Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

NSA (partially) Declassified 353

Posted by Hemos from the the-joy-of-politics dept.
Lally Singh writes "Posted yesterday on the National Security Archives was the NSA's "Transition 2001" report, prepared as an introductory report for President Bush (II)'s incoming administration. "The largest U.S. spy agency warned the incoming Bush administration in its 'Transition 2001' report that the Information Age required rethinking the policies and authorities that kept the National Security Agency in compliance with the Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibition on 'unreasonable searches and seizures' without warrant and 'probable cause,' according to an updated briefing book of declassified NSA documents posted today on the World Wide Web.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA (partially) Declassified More

NSA (partially) Declassified

Comments Filter:

  • oblig. sneakers quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:50AM (#11926392)
    Dick Gordon: National Security Agency.
    Martin Bishop: Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.
    Dick Gordon: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.
    Martin Bishop: Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.
    Dick Gordon: No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.
    Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is, Dick.

    • Better (Score:5, Funny)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:05PM (#11926766)
      Martin: "You know, I could have joined the NSA, but they found out my parents were married"

      Dick: "Heh...." (holds back Wallace) "Hey, we're all FRIENDS here..."

      Oh, and:

      Carl: "The young lady with the Uzi. Is she single?"
      Martin: "Carl. This is the brass ring."
      Carl: "I just want her phone number"
      Martin: "How about a lunch date? You can chaparone. The FBI will give 'em twins."
      Abbott: "NO!"
      Mary: "You could have anything in the world and you want my phone number?"
      Carl: "....yes."
      Mary: "342-4525. Area code 701" (sorry, I don't remember her number :-)
      Carl: "I'm Carl."
      Mary(giggles): "I'm Mary."
      Abbott: "I'm going to be sick."

  • Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yuriismaster ( 776296 ) <tubaswimmer AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:52AM (#11926397) Homepage
    I can only assume the information declassified might intersect that which is already known [slashdot.org]...

  • The 4th is already void (Score:3, Informative)

    by simgod ( 563459 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:55AM (#11926409)
    You should view this lecture: of how they passed a bill on the day of Saddam's capture that allows them to search without a warrant... http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-12-14-04.ram

    • Re:The 4th is already void (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:11PM (#11926487)
      Not true. Delayed warrants go back to the late seventies. [lifeandliberty.gov]
      The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)

  • Finally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 )
    Before anyone points out that now we'll find out the truth about the infamous NSAKEY in Windows or some dirty little secrets of Bush administration, I would like to remind you that according to Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] "algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: They come from a superior race with no explanations." The most important implication of declassifying NSA would be a better understanding of the mysterious rationale of many of NSA decisions in crypto algorithms, because even many aspe

    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Q Who ( 588741 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:41PM (#11926642)

      Before anyone points out that now we'll find out the truth about the infamous NSAKEY in Windows or some dirty little secrets of Bush administration, I would like to remind you that according to Bruce Schneier "algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: They come from a superior race with no explanations."

      Isn't that quote from the days when cryptography research was still behind the classified organizations?

      The most important implication of declassifying NSA would be a better understanding of the mysterious rationale of many of NSA decisions in crypto algorithms, because even many aspects of DES remain a mystery to this day.

      What?! Which aspects would these be?

      So please stop the explosion of crackpot conspiracy theories and focus on the most important issue: cryptoanallysis.

      That would be "cryptanalysis." Also, that statement doesn't make any sense.

      • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

        by puppetluva ( 46903 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:10PM (#11927488)
        What?! Which aspects would these be?

        The derivation of the S-Boxes are a secret. Changing the numbers in the S-Boxes certainly weaken DES, but it is not published as to _why_ the ones the NSA picked are so strong and how they were derived.

    • Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)

      by skywire ( 469351 ) *
      The most important implication of declassifying NSA would be a better understanding of ...

      As is so often the case, the slashdot article has a misleading headline. The parent has responded to that headline, not the article itself, nor the 'Briefing Book' published by the nonprofit "National Security Archive", nor underlying NSA document Transition 2001. There is nothing at all about declassifying the NSA (a meaningless phrase) in the slashdot article, the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:13PM (#11926817)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • What nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:57AM (#11926421)
    he Information Age required rethinking the policies and authorities that kept the National Security Agency in compliance with the Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibition on 'unreasonable searches and seizures' without warrant and 'probable cause

    Yet more "we should be above the law to protect you" crap. I don't usually wear a tinfoil hat, but 1984 seems to be approaching faster than I would like.
    • To me, it already came 21 years ago. =D
    • I don't usually wear a tinfoil hat, but 1984 seems to be approaching faster than I would like.

      Dont know what you were doing during the last millennium but 1984 has been and gone for the rest of us.

    • Re:What nonsense (Score:5, Funny)

      by robertjw ( 728654 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:26PM (#11926556) Homepage
      1984 seems to be approaching faster than I would like

      Well, actually, it's 21 years late already. Can't hold it off forever.

    • Let me set you straight (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:08PM (#11927470)

      I work there. You've got it backwards.

      The rules for access to data are extremely strict and the NSA takes the 4th Amendment very seriously.

      The governing directive is USSID 18 (here [gwu.edu] is an older declassifed version). Anyone requiring access to certain types of data is thoroughly briefed on this (even if you're a developer and just need data to work with).

      If you're an analyst requiring an account on one of the search tools you get the above mentioned briefing and a more tailored briefing. In addition, before an account is granted two auditors at a supervisory level must be identified. Those auditors get a weekly report of every search you conduct.

      People have lost their clearances over misusing the databases (which also means the loss of the job). No one at the NSA is cavalier with the data and access is tightly controlled. The NSA definitely works hard to remain within the law, and any violations are incidental, not some sort of secret big brother program.

      Besides, anything found through the illegal use of data couldn't be used in court, and the loss of the public trust would hurt the NSA far more than catching you downloading "The Family Guy". The real bad guys (legitimate and lawful targets) though, we work very hard to take down.

  • Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:59AM (#11926430)
    The 4th clearly wasn't tough enough. It is simply all to esay to make up phony causes "like the war on drugs", like "catching terrorists" as an excuse to do anything they want. The 4th should have been much more demanding, and demanded harsh punishment for those who do anything that has the effect of weakening it.

    • Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:22PM (#11926536)
      those that drafted those never thought that our fellow citizens would have the apathy for tyrrany that we currently do.

    • Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:43PM (#11926655) Journal
      It's ironic that the founding fathers were questioning even *having* a bill of rights. Their reason? You should be allowed to do anything, and putting down in words what you have a right to do would eventually limit people to only those things.

      The federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now. I don't think a single founding father would look at the federal government today and say, "Good job", unless they were being sarcastic.

      Oh well, at least we still have the Libertarians.

      • Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jim Starx ( 752545 ) <JStarxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:49PM (#11926687)
        The founding fathers never imagined an industrialized society either. The type of government the founding fathers envisioned could never hope to effectively govern the US as it is today.
        • Or is t hat only what you've been led to believe?

          Surely the founding fathers had seen an industrialized nation before, or at the very least had experience in watching how Europe governed at the time.

          They had great expectations for this country, and definitely would not have limited themselves to "thinking small".

        • Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:41PM (#11926990) Homepage Journal

          The type of government the founding fathers envisioned could never hope to effectively govern the US as it is today.

          The type of government they imagined would have done better. Consider that each of the states was to handle anything within that state, and that they are about the same size as many countries in the E.U.

          The Federal Government was meant to be literally a Federation of state governments, overseeing interstate commerce, organizing the state militias into a common force, and providing absolute limits on the power any state government could weild against it's citizens.

          • and providing absolute limits on the power any state government could weild against it's citizens.

            I'm not sure about that last -- the fact that it was spelled out in the 14th amendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") suggests that if it

        • I keep seeing this argument and I keep failing to understand it. Why does the evolution of technology mandate a larger government?

      • Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th (Score:4, Interesting)

        by __aanebg9627 ( 695892 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:16PM (#11926841)
        The founding fathers were bitterly split between those opposed to a vigorous central government and those that thought it was necessary. This split became quite harsh after the adoption of the Constitution, and nearly came to spilling blood. One cannot truthfully say "the founders believed X" or "the founders believed Y" about the role of Federal government, when the fact is that they disagreed. Read Joseph Ellis' excellent biography, "His Excellency: George Washington", if you want to know more (and come to understand why Washington is considered a great man, which puzzled me 'till I read "His Excellency").
      • Considering that the founding fathers preceded the industrial revolution, freud, marx, full-time conscripted armies, large-scale financial markets, modern firearms, railroads, telecommunications, and a world with even 1 billion human beings, I'd say they did a pretty damn good job, but times change and society must adapt.

        Note that I'm not saying the 4th is in any way outmoded; I'm very much a civil libertarian. Just not against government as a whole in the modern sense, as your argument implies.

      • The founding fathers never intended to put a bill of rights in because the state governments already had them. They only did it so it could be ratified because of stupid peoples' complaining because they didn't understand.

      • It's ironic that the founding fathers were questioning even *having* a bill of rights. Their reason? You should be allowed to do anything, and putting down in words what you have a right to do would eventually limit people to only those things.

        Cool! The founding fathers were anarchists!

    • But the court that is interpreting it now is manipulating and twisting the original founders intent far beyond what it was... just a thought.

  • there is at least a marginal concern for the 4th (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MC68000 ( 825546 ) <brodskie&gmail,com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:01PM (#11926441)
    from page 32 (38 in PDF viewer of nsa25.pdf)

    Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the fourth amendment and all applicable laws.

    There is some concern at least. This would mean nothing if it were a public statement, but it's a bit reassuring that they think this even in documents not meant for public consumption
    • Is it not possible that since they knew the document would be declassified at some point they wrote it as if it was meant to be for public consumption?

    • Re:there is at least a marginal concern for the 4t (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homology ( 639438 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:12PM (#11926809)
      Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the fourth amendment and all applicable laws. There is some concern at least. This would mean nothing if it were a public statement, but it's a bit reassuring that they think this even in documents not meant for public consumption

      The accellerating attacs on civil liberties and human rights, in particular under Bush II, are very worrysome. The new General Attorney is the very same man that wrote in a memorandum that the Geneva Convention is obsolete when it come to "the war on terror". That torture could be done. Who are now the bad guys? It's sure is getting confusing [zmag.org] :

      "This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

      Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

      • The new General Attorney is the very same man that wrote in a memorandum that the Geneva Convention is obsolete when it come to "the war on terror". That torture could be done. Who are now the bad guys?

        The new Attorney General is the very same man who was asked what the US could legally do to terrorists captured by the military. He gave a legal answer. Does the fact that something's legal make it right? No. But he wasn't asked what the US can morally do to al Qaeda prisoners.
        • The new Attorney General is the very same man who was asked what the US could legally do to terrorists captured by the military. He gave a legal answer. Does the fact that something's legal make it right? No. But he wasn't asked what the US can morally do to al Qaeda prisoners.

          Do you feel comfortable with an Attorney General that is looking for legal loopholes to torture of people with impunity? This type of "legality" is what you can expect from corporate laywers trying to rationalize (after the fact)


        • Its a real stretch to say that what they've been doing is even legal. Its no accident the U.S. is puting most of its prisoners in Gitmo or unnamed spots around the world and outside the U.S. They are using Gitmo because its mostly outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system and its obviously not under the jurisdiction of the host country, Cuba. They are using Gitmo precisely so they can skirt the law and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory.

          They are also using the CIA's semi sec
      • Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz.

        Dubya likes gooseberry pie. Nazis liked gooseberry pie. QED, Dubya is a Nazi.

        You need to learn better debate technique, dumbass.

  • Forensic chaff for semiotic warfare (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spywarearcata.com ( 841806 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:10PM (#11926485)
    And if you want to help the NSAs comint mission to intercept keywords from the Internet, download and use random subsets of the following list frequently in your international communications:

    http://www.spywarearcata.com/semiotic_war_lexical_ chaff_valium_noforn_snie_winintel_orcon_oc/semioti c_war_lexical_chaff_valium_noforn_snie_winintel_or con_oc.html [spywarearcata.com]

    This should greatly help the NSA to protect us from bad ideas. Please suggest improvements and additions to this list. 1836.15@gmail.com
    • That's a fairly impressive list of keywords. You seem to be lacking in the white supremacist / racist department, but you will certainly be forgiven for not wanting to type any of their fecal phrases into your computer.

      Any reason you slipped your own name into that list? :-)

  • Is it just me...? (Score:3, Funny)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:17PM (#11926516) Homepage
    Is it just me, or is document 26b missing? It's probably just a goof-up, really, but still, it's rather funny - you don't really see that kind of goof-up every day, after all, or at least not on the websites of a well-known university (which I think the GWU counts as).

  • Y2K bug (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dago ( 25724 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:34PM (#11926600)
    Hum, it seems the y2k bug stroke at least once, see doc 25, page 33 :

    "The need for action was underscored in January 2000 when NSA experienced a catastrophic network outage of 3 1/2 days. This outage greatly reduced the signals intelligence information available to national decision makers and military commanders. As one result, the President's Daily Briefin - 60% of which is normally based on SIGINT - was reduced to a small portion of its typical size."

    Oh, an a few paragraph above, they presented their favoured solution : outsourcing (to the industry).

  • Weird but True. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:39PM (#11926628)
    I have only had a few discussions with those in the government security community as a civilian moderator on a government security forum. What I have learned is the following:

    1) The NSA is the most likely to be concerned about "unreasonable searches and seizures" and other Bill of Rights issues. The FBI and CIA routinely take the "extreme circumstance" route and use common loopholes to justify citizen and non-citizen monitoring. I would argue, however, that I have yet to see an ill-intented abuse of their power.

    2) Members from all branches of the Department of Defense are active Slashdot readers and contributers. They just never talk about what they do and some use "Tor [eff.org]" to post from work.

    3) The NSA has an extremely bright team of civilians that do the bulk of their cryptoanalysis work. One of which is famous, and not for the work he does in cryptology. You'd actually laugh aloud if you knew. I guess it is his hobby, but someone is taking him seriously.

    4) The FBI is nothing like you see in the movies. The brightest agents last about 2 years before moving to a different area. Internally, the FBI has some serious issues with "dinosaurs" and "micro-management".

    5) There is one member of the CIA that is single-handedly responsible for saving us from the plan devised by Jose Padilla. Unfortunately, they will never get the credit they deserve. It only took one person to say, "Why is this American talking with Abu Zubaydah twice?".

    6) If you join the NSA, you voluntarily give up your rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, you have to agree to have your phone tapped and everything you do is monitored 24/7. It's a life-long career choice, but they take care of you "very well".
    • The FBI and CIA routinely take the "extreme circumstance" route and use common loopholes to justify citizen and non-citizen monitoring. I would argue, however, that I have yet to see an ill-intented abuse of their power.

      There is an old saying that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

    • You must be an NSA agent or more likeley pretending to be one, No?

      I guess I took the bait.

    • 1) The NSA is the most likely to be concerned about "unreasonable searches and seizures" and other Bill of Rights issues. The FBI and CIA routinely take the "extreme circumstance" route and use common loopholes to justify citizen and non-citizen monitoring. I would argue, however, that I have yet to see an ill-intented abuse of their power.

      I'd argue that you haven't been looking very hard then.

      The Church Commission clearly showed that the FBI and CIA were in cahoots spying on legitimate political activi

    • 3) The NSA has an extremely bright team of civilians that do the bulk of their cryptoanalysis work. One of which is famous, and not for the work he does in cryptology. You'd actually laugh aloud if you knew. I guess it is his hobby, but someone is taking him seriously.

      God, I really hope you're not referring to Bill...

    • Re:Weird but True. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @04:49PM (#11928119)
      Rack one up for gullible Slashdot readers who moderated this guy's B.S. as interesting, I guess as B.S. goes it is interesting, but it is B.S. or a troll. I'll let half of this obnoxious grand standing go but these deserve some attention:

      "1) The NSA is the most likely to be concerned about "unreasonable searches and seizures" and other Bill of Rights issues. The FBI and CIA routinely take the "extreme circumstance" route and use common loopholes to justify citizen and non-citizen monitoring. I would argue, however, that I have yet to see an ill-intented abuse of their power."

      You must be working a technicality, like you haven't physically "seen" the abuse but the DOD, NSA, FBI and CIA have all engaged in well documented and proven abuses of their powers over the years. They haven't been nailed lately but that is only because we are living in, for all practical purposes, a one party state, and the Republican's especially since 9/11 has been literally letting these agencies get away with murder. For example the Pentagon last week investigated itself and amazingly found itself innocent of ordering or condoning torture, though there are documented cases of varying degress of torture going on across the globe, far to widespread to be rogue national gaurdsmen. When abuse is this wide spread in the military either the chain of command is ordering or condoning it, or there is massive deriliciton of duty in the chain of command, the officers and civilian leadership, in letting it happen on such a large scale.

      When you say something this blatantly and provably false it so undermines your credibility, we can safely assume the rest of your post is either a troll or B.S. too.

      "2) Members from all branches of the Department of Defense are active Slashdot readers and contributers. They just never talk about what they do and some use "Tor" to post from work."

      Not sure I follow why they anyone in the DOD would be using Tor to post to this silly little web site. Not like anyone on Slashdot is tracking their IP address. If someone is using Tor from a DOD facility with DOD's blessing, and posting on Slashdot or anywhere else, it tends to suggest they must be part of the DOD's rapidly growing propaganda machine, so you can't believe a thing they say. I have no doubt people from all branches of government read and post here, SO WHAT. If they post anything controversial or sensitive, from a government facility, they are just begging to be fired. I'm sure the DOD can read everything they are posting, and Tor isn't going to make any difference. Not sure I've ever read any post on Slashdot that rose to a level of importance the DOD would ever care.

      "5) There is one member of the CIA that is single-handedly responsible for saving us from the plan devised by Jose Padilla. Unfortunately, they will never get the credit they deserve. It only took one person to say, "Why is this American talking with Abu Zubaydah twice?"."

      Whatever Padilla was planning, if anything, wasn't nearly as dangerous as the precedent being set by the Bush administration in how they've abused his most basic civil liberties in arresting and detaining indefinitely, in isolation in a military brig in South Carolina. The Bush administration is seeking, through Padilla, to establish a precedent where the executive branch can arrest any American citizen, anywhere and deprive him or her of all of the most basic constitutional protections we thought we had in this country. In particular American citizens have a right to an attorney, a right to be charged, and a right to a speedy trial, and to be imprisoned only if found guilty by a jury of their peers. If Padilla is guilty of something, charge him, prove it, get a conviction or let him go.

      The Supreme Court, spineless politicians that they are have passed on hearing his case on technicalities leaving this precedent in place for two years. A federal judge a week or two ago ruled the executive branch has NO constitutional authority to arrest, and hold in ind

  • Forever and ever. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AnZhiLan ( 863179 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:50PM (#11926693)
    Freedom is never "won". It's not a battle that you fight, win, and from then on people can enjoy the victory.

    It's always, ALWAYS hanging by a thread.

    Every generation will have to keep fighting for it, over and over, until the end of time.

    Those who look at things like Nazism as freak accidents are only fooling themselves. Oppressive governments are the rule, not the exception in history. People are easily convinced, either quickly in harsh circumstances, or in slow, careful and quiet measures in good times, to at first not care about others, and then not care about themselves.

    Even if you're lucky enough to live in a country whose founding is based on some good ideals, you've still got to realize, that country will spend the rest of its history struggling to get anywhere near living up to those ideals.

  • Constitution? (Score:2, Funny)

    by malus ( 6786 )
    we don't need no stinkin constitution.

  • Will the real terrorists please stand up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:07PM (#11926772)

    I find it interesting that with all of the flag waving, and beating of drums to "protect America", we never hear urgent discussion of the greatest threat this country has ever faced.

    If blowing up a building is terrorism, surely attempting to evicerate the Constitution and sacrificing every thing that makes the U.S. worth protecting is high treason!

    If the terrorists goal is to destroy the American way of life, what does that say about those federal agencies and Congresscritters that are so anxious to dismantle the principles of the American way of life?

    If terrorism is the deliberate creation of fear in the civillain population to further a political goal, what does that say about DHS's perminant orange alert telling us to be afraid.

    What does the fact that I wonder if I should post this anonymously say?

    • What does the fact that I wonder if I should post this anonymously say?

      It says that you are more paranoid than you should be. Look at all the comments on /. Many if them are anti-Bush and/or anti-American. Many of these people do post under their own handles. Yet we see them again and again on this forum.

    • "What does the fact that I wonder if I should post this anonymously say?"

      Hate to break it to you but everything you just said doesn't matter one iota to the executive branch or its minions. It is unfortunately just so much pissing in the wind, like the millions of similar rants posted to the Internet every year.

      You could probably advocate overthrowing the government and the Federal government still wouldn't care unless you said something that suggested you were going to actually do something about it.

  • Date written (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:07PM (#11926773)
    If this report was first posted January 2000, then most of it was probably thrown out and re-written twenty months later. No wonder they declassified it.

  • Read the Documents (Score:3, Informative)

    by skywire ( 469351 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:09PM (#11926787)
    I have read the quoted Briefing Book on the website non-profit organization The National Security Archive, and also the underlying NSA document Transition 2001.

    A careless reading of that Briefing Book's comments on Transition 2001 might leave you with the impression that the NSA is calling for being freed from compliance with the 4th Amendment. However, that is NOT what the Briefing Book says, nor does the underlying NSA document do so. Slashdotters, please read the documents before making wild-eyed postings.

    Here are the relevant paragraphs from Transition 2001:

    SIGINT in the Industrial Age meant collecting signals, often high frequency (HF) signals connecting two discrete and known target points, processing the often clear text data and writing a report. eSIGINT in the Information Age means seeking information on the Global Net, using all available access techniques, breaking often strong encryption, again using all available means, defending our nation's own use of the Global net, and assisting our warfighters in preparing the battlefield for the cyberwars of the future. The Fourth Amendment is as applicable to eSIGINT as it is to the SIGINT of yesterday and today. The Information Age will however cause us to rethink and reapply the procedures, policies and authorities born in an earlier electronic surveillance environment.

    Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws. But senior leadership must understand that today's and tomorrow's mission will demand a powerful, permanent presence on a global telecommunications network that will host the "protected" communications of Americans as well as the targeted communications of adversaries.

  • this might not be popular here, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:19PM (#11926854) Journal
    ...let's keep in mind that the NSA exists for a reason, and that reason is important.

    In the same sense that tinfoil-hatters are constantly alert to the possibilty that "they are watching us", the NSA exists because there are countries and organizations and individuals whose interests ARE inimical to the United States. It shouldn't have to be said this shortly after the Cold War, or even Sept 11, but the security agencies of the United States have a serious and IMPORTANT function.

    Do they go overboard? Once in a while, no question they exceed their mandate, usually from an overzealous interpretation of their duties. Yes, it's important to find a careful compromise between secrecy and oversight REQUIRED by a free society.

    However, I think occasionally /. tends to drift into Pollyanna-land where the only thing we have to fear is those 'debbils' in government that want to take our freedoms away. No. Let's keep our priorities straight and remember that while overzealous policemen certainly need to be disciplined and corrected, they are STILL the "good guys" as long as you are realistic and remember the really BAD alternatives out there.

    • Re:this might not be popular here, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crush ( 19364 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:54PM (#11927053)

      You're a classic example of a drift into "pollyanna /. land" as you call it. The evidence of history shows clearly that the "intelligence agencies" have a long and negative history of distorting the political landscape in the USA (whether that's the harrassment of civil rights activists in the 60's or the FBI planting a carbomb in environmental activist Judi Barri's car), or the external activities of scum like the CIA helping rightwing terrorists to power in Latin America.

      As soon as I see some example of "correction" of any sort operating on these misdeeds I'll accept that there's a working system in place to regulate this dangerous and anti-democratic part of the state apparatus.

      • Crush,

        Do you think that the USA has dangerous external enemies or not? We have the CIA and the NSA because we do have enemies abroad. Look at Iran. I agree that the CIA and NSA have gone overboard in the past but we should work to vigilantly curb their abuses and improve them rather than to pretend that we are not threatened by dangerous enemy states and organizations.

        • Re:this might not be popular here, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by crush ( 19364 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:05PM (#11927447)
          We have the CIA and the NSA because we do have enemies abroad. Look at Iran.

          And Iran is our enemy because we supported an anti-democratic fascistic dictator (the Shah) instead of allowing the people there to get on with their own lives and evolve towards democracy. At around the same time we supported other anti-democratic fascists in the Ba'ath party and look where that got us. The CIA supported that Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq.

          Then later on the CIA fucked around supporting directly the Mujaheddin while they were busy dealing drugs, raping little boys and women and being allround asshats. Look where that got us.

          The CIA are crap at preventing problems from external enemies: they seem to create all the external enemies. For a good read (after you've come down from your "external enemy" hysteria high, you could have a read of Chalmers Johnston's "Blowback" or Alexander Cockburn's "Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press".

          If you still believe that the CIA are more effective at preventing terror than creating it by their cack-handed and immoral interventions abroad then I'll eat your hat.

          • I agree with you that the CIA laid down with some bums. They were following the old edict of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'. In all of the examples you cite, the enemy was the communist Sovient Union. Don't forget that the cold war was a world wide fight to the death. I, for one, am glad that the USA and our allies beat and crumbled the USSR.

            Now, you are right, we are dealing with the messy aftermath. Still, here we are. Where do you think appeasing the Islamic Fascists will get us?
    • I'd say they are not "good guys", but are "the necessary evil" or "the least of two evils".

      I have no doubts that some policemen and FBI agents are nice guys. Sure. You can even argue that most of them are. May be. But it should be clear that police and FBI are by their nature instruments of oppression. We should not pretend for a second that their goal is just to oppress "the bad guys", because the system doesn't work that way.

      Please remember how many people are imprisoned for smoking some weed. This is a

  • What 4th amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GISGEOLOGYGEEK ( 708023 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:51PM (#11927038)
    The NSA warned Bush that action must be taken to protect the 4t amendment.

    Bush then passed the Patriot Act, with effectively suspends the 4th amendment (and 6th).

    And the American people said ..

    "thank you thank you! please take more of my inaliable rights away from me so I can feel safe from the enemies my government makes for itself!"

    The average american decided it was ok to allow their fellow citizens to be arrested and held without charge, without being allowed to see a lawyer or even notify family. As long as the thousands of citizens that were now being abused was not them personally, then who cares.

    When really, they should have carried out their own Constitutional Responsibility to fight for those rights to the point of overthrowing Bush.

    But the average american stopped thinking they need to act on their responsibilities a few decades ago when suing everyone for any stupid reason became the norm.

    America has died at the hands of its own people. Welcome back to 1930's Germany.

    • Bush did not *pass* the Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:07PM (#11927462)
      The House of Representatives did. The US Senate did by a margin 98-2 or similar. Even John Kerry voted for it and never went back to vote against it.

      Kinda like the Kyoto Accords - they went down in the US Senate 95-0.

      Hell, the US declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor had more opposition.

  • Who are the truly secret gov't agents? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    An ex-NASA/Airforce acquaintance recently recounted how his group used some specalized technical services of "some people who don't exist". When I replied "oh, you mean NSA/CIA?" he responded "No they still don't exist, and I really shouldn't say any more". The Men In Black do exist!! :)

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close