and everything you do and putting it on TV" is mind boggling

  6. No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all part of your new 'Dear Leader's' plan to make America Great again.
    Oh wait...
    I guess they don't want to be managed by 'tweet'.
    I hope that Dear Leader Trump has his twitter account taken away before he takes office.

    1. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, dear leader would apply to hillary. With trump, it's sieg heil! If you're going to support a propaganda bandwagon, at least use the right terms.

    2. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the new Kim Jon Il. Both have ego's the size of Mount Washington.

    3. Re:No Surprise by nnet · · Score: 1

      can we expect rodman to hang with trump at a wizards game?

  7. "Protect US" by zelkovamoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Protect US - From a bunch of hoodlum fundamentalists that kill fewer Americans on average than lightning does. That old adage about trading freedom for security aside, if we wouldn't give every single 'terror' crime days of 24 hour news coverage, they would fade away and blend into the overall background of murders. If the American people want surveillance, it's only because we've created this narrative of fear or "it could happen to you" when in reality you are far far far more likely to die driving into work than from a terrorist attack. Allowing the terrorists to shock and scare the population is doing exactly what the terrorists want... so why do they do it?

    1. Re:"Protect US" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So the solution is to tell the Ministry of Truth to dial back on the news about terrorist attacks.

      That's very good. Very good indeed. Who should we contract with to enlarge the memory hole? It's going to need to be much, much bigger.

    2. Re:"Protect US" by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Allowing the terrorists to shock and scare the population is doing exactly what the terrorists want... so why do they do it?

      This is a question more people ought to be asking. The answers are probably unsettling. One could argue that the media, the government, and even large swaths of the population want the threat of terrorist. The media wants your attention, the government wants you afraid and submissive, and a lot of people just want someone like Emmanuel Goldstein to hate. Then there's the military industrial complex, tech companies that sell the NSA hordes of servers, fundamentalist Christians who get off on the idea of a modern Crusade, etc.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  8. Oh boy, you really have no clue by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    these aren't going to be sys admins leaving. These will be the guys that do crypto and the hard math stuff. Wallstreet will gobble them up at $500k/yr+.

    Gov't jobs really don't pay all that well at the top end. They're only real advantage is they're secure and often found in cities good for raising families. It's mostly the lower end where they pay better than market rates and they do that to try and spread some money around poor communities (e.g. socialism) and keep the economy from completely collapsing. Most of that is middle management jobs at defense contractors, not the NSA.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. The start of a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just the NSA, morale (and pay) at other technology based agencies is at rock bottom. This will end up damaging the USA far longer than Trump is around.

    1. Re:The start of a trend by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's not just the NSA, morale (and pay) at other technology based agencies is at rock bottom. This will end up damaging the USA far longer than Trump is around.

      They started leaving long before Trump.

      Furthermore, I think skilled people leaving government for the private sector is a net benefit to the USA.

  10. And a little dig at Snowden by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    âoeWhat really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong,â Alexander said Tuesday. âoeThey are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes. They are the ones that deserve our praise. Not a guy who took this race to Hong Kong and to Moscow.â

    Or maybe they no longer want to work at an unaccountable agency which is breaking the law on a regular basis? Or a reorg that sounds a bit screwed up?

    1. Re:And a little dig at Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, they're going to work for Uber?

  11. I bumped into an old friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hadnt seen him in decades. We used to run around in highschool.

    "Hey Jake, what have you been up to all these years?"

    "Oh this & that, i work for the NSA now."

    "Okay go fuck yourself then!"

  12. Fix the link in the summary by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

    The link in the summary points to the submission. The submission itself has no links. No sources for the quotes, no nothing. Of course, even without an article there's already 20 comments. That takes RTFA to a new level: There actually *is* no article.

    1. Re:Fix the link in the summary by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Fix the link in the summary by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      There are links, but they're classified.

      BRB, door.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > You can't have it both ways.

    That's only if you are unaware that the NSA has two mandates:

    (1) Spy
    (2) Protect

    Most of us who complain about the NSA believe that they have over-emphasized (1) at the expense of (2).
    We've all heard about how the NSA hordes zero-days to enable their ability to spy which leaves everyone vulnerable to anyone else who also has those zero-days. That became explicitly clear with the Shadow Brokers fiasco.

    I am happy to support the NSA in their mandate to protect. But as long as they follow a policy of keeping the US weak because it helps them spy, then they don't deserve the support of americans.

    1. Re:You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Buzz!!! Wrong Answer.

      The original purpose and mission of the NSA was to Protect and I have no god damn idea how they expanded that simple mission to Spy on the very people they're supposed to protect.

      Our Spy Agency is the CIA, which is forbiden by law from working within the borders of the United States. Any information they developed in regards to terrorist activity and such in our borders should be handed to the FBI and let them do their god damn job.

      In regards to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we have a problem as Immigration is generally considered part of the State Department while Customs and Excise (taxes) are part of the fucking revenue department. Split the fucking duties and assign them to the proper agencies (State for Immigration) and Internal Revenue for Customs and Excise as that's part of their mandate.

      As to Homeland Security - kill the fucking agency as it's only purpose is "Gestapo". They have absolutely no reason to exist except for "Security Theater". Most of what DHS is supposedly responsbile for is already part of the Dept. Justice and under the oversight of the FBI. Provide proper training and have the FBI do the needed background checks before the folks are hired as TSA's while paying the a decent wage.

      Another Agency that doesn't need to exist as BATF (Alcohol and Tobbaco should fall under the Food and Drug Admin) with Firearms being under the Dept. Justice and the FBI.

      I'm not talking about dismantling agencies as far as all the employees go but killing the personal fiefdoms that resulted in the shit called 9/1/1.

    2. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by guruevi · · Score: 1

      NSA = domestic surveillance
      CIA = foreign surveillance
      The NSA has no reason to exist other than to spy on US citizens, for all other things (actual investigations) there is the FBI, police etc.
      Off course now it's all under the umbrella of DHS so it doesn't actually matter who is in charge, the spying will continue.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Incorrect. Humint = CIA; sigint/elint = NSA.

    4. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > NSA = domestic surveillance

      If it were true then all that stuff about the NSA spying on brazil, germany, etc would be completely imaginary.

      You aren't just wrong, you are bordering on idiocy making a statement like that.
      Delete your account.

    5. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that the NSA was born out of military SIGINT services post WWII. Those agencies were responsible for codebreaking and collecting foreign intelligence. They were basically joined together into NSA/CSS.

      They've always been dual hatted with defense and offense.

    6. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      NSA = domestic surveillance CIA = foreign surveillance The NSA has no reason to exist other than to spy on US citizens, for all other things (actual investigations) there is the FBI, police etc.
      Off course now it's all under the umbrella of DHS so it doesn't actually matter who is in charge, the spying will continue. Reply to This

      Sorry, but pretty much exactly wrong.

      The NSA is authorized to collect signals intelligence only on foreign citizens. Hence the uproar over domestics being caught up in the surveillance nets and not being redacted immediately as they are supposed to be. This isn't an arbitrary distinction, but because under US law, American citizens are entitled to the protection of the 4th amendment against unwarranted search or seizure, whereas foreign citizens are not. So the setup was that the NSA could warrant-less-ly wiretap the rest of the world, but needed to scrub out the information of Americans that got caught in the haul.

      I don't know how closely those rules were followed for most of the NSA's history (and neither do you). But that was/is the NSA's charter. Oh, and the NSA also has a secondary mission of Information Assurance, which is how the government is supposed to protect its own classified information.

      Probably the foreign/domestic split you're thinking of is the way that the FBI and CIA are structured. The CIA cannot surveil/investigate/spy on/shoot American citizens, and the FBI can only surveil/investigate/spy on/shoot people inside the US.

      Also, while we're at it, neither the NSA nor the CIA is part of the "umbrella of DHS." The CIA rolls up to the Director of National Intelligence as the head of the nation's "intelligence community," whereas the NSA is part of the Department of Defense. DHS itself has a law enforcement role but no "spying" mandate at all other than activities directly involved in fulfilling that law enforcement mandate.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    7. Re:You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      You're happy to support the system that has clearly failed absolutely?

      Your kind of sheep are the problem with everything.

    8. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you give me an example of a country where it is legal for a foreign government agency to spy on people?

      I don't care whether the NSA spies on American citizens. Frankly I, that is their problem and they should sort it out themselves. However, the NSA has no right to spy on me or anyone else outside of US jurisdiction and they should be held accountable for their crimes.

    9. Re: You Absolutely Can Have It Both Ways by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      The NSA is authorized to collect signals intelligence only on foreign citizens. Hence the uproar over domestics being caught up in the surveillance nets and not being redacted immediately as they are supposed to be. This isn't an arbitrary distinction, but because under US law, American citizens are entitled to the protection of the 4th amendment against unwarranted search or seizure, whereas foreign citizens are not. So the setup was that the NSA could warrant-less-ly wiretap the rest of the world, but needed to scrub out the information of Americans that got caught in the haul.

      From what I understand there are rooms inside NSA facilities that are considered foreign soil and are staffed by foreign agents. It is these foreign agents who spy on American citizens and then turn the information over to American agents. Supposedly there's also a reciprocal agreement where we have staff in their intelligence facilities.

  14. NSA and "enemies" by Kohath · · Score: 1

    A country where people consider their political opponents "enemies" and where the leaders use government power to hurt them is not a country that can trust an agency like the NSA. And it's not a country that prioritizes the defense against foreign threats that the NSA was originally created to provide.
     

  15. To protect us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does industrial, political, and financial espionage and sabotage against European countries, protect the Americans? It's funny how the U.S. is always trying to make itself out as a defenseless and helpless victim, under savage attack from the whole world, while in fact it's the other way around.

  16. They've always done that by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Especially in the security field, people have always taken government jobs for a while in order to leave for a better-paying private career.

    There's a whole network of ex-police, FBI, and security officials working for corporations and private security services. VP in charge of security is a well-paying job.

    Back in the 1990s, I met a guy from the New York State police department who had established the state's first computer crime division. After his talk, he told me that he was planning to work for the police for a while and then look for a better-paying career in the private sector.

    At the time, he was not concerned with hacking of a local teenager's bulletin board. He was going after big-dollar computer crimes. If it didn't meet a financial threshold, they wouldn't pursue it. It seemed like he was most interested in developing relationships with people who would hire him at a good salary after he left government.

    It makes economic sense, but not a lot of dedication to public service.

  17. I'm surprised by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised that they even go there in the first place.

    The kind of people who can do software security audits, tap into hardware designs and suchlike can command just about any salary they like.

    The problem I have is understanding why such people would ever end up at places like the NSA/GCHQ in the first place. It's no longer a "cracking open the enigma" kind of place and hasn't been in a very long time, and now they are spying on their own, including themselves and their families, and putting deliberate holes into things, and doing all kinds of stupid shit.

    I'm amazed anyone goes there at all.

    I'm a maths and computer science graduate. I have a keen interest in coding theory and graph theory especially, both borne of an interest in codes, ciphers and such concepts. I'm a tinkerer and play with electronics and radios in my spare time, not to mention programming and other kinds of gadgets. I don't claim to be anywhere near the top of the class but, surely, I'm at least the type of person who they should be looking at.

    The problem is that because of the above, I'm inherently buried in reasons that freedom, privacy and security need to be preserved by means other than trust in the government.

    They are quite literally the last places I'd want to work and, even as a pacifist, if we were to go to war (a proper war, not some undeclared concept-war), and I was drafted in and told to do something, I'd refuse to the utmost of my being but even if forced at gunpoint every morning, I'd end up making bullet casings or delivering food rather than touch those kinds of organisation. Some activity for which I'm just another pair of hands.

    Turing is my hero, Bletchley is my nativity manger, and "brains over brawn" are my commandments . But I couldn't ever do what he did, or work where he did, because of what it was and, even worse now, because of what it's become.

    It's why I don't give credence to the "acres of supercomputers tapping all your calls" crap. I don't believe it's impossible, it's just expensive. And you can find an acre of supercomputers in any country if you rearrange things. I just don't believe they have the talent to make it do anything useful, and that much of it is wasted in isolated brute-force and hope rather than working out how to utilise it effectively.

    Whenever I hear "the next stage" - more surveillance, laws protecting those agencies when they break the law, etc. - I find it even more ludicrous that what they have are a bunch of highly-skilled, educated, dedicated codebreakers, engineers and undetectable spies. It doesn't fit. These agencies are so good and yet Manning and Snowden can just copy embarrassing things to a USB stick and make them look like fools (not that I particularly think either of them got anything of value out of the venture, even if they believe so... they may have made the agencies look foolish and showed things weren't as they should be but literally NOTHING has changed because of them that I can see).

    I don't buy it. I certainly don't buy that highly educated people who could walk out tomorrow and get a job in a computer security company (even of their own making) and sell products never seen before, ala Zimmerman, and they just sit there tapping people's emails and letting their agency's reputation go to shit in the press when they are all about secrecy.

    The good ones probably left a long time ago. And no Times crossword is going to bring them back, even if we go to war, while those agency's agendas aren't compatible with the precept that they are they to "protect" their peoples.

    1. Re:I'm surprised by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > I'm surprised that they even go there in the first place.

      Idealism is probably why. They might hear and read some of the stories about the monster NSA and think it's not really that bad or they just need "more people like me!" and apply. In the same vein, I'm kind of surprised that anyone in the last 35 years since the draft was removed has joined the armed forces with the intention of making a difference instead of just looking for a job or a GI bill, but it happens. A very well known example would be Pat Tillman who left a multimillion dollar football career to go to Afghanistan - and then in the blackest of ironies gets killed by friendly fire.

    2. Re:I'm surprised by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      It's good on the resumÍe. You get security clearance and are more hireable with companies who wanna sell security solutions towards goverments.

      Also if you wanna leak to wikileaks - thats the place to go.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    3. Re:I'm surprised by Pabugs · · Score: 1

      because the gov't pays $$ to comp sci students (with more college degree funding than most can get), 4 schools do the bidding for the gov't sub contractors. so the students who need the funding, are beholden to pay off their loans/contracts for the 2-4 years employment req'd to fulfill their student grant funding.

    4. Re:I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everybody is motivated by salary alone, it shouldn't be a surprise.

    5. Re:I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound exactly like the kind of person they desperately *need*.

  18. How about this by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

    Let's make a deal: I'll make it clear I don't want your flavor of so-called heroism, and you can quit what you're doing and stop feeling put-upon and self-righteous.

    But you're so addicted to your "hero" narrative that you'll never step away from the spy cams. Pricks. Can you at least mute your press conference drivel?

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:How about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, let's consider the subtext of Gen. Alexander's comments:

      1). I personally authorized much of the ludicrous scope expansion of the NSA. I'm sensitive to my legacy and reputational damage. In short I'm biased and 100% involved in this. If you want distance and perspective, talk to someone else, indeed almost anyone else will be better;

      2). I've grown addicted to and reliant on a consequence-free environment. The executive and government establishment not only condones the ludicrous scope expansion, they actively encourage it. Therefore when some kind on consequence, you know, actual accountability occurs, I'm entirely unprepared for it. I've heard about this kind of thing but that is meant for other people, for little people, for ordinary citizens. Don't you know who I am?? I'm General Freakin' Alexander!! I don't do consequences!

  19. possible NSA-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In large part, Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions."

    As far as I understand what is being done - i.e. black boxes in AT&T trunks, tapping every submarine cable which can be reached, long term logging of *all* recoded data (phone calls, SMS, emails, browsing, etc), massive decryption facilities, etc - the NSA *are* spying on absolutely everyone they can.

    I suspect the statement may reflect NSA-speak, where collecting (our use of the word) data is only considered spying if you look at it.

    It is not surprising the higher-ups in the NSA genuinely believe in what they say; it would be impossible for them to function, and to hold their positions, if they did not. I think they genuinely and actually believe it is fine to collect absolutely everything on everyone, and hold that incredible power (and take the catastrophic risk of it being hacked and going public), because they promise only to look at when it is, by the letter of the law (as bent to the maximum possible extent by wild interpretations never made public), legal to do so.

    It was like this back in the USSR. The Soviets *genuinely* believed Maxism-Leninism. No, really! they actually saw the world in that way. No one in the West actually imagined they would genuinely believe, but they did. It is basically how humans cope with madness; they internalize it, and make it "valid" in their own terms, so that they can think of themselves as good - as doing the right thing(s).

  20. We are the bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can anyone working for US Intelligence or Military think they are the heroes?

    The US has toppled several democracies to support the exploitational interests of American Companies

    Hell -- the US created the banana republics!

    How many more wars will the US start for oil?

    How many more terrorist organizations will the US Govt fund and train

    How many more millions will die at the hands of our ruthless tyranny around the world?

    We are the bad guys -- America just likes telling itself they are the good guys

    1. Re:We are the bad guys by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We are the bad guys

      Even worse - all that dirty work, you didn't even get the great Hugo Boss uniforms for the trouble.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:We are the bad guys by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Hell -- the US created the banana republics!

      Banana consumers created the banana republics.

      Just like drug consumers create the hell-on-earth in border regions of Mexico.

      How many more wars will the US start for oil?

      Oil consumers produce the high demand for oil. The war Obama fanned the flames of in Syria, that precipitated the refugee crisis, was over a pipeline western interests want strung over Syrian land.

    3. Re:We are the bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like drug consumers create the hell-on-earth in border regions of Mexico.

      The drug consumers were there before the imbecile Nixon started the war on drugs. The "hell-on-earth in border regions of Mexico" were not. The war on drugs created them.

  21. Are made to look bad? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Informative

    ..."What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."...

    I am sure that many, even most, in the NSA are the heroes he asserts. On the other hand there are instances such as NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests that cast a pall upon the agency.

    .
    Maybe it is time to stop blaming the media for reporting what is happening.

    1. Re:Are made to look bad? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      While that's true, the real problem is that we are expecting perfect behavior from imperfect actors. Everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has breaking points that they can reach if they're pushed.

      After watching politics (and the news) for 30+ years, I don't think simply having the media expose this sort of illicit or illegal behavior is enough. It just reinforces the misguided belief that things would've turned out different if we'd only had "better people" in place. Once you fall down that trap, the people who look most qualified are those who are most skilled at covering up their faults - pathological liars. And after decades of media pressure and filtering, that's precisely what most surviving politicians are.

      The safeguards need to be more structural. If you're going to build a reliable organization using these flawed building blocks, you can't just throw out every block which has failed when in fact every block can fail under individually unique circumstances. You have to build the structure to be robust enough to survive and do its job in spite of failures. Like how we've taken the notoriously imprecise and inconsistent feat of generating microscopic magnetic fields on metal surfaces, and turned them into extremely reliable hard drives by putting a multiple layers of error correction encoding on top of the unreliable lowest encoding layer. (Adding yet another layer using RAID if you need more reliability.) I'm not sure how exactly to translate that into an organization of people, but simply relying on the media to report it is the equivalent of a computer popping up a UAC dialog (requesting admin privilege) for every little thing it does. It happens so often that eventually people get tired of it and simply click OK to every popup, or simply turn the damn thing off.

    2. Re:Are made to look bad? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."...

      I also think this misunderstands the word "hero." Normally we don't equate the word "hero" with "doing exactly what we ask" of someone. A hero is generally somebody who goes beyond what the normal person would do -- who aspires to nobler intentions, greater achievements, unusual bravery, courage in the face of overwhelming odds, etc.

      I don't mean to take anything away from those who do public service -- whether military, police, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, etc. Most of them are admirable people, but does just "showing up for work" qualify them to be "heroes"? I think there's some modern slippage in meaning that tends to say "yes," but that's not what the word "hero" has traditionally meant.

      I'm sure there are some NSA people who are legitimate "heroes" in the traditional sense -- people who go far beyond what an average person might do, or what we'd ask a reasonable person to do, in service of the U.S. And I laud their efforts.

      But just because "our nation asked" a number of NSA folks to spy on people in unconstitutional or illegal ways doesn't make their actions right, let alone "noble," and certainly not "heroic." Even in the service of "protecting us." And even IF you agree with the spying, it STILL doesn't make most people who just do their job "heroes," especially if they aren't doing anything particularly courageous, etc.

      Shame on this NSA Director for co-opting the language of heroism to try to legitimize his own bad actions and decisions. It is a nefarious distortion and appropriation of the term that detracts from the legitimate heroes who serve us in all sorts of ways.

    3. Re:Are made to look bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Because this is the first time power use's language for manipulation. Welcome to 1984.

    4. Re:Are made to look bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems like LoveInt were never really the problem - that kind of stuff happens and is dealt with.
      The thing that concerns me though more is the illegal order. Currently the NSA works for its "customers". According to the Snowden docs, these range from the POTUS, to all sorts of military agencies, to the FBI and DEA. That's where the problem begins.

      The FBI and DEA have no business being anywhere near SIGINT (they even have terms for the cover-ups: "parallel construction"). Even politicians like POTUS have no real business asking the NSA to look up anything for them. The fact of the matter is that anyone on... say... the house or senate intelligence committees, without any meaningful oversight, could legally ask for party affiliation info on all Americans, and then use this information to write a redistricting bill is an abomination. The fact a politician could request all SIGINT on a political opponent is an affront to democracy. The NSA would just follow orders and fulfill the clients' legal requests, of course, without ever recording THEY did anything wrong.

      So I am far less concerned about the lone individual abusing government infrastructure looking up his girlfriend (that's the dangers of dating a spy), than the "legal" requests that the NSA could be (and probably is being) given.

    5. Re:Are made to look bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post, he truly does devalue the word 'hero'.

      I saw a business awards show some years ago. It was devoted to 'entrepreneurs', and it was, well it seemed over the top to me at the time. Now understand, they didn't use the word 'hero', but it struck me right away. They were using the word 'entrepreneur' in exactly the way that people use the word 'hero'. And I objected to that.

      My definition of the word 'hero' must include the fact that the hero must not be working for personal gain. They can be working, actual paid work you understand. However a hero must do something who, as you say, goes far beyond the average person. They must risk themselves or their career or reputation for instance. And they must do so while not seeking glory, fame or fortune.

      Thus, for me, 'entrepreneur' doesn't quite cut it in the 'hero' department. Entrepreneur is just a fancy word for businessman or woman, and they are working for themselves. For private gain.

      An entrepreneur can still be a hero, but their heroism must frankly transcend and eclipse mere entrepreneurship.

  22. Unfortunately invoking Godwin's Law by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't what Director Alexander saying the Nuremberg defense?

    How is saying "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes." any different than someone saying that they were "just following orders from a superior" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders)?

    1. Re:Unfortunately invoking Godwin's Law by houghi · · Score: 1

      He sounds more like this :
      [...] Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. [...] And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...[...]
        We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. [...]

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. More Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't even a link to the source. This abusive spy agency isn't going anywhere and people aren't jumping ship because they are still butthurt about the result of the election. Try harder slashdot.

  24. Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions" Because they are? Mass domestic metadata, voice calls, text messages, and emails are all there for the taking

  25. "Do the math" - hahaha by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I am honestly surprised that some of these people in cyber companies make up to seven figures. That's five times what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes. Right? And these are people that are 32 years old. Do the math.

    That's a wonderful double entendre right there. If your old geezers could do the math, you wouldn't have to pay youngsters who can. Wonderful to see military's "now that we have Cobol, can we get rid of all those beatnik programmers" still alive after all those decades! So much Schadenfreude to be had here.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:"Do the math" - hahaha by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "now that we have Cobol, can we get rid of all those beatnik programmers"

      Check your punctuation rules. It isn't a quote, when you are quoting directly from your imagination.

      Or, you can defend your punctuation with a citation.

    2. Re:"Do the math" - hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Go be butthurt somewhere else DoD faggot" -- Anonymous Coward

  26. Universities create high salaries in the market by sentry65 · · Score: 1

    I partly blame universities for having such poor programing degree programs. I have friends currently taking entry level classes and the professor says the intro classes are designed to weed people out from going further and graduating which means less programmers entering the market, which means higher salaries. Meanwhile other places in the world really push programming and have huge amounts of programming graduates. Sure it's a staffing issue in these college programs, but why can't universities accommodate more students with more staff instead of making them potentially drop out ?

    1. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      Really? That's your question?
      I'll give you a hint: staffing is not the issue.
      you should look up weeding - this should help. http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

    2. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called a filter.

      The computer science department wants the A and B students, the math departments wants the same. The C and B students end up in engineering/chemistry/biological/physics where they get to work with things rather than numbers.

      The C and D students also end up in Business school having satisfied the needs for "information technology". But can't program worth a crap, and don't want to, but can bs their way.

    3. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      Because they have an obligation not just to their students to provide a proper engineering education but to their alumni as well. If they lower standards they are dragging down all the students that could be held to that standard by dumbing down the entire curriculum. If you allow students to graduate from that university at a lower expected level than they used to, then that de-values the degrees of those who have graduated before as well as the reputation of that university

      US universities (at least the good ones) do not want to be programmer degree mills. They like their students to leave with an understanding of the fundamentals and be able to apply them to whatever they may come across and grow. This is in contrast to many of the overseas schools which are basically just degree mills and most of the students dont leave with an actual understanding of the concepts. Sure they could churn out some poorly written code, but they would have no idea how it works, how to architect it properly, and what its actually doing under the hood

    4. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I have friends currently taking entry level classes and the professor says the intro classes are designed to weed people out from going further and graduating ...

      All classes are designed to do that - you know: assignments, projects, tests, grades... Those that understand things continue; those that don't - don't.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The business degree I have had the second highest A level requirements to get onto it of any course at the university. Maths was the only one higher. The degrees offered by the computer science department weren't even close.

      All courses want the top students. A good university is going to have A grade students taking most of its degrees, whichever department they're in.

    6. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "... the professor says the intro classes are designed to weed people out from going further and graduating..."

      Translation for the hearing-impaired:

      "If you're smart, you may feel that this introductory course is surprisingly low-level and kind of boring. But many of your classmates will be totally overwhelmed and fail even this mickey-mouse course. The institution wouldn't let us be any more rigorous than this, and refuses to put in a proper admissions filter. So be patient; the interesting new stuff starts in the next course."

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the Universities are deceptive, in that the main subject being taught is Pedagogy, yet all those pupils' degrees are in subjects matter they're tacitly encouraged to avoid, so as to do as well as possible on the "assignments, projects, tests, grades..."

      80-98% of University Students should have their 'Major' defined as Pedagogy. The schools are producing brown-noses, and may as well be honest about it.

    8. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're kidding yourself if you think the flunkout sequence goes 'CS than (engineering/real science)'. Nowhere on earth. CS is for people who can't handle EE.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No engineering school at your university?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your counselor won't know your name until you pass the weed outs.

      Smart schools won't even let you have a major until you pass the remedials (things you should have learned in HS).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I partly blame universities for having such poor programing degree programs. I have friends currently taking entry level classes and the professor says the intro classes are designed to weed people out from going further and graduating which means less programmers entering the market, which means higher salaries. Meanwhile other places in the world really push programming and have huge amounts of programming graduates.

      It's not clear how you define "poor programming degree programs" here. Are you referring to those that weed out the incompetent majority, or to those that churn out those huge amounts of "programming graduates" (whatever that means)?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Universities create high salaries in the market by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fairly sure there was but don't know the entry requirements.

      No software engineering degrees though, back when I was there.

  27. Not entirely correct by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

    We asked them to protect us, not treat everyone as a criminal by scanning every phone call, tracking our movements and creating a database of every person in this country to run queries against.

    Also, they're not heroes. Not even for broad definition of heroes. They're doing a job a) they want to do and b) they're paid to do. If they're considered heroes then so are myself and my team whose job it is to keep our state Health department up and running 24/7 so they can respond to the next flu outbreak, flu which kills more people every year than all terrorist attacks on this country combined (roughly 23K die every year from the flu).

    If you stop making excuses for why you're spying on people who have done nothing wrong, whose data you keep for years just because, and stop lying about you not spying on people who have done no wrong, maybe your agency wouldn't be considered in the light it is.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  28. True heroes. by Abu+of+unruley+kids · · Score: 1

    "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes." Heroes do an act of heroism, independent of money and nationalism. A hero does a selfless act. If it's done for money. It's just a career, a tough one perhaps, but a career all the same.

    1. Re:True heroes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Snowden did.

    2. Re:True heroes. by Abu+of+unruley+kids · · Score: 1

      I didn't follow the Snowden saga much. I would not classify him as a hero. He did show the public about the U.S. government's overreach. What he did just wasn't grandeur enough for me to classify him a hero. My point is, if your getting paid to do something. Then it's your job. Your job doesn't make you a hero.

  29. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All well and good. The NSA possibly protects us from our enemies. But who protects us from the NSA? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    This is exactly the issue. If you've met people in these circles, you know there are a couple of basic types (although everyone has their own characteristics too, obviously). There are amazing people, there are very nice people, there are real jerks, there are psychopaths, and there are people who will just kind of go along with whatever everyone else is doing. You can't rely on individuals alone to protect us from unethical institutional mission creep. That's why we have laws, and that's why we create systems of oversight.

    The only way to prevent corruption and abuse of our federal system in the long run is institutionally. No matter how good someone is, if you give them the power to operate in secret forever and without effective oversight, they will eventually be corrupted by it, but even if they are not the next person will be. We NEED good oversight with as much transparency as is possible under the circumstances, oversight that includes independent inspector generals and a good committee with privacy advocates as well as former NSA and others on it that takes a meaningful response to Constitutional and privacy issues rather than seeing them as a hindrance. So long as we don't have that, we should assume the system will be abused for illegal and unethical purposes.

    The work the NSA does is incredibly important--but so is protecting democracy from what the NSA could become.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      almost as if there were a House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence. They do a much better job than you're willing to accept, because you want to believe that the republicans are evil, the progressives are good, and that the world is a nice place full of nice people.

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by swillden · · Score: 2

      almost as if there were a House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence. They do a much better job than you're willing to accept, because you want to believe that the republicans are evil, the progressives are good, and that the world is a nice place full of nice people.

      I don't believe any of those things... and yet it's clear that the oversight committees have not been doing a good job.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > They do a much better job than you're willing to accept,

      They obviously do not. The budget of the NSA spent on unconstitutional domestic surveillance should not have been funded. From what little fiscal evidence I can see, it's at least 30% of their budget.

    4. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The work the NSA does is incredibly important--but so is protecting democracy from what the NSA could become.

      The NSA long ago became the thing that got us Trump for president-elect. Check your tense. The NSA gets off on exploting our nations insecurity, not in bolstering it. Check out the hooters on this LOVINT...

  30. Nothing to do with Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the NSA and the rest of the government want to stop seeing their best and brightest leave, they should stop treating their best and brightest so poorly. These workers knew about the low pay when they entered government service, so higher salaries are not the main motivation to leave.

    What is causing them to leave? The desire to work in a place where they are respected and where they can actually get things done. The desire to be in a work environment where you can actually get rid of incompetent people. The desire to work together as a team for a common goal, instead of competing underhandedly to grab for what little recognition their agency deigns to dribble out. The desire to have a management structure that actually understands the work and doesn't laugh, self-deprecatingly, about its ignorance of what the workers are doing.

    The best and the brightest are leaving because they would rather work in a meritocracy. The private sector knows that attracting and keeping talent is vital to staying competitive. The federal government pays lip service to this but, in reality, it doesn't give a shit.

    Maybe you can get good people to deal with bad conditions if you pay them market salaries, but don't expect them to stay if you both pay them dirt and treat them like dirt.

  31. what "we" asked them? by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    It takes a certain disconnect from reality for Mr. Alexander to believe that Americans are going to feel much pity for government employees getting only six figure salaries (with good benefits and retirement plans) when a few of them could be making seven figure salaries in the private sector; or when he thinks that "you all wanted to be spied on by us" is going to get much agreement from the public. In any case, I suspect that some of those employees are leaving not because of the money, but because of conscience and purpose: they have recognized that the NSA is a fairly useless institution and an institution with questionable ethics.

  32. Maybe it's just market forces by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    If I were working for the NSA right now, I probably wouldn't be the happiest employee either. Ever since the Snowden thing happened, plus WikiLeaks and the like, followed by the Equation Group and that guy who was caught getting ready to sell stolen material, the general public has been shown a new perspective about what intelligence agencies do behind the scenes. I highly doubt that's the full picture of what they do, but that's the problem with seeing only pieces of the puzzle.

    It is definitely a different world. Back in the 80s and before, intelligence agencies were seen as basically the only thing keeping the Russians from wiping the planet clean, and there was a lot more trust in government. Anything the CIA, NSA, etc. did, even if it wasn't above board, was considered necessary to preserve the balance. Now there's internal leaks, people getting riled up into an anti-government frenzy, and a general mistrust in authority. The fact is that NSA does seem to attract a fair share of really good software guys and mathematicians. Government work doesn't pay well compared to the typical leaving-school jobs smart people get (name your management consulting firm or investment bank.) The only thing it does have is stability, and a public service mission. You really have to believe in the mission to take a huge pay cut compared to the $200K+ salaries banks are paying quants, but I'm sure there are still a group of people who do. The problem is that it's hard for a secretive intelligence agency to just open up the doors and show everyone what's actually going on beyond the narrative the public has seen.

    So, public sector work is subject to market forces. In a regular old GS position pushing reports around, people trade low salaries for a safe retirement, decent health insurance, job security and the fact that their job isn't going to be offshored when the MBAs finally get around to preparing the report for the board. I'm sure the calculus is a little different working for the intelligence services. You get that stuff, but you also get to assist in vital work that no one will ever really hear about. The question is whether NSA can continue to find people who aren't so turned off by the current public face of the agency.

    Honestly, with offshoring and automation kicking into high gear, I think government positions will be pretty good deals for most people and will be worthy of consideration. Given how bad income inequality is, would you rather have a safe, guaranteed job that didn't pay all that well, or a job that pays well but is subject to the whims of a corporate board that will offshore the job the second it becomes too expensive in their eyes? It's the equivalent of cashing in your chips while you're ahead versus betting it all on a single roulette spin.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just market forces by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      David Kahn wrote "The Codebreakers" in the 1960s, and commented on the number of NSA scandals It's not new.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump should have pizzza with John Podesta!

  34. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > " the former NSA Director added. 'They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes.'"

    Except... that's not true.

    The "nation" didn't ask the people of the NSA to do what they do. The "nation" has strict laws that protect civil liberties against exactly the kind of behavior the NSA is engaged in. The "nation" is actively asking a renegade agency to respect the Constitution.

    The people making these requests are a small cabal of power hungry bureaucrats who are operating out of a mixture of unconstitutional ideology, conflicts of interest and personal ambition. Their prominent position in government does not grant them the authority to override the Constitution or to speak for the "nation".

    The reality is that this cabal is well aware of what the "nation" is asking, and they are actively overriding said requests -- despite their constitutional mandate.

  35. hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure violating the constitution and being a treasonous pile of crap isn't heroic. Actually the penalty is hanging.

    This idiot should be quite glad his organization is merely going through some inconsiderableness. If I had my way I'd lock the doors and burn the place to the ground with them all inside, make the world a better place. Definition of a hero 'someone who made the world a better place'.

  36. Legacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's Legacy strikes again!

    Probably also all those super-expert and un-traceable Russian hackers that got to them.

  37. Private Industry is where it's at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private industry is where it's at.

    You can make more than the POTUS, the SCROTUSES that sit on the SCOTUS and interpret the COTUS for the POTUS.

    Hell, you can make more than the ROTUSES, SCROTUSES and the POTUS put together.

    And you don't have to be spied on by the POTUSES who nominates SCROTUSES to sit on the SCOTUS and re-interpret the COTUS for the POTUS.

  38. They ARE the heroes... IF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, absolutely they are the heroes, IF and only IF they perform their roles within the bounds of morality, while respecting our human-rights and privacy, and while additionally staying within the bounds of the law (although that is of lesser importance than morality, human-rights, and privacy). Are some of them truly heroes? Yep. Same way a handful of police officers are true heroes. There are exceptional, good, moral stand-outs. Unfortunately, as we have seen far too often and with far too much clarity, power is abused. Should we treat these people as heroes as a whole? Absolutely not. We should treat them as individuals precisely as we would if they had any other occupation. Blanket hero-worship, especially when so woefully misplaced, is dangerous.

  39. Net Effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people will be doing pretty much the same work, but report to a different boss. Less accountability, and a lot more expense for the tax payer. Which, I suppose, is what Trump and his sycophants want. I don't think that they give two hoots about the taxes or deficits per se, they just want to ensure that the money is funneled to their friends in the federal contractor business and not to the truly needy.

  40. Just Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the next big security-related catastrophe. And see what the following Congressional Report says about what effect the decimation (or worse) of the various security has had leading up to the event.

  41. Signs of American Decline by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    NSA, CIA, DHS, hell even NASA, army, and navy positions are going to be emptied as intelligence is anti-Trump, and Trump is anti-intelligence; both forms work and supply distinct explanations. There aren't enough of his family members to fill all those seats so Trump won't be able to respond.

    1. Re:Signs of American Decline by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      After which there will be a series of horrible terrorist attacks that the government could have stopped if they wern't too inept to respond to early warnings.

      The response to that will be the fulfillment of early Trump promises. Prison camps, deportation forces, wiping out entire families, etc.

      We will cheer him for it and he'll be called a hero as America enthusiastically pursues his agenda and slides into the darkness.

  42. "spied on at all times by the U.S." by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

    >In large part, Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions. (...)
    >"What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

    HAHA. Hahaha. Hahahahaha. Ha ha ha... Ha...

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
  43. NSA two mouthed LIARS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    ALL NSA employees are required to take an oath of office. Part of that oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution has several amendments, Number 1 is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of Speech!!! Yet when some NSA employee tell the world "Whistleblower" abut NSA abuses which are clearly covered by the NSA rules they get thrown in jail - Chelsea Manning or driven from the country - Edward Snowden. And then demands special courts - How the NSA Made Your Legal Defense Illegal - https://mises.org/library/how-....

    When is the President going tell the NSA to start playing with the full legal deck! This is the National Security Agency not the CIA which is another bed of garbage!!! National clearly indicates country or origin not the world! I'm getting sick of this!

  44. Re: could have worked to make Linux more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They actually did help Linux be more secure in the early 2000's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules#History

  45. Maybe they shouldn't be following illegal orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may not think you're doing bad things, but even if (and it's a fair "if") you aren't yourself doing so, YOU AREN'T ALLOWED to tell us what you are doing, so we cannot tell you're not doing the illegal shit your "company" did that we do know about.

    So please, if this douchebag is reporting your true feelings, either refuse to follow orders, blow the whistle on those who do, or STFU and stop whinging, because you ARE doing bad shit.

  46. nice equation you got there by epine · · Score: 1

    Yes, nice equation you got there: doing exactly what you've been told to do makes you a hero.

    Interesting how a culture of inhibited personal judgement—once people spy greener grass on the other side—turns out not to be a selling feature. Let me ask you a question: This "does not compute" head-in-sand response of yours, how's that working for you inside the giant, black Faraday cage?

    I've never been able to comprehend how many people look at history, and the first thing they wish to do is abstract out all human capacity to do the right thing just because.

    You also see this with many free market fundamentalists.

    David Zetland on Water

    But let me put a bright light on a couple of things. I'll just give one example that was positive, and that was kind of the difference that an individual makes; and that was when a new general manager was appointed to the Phnom Pehn Water Authority in Cambodia. And Cambodia is not only one of the poorest countries in the world but also one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And this guy basically said, 'I'm going to have a professional system.' And he insisted on getting paid for the water. So, the army had not paid its bill for years. It was a very big customer. The manager went to collect the bill and the guy put a gun to his head and said, 'The army doesn't pay.' And the guy said, 'I'm a good Buddhist; do what you have to.' And then the guy rolled, and he paid. And that payment set an example for other customers. So they started collecting money. They started firing staff that were incompetent or corrupt; and they started rewarding staff who were competent. And not only did they expand that system to the slums in Phnom Pehn, but they also lowered the price of water, especially to the people who were under-served. Because they were buying water off of trucks at 10 times the official price, but they had no official service. And when they got connected to the official system, the poorest people of Phnom Pehn suddenly saw their quality improve and their price drop. And that was—it's widely cited as a success. And it's based on, essentially, a guy doing the right thing.

    Russ Roberts:

    Which is hard to rely on, unfortunately. But it's glorious when it happens.

    Oh, Russ, you're such a wet blanket.

    The problem here is that it's definitely not glorious once you abstract out all capacity for one guy to do the right thing (not dependable, who needs it?). Because system. Because mission. Because hero culture.

    Has there ever been a system where it never transpired that, at some point, a healthy institutional outcome was achieved only because some individual did the right thing?

    Nice to have, or essential to have?

    Important question. Deserves an important answer. Unfortunately, Russ is too wrapped up in his ideological lazy filter to do the math.

  47. morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    translation from leader:
    It is inconcievable that the NSA bad brand could impact our ability to attract and retain talent.

    me to him:
    you are a f*tard to say that. Go take HR 101. Go get some of the human basics.
    Yes, you are spying on everyone regardless of actions. Yes you are acting substantially without judicial supervision. Yes you are aggressively compromising privacy and security of individuals in the name of "us" and then that power is abused. Yes - you are a political appointee from a party that hates defense and the military with so much contempt they don't bother to hide it. Why would any self-respecting genius, or a self-respecting moral human being want to put them through that when there is a better alternative.

    You should have chosen "being excellent and noble" over "being powerful" but it is years too late for that.

  48. BS it's about the pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about it being more about the fact the NSA has been spying on everyone and everything they can?

    how much of this spying contributed to Michael Hastings' assassination?

    how about the DNC staffer that was assassinated after wikileaks started releasing evidence of Hillary's corruption?

    i think it's more the realisation that the NSA are 'the bad guys' - in that they aren't so much protecting the US, but the Power Elite and their praetorian guard - the CIA.

  49. burn it to the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and 7 figures is too much. tbey should all be killed

  50. Re:Cue the hipocrisy...It's ALWAYS like that by shoor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the beginning there has been a struggle with those in power trying to suppress inconvient truth. (Maybe with the exception of Thomas Jefferson's presidency.) The grandson of Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin Bache was a newsman who criticized George Washington and John Adams and the government passed the 'Alien and Sedition Acts' of 1798 and had him arrested. From the wikipedia article on Bache:

    The law [Alien and Sedition Acts] may have been written to suppress opponents such as Bache. The persistent theme of Republican journalism of the 1790s was that the federal government had fallen into the hands of an aristocratic party aligned with Britain, and that the Federalists (particularly Washington and Alexander Hamilton) were hostile to the interests of the general public while promoting corporate interests

    Another quote from abolitionist Wendell Phillips in 1852:

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  51. Just like the Patent office by saccade.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see a parallel here with the US Patent office. They have big employee turnover: graduates with tech degrees sign up as patent examiners, use their government education benefits to get a law degree, then leave a few years later for much greener pastures as patent attorneys. Same could be happening at the NSA: Spend a few years letting Uncle Sugar teach you the basics of computer security and penetration testing, then leave for more $$$ as a computer security consultant. Infosec is a hot field now.

  52. Average people are people too. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    causing some of the agency's most talented people to leave

    Good! More spots for us average people!

  53. SCOTUS by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and Congress. Didn't you learn anything about our system of checks and balances in school?

    Now, if we were to give all three branches of the gov't over to one group who had a strong pro-corporate, anti-worker ideology I might be worried. But surely we wouldn't do that (and don't call me Shirley).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  54. Where is cold fjord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like he's already moved on.

  55. There's another problem with Clinton's solution by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    older people are harder to train and have a harder time learning new things. When the mines closed I saw a lot of highly skilled mechanics show up in tech support. They were, to a man, awful at it. But they were fantastic mechanics. These weren't dumb people. These weren't unskilled people. People's brains change as they get older, and it's not always for the best. We've been pretending this isn't a thing for a very long time.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's another problem with Clinton's solution by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      older people are harder to train and have a harder time learning new things.

      Sweeping generalization, that may not even be true. I'm a 53 year old systems programmer and administrator and I learn new things all the time. I know plenty of older people that learn just as well, if not better, perhaps because of their experience, than younger people. One small study points out the following:

      Older people may be able to learn more from visual information than their younger counterparts, according to a study published today in the journal Current Biology.

      “The take-home message the study authors gave was that healthy older people are good at learning,” said Professor Henry Brodaty, co-Director of the Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing (CHeBA) at UNSW. “They have the same plasticity, but they’re not as good at filtering out other information.”

      The brain needs to be able to easily learn new information (plasticity), and filter out irrelevant information (stability). The experiment was designed to test whether ageing affects the brain’s plasticity, stability, or both.

      Of course, I imagine that mileage may vary - a lot. Perhaps people just learn different things in different ways and/or based on how it's taught. It's possible that people go into jobs based on how easily they learn the associated information and that it's switching the type of job that is the problem. Electrician to Tech Support rather than Electrician to Plumber.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  56. Re:what "we" asked them? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    when he thinks that "you all wanted to be spied on by us" is going to get much agreement from the public.

    Yeah, the scary thing is that while the majority of Americans disagree, polls consistently show a rather huge number of people DO agree with the spying. Pew research found 42% of Americans approve of government collection of personal data, and when you ask a more generic question, like whether our anti-terrorism policies have "not gone far enough" vs. "gone too far restricting civil liberties," you'll see the majority of Americans saying we haven't gone far enough.

    Of course, part of this has to do with how you frame the questions, and MOST of it has to do with how ignorant the American public still is about what this spying really entails. As John Oliver famously showed during his process of interviewing Edward Snowden last year, if you ask people, "Should the government be allowed to see nude pictures of you" sent by email or phone or whatever, we'd probably get near 100% agreement against the NSA policies. But it's not generally framed in those terms.

    (By the way, whatever you think of Snowden or John Oliver for that matter, you should watch this interview. It's scary how quickly the American public has completely forgotten about Snowden, completely misunderstands what he did and what the surveillence program is actually about, etc.)

  57. Can you say Oligarchy? I knew you could. by fyngyrz · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's not a circle. It's a waveform. Any distance, any additional number of degrees out from the origin, is possible.

    We are certainly a long way from the constitution now. The worst flaw in it -- a day-1 flaw -- is that is was crafted without any provision for punishment for legislators who violate it. The largest injury ever done to it was the supreme court arrogating the power of amendment in Marbury vs. Madison, and that, too, was quite a while ago. That, combined with the enormously toxic "well, it doesn't mean what it says..." attitude... those three factors outright bought us the oligarchy we have today.

    At this point it looks like Trump will probably win the EC vote, at which point we will have the cherry on top of our Sundae of Shite: a misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright president.

    It's popcorn time, folks.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Can you say Oligarchy? I knew you could. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      a misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright president.

      It makes you wonder what kind of people would possibly vote for someone like that...

      P.S. He's not exactly thin, is he?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Can you say Oligarchy? I knew you could. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      People that voted for the lesser evil. Duh.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Can you say Oligarchy? I knew you could. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sure did. Unfortunately electoral college math meant she lost anyway.

    4. Re:Can you say Oligarchy? I knew you could. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      a misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright president.

      Are you speaking about Obama?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  58. The simple answer is the most obvious. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    Information Security in recent years has gone from a hard job to a damn near impossible job. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when; that statement has gone from FUD to fact very quickly, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that the "best and brightest" are doing the math, and at least are looking to get paid for tackling the impossible job.

    There's one simple answer to this; pay security professionals what they're worth.

    Don't give me this bullshit about how the CJCS makes x and InfoSec professionals are demanding 5x. It's not that fucking hard to find a businessman to fill the CJCS position. It can be damn hard to find skilled operators in the InfoSec community. Demand outpaces supply, resulting in increased salaries. Not a fucking hard concept.

    Clearly our government doesn't want to pay the appropriate pay rate, which will cost them when they refuse to prioritize funds properly. Can't simplify this any more, so if they don't want to learn, then they're getting what they deserve.

    1. Re:The simple answer is the most obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infosec people aren't paid enough because nobody is held accountable when there's a breach. It is literally cheaper to deal with the fallout of losing a bunch of people's credit cards or SSN's than it is to protect them in the first place. This is governmen'ts fault. It simultaneously prevents me from taking my pitchfork and chasing these hosers out of town, and refuses to punish them via laws or the enforcement of such.

    2. Re:The simple answer is the most obvious. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Infosec people aren't paid enough because nobody is held accountable when there's a breach. It is literally cheaper to deal with the fallout of losing a bunch of people's credit cards or SSN's than it is to protect them in the first place. This is governmen'ts fault. It simultaneously prevents me from taking my pitchfork and chasing these hosers out of town, and refuses to punish them via laws or the enforcement of such.

      Regardless of cost, there is usually someone held accountable.

      That would be the InfoSec person who was employed to be "in charge" of security. Part of that fallout is usually finding a scapegoat to fire, in order for CxOs to demonstrate they've "done something about it".

      And obviously someone out there is paying well. The problem here is it clearly isn't the NSA.

  59. I'm leaving my IC job in January by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got my IC job (not at the NSA) after the mess that was the intelligence mess that led to the Iraq War, and I was happy doing the job under Bush and Obama. They weren't perfect, but they at least cared about the truth.

    But, I won't work to support a Tea Party/Trump administration. I saved up enough money, not crazy amounts, but enough to take a nice international vacation for a while.

    1. Re:I'm leaving my IC job in January by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      AC make up story. If you think Bush and Obama cared about the truth, then you were not part of the intelligence community.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  60. Support and develop for I2P if you aren't already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are java, C++, go, and now C versions of it available. Better hidden services, but limited outproxy support compared to Tor. Always looking for new contributors and users.

  61. If you want to change the "image" by xtsigs · · Score: 2

    In large part, Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions.... "What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added.

    A lot of people think they are doing something wrong, i.e. spying on its own people without warrant or oversight. If the NSA wants to change the image, then they out to change their actions instead of blaming other people for portraying them as they actually are.

    Obviously, a lot of people don't care so much about their privacy, but they are worried about the potential abuse of our own government, or uncontrolled elements/people within or working fort that government, engaged in such behavior. If the NSA doesn't like that, then they ought to stop their whining and submit themselves to better oversight.

    With an incoming President that admires Putin and is surrounding himself with like-minded people, the chances of anyone putting the breaks on this sort of outrageous behavior are slim.

  62. That Is Great by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Great news! I run a private criminal organization that is big on privacy violation, blackmail, cyber crimes and other technical questionable enterprises and we are always looking for unscrupulous talent with previous experience. If your a high performer with the N.S.A., please consider applying with us. I could post a link, but if you don't already know where to apply then you're not the person we are looking for.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  63. Humph... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong

    The problem here is that many of them are doing something wrong, they are spying on their fellow citizens. Not that moving to the private sector will make them any better. The real problem here is that the NSA - and most of the rest of the US government - has a more and more marked tendency to forget who their real enemies are and start thinking their responsibilities include "controlling" American citizens. If we weren't so worried about the information in your secret repositories was about us rather than actual terrorists maybe we'd be willing to cut you more slack. As it is you already are just a monocle and a Persian cat away from being the villain in a Bond movie.

  64. Chickens Have Hatched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA incubated the flock and released it to the benefit of the rest of the society. I salute, NSA, for your service in securing the US public by raising the new patch, even if those hatchlings are mostly roosting by the bronze bull. Onwards to institutionalize the education and training process, accompanied by relentless recruiting, marketing and the establishment of an alumni system! Collaborate with cyber security and mathematics programs and establish trust with the young. See, even a non-USian can the see the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't think that light is necessary a flame in a gas filled mining shaft.

  65. Re: There's another problem with Clinton's solutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I've seen a lot of young people in tech support. They are universally awful at it too. It's not age.

  66. NSA's not chartered for internal spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It can do so ONLY for gov't. communique not US citizens & as far as my "homeboy" from Syracuse N.Y. in Mr. Alexander? Well - Sir, all I can say is I never voted for it OR wanted it (as I've seen others here say he said "we wanted to be spied on" etc. - which I have YET to see for myself but I haven't read this article either so, feel free to correct me on that).

    * This stuff's being going on since Echelon, & probably before it as the telecom industry essentially "hopped into bed" w/ gov't. back as far as 1947 I've heard... but it doesn't make it right, or more importantly, LEGAL (per my subject line above).

    APK

    P.S.=> As far as their personnel "jumping ship"? Well, he does have a point that "do the math" makes sense - I've heard Mr. Alexander himself is drawing literally 1++ MILLION a year now as salary in the private sector, so go figure - on THAT note? He has a point & it's hard to "argue w/ the numbers"... apk

  67. Re:what "we" asked them? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    I think the Pew data shows that a significant majority is against that collection of data, even when the questions are heavily tilted in favor of it. The fact that Democrats are disproportionately in favor of surveillance suggests that there is a good deal of partisanism involved as well.

    In any case, fundamentally, this is a constitutional issue and the fundamental mandate of we, the people, is for our government to comply with the US Constitution, no matter what daily polls may say. After all, protection of minorities and unpopular opinions is essential for a free society.

  68. Ramp up and the world changes by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The NSA saw a huge growth in staff, mission creep and mission design in the past decade.
    From just supporting other real agencies with background data in the past, the NSA then wanted to design mission, to follow the missions and get the resulting political/mil budget growth.
    A huge growth in budget, outside staff allowed in with poor vetting, computer use, decryption expected to track an enemy who would always be connected. Decades of interesting people always using a phone, fax, computer, cell phone, the internet, sat phone, pager, have a bank account, order services online... was just expected to grow.
    A system designed to track domestic users with all junk big US/UK brand crypto and all foreign mil who's encrypted command and control was export grade and also junk.
    The NSA projected endless growth in domestic spying and that every other nation would advance into export grade junk encrypted gov, banking, command and control networks.

    Now the collection issues that MI5,6, CIA, GCHQ hinted at is reality. Once the world knows its been spied on domestically and globally the interesting people can just change their behaviour.
    Human spies, covert teams need really great support, mass domestic collection has taken their budgets away for decades.
    The decades of easy domestic decryption becomes less easy when interesting people stop using junk brand devices, systems and networks.
    They meet face to face, in faith groups, cults, on holiday, sabbaticals and are part of an endless jet set. No phone, fax, junk backdoor and trapdoor US brand crypto network needed. Number stations are one way.
    Parallel construction in domestic courts does not work. For a few easy years it looks good and budgets grow. Decades of access is lost once interesting networks go dark once court staff and security cleared lawyers work out what happened to their clients.

    Too many outside contractors, the core mission of helping others in the US mil replaced with a rush for budget growth.
    The GCHQ faced the same issues in the 1970-80's. They returned to their actual core mission and supported their own staff with merit advancement and better pay, further education.
    Looking after workers is a start, vetting needed contractors and then replace the contractors with real staff. Decades of good internal advancement support for staff also helps. Been replaced by or having to work under a contractor is not great. The buddy system now shows how deep and far low quality contractor vetting has reached.
    A vast domestic and global spying network can be run by contractors but quality and vetting will slip as any clandestine service knows or later finds out.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  69. Parallel construction for DEA and FBI? by lpq · · Score: 4, Informative

    The idea of the NSA secretly giving spy evidence to the DEA and FBI to use in prosecuting domestic crimes was something anticipated, but still unconstitutional and illegal --- yet this corrupt rogue "lawmen" using their threat powers to force compliance with their unlawful actions.

    The DEA is currently harassing all legal users of prescription pain medications in California with regular urine testing and threats to doctors of suspension if they don't comply with these non-legal requirements.

    They are totally out of control and need to be stopped. Organizations like the DEA who grew out of prohibition enforcement need to be retired -- not allowed to find new frontiers to make illegal and prosecute.

    1. Re:Parallel construction for DEA and FBI? by abmw · · Score: 1

      Amen, the DEA is the worst of the self righteous agencies, causing the suffering of the sickest people in need of palliate care, while they abuse the rights, threaten Drs, etc. The worst of the drunk on power set. The NSA.....bad still, the almost worst, the IRS Criminal Division, abusing its powers daily.

    2. Re:Parallel construction for DEA and FBI? by lpq · · Score: 1

      It appears the DEA w/their making prescription-drug users (i.e. legal users) their next target was fallout from them being forbidden to carry out lucrative property seizure and forfeiture operations against cannabis businesses and users that were otherwise legal under state law. The law stopping campaign against the state's cannabis industry went into effect a couple of years ago (2011-12?) but they ignored the law until stopped by a federal court case where they tried to enforce a forfeiture order against against a 3rd-party property owner who didn't evict a renting cannabis business.

      Their favorite tactic has become using and manipulating 3rd parties to harass cannabis users since doing so directly was not nearly so profitable. Go after a disabled person using cannabis as medicine -- no profit. Go after property owner and health care organizations (like Kaiser): much more profitable and more difficult to track as spending "enforcement dollars" against cannabis businesses and users that are complying with their state laws.

      So they indirectly target users for harassment by targeting their doctors with threats and increased regulation and oversight. At medical organizations like Kaiser, this means the doctors themselves become targets for increased oversight and scrutiny, making them want to stop treating medical cannabis users. My doctor says most of their colleges have stopped prescribing pain medication, at all to disengage from DEA harassment.

      They also are dictating what medications they are allowed to prescribe in conjunction w/pain meds -- including disallowing medications that allow lowering of painmed levels as well as meds that treat side-effects of stopping pain meds. This makes it more difficult for long-term pain users who use pain meds on an "as-needed" or on/off/on basis, keeping their dosage steady or dropping for years, as they don't fit the stereotype of pain med users needing 'more and more' over time.

      As the DEA began enforcing their harassment guidelines, many pain patients lost treatment with a sizeable uptick of deaths involving illegal opiates as some patients lost coverage. And the war on US citizens continues with more dead lost to this cancerous organization.

  70. The NSA should be shut down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let DHS and the FBI and CIA take over.

  71. Nate Silver is psychic by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster
    > who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver...

    > Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in
    > exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later.

        That was posted May 10th, 2016. I like the response from "That Royals Guy"...

    > I think this is all covered in Revelations.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  72. Re: We know what you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Precisely the one this country was founded on all those years ago

  73. The hipocrisy has arrived! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Russian hackers are the sole reason Trump is president

    A spectacular goalpost shift from the AC! He shoots, he scores - but nobody in the game actually claimed that Russian hackers were the only reason so he's in a game of his own.
    Pathetic really.
    How about less silly games and some discussion instead guys?

  74. Heroes? by Gussington · · Score: 2

    "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."
    Edward Snowden did exactly that and you fucked him in the ass. Why would anyone else bother?

  75. Abusive Internal Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    End the abusive polygraph interrogations of staff and contractors. People are losing families and careers over bullshit technologies!

  76. Lied to Congress? by matbury · · Score: 1

    Wasn't Keith Alexander the guy who bold-faced lied to Congress? Why should we believe anything he says now?

    1. Re:Lied to Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that particular bit of infamy belongs to James Clapper.

      Gen. Alexander is smarter than that. Still morally compromised by being an insider, a power broker and with insufficient perspective. I mean really, NSA employees are heroes, just by being employees??

  77. snowden wasn't a gov't employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a contractor working for BAH - very, very few civil servants make more than $120k/yr

  78. FINALLY, THE END OF MASS SURVEILLANCE by aristotheron · · Score: 1

    This means mass surveillance is over forever! Hooray, a victory for us.

    Honestly what this propaganda stunt is trying to make people believe.
    And it is no doubt is working on many.

  79. mo' money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next request will be for more funding to retain folks, just the way this game is played

  80. "heroes" by uohcicds · · Score: 1

    While some of these people may indeed be heroic and decent, they are being asked to do some morally questionable things by the people and agencies managing them. There's only so much conflict any thinking person can take before you have to come down one way or another, and it seems that many are either taking the money, or just don't like the reality of some of what they are being asked to do. Which is sad all around.

    --
    It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
  81. you cant be a hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you dont wear a cape, everybody knows it

  82. I interviewed an NSA person several months ago. . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    Pros: absolutely amazing skills and knowledge in one constrained area of software security.

    Cons: Wanted a ridiculous salary for it, while currently making high 70s (was looking for half a million)

  83. Hayden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a war criminal and a liar.

  84. Re:what "we" asked them? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

    The problem is, is that we have no real hard definitions or lines drawn concerning that data or how it is collected per se. Sure, you have the 4th, but the 4th has been found to only narrowly cover certain instances of online and wireless communication out of a SCOTUS fear of a broad ruling by them curtailing actual legal situations where that data may be obtained.

    Basically, we're still in the same boat we were in when this all started, and it's all shades of gray until either the current or future SCOTUS makes a firm ruling on if this data is the same as our letters and effects, or maybe that it is like a note passed through the hands of several classmates before reaching the intended recipient and may be intercepted by the teacher or read by one of the passers: we have no right to any expectation to privacy for or integrity of said data once it leaves our possession.

    --
    @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  85. But where are they going? by SlideRuleGuy · · Score: 2

    You realize all those people leaving the NSA are probably going to work for outside contractors that are doing the exact same things? You know, security companies that other governments hire to hack into yet different countries...or vendors to police departments who want to pwn potential criminals' computers, and so on. I doubt that with their specialized skill sets that they're just going out into the private sector to write reports all day long.

    (Although I will say that a job in the private sector is a lot less demoralizing than a government job. Not that everyone in the private sector cares deeply about what they do, but the percentage is a lot higher.)

  86. Pretty Common by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    It's fairly common for folks who work with Classified systems / material / data to eventually get tired of all the bureaucratic bullshit that goes along with it.
    Especially if they can work elsewhere for significantly more money and a whole lot less of the aforementioned bullshit / responsibility.

    Once you obtain a high level clearance, you also have to maintain it.

    Your life has to be squeaky clean.
    It has to be verified as such from time to time.
    One simple mistake can cost you your clearance and thus, your job.

    Lots of rules, regulations and restrictions you have to be willing to live with.

    It really gets old after a while when you realize it's not nearly as neat or glamorous as you thought it was going to be.
    ( Especially since you can't talk about it with anyone )

    BTDT. Have zero desire to ever do it again.

  87. Why would I trust the NSA? by Agripa · · Score: 1

    the agency's most talented people to leave in favor of private sector jobs,

    What better way is there to plant agents into companies who can then subvert products?

    What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong.

    Either pay your employees more or earn the trust of the people you are allegedly "protecting".

    The NSA created this situation and was even warned about it. Let them fix it.