3 ms·

It's not a crazy thought to think people may actually sue the government. Under centuries old law, all someone would have to prove to make the government liabl

It's not a crazy thought to think people may actually sue the government. Under centuries old law, all someone would have to prove to make the government liable is that the government (1) was the cause (2) of damage (3) that was the result of their negligence. The negligent part will be tricky, as the NSA was probably using the best tech available to protect their secrets. Also, proving #1 may be tricky as most of the information you would need to prove it is highly classified.

jfoutz 9y ago
NSA is also responsible for the defense of government computer systems and communications. There may be a duty there, to ensure email from a the government is virus free. If someone can show their worm came from a .gov address, there might be something there. The NSA made the dangerous part of the weapon, and then they lost it. They knew they lost it, and didn't do enough to harden fed computers. The government isn't allowed to just randomly attack someone, but attacked my hypothetical person that can prove the attack vector anyway. Of course, i'm not a lawyer.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  > NSA is also responsible for the defense of government computer systems and communications. Incorrect, with the exception of DOD (and even there it's shared with DISA). > didn't do enough to harden fed computers. Interesting statement considering there have so far been 0 cases of fed computers being exploited. That figure is from US-CERT, the entity actually responsible for defending Federal systems.
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    1) looks like the mission has been adjusted, they simply take the lead in information assurance now. Although, a foreign power seizing control of government computers to make unauthorized transmissions sounds like something a jury would think the NSA should be responsible for. 2) Indeed, my entire argument depends critically on the existence of a .gov propagating the worm.

jfoutz 9y ago

NSA is also responsible for the defense of government computer systems and communications. There may be a duty there, to ensure email from a the government is virus free. If someone can show their worm came from a .gov address, there might be something there. The NSA made the dangerous part of the weapon, and then they lost it. They knew they lost it, and didn't do enough to harden fed computers. The government isn't allowed to just randomly attack someone, but attacked my hypothetical person that can prove the attack vector anyway. Of course, i'm not a lawyer.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
> NSA is also responsible for the defense of government computer systems and communications. Incorrect, with the exception of DOD (and even there it's shared with DISA). > didn't do enough to harden fed computers. Interesting statement considering there have so far been 0 cases of fed computers being exploited. That figure is from US-CERT, the entity actually responsible for defending Federal systems.
- jfoutz 9y ago
  1) looks like the mission has been adjusted, they simply take the lead in information assurance now. Although, a foreign power seizing control of government computers to make unauthorized transmissions sounds like something a jury would think the NSA should be responsible for. 2) Indeed, my entire argument depends critically on the existence of a .gov propagating the worm.