NSA Ill-Suited For Domestic Cybersecurity Role 72
Hugh Pickens writes "Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Stephen Lee has an interesting article in the Examiner asserting that the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,' with a history of disregard for privacy and civil liberties. Lee says that for most of its sixty-year history, the NSA has been geared to cracking telecom and crypto gear produced by Soviet and Chinese design bureaus, but at the end of the cold war became 'stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.' When the NSA finally recognized that it needed to get better at innovation, it launched several mega-projects, tagged like 'Trailblazer' and 'Groundbreaker,' that have been spectacular failures, costing US taxpayers billions. More recently, the NY Times reported that the NSA has been breaking rules set by the Obama administration to peer even more aggressively into American citizens' phone traffic and email inboxes. Whistleblower reports portray NSA domestic eavesdropping programs as unprofessional and poorly supervised, with intercept technicians ridiculing and mishandling recordings of citizens' private 'pillow talk' conversations. Lee concludes that 'if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust — perhaps even a new entity. Meanwhile, NSA should focus on listening in on America's enemies, instead of being an enemy of Americans and their enterprises.'"
What's this guy smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the authors claims regarding the state of the NSA. It's fun to take a poke at big agencies like the NSA because they fit into that 'big bad government' mythology that is so prevalent today. He's presuming the NSA is somehow more effective than any other large organization. (public OR private)
What I doubt is the possibility that a new agency would, in fact, respect the personal freedoms as spelled out in the constitution and probably codified with laws and court precedence. The steady corrosion of discipline and 8 years of Executive Office supremacy has worn away the last of the ideals spelled out in the Constitution.
The last new agency I can recall is the Homeland Security Agency. They were gifted all kinds of previously independent agencies. The benefits are equally unclear on all sides of that monolith.
Re:Good Luck with That (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, even if they did create a new agency, the simple reality is that most of the staff would be drawn from the NSA anyway. If you're going to reform the NSA, just do it, don't just add another player with roughly the same mission to make the turf battles even worse.
Like who? (Score:5, Insightful)
if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust
Like, the FBI? Or perhaps the NRO? The CIA is just down the road. Maybe NASA could do it. Really - the facts are these - NSA already has the equipment, connections and brain power. You'll have a very difficult time replicating, much less staffing any enterprise like the NSA.
Legally, they really are disqualified from performing the role of domestic spying. After all, they're administered by DOD, they've skirted American law by utilizing foreign bases for gathering, and are well known for bending the arms of domestic telecom companies.
But they are a working tool - and they get the job done. It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.
Message right and wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
We want a competent domestic spying agency? (Score:5, Insightful)
All this beating up on the NSA is fun and stuff, but are we really complaining that we don't have a competent domestic spying agency? We've already proven as a society to be incapable of electing a majority of leaders that respect privacy and are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty. So would it actually make us happy to have a bunch of g-men who are intelligent when it comes to new technology and could really fully exploit all the powers of databases and networks and algorithms to spy on us in an incredibly thorough manner?
Re:Like who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like who? (Score:1, Insightful)
But they are a working tool - and they get the job done. It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work
Give me access to everything they have and I could probably get you the same results as well. It's about staying within the law, not needing to go beyond it to get the work done.
This guy's an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Long story short, this guy is an idiot. I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this. (If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)
First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works. "CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona. The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician). Anyway...
Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example:
Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.
Total nonsense. The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS. To claim otherwise is nutty.
Re:why NSA shouldn't be used for defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they have been involved in defence but they've managed to as I've said before; they've managed to completely mess it up. [slashdot.org] I'll quote the illiterate AC who replied to me:
Why would an agency dedicated to SPYING on other countries want the PUBLIC to use technologies such as IPSEC? They obviously understand the importance of computing security for our countries' future more than you will ever be able to comprehend.
To answer the ACs first point, because they are also responsible for defense through their Informations Assurance Directorate; If the internet becomes part of the critical infrastructure of the USA (which it probably already has) then defences like IPSEC have to be widespread standards.
The second point from AC mirrors yours. If the NSA has been doing so much for defence; if they understand it so well; where do the botnets come from?