I have heard the NSA mission in this regard characterized as both defensive, and offensive. Defensive in that they protect our infrastructure (a counter-intel

I have heard the NSA mission in this regard characterized as both defensive, and offensive. Defensive in that they protect our infrastructure (a counter-intel role), and offensive in that they attempt to exploit the infrastructure of our adversaries (and others) for sigint. They trick is finding the right balance, and I don't think there's much hope for agreement on that at the moment. I also find the debate a difficult one to engage in because there are large information asymmetries and much of what we're trying to discuss is obscured by secret courts, classified documents, etc. My impression is that even the people who are tasked with oversight don't get the full picture, so what do we hope to know about it. I've had experiences in industry that I can't talk about that maybe you (in the general sense) haven't had that also inform my views. Personally, my view is that we should be putting the focus on the defensive side. Protect infrastructure, IP, etc. I believe the reputation of technology in general is harmed by the offensive mission, and US companies disproportionately so. There is now even greater incentives for our adversaries (and friends) to foster development of technologies that compete directly with US products in their own jurisdictions (where they can get a look under the hood).