Slashdot Mirror


NSA Deletes 'Honesty' and 'Openness' From Core Values (theintercept.com)

An anonymous shares a report: The National Security Agency maintains a page on its website that outlines its mission statement. But earlier this month, the agency made a discreet change: It removed "honesty" as its top priority. Since at least May 2016, the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four "core values" listed on NSA.gov, alongside "respect for the law," "integrity," and "transparency." The agency vowed on the site to "be truthful with each other." On January 12, however, the NSA removed the mission statement page -- which can still be viewed through the Internet Archive -- and replaced it with a new version. Now, the parts about honesty and the pledge to be truthful have been deleted. The agency's new top value is "commitment to service," which it says means "excellence in the pursuit of our critical mission." Those are not the only striking alterations. In its old core values, the NSA explained that it would strive to be deserving of the "great trust" placed in it by national leaders and American citizens. It said that it would "honor the public's need for openness." But those phrases are now gone; all references to "trust," "honor," and "openness" have disappeared.

263 comments

  1. well they are being honest then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Iâ(TM)m glad they are protecting us from foreign threat actors

    1. Re:well they are being honest then by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that is not in their mission statement.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:well they are being honest then by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      They're not being honest... they're just "truing up" according to their contractual obligations.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    3. Re: well they are being honest then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. It's not like that they define their responsibility.
      It's still a reasonable standard to hold them to.

    4. Re:well they are being honest then by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      How would you know now that Trump's political operatives have taken over?

      Has the time for 10 trillion bit cryptography now arrived?

    5. Re:well they are being honest then by superwiz · · Score: 0

      bunch of hipsters. now they are being honest "ironically".

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re: well they are being honest then by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Hi Mr. Putin!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:Well they are being honest then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      Back in the day, it was joked that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency," because even the name of the agency was secret. It's silly for an agency whose entire mission is secret to put in their purported mission statement that "honesty", "openness", and "transparency" are their objectives; that would be a contradiction, and the only thing it would do would be to make the people who work for the agency understand that they are required to ignore the mission statement to do their jobs.

      So, I applaud their honesty and openness in removing honesty and openness from their mission statement. This is, in fact, not their mission statement.

      The entire NSA mission is NOT secret

      https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/

      There mission is Signals Intelligence and Information Assurance. If you don't know what that means

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

      That will explain everything you need to know.

    8. Re:Well they are being honest then by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, it was joked that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency," ...

      Initially, that was actually their name, but they found it difficult to get funding, so they switched it "National Secrecy Agency", then finally to "National Security Agency" as the previous was too on the nose - as they say.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Well they are being honest then by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The NSA has two roles. One is to find out what other countries and people in other countries are doing and thinking. This role does require secrecy.

      Another role is to assist in information security for the US, and that works best by being transparent and honest, so people know as much as possible where the recommendations are coming from and why. (And, no, they can't be completely transparent. One NSA recommendation to DES was found out publicly later to make it more resistant to methods the NSA had, but not civilian experts in the field. There was no way to explain why without losing an advantage.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. They're being honest about one thing.... by DewDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They never cared about any of that shit before...they're just now being open about the fact the only thing they care about is fucking the american public and violating our foruth admendment rights.

    this government is invalid.

    1. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're confused. The only people interested in screwing with you are the end-user consumers of what the NSA does. Say, Susan Rice, in Obama's White House. If your communications (or meta data about them) were collected, it would still take someone like Rice to say, "find and give me that person's name" according to her whims. Which she did at length, while digging for dirt on her boss's political rivals and in the service of greasing the skids for Hillary Clinton's pending coronation. The NSA provides tools. It's the people who choose to use those tools you need to complain about. So when you say "this government is invalid," you need to be clear that you have some reason to think there's someone pulling more Susan Rice type behavior. Otherwise, you're talking about "the previous administration," which is an important distinction.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that at least they aren't lying about being honest anymore at least its one step in the right direction. First step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.

    3. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      Out of all the people in government, those are the only ones?! Amazing!! How did you find out about it?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by geekmux · · Score: 1, Troll

      They never cared about any of that shit before...they're just now being open about the fact the only thing they care about is fucking the american public and violating our foruth admendment rights.

      You are correct. In the civilian market, I call it Corporate Arrogance. It's when an organization knows damn well that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and there's not a damn thing you can say or do about it.

      They'll change their signature line to Fuck You Very Much and Have a Nice Day soon too.

    5. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No bitchcone, you're whiny and confused. When Trump and Sessions die in prison because they were caught talking to Kislyak and lying about it? The system will be working as intended, catching traitors.

      SORRY! haha.

    6. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that was bad, think about what's going to happen now that Trump and his henchmen are in charge of the NSA.

      Its great! These changes to the NSA's core values are another example of Trump draining the swamp and making the NSA great again!

      All that beta soyboy politically correct stuff was holding them back. Now they are freed up to be much more vicious!

      MUHHGUHH!!!!

    8. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but they just removed the problem from their vocabulary ... They are basically saying they are 100% henchmen now.

    9. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      You certainly sound antsy. Like you're increasingly uncomfortable with the way this whole thing is actually turning out. Even the highly partisan FBI agent who went out of his way to make sure Clinton didn't get indicted for her mishandling of classified information made it plain - after already spending considerable time on looking into Russia's decades-long disinformation/disruption campaign in the context of the 2016 election season - said he didn't there was any there there. This, from a guy with a hair-on-fire loathing, just like yours, of Trump. Your little prison fantasy probably makes you feel good, but alas it's far more likely that it's people operating at the tail end of the Obama administration that actually did illegal things. Seriously illegal things. But carry on with your fantasy, and ranting about it. Your sort of shrill delusion, screeched out loud for lots of people to hear, is a big part of why the Democrats lost all of their political power at the federal level, and most of it at the state level. Please, carry on. You're doing good work!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You really think that only one party does this kind of stuff and you are accusing someone else of having a delusional fantasy? That's hilarious.

    11. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By all means! If you've got evidence that anything even APPROACHING the behavior on display under Obama was done by, say, Bush (like the Clinton campaign and DNC paying a British operative to compile a fictional narrative from Russian operatives to use as a phony excuse to get a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on political rivals) ... then by all means, let's hear it!

      Yes, the narrative that Trump was working with the Russians to "hack the election" and whatnot is, indeed, a delusion. The entire notion was trotted out as a feeble excuse for why the Democrats' insanely bad choice of candidate lost the election. You know it, we all know it, and even the highly partisan Clinton-supporting FBI guy who got her off the hook on her felony mishandling of classified information knew and said there's no there, there. Yes, fantasy delusion. The people who are still saying, "Trump's going to prison for treason with the Russians!" started out looking silly, and have been going farther off the rails ever since.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What we now know, as of this moment, is that you are a moron. For the rest we'll have to wait for Mueller to complete his task. Well that, and we know Trump is out for himself and doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself. Time will tell with regards to the consequences of his sociopathaty fueled by the ignorance of dumbfuck like yourself.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, YOU DISHONEST MORON, Trump's cronies were caught TALKING TO KISLYAK WHO IS KNOWN TO BE UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR GOOD AND LEGAL REASONS. That's how they got caught.

      They didn't target Trump's CRIMINAL CABAL ADMINISTRATION until they had evidence that HE WAS COMMITTING TREASON ALREADY, due to EXISTING AND LEGAL SURVEILLANCE of foreign intelligence agents.

      Obama didn't have to do jack shit! His only intent was to warn Congress and the public of what had already been found. So your entire spiel is spun dogshit, just like anything Trumpies come up with. You fucking idiot lol.

      I'm so sorry your favorite nazi was SO STUPID to think he could just talk on phones to Russian spies and nothing would ever be known about it, but apparently you're that stupid ALSO. Die in prison you treasonous faggots! Haha.

      Obama will be golfing LONG after you're gone lol.

    14. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the Russiabots really promoted the hell out of this shit comment, didn't they? Shouldn't you be out investigating Seth Rich right now?

    15. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little known underdog newcomer to the news scene called fox news.

    16. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.

    17. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can always tell when someone is uncomfortable with things like the testimony from Fusion GPS and the other related information that's right in front of them - because instead of addressing the actual facts and substance of the matter, they go right to the childish, lazy, craven "you are a moron" ad hominem in order to demonstrate their mastery of the matter. Well done! The evidence you've provided to show that the Clinton campaign, DNC, Fusion GPS, and related records available for your own perusal are in fact fiction - well, you're very compelling, I must say. I especially like your use of "ignorance" and "dumbfuck" to characterize people who didn't want to vote for the wildly corrupt, serially lying Hillary Clinton to put her and her husband back in power after they'd already enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars selling access while in office.

      I know, you LIKED that about her. You wanted the Clintons back in power because even though they are corrupt liars, they were your kind of corrupt liars. It is funny, though, for you to be railing about sociopathy (even you can't spell it) on Trump's part, while pretending that Clinton's actual acute case of it wasn't one of the reasons that millions of two-time Obama voters turned their backs on the Democrats a year ago. But please, carry on with the vitriol, the ad hominem, and the meltdown hysterics - because that sort of fit-having and display of hatred towards others is exactly why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, the White House, the Supreme Court, and a lot of good will from millions of their own party members. Please, more! You've been doing excellent work so far. Ramp it up as much as possible before the mid-terms, if you don't mind. Be sure to keep telling people they're morons - that works wonders. Pro tip: you should try telling millions of women that they're "irredeemably deplorable," too. They love that. Always makes them want to vote for the person you insist they vote for.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't get his news from just /.

      Oh, and she unmasked citizens over 300 times.

    19. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

      Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.

      Ah, yes. That explains why Trump got the tax bill he wanted, despite Schumer doing everything he could to stop it. That explains why Schumer's idiotic shutdown theatrics got him exactly nowhere (other than hated even more by the far-left wing of his party). Yeah, that Schumer really is making headway with his brilliant tactics. Quite something!

      Schumer's oily, phony patronizing and condescension is so transparently fake that even his own party has been recoiling from it. But sure, you keep on believing the opposite. Please do that right up through the next couple of election cycles, OK? Great! Thanks.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.

      You may want to stop drinking the Schumer kool-aid. If you want to be a good dealmaker, knowing that you can walk away and making sure the other side knows you WILL walk is critical.

    21. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are a childish, craven moron in defense of a known liar and traitor. The fact remains, Trump wasn't spied on, Kislyak was. Keep spinning, faggot. You're just another petulant obvious Republican traitor trying to lie convincingly and failing.

    22. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he thinks it's worth it - from his tiny prison cell, as he's raped to pieces until he dies there. lol, #winning the treason

    23. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro tip: you should try telling millions of women that they're "irredeemably deplorable," too. They love that. Always makes them want to vote for the person you insist they vote for.

      Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?

      At some point, you have to stand by your principles, not just sell out to whatever ambition gets you the most clamoring appeal.

      But do carry on with your eager willingness to embrace the deplorable out of convenience, it's sure worked well for you.

    24. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by turkeyfish · · Score: 1, Informative

      The WH and Fox News are going all out on the efforts to besmirch government institutions to protect Trump and his foreign allies and advance their politcal adgenda. It used to be that people believed in the rule of law. Now as is evident from Fox News coverage a higher priority is 1) coercive political power and 2) the greed that motivates it.

      Abe Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people all the time.

      The sad part is that so far the only approach the US has taken in countering meddling and cybercrime by authoritarian regimes is to become one instead. This is not going to end well, either for demoracy or the rule of law. However, as the old Judy Collins song used to say "you won't know what you have lost until it is gone".

    25. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Not so much ilarious as tragic. As more and more fall for Trump's authoritarian approach, freedom, honesty, and integrity is at risk everywhere.

    26. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by turkeyfish · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What on earth are you talking about? The recent CR just approved will only last until 8 February.

      Despite all the hype and bloviating, little progess has been made in actually solving the problems that matter. Take ocean acification for instance. In 300 years at the current rate of acidification, virtually all life in the ocean will disappear. Given that humans get 50% of all their protein from the oceans, this will have profound effects. Indeed, there is already wide spread evidence of this. Oysters are disappearing from the menus everywhere. Pteropods, the base of much of the marine food chain are rapidly declining in abundance. Unfortunately, pretending such problems aren't there and doing nothing about it isn't going to prevent a lifeless ocean.

    27. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be overly proud of the one bill Trump got through, while you ignore all the legislation Chuck stopped. By any measure, an entire year with only one significant piece of legislation is fucking appalling. Top that with the fact that, for most Americans, it is actually a tax hike in the long run. Yeah, great job, Trumphole.

      Schumer didn't back down. He wasn't trying to get DACA passed, then and there. He just wanted a stain to mark Trump's one-year anniversary, while also getting Repugs to make a promise they'll never be able to keep. He's not stupid. He knows that Trump won't allow DACA without a wall. Schumer even said that he offered Trump the wall and that Trump refused the offer, and now it's off the table. Schumer is playing him, dummy. Wake up.

      You seem to think Trump knows how to play politics with real politicians. Come mid-terms, your boy will be castrated. Things are going to turn so fucking Democractic, your empty head will be spinning.

      33% approval rating!! LOL!! Yeah, that ought to get him re-elected.

    28. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?

      No, I'm saying that people who put their political support and hundreds of millions of dollars of cash behind a candidate that tells millions of people that they're deplorable, while she personally pockets huge piles of cash (directly, or through her husband) from dictators that encourage things like throwing gay people from rooftops and treating women like farm animals ... are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.

      If you think that not wanting a Supreme Court used as a surrogate legislature (see Clinton's public remarks about how she'd choose justices and why - she was very clear on her counter-constitutional sense of how to use the court in the face of what she knew would be a non-rubber-stamp actual legislature), or that not wanting to see more of the Clinton machine's endless pursuit of straight up cash-for-favors-and-access, to say nothing of her demonstrated willingness to look you in the eye and lie about her own criminal behavior surrounding the handling of classified information ... if you think not endorsing her is deplorable, then you're completely not understanding why the voters she took for granted (so much so that she couldn't even trouble herself to set foot in places like Wisconsin) decided they'd had enough. She wanted to be Commander In Chief of military people that can, and have gone to prison for conduct involving sensitive material far less important than her own casual disregard for her responsibilities on such things and her non-stop lying on the matter. She has a long history of throwing people under the bus, including numerous associates who've gone to prison for things done in association with her and her husband. But you think that denying her another several years of power is deplorable, or a matter of convenience? Preventing the Clintons from regaining power (remember, she once again said that she'd be involving Bill Clinton in key matters of running the executive branch) WAS a matter of principle. Most importantly with regard to SCOTUS nominations.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by funky49 · · Score: 1

      Would you like to put money on this thing? I'm saving up to buy a Tesla.

      --
      --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
    30. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by funky49 · · Score: 2

      Joni Mitchell.

      --
      --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
    31. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      So you must have been HUGELY disappointed that in Obama's first year, he utterly failed to tackle the immigration issue he promised he'd handle, and despite having both houses of congress and a veto-proof majority in the senate, was into his second year before he rammed through his 100% partisan health care law based on a long chain of demonstrable lies. Go ahead, give it a run-down. Compare those two first years. While you're at it, take a look at what Trump did do: he got the government to stop using the IRS to punish people who didn't buy health insurance they can't afford and can't even use. He's rolled back a huge number of destructive regulations and positioned the country as a place that businesses might actually want to consider, once again, as a viable place to operate. I know, you're convinced that it's entirely Obama's doing that every flavor of financial indicator and confidence metric jumped through the roof the day after the election, and has been going strong ever since. Sheer coincidence that that didn't happen, previous to election day.

      Come mid-terms, your boy will be castrated.

      Let me guess, you also said the same thing about the election in November, right? Quite positive he would lose, weren't you? Quite positive the Democrats would regain all those governorships and both houses of congress, weren't you? After all, CNN told you that. MSNBC and the NYT assured you of that. And with powerful performances like Chuck Schumer's this week, why, the Democrat party is nothing but a unified, solid shoe-in, right? Here, I'll make a prediction: stunts like what Schumer just pulled, and the positions the far left is going to make him and his fellow senior dems in the legislature are going to be forced to take this year will guarantee that the Republicans gain seats in the senate, and likely retain control of the house.

      Schumer didn't back down. He wasn't trying to get DACA passed, then and there. He just wanted a stain to mark Trump's one-year anniversary

      So you're saying he was lying, and that it backfired because he lied so badly. Exactly my point.

      Schumer even said that he offered Trump the wall and that Trump refused the offer, and now it's off the table.

      Right. Schumer lied about that. He didn't "offer Trump the wall," he make a completely phony, disingenuous fake offer of an unusable couple billion dollars towards border security while refusing to budge on chain migration and the no-merit immigration lottery. He didn't take the wall OFF the table because he never put it on. You're falling, again, for his lies. Schumer is playing YOU, while Trump simply told him no, we're not talking any aspect of immigration until we fund the government's operations. And there's nothing Schumer can do to have it his way without once again being seen holding up things of national interest in order to pander to illegal immigrants in hopes of buying some votes from the lefty activist types. Nothing new. Except you completely misunderstanding what just happened, just as you surely misunderstood and continue to misunderstand what happened in 2016.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    32. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.

      You're pretty funny when you ignore the actual person pocketing huge piles of cash, including from those dictators, and claiming to be great friends with them, while also basing their own judicial nominees on the expressed preference to dictate terms upon the American public based on merely convenient political preferences, which are demonstrably not held as terms of integrity, not to mention a demonstrated willingness to lie about the circumstances of the election, which by the way, for said person, included a lower number of votes in Wisconsin, who wants to think of the armed forces of the United States as personally loyal to him, who has a long history of hyperbolic shrieking at how people who were sent to prison despite being innocent really deserved to be punished.

      Sorry man, you're the one who has embraced the cause of the new Chief Justice Taney and his vaunted Dred Scott decision, abandoned principle just to elect someone who has an even worse history of lying, about himself, about others, including the previous president, and thus we might ask you, why you're so desperate that you abandon your principles so easily.

      Then again, you've been desperately lying about the Clintons for the better part of three decades, you know that Clinton Death List you preach about? As fake as your claims about Obam's Birth Certificate, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation (which actually delivered results, unlike the Trump Foundation that purchased a giant self-portrait of Trump), Planned Parenthood, Acorn, and Climate Change.

      Sorry, but it's you who is naked and forlorn, clad only in the phantoms bought by your lies.

      I think you just have a psychological problem, a deep-rooted trauma to your psyche.

    33. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG shut the fuck up you retarded repub shill. Democrats are 10000000% better than those fucksticks

    34. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a one trick pony. Any trump allegations thrown your way you immediately reply with shit about obama or hilary. Wtf? Doesn't what trump does stand on its own merits? It doesnt? Go figure.

    35. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they were your kind of corrupt liars.

      Bingo.
      Trump isn't "your kind" of anything. Just a media whore craving attention.
      Anybody else elected would actually govern.

    36. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is that despite being specific, above, in response to your complete misrepresentation of Schumer's bad play, you're going to change the topic in order to - once again - avoid the substance. Because you know I'm right. But I'll bite: because you think I'm wrong to speculate that you'd give Obama credit for the right-after-the-election boom in the economy, that means you agree with me. It's because of Trump. OK, I'll take that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WH and Fox News are going all out on the efforts to besmirch government institutions to protect Trump and his foreign allies and advance their politcal adgenda. It used to be that people believed in the rule of law. Now as is evident from Fox News coverage a higher priority is 1) coercive political power and 2) the greed that motivates it.

      Abe Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people all the time.

      The sad part is that so far the only approach the US has taken in countering meddling and cybercrime by authoritarian regimes is to become one instead. This is not going to end well, either for demoracy or the rule of law. However, as the old Judy Collins song used to say "you won't know what you have lost until it is gone".

      It's actually kindof amusing. We call trump's actions to enforce the laws as written unlawful, and want to continue to violate the rule of law because we like it better.

      If we don't like the laws, we should change them, not ignore them. In fact, we are going back to what our laws say. Our laws suck. They need to be fixed.

    38. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schumer fucking pwned him and you already lost a seat in the senate. Your boy is going down. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Just wait for the floodgates to open come mid-terms. I'll be the one laughing.

    39. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Schumer fucking pwned him and you already lost a seat in the senate.

      You're right. That's how Schumer stopped the tax bill, and stopped the removal of the Obamacare mandate. That Schumer, he's incredible! Also, the way he just got that clean DACA bill he said he'd get by threatening a shutdown - what a play! He sure got what he promised there.

      Oh, right. He folded like a cheap tent, and got nothing except hatred from the hardliners in his own party. Quite the achievement! And yeah, shame about that election in Alabama. Of course, the new Senator there just voted three times in a row precisely in alignment with the GOP. That Schumer sure told HIM what to do, right? He's amazing.

      I'll be the one laughing.

      Yup, just like you were laughing when Clinton won and the Democrats took over the legislature last time around, as promised, right? Yeah. No wonder you post as the anonymous coward you are. So we can't just pop back and look over your equally absurd assertions then. Carry on, Shillary.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    40. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be a good dealmaker, knowing that you can walk away and making sure the other side knows you WILL walk is critical.

      Actually, that's a terrible way to make a deal, and why people will end up refusing to talk with you since you have no commitment or responsibility.

      There's a reason why people without a care in the world aren't trusted.

    41. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was laughing at your hero, Trump, when he had to make up a story about illegal voters after he proclaimed the greatest landslide in history despite losing the popular vote by around people 3 million, and I was laughing as he proclaimed an empty victory over a mandate after completely failing to come up with any form of actual meaningful reform, and I was laughing at Trump desperately found himself aligning with a twice punished judge whose claim to fame is making a graven image to worship, and whose sexual improprieties only pale in comparison to Trump's own.

      But hey, I'm sure you can be proud that Trump's managed to try to deport a Dentist for teenage shenanigans. Must bring a tear to your eyes, you little hypocritical Trumpeeter. All you've got to worry about are the investigations that keep turning up misconduct, for Russia, for Net Neutrality and even for not drilling oil off Florida, all in devotion to a wayward blowhard who can't hold his positions for a day, and a bunch of miscreants out for their own personal enrichment who would sell their own mothers out for half a turkey sandwich, and cheerfully watch over the deaths of innocent people who they arrogantly smashed any hope of life.

      Keep smokescreening us, you'll choke on your own noxious cloud. Then you'll use your last breath to scream some falsehood about Hillary, who you've still not managed to find an actual offense despite three decades of trying, even while kissing the ass of the man with four decades of chicanery and deceit behind him.

      It's ok though, you can join the FBI's Secret Society of Secretness. That'll do you some good.

    42. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Hillary, who you've still not managed to find an actual offense

      You're confusing her committing multiple federal felonies with being covered by people like Peter Strzok so she could - by his change of two words in the agency's findings - avoid a gimme indictment that anyone else would have never dodged, for doing far less. Leave it to a Hillary shill to try, as usual, to wish her actions and lies away. That urge on your part demonstrates everything we need to know about your anonymous and craven word salad.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a media whore craving attention.

      Yeah, and everybody on the planet is giving it to him on a silver platter. He didn't have to invade Poland or anything. I'm impressed. You all should be, too. His version of "West Wing" will be more like "The Osbournes". Post production begins when he leaves the white house, obviously they're still shooting now. It will definitely be a smash, if that book is any indication. In fact a TV show based on the book is already being contracted out, and this is why he is so pissed. He was beaten to the punch.

      Anybody else elected would actually govern.

      Oh please! This guy can't even govern his dick. And really we need gridlock more than ever right now until we can dig up somebody worth voting for.

    44. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite all the hype and bloviating, little progess has been made in actually solving the problems that matter.

      And little progress will be made for the foreseeable future because 95% of the same congress that brings you this garbage, including the problems with the NSA etc, will reelected again and again because tribal fanatics gulp down republican/democrat kool-aid. I don't know why people single out Schumer over anything. Look at the chain of command. The politician has to serve the party, or there's no money, support, nothing. The party has to serve those big "donors" for precisely the same reason. Put away your bibles, it is simple law of the jungle. And all you give your consent with your vote, unless you're voting for an independent.

    45. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mere collection of this information is a violation of the fourth amendment, regardless of how they use it. Also, if you honestly believe that the Trump administration (or any administration, really) would not abuse this information, you are seriously delusional.

    46. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Healthcare they can't afford, and don't need? That's laughable. So when they do get sick, I'm supposed to pay for them? Isn't that what you fucking people incessantly rail against all the fucking time? That's all I ever hear my dopey fucking sister ever say - "I'm tired of having to pay for these people!! I'm tired of having to pay for these people!!' She sounds like a fucking parrot. It makes me want to shove a god-damned cracker down her throat, followed by my fucking fist. Since Obama got the unemployment back down so fucking low after inheriting W's god-awful mess, they shouldn't have any trouble going out and finding a fucking job, so they can afford healthcare. If you're tired of paying for them, then why do you vote for a system that virtually guarantees you will have to pay for them (and their fucking kids) for the rest of their lives?

      "Trump Bump vs Obama Effect." So, no, probably not sheer coincidence. However, seeing how unpopular Trumps policies are, it is my firm belief that the Trump Bump is due to the market's confidence that he'll fail to put most of his damaging policies into place.

      You stupid fuck. Do you seriously think Shumer is going to allow that fucking crybaby have his wall? He can have all the temper tantrums he wants, but even most Repugs agree - HE"S NOT GOING TO GET THAT FUCKING WALL.

      You'd think if Shumer was lying about the wall offer ever having been on the table, then Trump surely would be calling him out on it After all, it's been all over the fucking news. Funny that's not happening.

      Things took a YUUUUGE Democratic turn with the last election cycle. Boy, I can't fucking wait until mid-terms. Gonna slap your bitch around.

      Hey, the next time I see Chuck, remind me to ask him what tune he's playing on that violin. I kind of like it; it sounds like a waltz.

    47. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he got his (our) tax increase through. We tried to help him out by stopping him, but hey, ya can't win 'em all. Hope he's ready to accept the consequences of screwing over the middle class.

      Big deal, Jones voted to fund the government . . . for 3 weeks. We're having fun making Trump live hand-to-mouth. And he only voted for it to keep CHIPs going. Oh, yeah, and he approved some health secretary nominee, or something like that - like that matters. I'll tell ya what he didn't do - he didn't approve no dumb fucking wall.

      Who promised what? Why are you hiding behind a user-name, ShitCone? Afraid to let people know who you really are? You know what my assertions are. I stand with the majority: Trump is a fuckwad who has no fucking clue how to run a country. Mayor McCheese is going down, come mid-terms.

      If we can't get him on Russian collusion, maybe we can get him on Obstruction of Justice. Hell, if that doesn't work, then maybe we'll get him on the Emoluments clause, etc. Shit, we're going to keep harassing him, just 'cause it's fun. You know - like you did (and continue to do) to Hillary.

      #RESIST
      #NOTMYPRESIDENT
      #FUCKOFFYOUDUMBFUCKINGREPUG

    48. Re: They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Calling you a moron is not an ad hominem. Calling you a moron because your premises and reasoning are extremely dubious isn't an ad hominem. If someone were to say, about your future posts, "Oh, that's just ScentCone, his posts are wrong because he's a moron", that would be an ad hominem. Sheesh.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    49. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Schumer didn't fold on the tax bill. That was done in a way that doesn't allow a filibuster, and when the Republicans vote strict party line, that's Schumer's only recourse. What Schumer allowed recently is a continuing resolution that runs out before Trump's DACA deadline, and got funding for CHIP. The CR disputes won't be over until the Republicans can do the basic governing job of passing a damn budget. Schumer would have no power here if the Republicans could do their job.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    50. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you can get into a position where you can and will walk away from a deal, you won't have to accept a bad deal. I'm actually in that position any time I go into a store. I can walk out without buying anything. I can get attention from service people in certain stores without buying anything. Until there's a deal, I can always walk away to another store.

      Funny thing, though. Sales and service people at these stores continue to talk to me, because they figure if I find something I like at an acceptable price with their help I'll probably buy it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Please find me a case of someone who did what Clinton did and was prosecuted for it. I wasn't able to find one. Every case I found where there was criminal prosecution involved the intent to mishandle classified material. I've not seen any evidence, or even any plausibility argument, that suggests Clinton had any sort of intent here. I'd be interested in seeing the case.

      If you can't come up with a case, then please stop lying about her treatment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assistant US attorneys Jean M. Hobler and Lee S. Bickley successfully prosecuted Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura. He was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.
      Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he ‘accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.’ According to the report, Brezler was ‘in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.’ Technically not prosecuted I guess.

    53. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      Why? People who've done far LESS have been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed (on felony charges - losing all benefits from their federal work, and everything else that comes with being a felon). Don't even pretend you don't know this. How many people do you know who handle the sort of information she kept on her home computer, handed to her aide to keep on that person's laptop "for printing," and also duplicated onto thumb drives to hand to her non-cleared lawyer for storage in yet ANOTHER non-secure location? How about deleting tens of thousands of federal records that were under subpoena? Never mind. You know all of this.

      Regardless, intent has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The specific statute she violated - unlike almost every other law - explicitly states that merely being negligent in protecting such information is a criminal act. She did that in spades. The FBI even used the words "gross negligence" in describing her actions (exactly the phrase that triggers prosecution under the law), but that phrase was changed by self proclaimed Clinton partisan at the FBI, Peter Strzok, at the last minute to: "extremely careless." Meanwhile, some sailor takes a memento snapshot of his naval workspace (where some classified hardware happens to be in the background) - absolutely zero intent in the way you're using "intent," and ... off to jail he went. Felon.

      The law she violated is very plainly written. Here:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      If you don't feel like reading it (though you should), here's the important passage:

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

      And of course she wasn't merely grossly negligent in having thousands of emails (and many highly sensitive classified messages) removed from their proper place of custody on the State Department's secure system ... she deliberately established a system for doing exactly that. In her house. Exposed casually to the internet, where investigators say it's highly probable that multiple foreign entities had ready access to it. Whether they did or not doesn't matter - it's her negligence in making the classified information available where and how she did that makes this a no-brainer felony conviction. Exactly the sort of thing that puts other people in jail. The sort of people she wanted to be the boss of, as chief executive.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    54. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Bryan Nishimura put classified materials on his personal devices deliberately. He received two years' probation, a $7500 fine, forfeiture of media with classified information, and permanent loss of security clearance. Major Brezier deliberately sent classified material on his personal email. He received an unfavorable fitness report. Later on, he was going to be removed from the Marine Corps, but a Federal court ruled that the board of inquiry and discharge were in retaliation and were illegal. He wasn't going to be prosecuted, despite notifying his superiors of what he had done.

      So, thanks for the names, but these are people who deliberately mishandled classified materials, and not what I was asking for.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, since you can't provide the single example I asked for, you're going to start talking about all sort of irrelevant crap.

      The FBI report said that she would not be prosecuted, not that she hadn't violated the law. So far, nobody's told me of anyone who was prosecuted for mishandling classified materials without clear indication of intent, and I've been asking. Unless you care to reveal yourself as a lawyer specializing in that field, I'm going to consider your claims to be speculative at best.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Assumed you didn't need to be told, given all of your research on the subject, of any examples. Thought you were just being sarcastic, rather simply unable to use Google. How about sticking with a recent and simple example? Gen. David Petraeus. Just like Hillary Clinton, he removed and retained classified information outside of its appropriate secure environment. Hillary, of course, did this multiple times over an extended period ... and UNLIKE Petraeus, she kept multiple documents on an internet-connected server readily breached by multiple foreign agencies (as opposed to Petraeus, who kept some papers in his home). The Obama administration went to great lengths to avoid prosecuting Clinton, but was happy to throw Petraeus under the legal bus for a much less serious offense. Or read up on Sandy Berger who - like Clinton - retained classified stuff for his own convenience and destroyed records (just like Clinton did). He was convicted, but got off easy. There are many more, but of course you've already read up on those.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    57. Re:They're being honest about one thing.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I am serious. I've found examples of people who deliberately mishandled classified information and were prosecuted, often spending years in prison, and people who mishandled classified information without intent, and were not prosecuted. Petraeus appears to have intentionally sent classified documents to his mistress. That falls into the first category. He received a large fine and two years of probation.

      It doesn't appear that the Obama administration went to any lengths to avoid prosecuting Clinton. People who did what she did have not been prosecuted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Honesty dictated removing those words by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's nothing "open" about a spying agency, and to be effective spies they need to be dishonest (at least in the field).

    I just hope "respect for (US) law" is really still a thing over there. Things don't look so good over at other agencies...

    1. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to be honest and as objective as possible to the decision makers and processes they serve, have professional integrity in its various forms to enable effective operations and be transparent to those government elements that oversee them. Those aspects can't possibly have been changed. At first my eyes tricked me and I thought NASA had given up those values towards the American public and the world as a whole.

    2. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Posting Anonymously for obvious reasons. Many many years ago I did some intelligence work. I would be completely honest about who I was, who I worked for, why I needed the information and what I wanted. I never once had someone who was unhelpful to me. They might not have given me everything that I wanted but even then they might forward me to someone further up who would help. Respect, honesty and saying please goes a long way.

    3. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by hey! · · Score: 1

      A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.

      Absolutely wrong.

      There's TVS protection diodes that use the avalanche effect which do exactly this.

    5. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by hey! · · Score: 1

      And if it allows no current to pass during a voltage transient?

      If you're going to be pedantic, do it right.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well if you're going to use that argument, by the same logic, *every* diode passes current in both directions, and there's no such thing as a diode that blocks current in any direction, which renders the original statement nonsensical.

      A correctly-operating diode only blocks current when reverse voltage is lower than the breakdown voltage. There are diodes which block current in both directions in this state.

    7. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by hey! · · Score: 1

      Ah, now that's proper pedantry.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The NSA isn't a "spying agency" in the normal sense of the term.
      The problem is, they were given two contradictory missions:
      1) Keep US messages safe
      2) Track and decode messages entering the country
      To do this some parts of it worked on making good encryption, and other parts worked on making sure publicly available encryption could be broken (by them). Eventually the second group got so much the upper hand that they are legitimately no longer trusted by much of anyone.

      For mission 1 honesty and openness are virtues, and those were originally the dominant functions. Mission 2 originally was relatively subordinate. Some time, apparently during the 1970's or 80's, the second mission achieved dominance over the first one. For mission 2 honesty and openness are not desirable. I would guess that now they've almost forgotten the mission 1 was ever their major purpose.

      N.B.: This is all based on publicly available information. (Newspapers, etc.) It's quite possible that some of it was "managed".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it was a canary in a coalmine document, which of course means they just didn't admit to us, but still let us know, that they've been compromised.

      Kind of like those sites that have the documents stating they have no gag orders in effect. If the document goes away or changes, somebody hit them with a subpoena or some other legal stuff that has a gag order so they can't tell anyone. In effect, they can remove the document because it is no longer accurate, but they haven't violated the rules because they haven't communicated to anyone.

      It's possible, but personally I never thought they had any "honesty, respect for the law, integrity, and transparency" in the first place. Ok, maybe they had some, but it sure wasn't apparent among all their other violations that were dragged into the light by journalists over the years.

    10. Re:Honesty dictated removing those words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously because I can't be fucked to log in, but this is legit. I interviewed (and failed, laughably) with the CIA, and one of their main things was that even if you're under NOC (non-official cover), when recruiting an agent you're supposed to be pretty up-front about what your goals are.

      to those wondering: i failed the 'role-playing' portion of the interview because i SUUUUCK at acting

  4. Refreshing by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, now their mission as a surreptitious spy agency dealing with lots of information they can't talk about is no longer being lied about on a PR page. Good. That earlier silliness is especially ironic, given its presence during the previous administration, which appears to have been using that agency's tools against domestic political rivals. Yeah, that was all warm-and-fuzzy "being honest with one another" and "completely transparent" behavior. Unless the agency's executive branch bosses didn't like you, in which case it was the exact opposite. Not that that's the NSA's fault, as an agency - that's entirely on their then-management in the White House, and those in the White House granted the power to troll through signal intelligence and the ability to unmask citizens from their collected communications. Here's looking at you, Susan Rice.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Refreshing by fustakrakich · · Score: 3

      Yeah, well, you know, when a country puts itself so high up the *freedom, truth, and justice* pedestal, you might expect them to play the part, but I guess that's asking too much in the game of battling empires.

      So now it's Highlander. There can be only one

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Refreshing by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Refreshing by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That earlier silliness is especially ironic, given its presence during the previous administration, which appears to have been using that agency's tools against domestic political rivals.

      If everything that "appeared" to be true on the Fox News and Breitbart was actually true then you've be living under the fascist dicatorship of a gay atheist Muslim from Kenya.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Refreshing by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So, now their mission as a surreptitious spy agency dealing with lots of information they can't talk about is no longer being lied about on a PR page. Good.

      Indubitably.... the mission statement is something management hammers into all the employees as values at all levels they EXPECT the members of their organization to express, that affects things like evaluations of their staffs' performance AND the culture of their entity and whistleblowers, etc.

      Thus it's still a very bad thing for them to be subtracting "honor" and "respect for the law" from the formal core values for their organization.

    5. Re:Refreshing by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So what you're saying is that the long list of Susan Rice's unmasking targets is imaginary. That the records of self-proclaimed Clinton partisans assigned to investigate Clinton altering the language of the bureau's findings to avoid the words that trigger an indictment, along with their own words proclaiming their approval of a "path" to getting her in office, but the need for an "insurance policy" against the possibility that she might fail ... those records are all imaginary. Please, carry on. Would love to see whatever you've got that has convinced you that Fox or Breitbart have secretly managed to control the minds of congressional investigators to make THEM imagine into existence the records they've gathered, and which every Democrat on the relevant committee has been insisting remain suppressed. We'll just let it all play out, and you can keep insisting none of it is true, while seeming to suggest that things for which there IS NO EVIDENCE is, somehow, true. You get the CNN gold star for the day - keep carrying that water!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll YES! Attack the messenger! Whatever it takes to hide the truth from one's own eyes... Protect the narrative!

    7. Re:Refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the other agencies used as political weapons: IRS (Lois Lerner), BLM (Bundy ranch). Actually, you might have trouble finding an agency that wasn't used in such a manner as some point.

    8. Re:Refreshing by werepants · · Score: 1

      Not that that's the NSA's fault, as an agency - that's entirely on their then-management in the White House, and those in the White House granted the power to troll through signal intelligence and the ability to unmask citizens from their collected communications. Here's looking at you, Susan Rice.

      If you don't want people in the government to be able to spy on its citizens, maybe you should just oppose the collection of the information outright. I don't understand why you draw a line between one government entity and another invading the privacy of U.S. citizens. The NSA has no business collecting this information on U.S. citizens, period.

    9. Re:Refreshing by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that you missed the point of having honesty and integrity in their original mission statement and why it was important.

      No one is pretending that the NSA isn't a spy agency. Likewise, no one is pretending that spying isn't necessary when there are authoritarian regimes and organizations eager to take advantage of US citizens. The critical issue is what values, goals and aspirations is it spying for and what motivates the spying. Unless the citizenry has confidence in those, we might as well stop spying and give in to our authoritarian adversaries.

    10. Re:Refreshing by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      "There can be only one"

      This is precisely the kind of thinking that gets humans into the predicament that we are in. All effort gets placed into being the one, rather than actually solving problems for mutual benefit of all. Sadly, it looks more and more like global warming will take us all, before we as a species figure this out.

    11. Re:Refreshing by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the facts surrounding the examples you use (Lois Lerner and Bundy ranch) don't actually bear out your thesis. Rather they merely show that with enough Fox News propaganda, when combined with the conspiracy industry can distort the truth out of anything.

      The sad part is that now Fox is targeting the military, denying vetrans benefits deserved, targeting the VA for cuts, supporting the defence contractor advertisers over the men and women who actually put their lives on the line to serve. Although it benefits Rupert Murdoch's bottom line, it also does the work of USA's competitors for them. No wonder we are rapidly loosing allies throughout the world and abandoning world leadership to others.

    12. Re:Refreshing by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?

      Rice has already testified about why she unmasked those people who turned out to be Trump associates. Before they were unmasked she wouldn't have known who they were, and unmasking isn't the same as publishing their identities. They were unmasked because they met with an important foreign dignitary who had chosen not to notify the American government that he was travelling to New York. The U.S. Government does have a legitimate interest in knowing what a foreign dignitary who is making an unannounced visit is up to. But you don't have to take my word for that, you can take reported words of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee:

      "I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Republican Florida Rep. Tom Rooney told CNN of Rice's testimony.

      South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is one of the lawmakers spearheading the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she made inappropriate unmasking requests.

      "She was a good witness, answered all our questions," Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who took over leading the House Russia investigation after Nunes stepped down, told CNN. "I'm not aware of any reason to bring her back."

      That's three Republicans, who are in a better position than you to judge the matter, who seem to think their is nothing to your accusations.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  5. Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please tell me how an agency which violates the constitution and spies on Americans can be allowed to exist? They're worse then the sexual assaults the TSA illegal does daily.

    1. Re: Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violations stopped on 1/20/2017 at the executive level. Now is cleanup time at the corrupted agencies.

    2. Re:Big surprise by Arzaboa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've been patted down dozens of times. Not once was there anything sexual about it. Someone brushing their hands by my nuts doesn't constitute (#metoo) sexual assault, no matter what I think about it.

      --
      If only I had more fingers -- Some Guy

    3. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citation - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

      It doesn't take Rand or Ron to read the 4th amendment and tell that the NSA and TSA are regular violators.

    4. Re: Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have ourselves a comedian here guys.

    5. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay, you haven't been. A lot of women have been touched inappropriately. Regardless of the sexual aspect of it, a government agency searching you for boarding a plane in and of itself is a violation the 4th amendment. If it were a private agency, then we can deal with it. Heck, but security where you board. Then we could have two airlines, AMERICAN Airlines with no searches and SISSY Airlines for those that are afraid. Problem solved.

    6. Re: Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Executive branch in general. To the other AC, it's not like Trump is doing anything to stop these illegal actions.

    7. Re:Big surprise by dcw3 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Someone brushing their hands by my nuts doesn't constitute (#metoo) sexual assault, no matter what I think about it.

      Actually, it does, and it's only assault when it's unwanted, which clearly, in your case, it isn't.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Big surprise by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I have this theory that the agency doesn't actually exist and never did. I think the whole operation was simply dreamed up by some clever criminals who initially managed to work in total secrecy and after being discovered have so far managed to skate by simply by telling any actual authority they don't have the security clearance to question it.

    9. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data. Of course, you don't want to believe that.

    10. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?

    11. Re:Big surprise by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      how do those boots taste?

    12. Re:Big surprise by bobbied · · Score: 1

      so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?

      Possibly could be just fine under some circumstances, but I do agree that we are on a slippery slope with the FISA thing.

      The issue boils down to what can be done with the data the FISA court approved and by whom it can be done. I think the FISA law is attempting to walk an extremely thin line that is hard to draw brightly.

      FISA isn't overtly unconstitutional.... However, it depends greatly on those people charged with keeping track of what's going on to keep things out of the weeds, including the oversight of the program by Congress. I'm not so sure the oversight is being properly done and partisan politics hasn't crept into the process, but we don't have proof of this kind of thing... Yet....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re: Big surprise by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it would be different if you had a dick; trust me.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Big surprise by lgw · · Score: 2

      "their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data.

      I want to live in a country where a US citizen can't be spied on without a warrant. I don't want to live in a country where the government spies on everyone as a matter of course, but pinky-swears not to look at the data unless they need to.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: Big surprise by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      Two people make dick jokes. One person assumes I like being searched, or think that its OK?

      All I said is that it wasn't sexual harassment.

      Sensitive a little bit guys? #metoo

      --
      And then there was one

         

    16. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like ScentCone's fetid micropenis...

    17. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone else touched you like that, then it would be. But because they are official government-endorsed thugs, then it's fine somehow.

    18. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even collecting the information in the first place is a violation of the fourth amendment, you cretinous sack of garbage.

    19. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data.

      I want to live in a country where a US citizen can't be spied on without a warrant. I don't want to live in a country where the government spies on everyone as a matter of course, but pinky-swears not to look at the data unless they need to.

      From what I understand, Germany is about as close as you are going to get. (Replace US citizen with German citizen, though). They have some of the best privacy laws in the world, again, from my understanding.

    20. Re:Big surprise by Agripa · · Score: 1

      "their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data. Of course, you don't want to believe that.

      If the NSA has copies of the data, then it has already be seized whether it was searched or not.

      The DoJ's position is that data is not searched until a human looks at it so automated searches are constitutional. Fuck them.

      NSA data is being used for law enforcement inside the US and being hidden from court review by parallel construction:

      https://www.hrw.org/report/201...

      There is no legislative, executive, or judicial remedy for this ubiquitous surveillance. None of the three branches of government can be trusted to keep their word. That leaves encrypting absolutely everything whether it denies lawful access or not.

    21. Re:Big surprise by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Fourth protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's up to the courts to decide what's reasonable. It's generally agreed that a lawful warrant makes searches and seizures it covers reasonable. There's other cases, and it's currently held to be reasonable to check that airline passengers have neither weapons nor bombs.

      So, if the NSA collects information automatically, and nobody sees the information without a warrant, is that really a violation of the Fourth?

      Neither the NSA nor TSA activities are clearly unconstitutional.

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

      Okay, you haven't been. A lot of women have been touched inappropriately. Regardless of the sexual aspect of it, a government agency searching you for boarding a plane in and of itself is a violation the 4th amendment. If it were a private agency, then we can deal with it. Heck, but security where you board. Then we could have two airlines, AMERICAN Airlines with no searches and SISSY Airlines for those that are afraid. Problem solved.

      I don't know. Permitting the people choice? Allowing the people to take personal risks? This doesn't sound very American to me.

    23. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not to you. The courts are wrong. The founding fathers certainly never intended anyone to be searched simply for their method of travel. Freedom of travel doesn't end because it's an airplane. Just because a stupid group of judges with shit for brains thinks it's okay, doesn't make it so. Just because you and others like you are afraid to fly without being sexually assaulted doesn't make it okay. The law is more than words on paper. It's a testament to the men who wrote those words. Think about what they were thinking.

  6. They're just being honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... boom tish

  7. Well... by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 1

    At least they're being honest about it now.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So their new mission is... paradoxes?

  8. So they're finally being honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they're finally being honest about being dishonest?

  9. truth in advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New regime is honest. We will kneecap you if you don't pay. We will no longer use evidence as our primary source of policy but rather adherence to the political agendas of the industrial interests and ideologues that support our cabal. Quick, someone get Fox and Friends to do a segment on a renewed commitment to manned space exploration through public and private partnerships and hope for a Presidential directive-by-tweet. And tell Elon to get to DC and start kissing rich kid ass quick.

  10. And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe these things should simply be assumed and don't need to appear in every mission statement know to man?

    I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.

    And if you think about their activity... Openness and transparency might not be a good thing to put in a mission statement where it could be misconstrued by individuals in the organization dedicated to the clandestine collection of information.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:And this means what? by houghi · · Score: 2

      Privacy is something that is assumed. In fact it is assumed so much that is is not even included in most things, because it is obvious.

      Without privacy all other rights are nullified as they become meaningless.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.

      Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.

      Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.

      Is that blue partisan Cool-Aide tasty? I think you have been drinking a bit too much of it.

      Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist... I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children, in fact, I don't know even one true republican who fits that description, including Trump. Lay off the blue stuff. You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:And this means what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that blue partisan Cool-Aide tasty? I think you have been drinking a bit too much of it.

      Oh like your red Flavor-Aid, which isn't even cherry flavored, but some alleged fruit flavor?

      Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist... I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children, in fact, I don't know even one true republican who fits that description, including Trump. Lay off the blue stuff. You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.

      That's nice, so why are you voting for lying racists who would run over grandmothers on their way to stealing food from the hands of hungry children, who are also lying con-artists who would sell this country out to foreign powers, start wars out of fits of pique, commit sexual assaults, bluster fake noise about birth certificates for years, and otherwise demonstrate a generally malignant nature that is blatantly obvious? That you don't know how you're seen or want to admit what you're actually doing is probably why you need to consider your choice of methods reflects on your ultimate willingness to compromise yourself and makes your purported goals quite doubtful.

      This was actually the subject of the criticism of the March for Life and other evangelicals who are eagerly associating themselves with Trump, Moore, Spencer, and other characters of dubious merit.

      Seems like you're all too willing to stick to a false appeal to your own martyrdom, rather than examine and consider your own conduct. Maybe you should learn a new method yourself.

      You can't keep relying on the doctored videos of James O'Keefe.

    5. Re: And this means what? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      A Corporate Mission statement doesn't ever suggest that you can share corporate data because it includes "openness" ... or anything else so ridiculous. That's absurd.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist...

      Sorry buddy, but they aren't tricks. Bush lied (or was duped by Cheney) and Trump lies are both truthful statements.

      On the other hand, while Trump is certainly racist, it's the ignorant racism of an ignorant man, rather than the deliberately malicious racism of an angry skinhead. As for Bush, I don't remember any credible claims that he was racist, and the majority of the claims of racism that were made came from people who were angry over the handling of Hurricane Katrina.

      I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children.

      Well that's certainly a strawman argument. I pointed out that the any directly appointed by Trump is unlikely to value honesty, and I think that's an accurate assessment. With the exception of John Kelly, most of the people Trump appoints are sycophants who had to at least pretend to like the president. So if they genuinely like the President, they don't value honesty and playing by the rules, because he doesn't. And if they are pretending to like the president to get some power, then they can't value honesty that much, because they aren't. The rest of Republicans, obviously, have varying attitudes, but those who voted for Trump are either not wise enough to realize he's a narcissist who lies whenever it suits him, or are ok with Trump's lies as long as they hope he will advance their political agendas.

      As for the rest of your comment, it's off topic.

      You don't have to agree with our choice of methods, but it doesn't mean our ultimate goals are not somewhat the same in most cases.

      Sometimes those goals may be the same, but it certainly seems like a growing portion of the Republican party and Republican voters have only one goal: winning a culture war. As we've seen, for example with CHIP, the Repbulicans are willing to hold anyone and anything hostage to their ambitions, while the Democrats consistently cave when innocents are threatened by Republican politicians.

      Draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but I see a marked difference between the parties.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    7. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea that blue Cool-Aid runs deep with this one...

      Bush lied.... Or Cheney duped him? Way to go with the sound bite over substance and personal attacks over truth...

      How about this.. I'll drink my color, you yours and call this done. I've had arguments with your type before and it doesn't accomplish anything...

      I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.

      My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....Which is clear from that last post of yours..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.

      No, actually you don't and that's why you're running away with your tail between your legs. I commend you for putting on a brave show, during your retreat, though. Very convincing, but everyone who's not blinded by partisanship knows the pretence for the invasion of Iraq was false.

      My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....

      I don't have a side here, I don't have a stake in your politics (petty or otherwise). The things you claim are partisanship are merely true, and you might want to ask yourself why you can't acknowledge obvious truths.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....

      Words mean things.. Lying is willfully misleading somebody. Bush didn't do that. He was using information given to him by the intelligence community, which pretty much everybody agreed was true at the time. Turns out they where wrong..

      The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.

      So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....

      No, from the evidence, I conclude that Bush either knew that the reasons given for invading Iraq were flimsy (if not completely false) or he was manipulated by Cheney. There is plenty of evidence that that the Bush White House put pressure on American intelligence agencies to provide a justification for the invasion, rather than the other way around.

      Even Repbulicans in the house, like Republican Porter Goss have said that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was "fragmentary and sporadic".

      The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.

      That's pretty simple, they were told the answer and pressured to invent the question. Mistakes like this always happen when you are trying to justify an already made decision. Even the Downing Street Memo indicates that British were aware that the White House had made the decision to invade Iraq before any evidence that it was necessary had been collected: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

      So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?

      You brought it up. It's not my problem that you're actually wrong, however, you might want to try and be less partisan in the future. I've found that being partisan always leads to being wrong about a lot of things. Personally, I try to avoid it.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You have no evidence Bush knew the evidence he had was false, you are making that part up. All the intelligence reports we have from the time clearly show WMD's where expected in Iraq, and our intelligence community wasn't the only organization with the same perspective.

      Bush had no ability to force the intelligence community from other countries to agree with anything. Certainly there where more than a few who would have relished the ability to call Bush's bluff at the UN when all this went before the Security Council. Surely SOMEBODY knew the truth other than Iraq? Who knew differently and didn't speak up? Nobody. At the time, it was universally held that Iraq had WMD's, nobody said differently here or abroad. Everybody, including democrats in congress who where getting the SAME intelligence information believed this to be true. Surely you can see the obvioius...

      BUT NO.. From your partisan perspective, with the benefit of hindsight and rewriting history, you have invented a story to bash your political opponents unfairly. You cannot prove Bush new differently or that he manipulated the evidence either directly or by applying political pressure, yet you persist in making that claim. He didn't do this. That's the kind of thing Democrats usually do. (Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Did you read the Down Street Memo? People knew, at the time, that the case was flimsy. I knew, at the time, that the case for invading Iraq was mostly smoke and mirrors. They were giant flame wars on Slashdot, at the time, over whether or not the the Iraq war justifications were bullshit.

      I repeat I am not a Democrat and have nothing to do with American politics, however, according to you anyone critical of anything Republican must be a Democrat.

      Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?

      How hypocritical.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    13. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

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

      I'll bet you didn't say anything.... Nobody in power did, including the democrats who widely make the claims you do. They saw the same evidence. Who among them raised their hand and said, 'I don't think so." Nobody."The evidence is thin" is entirely different from "the evidence is made up" and armed with your hindsight bias and partisanship you make that into something it's not. You simply assume a lot and make your case w/o regard to what was commonly known and believed at the time.

      Yea, you knew it all along.... Unless you have proof of that claim, let's call your claim unsubstantiated so it's not valid evidence....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:And this means what? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You're just wrong.

      Finding my posts from 2003 on Slashdot is going to take more time than I'm willing to waste on your irrational skepticism, believe me or don't. I don't care enough to waste any more of my time on this.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:And this means what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Good... No more beating around Bush on this.. ;)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  11. Why did they leave "Respect for the law" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We already know that they don't respect the law, nor does the FBI, congress, President, courts, governors, police, mayors, and other elected officials / bureaucrats. Hell, I would like to meet an honest drain commissioner.

    1. Re:Why did they leave "Respect for the law" by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      We already know that they don't respect the law, nor does the FBI, congress, President, courts, governors, police, mayors, and other elected officials / bureaucrats. Hell, I would like to meet an honest drain commissioner.

      You left out bankers, lawyers, pharma reps, CEOs, mechanics and consultants. Hell, I would like to meet an honest fast food franchise owner.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  12. I can see dropping "Openness" by mykepredko · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're a spy organization for god's sake.

    But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).

    1. Re:I can see dropping "Openness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "most transparent administration in history"

    2. Re:I can see dropping "Openness" by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Deception is part and parcel to the industry. Why would you expect otherwise, and why blame the change on Trump?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:I can see dropping "Openness" by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      Deception to outsiders - any government needs honesty in its intelligence organizations.

      Who else to give responsibility for the changes to?

    4. Re:I can see dropping "Openness" by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree. But to the general public, how can it be honest while deceiving an enemy?...it can't. And so, the public simply doesn't get to know what goes on, and it shouldn't, unless those with oversight bring out some abuse of power. These agencies become the fall guy for many politicians ("it was an intelligence failure") because they know that the agencies can do nothing to fight back.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:I can see dropping "Openness" by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They're a spy organization for god's sake.

      But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).

      Lack of honesty undermines the NSA's other job of protecting U.S. communications networks and information systems. They might as well remove this as well.

      They also managed to undermine NIST. I no longer trust them either.

  13. Why did they keep the other two? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    As per subject.

  14. Not exactly a long-held core value by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since at least May 2016 (whoa... that long!), the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four "core values" listed on NSA.gov. They're being more honest now by not attempting to deceive people into believing that they'll open about their work above other values, such as "commitment to service." Just because they removed the feel-good language doesn't mean they'll not continue to be working in the nation's best interests and within the law. But, publications need page views, and this is certainly click-bait worthy.

    1. Re:Not exactly a long-held core value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't mean they'll not continue to be working in the nation's best interests

      Sock puppet alert.

  15. It's an improvement by RJBeery · · Score: 2

    It's much more dishonest to speak about honesty and transparency when they aren't actually embraced to achieve your mission.

  16. Oh, the irony! by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Funny

    By removing honesty and truthfulness from their mission statement, they are being honest and truthful - perhaps more so that ever!

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. You beat me to it. :-)

    2. Re:Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Me too, came here to post that. Fortunately, I have mod points! So we all win!

  17. Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    O, you simple-minded people... Get a life, while others work hard to make sure you can.

    1. Re: Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotted the entitled NSA employee

  18. It's like making warrantless searches legal by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It's not a change in protocol, it's just admitting what has been reality for a long time.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Retrospective Acknowledgement... by Archtech · · Score: 2

    ... of what we all knew long ago.

    You can tell that NSA is inhabited by a lot of super-nerds. It's actually a quiet little in-joke. They are virtue signalling by honestly admitting that, not only are they not honest, it isn't even on their "to-do" list.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Retrospective Acknowledgement... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You can tell that NSA is inhabited by a lot of super-nerds. It's actually a quiet little in-joke.

      While they do, I doubt any of them were involved. This was probably the result of some senior executive strategy seminar where they discussed their "vision" and "core values" at some fancy executive retreat. No doubt there's a follow-up planned in a year or two to "evaluate" it too.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Retrospective Acknowledgement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not acknowledgement or admission, it's not anything. It's a fucking MISSION statement.
      I've yet to hear a mission statement that is nothing more than empty chest-beating. Not even virtue signalling.
      It's like telling girls you're the best lover, or telling boys you're the best lay, or telling a future employer that you're the right person for the job.
      If you believe any of that, you're a moron.
      Who cares what a bunch of lying spies say about themselves?
      Haven't you got anything more CONCRETE to engage your social sensibilities`?
      NSA - I'm lovin' it!

    3. Re:Retrospective Acknowledgement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell that NSA is inhabited by a lot of super-nerds. It's actually a quiet little in-joke.

      Can you? I'd disagree having worked there for more than a year.

    4. Re:Retrospective Acknowledgement... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A mission statement can be a good thing for company goals to crystallize around. It can also be a pile of meaningless felderkarb. It can be hard to tell which if you're outside the company.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Our elected leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only vote for this bullshit because if they dont they will release what they have on them.

  21. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they are honest about it.

  22. No EXECUTIVE oversight by micahraleigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ENTIRE department of Justice and PLENTY of intelligence agencies run without any oversight from ELECTED officials.

    Chuck Schumer himself mentioned the week Trump was elected the intelligence community has six ways past sunday to fight anyone they don't like.

    That includes voters.

    That includes the American people.

    The president will get held accountable based on what he can pull off, but he has NO control over these organizations that are supposed to operate in his branch of government.

    The DoJ and the intel orgs see it as their job to attack anyone in the party they don't like. This is why there are all these removed text messages among the high ranks of the FBI. They are trying to cover up the Russia style corruption going on.

    That means these are POLITICAL offices now and need to be scrapped with every change in office.

    Trump should be able to do with all these guys what Clinton did with the US attorneys when he took office: fire them all!

    If there is any conflict between what the FBI wants and what the voters want, the FBI MUST LOSE. Voters know better!

    1. Re:No EXECUTIVE oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is any conflict between what the FBI wants and what the voters want, the FBI MUST LOSE. Voters know better!

      Clearly: it explains why the approval rating for the FBI is higher than for the US president.

    2. Re:No EXECUTIVE oversight by kanwisch · · Score: 1

      Really? Voters know better? That must be some part of the alternate reality I can't see. What I see is a landscape of blind faith in words rather than peer-reviewed facts. By people swayed by a single source of information, rather than from a collection of information sources inside and outside the country.

    3. Re:No EXECUTIVE oversight by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      What do you think corruption is?

      Are you going to wear a "celebrate oligarchy" shirt or what?

  23. Great trust? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great trust? I have no great trust for the NSA. I have great DISTRUST for the NSA. I don't trust it at all. I think they're nothing but a lying bunch of fucking bastards. That's what I think.

    1. Re:Great trust? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I think.

      We know.

      --NSA

      (PS - Empty your kitchen trash can. You've ignored it two days in a row.)

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

    You just like the punishment don't you?

    Ohh BTW no one cares about your YouTube channel.

  25. I am confused by negrace · · Score: 1

    It seems like having done that they are now more open and honest about their core values.

    1. Re:I am confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, it's kind of ironic.

  26. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. Just the free advertising. Keep up the good work!

    And no one cares about this "shitty" comment.

  27. This was the perfect opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to get to know a bit more about them and then everyone went full on conspiracy theorist. Gosh. We all need to treat our neighbors better.

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

    There you are spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

    You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

    Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

    How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

    The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

    You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

    When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

    Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

    Bonus:
    Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

    The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

    So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

    Signed:
    Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

  29. More honest by Clear2Go · · Score: 2

    Technically, by removing those items, maybe the are in fact being more 'honest' in the sense that they are letting everyone know they are not or can not be.

  30. There goes the canary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just haven't the foggiest what it was supposed to signify.

  31. Don't tell me, let me guess by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    The NSA had to remove it because they were threatened to be sued for False Advertising.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  32. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some posts from creimer's old accounts. I'll start with his love of child brides.

    If all my assets were liquidated, I would still have enough cash to buy a new car and head off to Mexico to find a chica to marry.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    You're aware that are some states in the U.S. that allow underage marriage as young as 14 years old?
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    As for my comment, I've heard stories of engineers retiring at 50, moving to Mexico and marrying underage girls. Since I work with ex-military, the Philippines is a popular retirement spot for marrying underage girls as well. It's all about getting the most bang for your retirement dollars.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    That only works if you retire to Mexico, build a mansion (by local standards), marry an underage sweet thing and bequeath all your possessions to the village.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    You need to be more specific. I wrote 3,000+ comments this year.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Nah... I just do it to piss off my trolls and make coffee money off of them.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    We have different priorities. You want to climb the corporate ladder. I want to own the corporate ladder.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Your bitch licks your balls. Most people don't brag about practicing bestiality. Is there a reason why you married a dog and not a goat?
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    My employers don't care about what my Slashdot trolls think. Now go off and lick your balls somewhere else.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete. As a Sprint customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always offer me a new iPhone if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    Miracle workers are never afraid to ask for a second opinion. Supervisor gave me his opinion ? and a mess to clean up. Lesson learned from this incident: if something isn't quite broken, break it.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    So you can turn around call me a liar again? People have been playing that game with me for years.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    Based on what I've read about Uber, he need to tell the boys to clean up their locker room behavior, zip up their pants, and attend sensitivity training until everyone agrees that women are not sexual objects.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Which doesn't violate the Slashdot TOS. If you got a problem with that, take it up with management.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    This year I've posted ~4,000 comments.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the

  33. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are horribly misinformed.

    Please do not vote. Our government is in its horrible state because of people like you - and stupid people voting Republican. And Evangelical Christian morons - well, all Evangelicals are morons.

    1. Re:Idiot by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Ad hominem attacks are not valid logic...

      You may think they make you look good, but in reality they just expose your lack of thought on the subject in question. Maybe you just don't have a valid argument? Maybe you just want to throw mud? I don't know. But it's apparent you have nothing substantive to add...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: Idiot by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Evangelical Christian moron". I'm not sure if that is a double or triple redundancy. Maybe a doubleplus redundancy?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re: Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds just like a certain evangelical Christian moron I know... Zero Kelvin...

    4. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, because it's not simply insulting someone. Insulting someone by itself is not a fallacy. Providing citations which debunk someone's bullshit and then insulting them is also not a fallacy. Get a clue.

  34. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that didn't stop you posting this gem:

    creimer has the digestion of a senior citizen

  35. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. The U.S. is a dictatorship run by hidden agencies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. fascist cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the Stazi were soooo good for Germany!

  38. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone mod this shitposting spamming moron down, please!

  39. The Irony Here is Thick.... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    ...wow.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  40. Re:Serious question by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    Never. Never before, never after. Judaism teaches pacifism above all else. If you thought any of them were fighting back, your world view is horribly warped.

  41. At least they're being honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-\

  42. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod down all the CREIMERTARDS!

  43. These things matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These things may appear to be cosmetic (and laughable, given that it is a spy agency), but these things actually matter.

    Under Reagan, we stopped aspiring to be a thoughtful, fair, humane, secular and kind society, and replaced those values with social Darwinism, greed, and self-serving behavior at all levels. This has eroded everything our nation has aspired to become for over 200 years in the space of a generation, and left us without a moral compass, with the country being run into the ground by a group of bigoted religious zealots and sociopathic 1%ers who are only to happy to rob the US treasury blind (c.f. the most recent tax law, the misuse of public funds for private trips by leading administration officials, tarrif, tax, and contract favors to companies owned by political supporters, etc).

    It matters that we fall short of ideals, but it matters much, much more that we've stopped even aspiring to those ideals, and this move by the NSA is just the latest symptom of the underlying rot that has come to infect most of our institions. And therein lie the seeds of our downfall, helped along by a big dose of institutional treason by the Murdochs, Mercers, De Voses, and other extreme-right (and some outright fascist) 1%ers and many Republican leaders, coupled with a whole lot of outside interference.

  44. Kind of like the FBI dropping the F and I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more Integrity or Fidelity from the FBI, they are as corrupt as anyone in DC from the previous director on down. They may still have "Bravery".

  45. Other News: Wal-Mart Doesn't Have The Lowest Price by Bitbeard · · Score: 1

    Seriously... is there anyone who thought that slogan was anything but self-aggrandizing P.R. that goes on everywhere?

  46. Irony by maxbuzz · · Score: 1

    "NSA Deletes 'Honesty' and 'Openness' From Core Values"
    Which is ironically more honest.

  47. So now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First bit of honesty from them to begin with....Cool.

  48. One of the first posts was right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which means they are bullshitting nobody anyway. Now they just don't want to get caught lying and get doubly lambasted because they did lie and said they wouldn't.

    The real question is... is this new tactic of deceit due to Jewish or Jesuit infiltration/influence.

    It is not innocuous.

  49. Private Contractor Ran Unsupervised FISA Queries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a fact established by court documents Judicial Watch got released under an FOIA request. The only question is: Was the private company allowed to run unsupervised FISA requests Fusion GPS?

  50. When "core" values become arbitrary... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Then you know they are just directly and shamelessly lying to you anyways. Scum stays scum, even (or often specifically) when they go into government jobs.

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

    ...they did this because they really do want to be more open and honest in their mission?

  52. Why is this a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just being more transparent now

    1. Re:Why is this a big deal? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Right... they just decided to be completely open and honest about their lack of honesty and openness!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  53. The NSA is a weapon, not a charity by exabrial · · Score: 1

    This is a surprise? The NSA is a weapon, not a charity, so that's ironically the most honest thing they've done. They don't exist to make friends, they exist to dominate.

  54. Doesnâ(TM)t matter by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    In a world where it takes months to find it about any news item that doesnâ(TM)t include a press release or news conference to quote from... does it really matter if someone honestly puts out information openly?

  55. Well they are being honest then by XXongo · · Score: 2
    Exactly.

    Back in the day, it was joked that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency," because even the name of the agency was secret. It's silly for an agency whose entire mission is secret to put in their purported mission statement that "honesty", "openness", and "transparency" are their objectives; that would be a contradiction, and the only thing it would do would be to make the people who work for the agency understand that they are required to ignore the mission statement to do their jobs.

    So, I applaud their honesty and openness in removing honesty and openness from their mission statement. This is, in fact, not their mission statement.

  56. Re:Serious question by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    I think the phrase "Masada shall not fall again" shows that maybe they learned something from the holocaust.

  57. Re: NSA Deletes 'Honesty' and 'Openness' From Core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is so surprising about this? It falls right in line with the rest of the U.S. Government (White House, Congress, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc. etc.).

  58. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am American and I know that the NSA is being made great again. No longer will they be used to spy on amazing President Trump, now they will be used to come after traitor liberals and the leftists who are trying to inflame hatred of friendly countries and start damaging wars and coup here at home.

  59. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly Chris,

    It seems like Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own scheme. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.

    I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!

    I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.

    --
    Silvia Bunge
    Psychology Department
    University of California, Berkeley

  60. Re:Serious question by turkeyfish · · Score: 2

    A series of middle eastern wars since the Balfour Decrlation created a "jewish homeland", proves that Jews are preety much like everyone else when it comes to pacifism and warmongering. The trick is to find away out of the cycle of violence and put such animosity and hostility behind us, so that we can focus on bigger problems, like keeping planet Earth habitable in the latter half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. Unless this is done, humanity is very unlikely to experience a 23rd century.

  61. Re:Serious question by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Judaism teaches pacifism above all else.

    Are you joking? And eye for an eye is the Jewish precept which Christ tried to moderate with "let the one without sin throw the 1st stone." Which makes Christianity a moderation (in the pacifist direction) of Judaism.

    If you thought any of them were fighting back, your world view is horribly warped.

    Ha? Right. Israel was formed because Jews, who lived in Palestine and were British subjects, who fought in WWII for Britain weren't in a mood to take orders from the British anymore. They were perfectly ok to turn around and fight the British until they left them alone.

    What allowed Holocause to happen was that Jews, who were citizens of european countries, did not think their loyalty as citizens would be betrayed by the host countries -- the countries which allowed Germans to project their madness at post-WWI treatment on european Jewish citizens. It was not pacifism to think that the civil society, of which they were full-fledged citizens, which treated them as members of society, would all-of-a-sudden go coocoo. But it was shortsighted to think that it could never happen.

    Screw me once, as the saying goes shame on you. If they were pacifist, they would have allowed to get screwed again by the British in Israel. They did not.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  62. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimer posted an on topic message. Please do the same. No one is interested in your "irrelevant backside noise".

  63. Minitrue by Subm · · Score: 1

    They should have gone the other way and elevated their honesty, even putting it in their name.

    Like: Department of Honesty.

    Or: Ministry of Honesty

    Or: Ministry of Truth

    Or: Minitrue, for short.

    1. Re:Minitrue by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Double plus good!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Minitrue by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Department of Justice instead of Department of Law - Justice has nothing to do with law.
      Department of Defense instead of Department of War
      Law Enforcement - Well, that's accurate.
      Homeland Security - Wow, maybe they should have called it NIghtwatch.

  64. Mission statement is basically the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure most people didn't go beyond reading the headline and the synopsis. This is pretty much a nothing burger.

    First, mission statements are usually the same pablum from company to company. People have meetings to come up with new ways to phrase them, publish them, and then pretty much do whatever they were planning to anyways.

    Second, "honest" is still in there, included in the "Integrity" section. It's a bit silly to blame someone for combining "honest" and "integrity" into one point; they are largely the same thing. And the other things that are missing are pretty much covered in the texts of the other points.

    I note that the authors of the article don't speak glowingly of the NSA finally deciding that they are "accountable". That's one of their called out points now. Or was the NSA deliberately being sinister in the past that they didn't mention it, but now they're good citizens?

    Really, though, mission statements are pretty meaningless. You don't think Enron had a glowing mission statement? Google for it, and you'll see how meaningless it was.

    This whole article is just another example of the confirmation bias that rules public discourse these days.

  65. Honesty, is such a lonely word... by Blaede · · Score: 1

    ...everyone is so untrue

  66. Re: No comment... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Troll

    Nobody thinks you are competent enough to work for the FBI. Seriously.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  67. Rcoe: I can see dropping "Openness" by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    So we'll look forward to your "why would you credit Trump?" comments soon, when someone credits him with things he didn't do himself, right?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  68. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  69. Re:Serious question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    so that we can focus on bigger problems, like keeping planet Earth habitable in the latter half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. Unless this is done, humanity is very unlikely to experience a 23rd century.

    Oh, don't be ridiculous. Humanity will surely live to experience the 23rd century. It's really hard to completely wipe out a whole species with this many members, and which has intelligence and technological capability.

    Now, of course, the 23rd century will probably look a lot like "Max Max II: The Road Warrior" or "28 Days Later" or "The Walking Dead", but I'm sure there'll be at least a few humans still running around.

    Don't worry; humanity has had setbacks before, and recovered from them. The Roman Empire fell, for instance, causing Europeans to live in darkness and squalor for 1000 years before the Renaissance. So we'll probably have to wait until the 33rd century before we build a base on the Moon or Mars, but we'll get there eventually, after conquering the zombies and rediscovering antibiotics.

  70. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The topic is "NSA edits its core values".

    creimer wrote "I can neither confirm nor deny these changes.". This has no value.

    creimer wrote "Although most people think I work for the FBI." Most people don't care if you think that. Already wandering away from the NSA topic.

    creimer wrote "Probably because I told the story about a college roommate" Old man wool-gathering, irrelevant personal anecdote. Completely off topic.

    creimer then proceeded to shitpost about his YouTube shitflooding. creimer's poorly edited and content-free digital sewer fires interest no one.

    creimer just likes talking about himself. Nothing creimer wrote was remotely on topic.

    No one is interested in creimer's unsolicited crevasse secretions.

  71. Welcome to the new TRUMP NSA! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new fascist overlords!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  72. Mod-Up: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe these things should simply be assumed and don't need to appear in every mission statement know to man?

    If you can't even manage to squeeze in ethics or morality because they're too antithetical to your work and you start cutting out honesty and openness, I don't we should be assuming anything positive or noble about their intentions or actions.

    Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.

    So, we should just get rid of all those murder and rape laws. I mean, we can just assume that people won't do bad things, right? Think of the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you got a lot of people do bad things and a list of [negative] rules of those bad things--not always in that order. In the New Testament, you got a [positive] commandment to "Love thy neighbor as thyself". So, yes, if we're not getting negative rules, we should at least include positive ones because people will, without anything, be selfish assholes.

    And if you think about their activity... Openness and transparency might not be a good thing to put in a mission statement where it could be misconstrued by individuals in the organization dedicated to the clandestine collection of information.

    But then as a clandestine collection organization with no allegiance to the truth, why wouldn't they lie in their mission statement? In fact, this is the whole reason for the joke N[o] S[uch] A[gency]. As others have pointed out, the paradox is there they'd be finally honest about their dishonesty. It's a joke, though, to think they're any more honest than meets their ends. Real honesty, though, can result in negative effects on oneself and it's precisely why honesty is considered a valued trait: it shows you're not just a selfish asshole and there may be something more to your character than the convenience of a lie.

  73. Re: No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote the TV version of Hopscotch, FBI stands for "fumbling bumbling idiots". Creimer is eminently qualified.

  74. Rothchild JEW bankers' methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?... just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions)

  75. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is interested in creimer's unsolicited crevasse secretions.

    Except you and your copy-and-paste sockpockets for the last five months.

  76. Power breeds corruption. by Canbot · · Score: 1

    Yet we are supposed to believe that powerful agencies with no oversight aren't? The NSA's first concern is to make NSA operators rich and dominant over the peasantry.

  77. Army also Weaseled on the Solder's Creed by MountainLogic · · Score: 1
    In 2003 the Army deleted the following from their creed:

    I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.

    So I guess now you are now supposed to support your Army and comrades in committing actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.

    So quickly we forget the lessons of history.

    1. Re:Army also Weaseled on the Solder's Creed by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It also removed the part about putting acting honorably above their personal safety.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  78. Perhaps actually read the mission statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Integrity - We are committed to communicating honestly and directly, acting ethically and fairly and carrying out our mission efficiently and effectively."
    Honesty is right there.

    And what was mentioned in regards to openness, is now essentially there in the accountability dot point, even if it's not directly expressed.

  79. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " sockpockets "

    ROFL. Is that a sock in your pocket or are you just glad to see me, creimer?

    PS: That's how I know I sank your battleship, fat man. Your crammar and typos! Or brainos in this case!

  80. Mutually exclusive by felixrising · · Score: 1

    "Fake News" and honesty are mutually exclusive... Don't want to embarrass anyone... Now that's settled, let's get back to making America Great Again.

  81. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't a battleship you grabbed when creimer was taking a bath.

  82. Re: No comment... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

    There's always low-level employees with any huge organization. He could work anywhere.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  83. #IronyGold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an irony to this - now that they have removed "honesty" and "truthfulness" from their mission statement - they are now actually being rather more honest and truthful than they ever were before.

  84. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man.., the goats... the flies in shit... creimer's junk. Sick, sick, sick.

  85. Re:No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer leads a rich fantasy life. creimer's "battleship" has never seen battle. Not even simulated battle.

    So sad.

  86. But who will create new holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deletes 'openness'? Where will the new holes in software,firmware, and CPUs come from?

  87. Re: No comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There's always low-level employees with any huge organization."

    There's always dead wood that's too much trouble to fire in any organization.

    " He could work anywhere."

    Despite his enormous adipose bulk, creimer could fly under the radar anywhere,

    FTFY

  88. creimer is a nuisance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer is a spamming fat fucktard sexist pig nuisance

  89. Re:Serious question by sabbede · · Score: 1

    When it became a matter of immediate self defence of course. That's the only time it is justifiable for an individual human acting on their own to take the life of another.

  90. Wow creimer! a -3 post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow creimer!

    You are really a miracle poster!

    A -3 post! That's how it is currently ranked internally in /. system but unfortunately, it still displays as -1.

    Keep on the good miracle work creimer and never mind those naysayers!

    1. Re:Wow creimer! a -3 post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  91. NSA Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Church Committee ! we need to do this again!

  92. Re:Serious question by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    However, we developed civilization and industry by using massive amounts of nonrenewable resources. Currently, our technology and industrial capabilities are allowing us to move towards renewables to keep civilization going. Given a collapse of technology and industry, the survivors are going to find it much harder to build a new civilization.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  93. The NSA's mission is Signals Intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE Intercepting foreign communications and securing domestic communications, with maybe some grey area/wiggle room around percieved allies, enemies, and domestics communicating with foreign nationals.

    None of that really makes their mission statements contradictory. The solution is to provide secure domestic encryption, find exploits in foreign encryption which you do not disclose, and work with third parties (like the CIA) to provide alternative interception means, like getting the encryption keys off a system you are already capturing over the air/line communications from so you can decipher them.

    It wouldn't be #2 on its mission statement if it was as important as protecting american citizen's own communications after all.

  94. Re:Serious question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Well some of those resources at least can be recycled, even if that's more difficult than mining. But yeah, they're not going to have all the convenient fossil fuels we do. Oh well, I guess we'll have to tack on an addition 10k or 20k years.

  95. They had to remove "honesty" by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    As long as honesty was one of their core values, they had to remove "Honesty", because they're so often dishonest.

    Now that "Honesty" has been removed, they can add it back in.

    Wait a sec!

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.