Whistleblowers: How NSA Created the 'Largest Failure' In Its History (zdnet.com) 119
An anonymous reader writes: Former NSA whistleblowers contend that the agency shut down a program that could have "absolutely prevented" some of the worst terror attacks in memory. According to the ZDNet story: "Weeks prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, a test-bed program dubbed ThinThread was shut down in favor of a more expensive, privacy-invasive program that too would see its eventual demise some three years later -- not before wasting billions of Americans' tax dollars. Four whistleblowers, including a congressional senior staffer, came out against the intelligence community they had served, after ThinThread. designed to modernize the agency's intelligence gathering effort, was cancelled. Speaking at the premier of a new documentary film A Good American in New York, which chronicles the rise and demise of the program, the whistleblowers spoke in support of the program, led by former NSA technical director William Binney."
Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:4, Insightful)
Only goes to show. Of course, we have no proof that thin thread would of actually worked, but instead of caring about America's safety, the NSA only cared about getting more money.
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed is supposed to rule in Corporate America. But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America.
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the almighty dollar is at fault here. the problem is a government that doesn't let the winner win, but chooses who it wants to win.
Although legislating market winners is a major problem in government, another one that may be occurring here is that when you have multiple competing systems and the "winner" fails spectacularly, the people behind the runners-up will always say that if their system had been chosen, things would have been OK. There's no way to tell whether ThinThread wouldn't have become the billion-dollar boondoggle instead of Trailblazer.
Heck, this is big government IT, it's quite likely that anything would have cratered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How old are you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even with minimum wage, corporations have people working for no money. As long as they can pretend that the work serves some sort of educational purpose, they can use people as unpaid interns [nytimes.com] and get away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as they can pretend that the work serves some sort of educational purpose, they can use people as unpaid interns [nytimes.com] and get away with it.
Thats awful, and a good example of how the Corporation *do* rule America, far more than in other developed countries where such exploitation is illegal.
Re: How old are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Money may be a necessary evil, but the problem is not the money it's the way we structure our society and government around it. There should be absolutely no way for politicians to make money from anything except their paycheck, period. Sure, give them a nice salary and pension so they can live well, but any other income should be illegal, period. Direct or indirect. If you want the privilege of representing your fellow Americans in the government, there is a price you pay. Americans should be absolutely disgusted with the amount of corruption in the government. I really don't understand how people can be so complacent about it.
Re: (Score:3)
So sadly true. People don't even expect their leaders to be honest or have any integrity anymore. But really, are the people any different? I think that it's a representative government. The lack of integrity in the public is reflected in their leaders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already a solution. Put all major assets in a blind trust for duration of the term. Already being done in the case of the President.
Re: (Score:2)
The real tricky part is the revolving door between gov and private sector. That a congress member can make laws and then take a job in t
Re: (Score:3)
Making money is the problem in US politics, that and failure being rewarded and celebrated as long as sufficient corporate profits are generated. Take the failure in the Ukraine, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, basically spent 5 billion dollars to give Russia back the Crimea for free. Nuland and Pyatt are still celebrated basically for being the greatest fuck ups in modern times, trotted off to Russia to try to humiliate the Russians but the Russian can barely contain the mocking and laughter. From the
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they automatically get a pension? They should pay for their own pension like every other person has so.
Re: (Score:2)
Take the asshat who bought up the cancer medication and raised it's price by 5000%. That's what you say should rule.?
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't you read the follow-up story? [slashdot.org]. The free market fixed that problem, and the medicine is selling for a buck now.
Not quite that simple: many folks won't have access to a compounding pharmacy, the drug isn't for sale yet that I can tell, and for many or most drugs a compounding pharmacy won't be able to help. I think the real answer is pretty similar to your answer about money: not all monopolies are evil and we shouldn't abandon all monopolies. When rent seekers like Actelion and Turing learn to game the system it's time to reform the rules on restricted distribution and returning generic drugs to exclusive status; it
Re:How old are you? (Score:4, Insightful)
And how old are YOU?
When money goes from being an important consideration to being the only consideration, society goes to hell. Perhaps with age you'll learn the subtlty of thought needed to understand that balance.
He won't pay me a living wage for mopping his floor once and I won't be his galley slave for whatever table scraps his dog doesn't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world do you think he should react any differently when you ask him to give you his money for free?
You are the only one talking about getting something for free. For everyone else it's quid pro quo.
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
"But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America."
Actually you are incorrect. Big business has always ruled america.
Those who own the country ought to govern it.--John Jay, 1745-1829
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:4, Insightful)
Big business didn't exist in America until after the Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
Big business didn't exist in America until after the Civil War.
Re: (Score:1)
"But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America."
Actually you are incorrect. Big business has always ruled america.
Those who own the country ought to govern it.--John Jay, 1745-1829
That is false. To start with that quote refers to land ownership, and it was a statement of personal philosophy, not an element of the Constitution which is a governing document. The thinking behind it was that land owners would have vested interests and would exercise due care in voting and governing.
If that quote "proves" that big business has always ruled America, then Benjamin Franklin's quote about beer proves that God exists. Would you care to share your favorite hymn with us?
Re: (Score:3)
So many things wrong with what little you've said:
A) While you, myself, and the esteemed Mr. Jay may each have a difference in opinion, the one thing we all have in common is that none of our opinions are law. Setting aside for the moment that his words don't mean what you think, his words hold no more bearing in matters of law than yours, mine, or anyone else's.
B) Two minutes of searching made it clear to me that you've taken Jay's words well outside the context in which they were offered. The full passage [wikiquote.org]
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:4, Insightful)
Greed is supposed to rule in Corporate America. But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America.
Of course Corporate America is supposed to rule America. What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
The only surprise is how "capitalism" has been marketed to Americans such that generations of them defend the rule of the rich as some utopia or ideal.
Re:Greed rules in Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Corporate America is supposed to rule America. What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
Funny, I thought capitalism was an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or corporations and in which decisions about pricing, production and distribution of the output of those capital goods is determined by the owners in a free market. Note that this does not preclude myriad forms of government regulation.
The only surprise is how "capitalism" has been marketed to Americans such that generations of them defend the rule of the rich as some utopia or ideal.
Well it's hardly surprising that private interests have rebranded regulation in the public interest by the boogey-man term "socialism", but I expect we are seeing early signs that this is starting to backfire. Americans in my generation associate "socialism" with the Soviet Union -- as a kind of "Communism lite". Millennials are increasingly apt to associate the word with the kind of "Nordic model" social democracy practiced in hellholes like Denmark and Sweden [note irony].
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism or communism also provide no room for upward movability.
What? There's more social mobility in the UK -- with its national health service, heavy-handed nanny state and ingrained class system -- then there is in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Smith envisioned SMALL business at most and explicitly warned against the granting of charters except when absolutely necessary and then under strong regulation.
When he wrote of competition in the market, he didn't mean a choice between the big three, he meant a choice between thousands, most of which are not much larger than individuals.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting how a direct reply to a post with false claims is "off topic" but not the parent post which is modded up. Most bad moderation from bad moderators.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
No, that is what "plutocracy" means.
Re: (Score:2)
> Greed is supposed to rule in Corporate America.
False.
Greed is good for short-term gain, not long-term growth. It is very shortsighted thinking that is self-defeating over the long term when your customer base can no longer afford your products, or you've alienated them to the point where they choose your competitors' offerings out of spite.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case things have proably got about as ass-backward as they can possibly get.
I always think about Capitalism like that old proverb about fire: 'it makes a good servant but a bad master', and the latter seems to be where the US (and UK) are forever heading.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How else were they supposed to re-create the Star Trek bridge
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-army-star-trek-command-center-2013-9
Re: (Score:3)
Only goes to show. Of course, we have no proof that thin thread would of actually worked, but instead of caring about America's safety, the NSA only cared about getting more money.
Exactly. What boosts the perceived need for agencies like the NSA and their funding better and faster: (a) reasoning and prudence, (b) people getting killed and things blown up ? Preventing attacks would hurt their bottom line and struggle for power over the masses. (God damn, that was cynical - even for me.)
Re: (Score:2)
Would've. It's a contraction of "would have".
When did this new form of illiteracy take hold? And how did it ever get past Eighth Grade?
Re: (Score:2)
With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.
Re: (Score:2)
With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.
What a bunch of loosers.
Re: (Score:2)
Would've. It's a contraction of "would have".
When did this new form of illiteracy take hold? And how did it ever get past Eighth Grade?
For all intensive porpoises, I hain't got a clue!
Re: (Score:2)
I would have loved to hear the conversation (Score:4, Interesting)
Where the powers that be were convinced that warrantless wiretapping of everyone was an improvement over concentrating on terror targets.
I imagine it got really cold in that room with all the hand waving going on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the government is more worried about the 300 plus million citizens of the country versus a few hundred idiot terrorists. One day down the road, probably a decade or less away there will come a time when the US government will be bankrupt. This is not a European society but a very large country with a very diverse population and a history of handling problems with violence. The more extreme the problem the more extreme the violence. Imagine a day when the government can no longer write the
Re: I would have loved to hear the conversation (Score:2)
"the first duty of the State is the continuity of the State."
These are the people running the campaign againt crypto (the reasons you cite are self-evident here). There's a bloody department with that task, yet ignorant apologists for power still live in denial. Oh, well - they won't be prepared for the troubles either; a sadly but soberingly self-limiting problem.
Re: (Score:1)
I would have loved to hear the conversation .... Where the powers that be were convinced that warrantless wiretapping of everyone was an improvement over concentrating on terror targets.
I think your statement nicely encapsulates a fair amount of the rampant confusion and nonsense ideas held about matters in this general area. "Warrantless" refers to the authorization method for conducting the surveillance, it has nothing to do with the targets of the surveillance ("terror targets"). There is nothing mutually exclusive about warrantless surveillance targeted at terrorists. You probably also fail to understand that "warrantless" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There are many searches t
Re: (Score:3)
We're not the ones selling the tiger-repelling rocks.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, as a practical matter, yes you are.
Re: I would have loved to hear the conversation (Score:2)
You'll have to explain what these are...
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is it went a little like this...
Spook #1: Well, to spy on terrorists it will take a lot of time effort and money. Congress will have to increase our budget.
Head Spook: I see. Well, that's going to make my job difficult.
Spook #2: Or how about we just spy on everyone so we can blackmail the President, Senate Intelligence Committee, whistle-blowers, the media and anyone who tries to get in our way?
Head Spook: Spook #2, congratulations! You're the new Spook #1.
Re: (Score:1)
My guess is it went a little like this...
Spook #2: Or how about we just spy on everyone so we can blackmail the President, Senate Intelligence Committee, whistle-blowers, the media and anyone who tries to get in our way?
Proof, or it didn't happen.
more expensive, privacy-invasive (Score:1)
20/20 hindsight is very common (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very easy after a disaster to claim that an unfunded or ignored project would have prevented the disaster. Since the whistleblowers in the article are talking about the 9/11 terrorist attack, it seems a bit late. to be blowing whistles on it now.
It does seem clear that the NSA suffered, and is suffering, from Jerry Pournell's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy"
>> First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
>> Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself
The amount of money, time, and manpower burned on oversampling incredible amounts of personal traffic would seem much better focused on parts of the world, and populations, where the monitoring is likely to bear more fruit. But that doesn't expand the NSA itself and its overall capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't bit late to blow the whistle now. You see, an election for president is close at hand and the narrative that a Clinton could have saved the world or something but another president fucked it up is important when the Clinton running is largely riding the coat tails of her husband's presidency and her own experience is being touted as a failure that brought us Libya, Russia invading Europe, ISIS or whatever they are calling it now, and many other failed policies while her most touted achievement se
Gotta call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
"Bin Laden determined to attack in the US" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.
The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's just more security theater. Even using actual armor plate, a determined (read: prepared) terrorist will still get through it. The only possible mitigation is the pilot getting the plane on the ground, and disabled, but they can get in.
No. The problem with 9/11 was simply our collective inability to fathom such actions. NO ONE believed they'd take over a plane and fly it into a building. NO. ONE. So there was no imperative to shoot them down (which easily could have.) And no moral struggle for a pilot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll cut the wait short - there is nothing in that report to suggest that course of action was the right thing to do to frustrate al Qaeda's designs. You aren't offering insight, you're parroting back what was done after the fact and the actual method of attack became known. Although the Bush administration may have suffered a "failure of imagination" in countering Bin Laden you've gone the opposite direction - an overactive imagination confusing hindsight for insight.
Yep, agree completely. We knew who was coming,
False
.. how they were coming
False
, and from where they were coming
False
We didn't lack the know how - we lacked the leadership and will to stop them.
And false.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to actual data. [gwu.edu]
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or ot
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of problems there. First, hijackings weren't the only thing under discussion, far from it. The scenarios laid out for hijackings (freeing prisoners) would have worked against your plan since failure to accommodate them could be more likely to cause needless death. (Fly where we tell you or the bomb goes off. Free the prisoners or the bomb goes off.) Up until the actual 9/11 attacks it had generally been better to cooperate with the hijackers until rescue could be arranged.
In the text you quote
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. The dogma of that era was to simply let them take over the plane. They're just going to fly it to Cuba or something, or land someplace and hold everyone hostage until their uncle is let out of prison (etc.) We had ZERO experience with suicidal jihadists flying planes into the things.
Re: (Score:2)
Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.
Your "given" is a lie. The Presidential Daily Brief containing the " Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US [gwu.edu]" assessment doesn't make any mention of flying planes into buildings.
What is the basis for your suggestion that the CIA couldn't get a meeting with President Bush? Another lie?
The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.
The problem with much 9/11 commentary is that it is uninformed, distorted, manipulative, dishonest, and partisan. It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the
Re: (Score:2)
It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the basis of "family friends" as you have, as is any suggestion that the attack was allowed for political advantage. You've suggested both
Because they are both true.
In case anybody was unaware, cold_fjord is a notorious NSA apologist.
No backlash without content (Score:5, Insightful)
If NSA hadn't been caught searching and storing content there wouldn't now be such effort into encrypting everything.
And after conversations are encrypted effort will be made to render traffic analysis useless as well.
Sure, they totally could've prevented 9/11 (Score:1)
If my grandmother had wheels, she would've been a bike. Are we really supposed to attribute the failures of the three letter agencies to "unfortunate mistakes" and otherwise believe in their efficacy? Well, I consider myself a millionaire: Unfortunately I chose the wrong numbers on the lottery ticket, but other than that, I'm rich!
How long would it take NSA to decrypt one message? (Score:2)
Let's say the NSA somehow knows there is a message between two people they want to decrypt. With the computing power they have how long would it take? What I'm getting at is if the NSA had to concentrate only on targets would they be able to break the encryption?
Re: (Score:2)
This really depends on the type of encryption used, and if the key can be discovered. When you discuss cryptanalysis from a math position, you have ideas like "this is a known plaintext attack- we know the first X bytes of the message, can we recover the rest of the message, or the key?" and so on down the list. If something is encrypted with a symmetric key- for instance, AES 128, or Serpent, or Twofish- then the odds of recovering the data given just the key, or a plaintext sample, seem hopeless.
But if
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yer right. It is easy to figure out which messages to decrypt, all you have to do is ask the sender and receiver if it is important and dangerous to U.S. security.
Re: (Score:2)
Just check the status of the evil bit:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc35... [faqs.org]
I doubt there was intention to catch perpetrators (Score:5, Interesting)
Legends and myths grow around the historic events.
It is true that a couple of years before 9/11 events CNN/ABC sent a crew to meet Bin Laden's to get the interviews multiple times. Even two months before the events bin Laden was giving interviews to the local journalists.
If journalists could meet, why the fuck do we need electronic surveillance at all and later we hear complains saying that we needed more surveillance, since if we had more surveillance events would have been prevented. If journalists can get interviews freely, then I would be really stupid to believe that US, which has very powerful and most expensive intelligence agencies in the world, really wanted to catch him, because they did not.
In B4 (Score:1)
Thanks a lot, Obama.
JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick (Score:1, Offtopic)
A friend pointed me at this today: basically how a small number control governments [youtube.com] to make more money. I have only seen a bit and would welcome an objective review by real historians.
Hear we go again: EVERY spook has an AGENDA (Score:2, Interesting)
That's why I got out of the business. You folks need to realize TT was a program of many. You know in the black projects world, there are multiple stovepipes, more are doing the same thing, due to creating of competing teams. Where's the academic paper that shows how better this system was... against others? All we know is the politics since TBlazer was the big, most bloated, known contract of the time.
Though TT has some merit in its creation and performance, there's a dozen others you don't know about that
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, then it turns out to be some patsy in a setup...
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody doubts that the CIA and other parts of the federal government have occasionally cultivated a public image of incompetence to mask their very competent evil. I totally disagree with your assertions about Snowden however. You call those revelations "zilch"? WTF more can there be? NSA nanobots infecting our bodies and reporting on our biometric data? He really did give us the smoking gun as well as the dead body of the U.S. Constitution. The ho-hum reaction is due to ignorance and indifference; I