Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government United States

US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor 411

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Arik Hesseldahl writes that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that the NSA tried to penetrate and compromise Tor, but it was only because terrorists and criminals use it, too and our "interest in online anonymity services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies." It was all legal and appropriate, Clapper argues, because, "Within our lawful mission to collect foreign intelligence to protect the United States, we use every intelligence tool available to understand the intent of our foreign adversaries so that we can disrupt their plans and prevent them from bringing harm to innocent Americans. Our adversaries have the ability to hide their messages and discussions among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same social networking sites, encryption tools and other security features that protect our daily online activities." Clapper concludes that "the reality is that the men and women at the National Security Agency and across the Intelligence Community are abiding by the law, respecting the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation safe.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor

Comments Filter:
  • by pipatron ( 966506 ) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Sunday October 06, 2013 @08:51AM (#45050237) Homepage

    Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored (serial numbers on every bill, cameras in every ATM and store), and controlled (demanding proof of ownership for depositing cash at a bank, removing the possibility to actually use cash for buying travel documents).

    Much like they are working hard on trying to make sure Tor can't be used anonymously.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @09:27AM (#45050433)

    If voting could change anything, I guess it would have been identified as a threat to our safety as well.

  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @09:45AM (#45050505)

    I'm sorry, but maybe you should go back and apply some critical thinking to what you wrote.

    For example:

    "Information has never harmed a single soul."

    The fact is information about what people are doing is a critical component of national security, in both war and peace. A key determinant of the success or failure of any action is the quality of the information available. From revolutionary war spies like Nathan Hale and Miss Jenny, to the code breakers that made the battle of Midway a success for America and to yesterday's capture of Anas Al-Libi, it is clear information is critical to any operation.

  • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @11:34AM (#45050975)

    There is no REAL difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both want to take away our rights and give them to the government. They both want to spend too much. They both want to grab more and more power. They both ignore the Constitution. They are both working very hard to to turn our nation into a fascist police state.

    The two-party system is broken and has been for a very long time. Nothing can really be fixed until we have a fundamentally different kind of voting system that allows other parties to participate. And since that is not in the interest of the two-parties, it will be a cold day in hell before that changes either.

    And yes, I vote at every election. And usually it is for any non-Democrat non-Republican I can find. I might be throwing my vote away, but at least I am trying.

  • Re:I feel safer... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by julian67 ( 1022593 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @01:38PM (#45051813)

    "a future tyrant who will commit more atrocities than all of the terrorists combined."

    Future?

    The atomic detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened almost 70 years ago.

    Did anyone count how many non-combatants were bombed and napalmed and otherwise killed in S.E. Asia in the 60s and 70s?

    How many civilians have so far been killed by conventional warfare and by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    How about counting the number of birth defects caused by depleted uranium weapons in Iraq?

    What about all the people who were tortured and kidnapped or "disappeared" by US sponsored forces in south and central America in the 70s and 80s?

    I haven't done the maths but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the numbers of casualties caused by anti US terrorism even looks like a pinprick next to the hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-combatants killed by the US in the modern era, and I am really confident that still holds true even if one completely disregards the use of atomic weapons over Japan.

    I don't think one can fairly describe any particular modern US president as a tyrant because domestically they have all been subject to elections and held more or less accoutable (or can be), but the behaviour of the US in relation to other nations has often been tyrannical and brutal. If Caesar came back today he could easily understand various US campaigns in his own terms, including such noble qualities as self aggrandisement, greed, cruelty, curiosity untroubled by ethics, and good old vengeance.

  • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @01:46PM (#45051877)

    Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored

    You know what the classic solution to all this is, right? Allow me a quote from a movie made a long time ago, called Enemy of the State;

    Brill: In guerrilla warfare, you try to use your weaknesses as strengths.
    Robert Clayton Dean: Such as?
    Brill: Well, if they're big and you're small, then you're mobile and they're slow. You're hidden and they're exposed. You only fight battles you know you can win. That's the way the Vietcong did it. You capture their weapons and you use them against them the next time.

    Guys... all their equipment is wired into the internet. A lot of it is the internet. And we're in a world where everything is increasingly interconnected and online all the time, everywhere. There's nothing they can do that we can't do too. They wanna watch us? We'll watch them. They wanna revoke passports overseas... I hope they don't plan on buying any plane tickets using credit cards. Frustrate them. Fuck with them.

    Oh they'll call you a terrorist, they'll probably even throw in the word 'cyber' a lot, because they love cybering. But if you're good, and you're smart about it... they're gonna be hard-pressed to find you because you are one person in a target-rich environment. You can afford to pick and choose who, where, and when your engagements are. They can't. They're a fat blob of wires, ego, and data centers.

    The NSA becoming this bloated piece of shit that tries to monitor everything is a major strategic weakness. They've moved off their primary focus. They've spread themselves too thin, trying to do too much at once, and this "NSA 2.0" they're rolling out has caused a previously impregnable organization to start leaking like a sieve. They're weak guys.

    Let me be clear on this, because everyone's running around thinking the NSA is this unstoppable cyber super organization. They're fat, slow, and weak. They're exposed. It is just a matter of time before someone takes them to school on this. I'm not suggesting you do this. Or you. Or anyone. But the NSA has pissed off a lot of people, and we have enemies both foreign and domestic that want a little payback.

    Well, meat's back on the menu guys. Anyone with an iota of tactical understanding realizes that when you try to be everything, everywhere, all the time... when you fight a protracted war... you exhaust your resources, your troops get tired, and then... then you lose.

    The NSA is about to take a special kind of fall guys. Even if nobody gives them a helping push, they're going to collapse under their own weight. The intelligence cycle depends on timely analysis, accurate information, and good communication between analysts, management, and clients. Whenever you bloat up, communication increases exponentially, while the 'signal', the amount of useful information coming out, drops. We've all seen e-mail shitstorms in the office... there are intelligence community equivalents guys. The NSA is super-saturating itself and will render itself inert within a decade at the rate it is going... without any outside help whatsoever.

    This isn't James Bond knowledge I'm working off of. There are people working at the NSA. And while I can't say what any one of them is doing, I know as a group that right now... it's a pressure-cooker environment. And if I had any way of validating that out there, I'd bet real money right now on it.

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?

Working...