Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the blaming-Oliver-Stone dept.

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."

43 of 412 comments (clear)

  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 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...
    4. 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.

    5. 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! :)
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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. . . .
    11. 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.

    12. 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."
    13. 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. . . .
    14. 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.

    15. 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."
    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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
    21. 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
    22. 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
    23. 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."
    24. 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.
  2. "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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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 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.

  11. 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)?

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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)
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.