Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Security United States Politics

US Response 'Hasn't Changed The Calculus' Of Russian Interference, NSA Chief Says (npr.org) 126

Posted by msmash from the state-of-things dept.
An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The admiral in charge of both the nation's top electronic spying agency and the Pentagon's cybersecurity operations would seem a logical point man for countering Russia's digital intrusions in U.S. election campaigns. But National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command chief Adm. Michael Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday there is only so much he can do. That is because, according to Rogers, President Trump has not ordered him to go after the Russian attacks at their origin. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee's ranking Democrat, asked Rogers, "Have you been directed to do so, given this strategic threat that faces the United States and the significant consequences you recognize already?" "No, I have not," Rogers replied. But the spy chief pushed back on suggestions that he should seek a presidential signoff. "I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do," Rogers said when Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal pressed him on whether Trump should approve that authority.

"I'm an operational commander, not a policymaker," he added. "That's the challenge for me as a military commander." Rogers agreed with Blumenthal's estimation that Russian cyber operatives continue to attack the U.S. with impunity and that Washington's response has fallen short. "It hasn't changed the calculus, is my sense," the spy chief told Blumenthal. "It certainly hasn't generated the change in behavior that I think we all know we need."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Response 'Hasn't Changed The Calculus' Of Russian Interference, NSA Chief Says More

US Response 'Hasn't Changed The Calculus' Of Russian Interference, NSA Chief Says

Comments Filter:

  • But You're an SME! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @01:16PM (#56201469)

    > I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do,

    Yeah, when I feel that my product could use an improvement, I never bring it up to the product manager.

    • > I am not going to tell the president what he should or should not do,

      Yeah, when I feel that my product could use an improvement, I never bring it up to the product manager.

      They basically asked if he wanted a bigger budget and he said yes his department wants a bigger budget to do more. Who says no to that? Now he's not responsible for anymore Russian hacking because he didn't get what he wants.

      • Re:But You're an SME! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @07:36PM (#56202004)

        They basically asked if he wanted a bigger budget and he said yes his department wants a bigger budget to do more. Who says no to that?

        Well, the DoD. They asked that their budget not be increased so much, so they could buy fewer planes and tanks that they don't need. They also asked that the state dept. get some of that money to ensure they continue to not need them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Toad-san ( 64810 )

      One of the responsibilities of a subordinate (whether it be a lower commander or a staff officer) is to make recommendations and suggestions to your commander. It's what you're paid to do!

      Any subordinate who will NOT do that is a coward, a toadie.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by green1 ( 322787 )

        In most companies you are NOT paid to make recommendations and suggestions. You ARE paid to tell your boss what he wants to hear. Sometimes the 2 are the same things (and in any organization with competent management they are). However when your boss is... less competent... it's stupid to give them recommendations that you know they don't want to hear. And it's pretty obvious that Trump does NOT want to hear that recommendation.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Depends on the management culture of your company, doesn't it?

      It's not a universal thing that speaking your mind to a senior management is considered a good thing. There are cultures -- both national and corporate -- where bringing up ideas to senior people is seen as undermining the authority of management. I've worked in corporate cultures where expressing ideas is quite dangerous, and if such an expression drew management ire everyone was supposed to jump on the bandwagon ridiculing the unfortunate sub

  • Going after Russia, (Score:1, Insightful)

    by pecosdave ( 536896 )

    but not Mexico would be hypocritical. Mexican citizens cast a significant number of votes in the election - illegally - which to me is a bigger deal than doing some advertising.

  • We'd have to respond (Score:4, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @01:24PM (#56201529)
    to change the calculus. So far the administration (who's in charge of the response) doesn't seem to have done anything. Wait, strike that, They actually haven't done anything. [theguardian.com] It's almost as if they somehow benefited from it...

    • to change the calculus. So far the administration (who's in charge of the response) doesn't seem to have done anything. Wait, strike that, They actually haven't done anything. [theguardian.com] It's almost as if they somehow benefited from it...

      Did the last one do anything about it? You know, when it was actually supposedly happening?

      I mean do anything besides be the only ones to collude, that is.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by danbert8 ( 1024253 )

        Come on, you mean the president that laughed at his opponent when the idea of Russia being a geopolitical threat came up? The president that was captured on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” after the election?

        The Democrats are accusing Republicans of siding with Russia... That's a knee slapper right there.

        Please note, I'm not a Trump supporter or even a Republican supporter. This shit you just can't make up.

    • Except Trump's actions have been harder on Russia than Obama's [washingtonexaminer.com].

      Obama was all talk, but not much action, compared to Trump.

      Next you'll be claiming Obama defeated ISIS and the Trump Administration never did anything against them.

  • Going after attacks at origin is risky... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @01:32PM (#56201593)

    But Rogers also made clear that he had not been granted what he called "the day-to-day authority" to disrupt Russian hacking operations at their point of origin.

    To be fair, the range of actions to go after attacks "at their origin" in Russia would probably be a high risk no matter who was president, especially if it turns out the source is a Russian government agency. Admiral Rogers put it best near the end of the article:

    Even if he were granted authority to act, Rogers questioned during the Senate hearing whether his agencies' capabilities would be the best or only response to those attacks.

    "Be mindful of falling in the trap that just because someone comes at us in cyber that we have to default to immediately going back and doing the exact same thing," he warned. "I've always believed we need to step back and think a little bit more broadly about it and just don't default — it's because of that, you know, that I have not done that to date."

    • Re:Going after attacks at origin is risky... (Score:5, Informative)

      by deathguppie ( 768263 ) on Thursday March 01, 2018 @12:47AM (#56202325)
      This is an honest statement and an intelligent one. Look, direct retaliation in the form of "you are a poo head too" isn't always the best action to take. Russia is not the best place for this kind of retaliatory strike anyway, they are too much in control of who has access to government via gunning down opponents in the street. An appropriate response may involve many things, like sanctions and UN, and ally pressure to get them to back off. Direct retaliation would be stupid. You are trying to make it sound like he said that he did not agree with any retaliation, which is not true.
  • I don't see why these nations would need to spy on each onther unless there is an external force driving them against each other for the sole purpose of inciting conflict with the result of irreversible environmental, and societal destruction. Now, who would benefit from a war between Russia and USA?

  • Gotta get the clicks I suppose. The combined number of comments for all articles in the past 48 hours is less than the number of comments generated by a single tech article back when Slashdot was about tech.

    This place has become downright embarrassing.

    • Well, the timeouts and failure to load parts of the page haven't been helping, but I do agree with your point...

  • Did Russia interfere in the election? Almost assuredly yes, however if you look at Mueller's indictments of people and companies it becomes clear they were just a Russian troll farm geared at creating a marketable advertising pipeline to specific profitable groups of people. It was basically done not so much to sow discord, but that sowing discord is profitable and they monitized it. Despicable, probably illegal, but it's doubtful it influenced the election at all. No information about the alleged DNC h

  • Look, Russia operates on a zero sum shrinking slice of pie model.

    So does our current White House.

    The problem is that, for most of us, it's far easier to just bake more pies, and accept a certain loss ratio, than to use half our resources defending our pie supply.

    We know what we have to do: paper ballots, automatic voter registration, day of vote in person registration, and non-networked optical scan counting with an audit trail.

    Everything else is a design for failure.

  • The only claim of interferene which they have made has been that of disseminating ideas. This is not technical hacking. They charged 13 people in Russia with essentially spreading false propaganda. But that's just speech. If they have evidence of any technical tempering, they certainly can't attribute it to anyone. Or, at least, they haven't charged anyone or made any public claims of charging anyone. So what should be a response to dissemination of flase information? Clamping down of information dis

  • .."preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (presidential oath of office)

    So by NOT ordering the NSA to go after the Russians for their very well documented (13 indictments so far) interference, one wonders what, exactly he plans to do. The sanctions Congress approved (over his objections) have, so far, largely not been implemented and, barring some secret action it seems like he is going out of his way to spare Putin.

    What exactly does Putin have on him? Does that infamous "dossi

    • Or maybe in one year Trump has already taken more action against the Russians [washingtonexaminer.com] than occurred during the entire Obama Administration? Action, not talking tough.

      Did you miss the couple hundred Russian mercenaries U.S. forces destroyed in Syria recently?

      What's your evidence the Russians "hacked the election"? Even the NY Times doesn't believe that, and they'll believe just about anything related to Trump.

      • So I'm to believe a no-name (I've never heard of the "Washington Examiner", how many pulitzer prizes has it won) OPINION piece? Sounds like another bit of "Fake News" that those less well-educated fall for. That's the problem with many conservatives, they mistake opinion for fact and then they don't have the ability to judge what is important. You know there is a thing called quality in journalism, good journalism will often bring speak truth to power and bring down anyone of any political persuasion (li

        • Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say Russia "hacked the election"

          You know everyone can just look at your comment I was replying to and find the words:

          Or is he (and perhaps a lot of his supporters) so stupid to believe that the Russians didn't hack the election ...

          Bet you feel pretty dumb for not being able to read your own comment, huh?

          As for the Washington Examiner, why don't we Ask the NY Times if it's a real newspaper or not? [nytimes.com] That's from 8 years ago, so they've been around a while. Or is the NY Ti

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close