Schneier: Break Up the NSA 324
New submitter BrianPRabbit writes "Bruce Schneier proposes 'breaking up' the NSA. He suggests assigning the targeted hardware/software surveillance of enemy operations to U.S. Cyber Command. Further, the NSA's surveillance of Americans needs to be scaled back and placed under the control of the FBI. Finally, he says, is 'the deliberate sabotaging of security. The primary example we have of this is the NSA's BULLRUN program, which tries to "insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communication devices." This is the worst of the NSA's excesses, because it destroys our trust in the Internet, weakens the security all of us rely on and makes us more vulnerable to attackers worldwide. .... [T]he remainder of the NSA needs to be rebalanced so COMSEC (communications security) has priority over SIGINT (signals intelligence). Instead of working to deliberately weaken security for everyone, the NSA should work to improve security for everyone.'"
Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, I think it would be more likely to corrupt the FBI than to clean up the NSA's investigation of Americans.
The real problem is priorities more than anything else.
The events of September 11th panicked us Americans, and we decided to overspend and over-allow security.
We need to realize that the number of terrorism related attacks are relatively SMALL and to cut funding for all things that invade our privacy - starting with the TSA.
When you limit their funds, they spend their money wisely on clear and present dangers.
When you give them unlimited funding, as we have been doing, they spend it on any wild-ass crazy possibility, which means they investigate people and cases that are clearly and obviously not terrorism related.
Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly why. Any surveillance of Americans should only be done if it pertains to a police matter (e.g. investigation).
Author doesn't understand the NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
CyberCommand, a command I'm very familiar with as prior-Air Force, doesn't have a reason to take over what the NSA does. The author of this article really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Inconceivable (Score:4, Insightful)
> That is, I think it would be more likely to corrupt the FBI than to clean up the NSA's investigation of
> Americans.
Corrupt the FBI? The FBI are as incorruptible as the proverbial satan. We are talking about the people who have so precious little to really do that they go around creating criminals to arrest. These are the people who go after little shit online troublemakers and find mentally unstable people who they can shove a bomb in the hands of.
Corrupt them?
Re:Oh, Hell Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's elaborate, shall we. I think the number of possible satisfactory solutions to the NSA problem are infinite. This plan, like every other one that would work all fall on unshakable premise. Congress needs to pass legislation removing previously granted powers(then do something else, apparently, to mollify those who are actually scared of terrorists, in this case move those powers to law enforcement).
This one premise, though, has shown zero chance of happening. Those in congress critical of the NSA's behavior mostly seem interested in using it as an attack chip for the republican party in the next couple elections, and so leaving the power in the executive plays to their needs. The executive, for their part, have either bought, or are willing to attempt to sell, the pragmatism line, and the laws passed by congress say it's legal, so they don't see a need to change anything by fiat.
Re:Tomorrow's News (Score:3, Insightful)
Security expert Bruce Schneier was found dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown but police are investigating possible foul play.
Thats too much work... They just need to pay some young girl a few grand to say she was raped by him. Oldest trick in the book....
NSA Walks a Fine Line (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do we pretend to have rights or laws if there is a class of people that they don't apply to? That's really what parallel construction means, because the NSA analyst, in this case, is clearly above the law, or being asked to defend his decisions.
We could just get rid of rights and laws, go back to the law of the jungle, and be done with it.
The problem people have with parallel construction is that it's pretty clear that it's over the line. At best extralegal, but pretty clearly illegal. You are denying people the right to examine all of your evidence to construct a fair trial.
But parallel construction crosses the line. It means that the Government is effectively allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of the law.
Why do we pretend to have rights or laws if there is a class of people that they don't apply to?
Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Worse, you have a twisted idea of what a terrorist attack is. USS Cole bombing was not a terrorist attack. It was an act of war. If a country (Sundanese Government officially liable for the attack, as per US judge) attacks a soldier, that is an act of war. If you attack civilians for political purposes, that is an act of terrorism. It doesn't matter if you use a bomb - or if you use a suicide attack. Soldiers are armed and are supposed to be capable of defending themselves (assuming some idiot did not give stupid rules of engagement). Civilians are usually unarmed and usually not capable of defending themselves - which is why attacking civilians is a far worse thing (i.e. a crime called terrorism) than attacking soldiers - which is a bad thing, but only an act of war, not of terrorism.
Re:Giving the FBI NSA's duties is a BAD idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
lots of terror attacks in the 80's
in the 90's we had the WTC bombing, the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. hundreds dead
2001 we had 9/11 and after that nothing
so you figure the new security and intel collection stopped at least a few attacks, which now means since there were no attacks all this is a waste of money
So I guess the Boston Marathon thing didn't happen ?
Re:Oh, Hell Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress needs to pass legislation removing previously granted powers(then do something else, apparently, to mollify those who are actually scared of terrorists, in this case move those powers to law enforcement).
So to use your terms, Congress needs to pass something to mollify the people scared of NSA?
Mmmm... fun... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Hell NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Author doesn't understand the NSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that Bruce has actually seen the Snowden docs, I'd say you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
When foreign intel includes patrons of wikileaks and the pirate bay, and use their powers to go after drug cartels and gun runners, then that section of the NSA is doing the work of the FBI. Whether that work should exist or not (and we all seem to agree that it should not), is another question, but they are definitely doing work of the FBI.
Re:Mmmm... fun... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just love the thought of the FSB, Mossad, MI5, and just about every other foreign intelligence network on Earth (and those are merely the legal ones) running rampant throughout our country and society without the CIA to check them. Gosh, that'd be so much fun to just lower our guard and take punches! Oh hey, maybe those other nations would be so friendly towards us once we dismantled our intelligence apparatus that they'd willingly leave us alone! And forswear corporate espionage to boot!
Dismantle the NSA, yes. Spread it out amongst the other agencies, yes. But don't disarm us completely. The CIA has screwed up a lot, so has the FBI--but they're still good ideas to have in place. We as a society have to reassume the responsibility, and the maturity of overseeing the operations of those two agencies on an appropriate basis.
Er, you do realize that when foreign adversaries run rampant through our country and our society, that the federal agency tasked with dealing with them is the FBI, don't you?
The CIA is supposed to be restricted to doing that job OUTSIDE the USA.
Re:Oh, Hell NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
1776 was won by the French. They spent a billion livres, dozens of ships of the line, thousands of troops, tens of thousands of muskets, cannons, gunpowder, money.
The war of 1812 was the one Napoleon was fighting. The US involvement was minor, and the defeats by land were more than ignominious enough to make up for the sea victories.
Vietnam was a loss, and a staggering waste of lives.
No one tries to stand toe-to-toe, it's easy enough to make the country destroy itself. Usama bin Laden won the war against terrorism.
Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, I think we can all clearly see that Terrorism only has as much importance as we create for it. If we don't regard it as important, the Terrorism threat goes almost entirely away. If you were to rank these Priorities according to what most impacts the survival of the Nation, I believe it would look more like:
Re:Then who should do the obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
None, until and unless the damage from terrorist attacks exceeds the damage from panicked overreaction to terrorist attacks.
Re:since when is the FBI a spy agency? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Hoover.