Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government Security

The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye 97

First time accepted submitter ChelleChelle2 (2908449) writes "Edward Snowden's release of classified material exposing the existence of numerous global surveillance programs (obtained while working as an NSA contractor at Booz Allen Hamilton) has been referred to as 'the most damaging breach of secrets in U.S. history.' Regardless of whether one choses to champion or condemn Snowden's actions, it is apparent that the NSA needs to dramatically rework its security measures. In this article Bob Toxen, renown author of several books and articles on Linux Security, discusses the security practices that could have stopped Snowden. Equally interesting, he weighs in on the constitutionality and morality of the NSA's spying on all Americans."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye

Comments Filter:
  • by Hamsterdan ( 815291 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @01:25AM (#46964953)

    With all the leaks, corruption scandals (quite a show here in Montreal), and all the law-breaking from those agencies and governments, I wish there were more like Snowden. That's only the tip of the iceberg boys & girls,

  • Re:Bad logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThatAblaze ( 1723456 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @02:39AM (#46965079)

    That's like saying when aliens attack you'll be glad you bought UFO insurance. Just because you can imagine a scenario does not make it likely. I have seen no compelling evidence that terrorism is a battle worth giving up my privacy and freedom for.

  • by loony ( 37622 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @02:40AM (#46965085)

    I started reading but soon moved on to just skimming the article. It read like a very logical but basic security primer... Until I hit the sidebar. Wow, I've never seen a better laid out, yet brief, history lesson that got straight to the point. Our government needs to remember that its "For the People, by the People" not "For those people, by these people"


  • easy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @02:57AM (#46965139)

    The easiest fix would be to stop violating our constitutional rights. Snowden would have never leaked anything had the NSA been acting within the bounds of the constitution. Violate the constitution and everyone working for you that is a patriot is bound by honor to thwart you. Righteous anger is a SOB.

  • by loony ( 37622 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @04:27AM (#46965349)

    Its too easy for people to trust the government. They promise to take care of you, keep you safe and fed and all the other things. Its easier to trust them than to have a mind on your own, to have to think, plan, and work. It usually all goes well for a while until corruption creeps in and politicians think they know better than you how you should live your life...

    The US had an amazing run and I wish I could somehow know what future generations will define as the point in time where the US government turned sour. The current NSA affair? What about the creating of a for-profit, private bank that's put in charge of ruining the dollar value? I'm sure some racists will point to the 13th amendment but I bet 9/11 would be a much more likely choice. Maybe the Nixon years with Watergate and the removal of the gold standard? Oh so many choices... I personally pick the day the southern states seceded. While the North was right and slavery had to go, I still can't find a legal reason that prohibited the South to withdraw from the United States...


  • Re:Bad logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @08:56AM (#46965979) Homepage

    In the light let's correct the the heading. Edward Snowden did not cause the 'the most damaging breach of secrets in U.S. history.', he exposed the 'the most damaging breach of secrets in U.S. history.'. Let's be clear on this, it was the NSA that was conducting the illegal breach of secrets of people from all over the globe, no one was safe and no countries laws were respected, not the US not anyones. It was the NSA that was the completely unrepentant criminally insane computer network hacker, hacks not in the hundreds or thousands but very likely in the millions. This had nothing to do with securing anything for the US but everything to do with empowering the insane head of the NSA and his backers in their grab for power. He is now protected status by the secrets he holds, he knows more about the criminal activity of politicians from all over the globe than any other person in US history. As the the puppet president Uncle Tom Obama the choom gang coward, well, he runs nothing and has not done so for years, he just does as he is told to do and smile when he reads his instructions in front of the public on the teleprompter, the puppet prompter, what a way to go no in history, really lame.

  • Re:Bad logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cffrost ( 885375 ) on Saturday May 10, 2014 @09:29AM (#46966083) Homepage

    Except there is also the fact that some of the NSA's main goals, despite its draconian and probably unconstitutional methods, are still counterterrorism and counterintelligence. When a friend or family member is killed in a terrorist attack because the NSA's security wasn't adequate you can be proud you encouraged it.

    The NSA's mass-surveillance techniques have not been proven effective for counter-terrorism, nor do those techniques represent a cost-effective method of lowering the overall US death rate, nor are they worth (in my opinion) the egregious violation of our Constitutional rights.

    I believe that a cursory glance at global affairs — in particular, which entities commit terror attacks upon which nations; the attackers' motives; and attacked nations' foreign policies — suggest that the most effective counter-terrorism results come from not interfering in the sovereignty or affairs of foreign governments, and not violating the human/civil rights of foreign and domestic populaces.

    Were a friend or family member killed in a terror attack, I'd be upset they died even though their Constitutional rights were being violated, and I'd be upset that they likely died as a result of blowback from unilateral US action abroad intended to increase or maintain the power and wealth of US oligarchs, likely in violation of international law. If mass-surveillance were ended and a friend or family member were killed in a terror attack, I would take solace in death(s) as free people.

Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.