NSA CTO Patrick Dowd Moonlighting For Private Security Firm 83
First time accepted submitter un1nsp1red (2503532) writes Current NSA CTO Patrick Dowd has taken a part-time position with former-NSA director Keith Alexander's security firm IronNet Cybersecurity — while retaining his position as chief technology officer for the NSA. The Guardian states that 'Patrick Dowd continues to work as a senior NSA official while also working part time for Alexander's IronNet Cybersecurity, a firm reported to charge up to $1m a month for advising banks on protecting their data from hackers. It is exceedingly rare for a US official to be allowed to work for a private, for-profit company in a field intimately related to his or her public function.' Some may give Alexander a pass on the possible conflict of interests as he's now retired, but what about a current NSA official moonlighting for a private security firm?
playing positions on two teams (Score:1)
God bless team America competitive workball. Go Eagles!
Re: (Score:2)
Few probs though: God is not American (in fact he IS not), your team America does not include you (sorry for the surprise), and Eagles are neither Amercian nor bald, nor bold. Again sorry.
Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would trust them to help secure my systems from everyone but the NSA. Seriously, look at the number of companies in the last year or so that had major hacks costing them millions in real money and countless more in future consumer revenue. I bet they would all gladly make a deal with the devil to have kept their data safe at the expense of an NSA backdoor.
Yeah, because the NSA knows how to secure themselves, right?
What happens when every US banking backdoor gets leaked unknowingly?
Shit will make Edward Snowden look like a wallet left in the bathroom when the entire US banking system is hacked overnight. You think Goldman Sachs can fuck up the global economy? Try that on for size.
Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What would or should be illegal about it though? I mean as long as they are not using government resources for private gain and do not use the threat of government action to entise these contracts there should be nothing illegal about working more than one job. I guess not allowing conflicts of interest crop up might be troublesome but government employees do this stuff quite often whether it is side money, campaign work, or charities.
Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score:4, Insightful)
Government regulations include a clause that there cannot be an APPEARANCE of impropriety. This includes not being able to accept gifts of over $50. Accepting a salary from another company might be construed as a gift...and if it's for knowledge you have from your job, or for expertise you have from your job, or better service because of your job, it is a gift!
Police aren't supposed to accept gifts either, but many do. The NSA might get away with such breaking of regulations because people who can expose them are afraid of reprecussions.
Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score:5, Informative)
He is using government property for private gain. Namely his access to classified information. Information that will allow him to demand a higher salary that he wouldn't have without that inside access. Also, we have no idea YET if this private company has any government contracts with the NSA since that info would also be classified. Watch for this tidbit to come out much later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the common American 'Rent a Cop' who wears his government supplied uniform and weapons while off shift?
Locally, he also wears his duties and responsibilities along with them. Just on someone else's dime.
BTW, you forgot the car. He (or she) usually gets to keep the car, too.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't wearing anything to make him out as a cop, he was off shift and thought as a private person he could get away with it but was sentenced harsher because as a cop he should have known better.
The whole story was funny like hell and I truly enjoyed it.
Re: (Score:1)
"he was off shift and thought as a private person he could get away with it but was sentenced harsher because as a cop he should have known better."
That was 1978.
In 2014 he'd have been exonerated and the householder convicted of resisting arrest or some other trumped up charge (or dead, with the cop patted on the back and given a bonus).
Re: (Score:2)
In a lot of areas, the rent a cops are mandated by law under certain circumstances. In others, general security guards can be more efficient. We put on a benefit for a friend who wrecked his motorcycle trying to avoid a young kid chasing a dog into the street. We had to estimate the number of people that would be there and hire one rent a cop for every 50 people. We could have security and bouncers outside the rent a cop but needed 1 rent a cop for every 50 people because of the location and that we were pe
Re: (Score:2)
Not just paid to install the spyware but PAID up to a million USD a month! That's unreal! No wonder he is moonlighting. He is getting paid many times over his yearly salary to kill two birds with one stone. I don't see how this can be legal, but then again it is the USA.
FTFY.
If you don't like it, get off your couch and go get arrested for civil disobedience somewhere.
Lazy Americans not standing up for their rights are going to be peons who can't afford even basic education or medical care before long.
Re: (Score:2)
But that may mean travel and getting testicles squeezed by the TSA!
Re: (Score:2)
But that may mean travel and getting testicles squeezed by the TSA!
Squeezed a little now if you act, crushed to paste in the future if you do nothing...your choice :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely a direct funnel to keep the flow of information going from the NSA to Keith Alexander. This flow protected by existing information.
Re: (Score:1)
The converse is also true. It simply isn't possible to enlist in the service past 39-42 years of age. Also, never underestimate the power of attrition. Now that you now, profit(!), right? God Bless America.
But seriously, think about the *many* that have truly made sacrifices for the entire country.
Re: (Score:2)
They have no choice. Congress decides how much money they spend on what.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if this is truly a private company, he's in clear violation of Federal anti-corruption laws. At least that's what they keep hammering at us in the corporate "pin the liability on the employee" training.
From my POV the more likely explanation is that "private" security firm is an NSA front. I doubt this company would get much business outside the US, with so many NSA ties already known. So my guess is that they use it to funnel NSA technologies and data to other government agencies that can't obtai
Re: It is exceedingly rare... (Score:1)
The article says that the hire is under review by the NSA. This should be under review by Congress. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem where top secret security clearances are involved.
Would you rather the Chinese pay him? (Score:2, Insightful)
He is obviously for sale, so consider it the least worst case.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
Admiral Michael Mccconnell and Booz Allen deja vu (Score:5, Informative)
Should not this old case get a mention too ? Snowden worked for him.
Department of Homeland Pork (Score:5, Funny)
They might as well be Wall Street bankers.
USians need 2 jobs to make a living (Score:4, Funny)
It's been said by many, that in the US you need two jobs to make a living. I guess for many people it is X-Mart job during the day, Mac Burger job during the night, but this proves, that also the rich people need two jobs to make ends meet. I suppose this is an equal opportunity thing, so good?
Re: (Score:2)
Under communism there is no private sector, thereby solving the problem of government officials moonlighting for private-sector companies. ;-)
How much will get funneled to O-Daddy? (Score:1)
We know undreds of millions went to the Clintons. We can only guess what Chaney/Bush got rewarded (but guess high), although we know how well their reign rewarded Halliburton stock.
I suspect O-Daddy may well make a cool billion. It willl come packaged in books and million dollar speeches, maybe, but it will come. A lot of banksters and bombers owe him a bundle...and he knows it.
Resigned (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how all the comments are merely mocking and resigned to the fact this is happening. This should outrage you, a public official at the top of the NSA has taken on another (very high) paying private section job. This guy should be fired. Policies should be put in place to stop these people from screwing the public purse. I expect he is paid substantially to reach that level, it's a very small leap from reselling your secrets to private companies to committing treason with foreign governments.
Re: (Score:1)
"This should outrage you, a public official at the top of the NSA has taken on another (very high) paying private section job"
As a non-citizen, non-usa resident, it just underscores my perception that the USA is at least as corrupt a place as India, China, Russia, or Nigeria or (add another 20-30 countries in here).
The only difference over the last 20 years is that it's coming more and more into the open with virtually no punishments meted out, whilst other countries are mostly undertaking efforts to stamp
For God's sake, think of the children! (Score:2, Funny)
These people are just trying to make our world a safer place.
Why doesn't anyone think of the children?
Please pay them more money for a safer world!
Call it "truth in lending" (Score:5, Insightful)
This just eliminates the time frame Beltway insiders have typically had to wait while spinning through Washington's revolving doors.
It also serves to legitimize the fact we live in a corporatacracy.
Soon, this will be normal (Score:5, Informative)
With so much corporate money involved in US politics these days and the revolving door [wikipedia.org] being such an integral part of the system, we should have expected this. After all, the difference between the revolving door and what Dowd is doing now -- being on both sides of the door at the same time -- is only a matter of perception. If nobody in power objects, then this will soon become normal.
If we want to fix things, then there's only one solution: Get money out of politics! [wolf-pac.com] Vermont and California are the first two States to call for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution to require all election campaigns to be publicly funded and end corporate personhood. It may seem radical to some, but this is the only way to reverse the series of disastrous Supreme Court decisions, ending with Citizens United [wikipedia.org] and McCutcheon [wikipedia.org], that got us into this mess.
Re: (Score:1)
I like how your solution to corruption is censorship. Yep, the best way to prevent this is prevent people from putting on ads for campaigns unless the federal government deems them allowed.
The only thing this is likely to solve it making it illegal to point out this is happening, which might be your objective.
Re:Soon, this will be normal (Score:4, Informative)
I like how your solution to corruption is censorship. Yep, the best way to prevent this is prevent people from putting on ads for campaigns unless the federal government deems them allowed.
In what way is it censorship? The proposed constitutional amendment can be seen at this link [movetoamend.org]. Note that there is nothing that says you can't put out ads or campaigns; no one in government has to approve your campaign. The only restriction is that CORPORATIONS are not people with voting rights and therefore cannot contribute money to campaigns. Which makes sense; a corporation is not a thinking entity, "it" only does what its CEO and upper management decide. Effectively, the corporation becomes a vehicle for the opinions of upper management, which the new amendment to the constitution will say is wrong. The CEO can have whatever opinion he wants as a private citizen, and back any campaign he wants as a private citizen, but he is NOT allowed to use the money and influence of his company to spread his message further -- it is an unfair advantage over the rest of the voting public and subverts true democratic debate and processes.
The only thing this is likely to solve it making it illegal to point out this is happening, which might be your objective.
Again, nothing about this amendment stifles a citizen's rights, only CORPORATIONS (which we declare are not people). You still have full 1st amendment rights, for example, and are free to speak out against government. We just require that you disclose publicly who you gave money to as a private citizen; you aren't allowed to funnel money through a company anymore to hide the fact that you are donating way more money than the average person (which is what some are doing with corporations and PACs, effectively using them to skirt already on-the-books current election law on donation limits). We want to make sure every citizen has the chance the speak up, rather than only the elite that can go around laws with the corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
Note that there is nothing that says you can't put out ads or campaigns; no one in government has to approve your campaign.
I didn't read anything else you wrote. Supreme court ruled on Citizens United becase me as a private citizen was NOT allowed to put on a campaign ad for someone within 90 days of an election, end of story. That was the ruling. You idiots keep yelling "corporate personhood" crap that had NOTHING to do with the ruling. The law was censorhip, pure and simple and you are upset that it got overturned because you agree with censorship.
I've asked about 100 liberals to explain how it isn't censorhip and they ca
Re: (Score:3)
Put more simply:
Corporations allow a privileged few to speak twice when ordinary people can only speak once.
And to say things that not all of the members of the corporation might agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now it costs about $1 billion to run for president, and that money comes almost entirely from corporate interests and ideologically interested billionaires. It turns out that you can buy elections by spending enough money.
So a handful of billionaires and wealthy interest groups are taking over the government and running the country.
Is that a problem for you? Or do you think that's the way it should be?
Re: (Score:2)
We already make it illegal for foreigners to take out ads to support one side in an election. The Saudis or the Chinese can't contribute money to a political action committee.
Is that censorship? Is that acceptable to you?
Or do you want foreign governments -- say, Russia -- to be able to contribute money to our election campaigns, and not have to disclose it?
Right now rich foreigners are buying $100-million pied-a-terre penthouse apartments in Manhattan, and $100 million artworks at Southeby's. Would you lik
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"If we want to fix things, then there's only one [wolf-pac, CU McC] solution:...]
I'm sorry, your cure is worse than the disease and only treats the symptoms to begin with. Packing legislatures and bureaucracies with committees of carefully selected (and by who, eh?), politically-correct "community activists", "stakeholders", and so on is Not Going Fix A Damn Thing. It will make things that much worse, in fact. It already has. Now, you may think otherwise, and surely you're entitled, but you'd be damned wron
Why is this not illegal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I find it hard to imagine with so many laws in the US that this is not only illegal but a felony?
Is it not already incredibly clear that people at the NSA have absolutely no concern for what is legal and what is not?
Why would it matter? (Score:1)
What the NSA does is illegal, any claims the Patriot act allows it is a lie.
Holder refuesed to comply with a Congressional sopenia, which is illegal and was not prosecuted.
The IRS illegally targeted individuals illegally, no one has been prosecuted and the FBI is refusing to do any additional investigation.
2000 guns were illegally shipped to Mexico by the ATF with 200 murders committed by them, no one prosecuted.
There has been a history over the last few years to not prosecute illegal activity by the execut
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal.
Outrageous (Score:1)
Why is this not illegal? (Score:2)
I find it hard to imagine with so many laws in the US that this is not only illegal but a felony?
America isn't Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
In the 21st century USA, any such laws would immediately be annulled if it suits those in power.
Keep digging (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll likely find that Alexanders employer is the NSA, and his company is just a way for them to distance the illegal stuff with a layer of corporate fluff.
Seriously, which bank would pay $1 million a month for advice on protecting their network given by a non-techie? No bank would, so if there's money going into his company at that level, its not for the claimed purpose. Alexander had a long history of flouting the laws of surveillance, and this company could be nothing more than a front for the NSA to continue its illegal stuff while cloaking it in non-accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one welcome this track & trace (Score:2)
Do unto them as they do unto you.
urgh... (Score:1)