6 ms·

Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

76 points by lettergram 6y ago

R0b0t1 6y ago
Site not loading. Any compelling reason to divest this responsibility from the FBI? I assume weakening legal protections?
- knodi123 6y ago
  Not defending or supporting, just quoting- > Nakasone told senators that the U.S. was unable to keep up with the threat in large part because laws prevent NSA and Cyber Command from adequately observing adversaries operating on U.S. networks. “They’re no longer just launching their attacks from different parts of the world. They understand that they come into the United States, use our infrastructure, and there’s a blind spot for us not being able to see them.” It seems like the gist is, FBI focuses on internal only threats, NSA focuses on threats from outsiders, but if you want to track threats on a global information network properly, you need someone whose purview covers both.
  - DJBunnies 6y ago
    It seems (to me) like an excuse to skip due process and otherwise circumvent law. > “What I am identifying right now is our adversaries understand that they can come into the United States and rapidly utilize an internet service provider, come up and do their activities, and take that down before a warrant can be issued, before we can have surveillance by a civilian authority here in the United States.”
nsa-aware 6y ago
Here’s a novel idea: how about the NSA used its powers to defend Americans instead of hoarding zero days and spying on them? Things like working with companies and institutions to ensure they have proper security and encryption.
- azinman2 6y ago
  That alone wouldn’t be enough; why does this have to be XOR?
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    It has to be exclusive because the two goals directly conflict with one another. Thus, one of the most common good-government proposals that gets floated in this area is to divide the NSA in two, one group devoted solely to offense, and one devoted solely to defense. At that point, at least you can know whether one group did something wrong. The job of the offense group is to find vulnerabilities, hoard them, and use them to attack people. But the job of the defense group is to find vulnerabilities, publicize them, and make sure they get fixed. Currently we have the offense group, but they like to pretend to be the defense group for PR reasons. This is not a great situation.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Why is cyber warfare any different from other military efforts? I've never heard of this split of defense and offense in other military realms.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Everyone uses the same communications technology. Your email and Turkish email are the same, an attack on one is an attack on the other, and a defense of one is a defense of the other. This isn't World War II where German communications are encrypted on Engima machines while American communications are encrypted by translation into Navajo. Your tanks are quite different from Turkish tanks: Turkish tanks are located in Turkey. You can bomb Turkey as much as you want without compromising a single American tank.
        colordrops 6y ago
        The NSA can attack foreign assets without compromising a single american asset. Mind you, I'm playing devil's advocate here to understand the reasoning. The NSA is abhorrent to me.
BarbaryCoast 6y ago
The FBI has the responsibility to handle counter-intelligence domestically. At a minimum, the FBI should be the lead agency, and make the decisions, when trying to track espionage operations inside the country. The "Five Guys" committee that President Obama authorized, reported back with findings and recommendations. One of them, which that committee felt was the most important one, was to split NSA and US Cyber Command apart. They felt it was dangerous to have one person in charge of both communications security, and in command of their own Army, Navy, and Air Force. Giving them more authority, especially authority that is already vested in a different agency, is a Yuge mistake.
- jonnybgood 6y ago
  That’s not how combatant commands work. Commanders don’t get their own piece of the Army to do whatever they want with. Also, a potential split has nothing to do with power being centered on one person. The NSA is a US Code Title 50 organization. USCYBERCOM is a Title 10 organization. This means NSA is confined to intelligence and only USCYBERCOM is authorized for performing offensive capabilities. Having them together can create potential legal complications.
tehjoker 6y ago
This is flatly illegal and in violation of their charter. The US state is becoming more desperate as they violate their own rules to hunt our own citizens using military intelligence.
- b0tzzzzzzman 6y ago
  Power leads to the creation of more power. History is the guide to verify this. However, things changed with the internet/tech... They have changed in ways we have a difficulty grasping as society. It might be the sides with power using their tools, to make a path to remain/grow power.
- adventured 6y ago
  The domestic war on terrorism is their next big front after the war on drugs. Now that that fake war is coming to an end they need a new invented war to leverage as an excuse to expand their power. And if there aren't enough domestic terrorists, they'll take care of that, just as they did with the war on drugs (not enough criminals? make some). They'll turn the US military industrial complex inward as they do it, mauling human rights further. Which is exactly what is being done in DC with the national guard and the entirely fraudulent reasoning for it. It's why Pelosi & Co. have repeatedly said that a 9/11 like response is needed to the riots at the Capitol, they're telling you exactly what they intend, it's comically out in the open. Their intention is to militarize permanently, their ideal is that the national guard never leaves and or is replaced by a new standing quasi-military force (if the US military can't operate freely domestically, they'll create something new that can that is a de facto military). It's just another notch in the authoritarian creep that has ramped up since 9/11. If you made a wishlist that they're going to pursue, mangling encryption is right at or near the top.
  - 1000mA 6y ago
    Police and those that support them (their families) are the real domestic terrorists
nullc 6y ago
I put away my robe and wizard hat.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
So the argument is that attacks can happen too fast to go through the tedious process of FISA courts, but one of their examples is the Solarwinds hack that was ongoing for over a year. And I don't understand how greater access would have helped with the Exchange exploits, except if the NSA was aware of what zero-days were being used they could contribute their knowledge gained from their exploitation of them.
ebcode 6y ago
"The problem here isn’t our privacy laws, but that the government is failing cybersecurity 101." -- Ron Wyden
- splithalf 6y ago
  Or Microsoft is failing. Why would any semi informed person expect our government to be competent at cyber security? Why is more government the answer to every question? Isn’t that how we find ourselves here in the first place?
austincheney 6y ago
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510020p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executive agency of operational security over inter-agency communications * liaison with foreign governments to conduct sharing of classified materials for signals intelligence There isn’t anything in the charter that specifically separates the NSA responsibilities or areas of operation from such of the FBI. The largest difference is that FBI is a law enforcement agency, as derived from the Department of Justice while the NSA is not. That means the NSA does not have fourth amendment interests which limits information sharing to the FBI. The Wikipedia page on the NSA documents a few scandals in this regard.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  This is because the things people are worried about is found in Executive Order 12333. From section 2.3 of the EO, “ Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order ... Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI” The tl;dr is that agencies in the intelligence communities must take full consideration of Americans’ rights when collecting information, and historically have not found suitable procedures to operate internally that satisfy the lawyers. That is how we ended up with FISA because we determined that the only way to protect Americans from the IC trampling on their rights (but still enable internal collection when necessary) was to have a judge examine every request to collect intelligence on US soil. The counter argument to this article is that the NSA doesn’t need specific permission from Congress to collect within the borders of the US- they just have to come up with a way to do it that their general counsel and the Attorney General agree protects the rights of Americans. I know FISA has shortfalls, but we shouldn’t get rid of it and enable mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA just because election security is a hot topic. The erosion of rights is nearly irreversible. There are other options that don’t worry me, such as asking the NSA to assist in securing our election process and critical infrastructure, to decrease the size of the blind spot they have and enable the FBI to do the internal monitoring as intended. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.1 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...
alexfromapex 6y ago
How will they prevent this from being abused?
- Black101 6y ago
  They will make sure that it doesn't target top politicians and CEOs... that's how.
ajkdhcb2 6y ago
There are still people that don't realise the absolute corruption of the NSA?
fitblipper 6y ago
When 1 thing happens that can be used to justify encroachment on our privacy congress gets their war cries ready and demands immediate change. When thousands and thousands of things happen which justify increased police oversight you hear "it's a complicated issue, we should debate it for a few more decades".

76 points by lettergram 6y ago

Site not loading. Any compelling reason to divest this responsibility from the FBI? I assume weakening legal protections?

knodi123 6y ago
Not defending or supporting, just quoting- > Nakasone told senators that the U.S. was unable to keep up with the threat in large part because laws prevent NSA and Cyber Command from adequately observing adversaries operating on U.S. networks. “They’re no longer just launching their attacks from different parts of the world. They understand that they come into the United States, use our infrastructure, and there’s a blind spot for us not being able to see them.” It seems like the gist is, FBI focuses on internal only threats, NSA focuses on threats from outsiders, but if you want to track threats on a global information network properly, you need someone whose purview covers both.
- DJBunnies 6y ago
  It seems (to me) like an excuse to skip due process and otherwise circumvent law. > “What I am identifying right now is our adversaries understand that they can come into the United States and rapidly utilize an internet service provider, come up and do their activities, and take that down before a warrant can be issued, before we can have surveillance by a civilian authority here in the United States.”

nsa-aware 6y ago

Here’s a novel idea: how about the NSA used its powers to defend Americans instead of hoarding zero days and spying on them? Things like working with companies and institutions to ensure they have proper security and encryption.

azinman2 6y ago
That alone wouldn’t be enough; why does this have to be XOR?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  It has to be exclusive because the two goals directly conflict with one another. Thus, one of the most common good-government proposals that gets floated in this area is to divide the NSA in two, one group devoted solely to offense, and one devoted solely to defense. At that point, at least you can know whether one group did something wrong. The job of the offense group is to find vulnerabilities, hoard them, and use them to attack people. But the job of the defense group is to find vulnerabilities, publicize them, and make sure they get fixed. Currently we have the offense group, but they like to pretend to be the defense group for PR reasons. This is not a great situation.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Why is cyber warfare any different from other military efforts? I've never heard of this split of defense and offense in other military realms.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Everyone uses the same communications technology. Your email and Turkish email are the same, an attack on one is an attack on the other, and a defense of one is a defense of the other. This isn't World War II where German communications are encrypted on Engima machines while American communications are encrypted by translation into Navajo. Your tanks are quite different from Turkish tanks: Turkish tanks are located in Turkey. You can bomb Turkey as much as you want without compromising a single American tank.
      - colordrops 6y ago
        The NSA can attack foreign assets without compromising a single american asset. Mind you, I'm playing devil's advocate here to understand the reasoning. The NSA is abhorrent to me.

BarbaryCoast 6y ago

The FBI has the responsibility to handle counter-intelligence domestically. At a minimum, the FBI should be the lead agency, and make the decisions, when trying to track espionage operations inside the country. The "Five Guys" committee that President Obama authorized, reported back with findings and recommendations. One of them, which that committee felt was the most important one, was to split NSA and US Cyber Command apart. They felt it was dangerous to have one person in charge of both communications security, and in command of their own Army, Navy, and Air Force. Giving them more authority, especially authority that is already vested in a different agency, is a Yuge mistake.

jonnybgood 6y ago
That’s not how combatant commands work. Commanders don’t get their own piece of the Army to do whatever they want with. Also, a potential split has nothing to do with power being centered on one person. The NSA is a US Code Title 50 organization. USCYBERCOM is a Title 10 organization. This means NSA is confined to intelligence and only USCYBERCOM is authorized for performing offensive capabilities. Having them together can create potential legal complications.

tehjoker 6y ago

This is flatly illegal and in violation of their charter. The US state is becoming more desperate as they violate their own rules to hunt our own citizens using military intelligence.

b0tzzzzzzman 6y ago
Power leads to the creation of more power. History is the guide to verify this. However, things changed with the internet/tech... They have changed in ways we have a difficulty grasping as society. It might be the sides with power using their tools, to make a path to remain/grow power.
adventured 6y ago
The domestic war on terrorism is their next big front after the war on drugs. Now that that fake war is coming to an end they need a new invented war to leverage as an excuse to expand their power. And if there aren't enough domestic terrorists, they'll take care of that, just as they did with the war on drugs (not enough criminals? make some). They'll turn the US military industrial complex inward as they do it, mauling human rights further. Which is exactly what is being done in DC with the national guard and the entirely fraudulent reasoning for it. It's why Pelosi & Co. have repeatedly said that a 9/11 like response is needed to the riots at the Capitol, they're telling you exactly what they intend, it's comically out in the open. Their intention is to militarize permanently, their ideal is that the national guard never leaves and or is replaced by a new standing quasi-military force (if the US military can't operate freely domestically, they'll create something new that can that is a de facto military). It's just another notch in the authoritarian creep that has ramped up since 9/11. If you made a wishlist that they're going to pursue, mangling encryption is right at or near the top.
- 1000mA 6y ago
  Police and those that support them (their families) are the real domestic terrorists

nullc 6y ago

I put away my robe and wizard hat.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

So the argument is that attacks can happen too fast to go through the tedious process of FISA courts, but one of their examples is the Solarwinds hack that was ongoing for over a year. And I don't understand how greater access would have helped with the Exchange exploits, except if the NSA was aware of what zero-days were being used they could contribute their knowledge gained from their exploitation of them.

ebcode 6y ago

"The problem here isn’t our privacy laws, but that the government is failing cybersecurity 101." -- Ron Wyden

splithalf 6y ago
Or Microsoft is failing. Why would any semi informed person expect our government to be competent at cyber security? Why is more government the answer to every question? Isn’t that how we find ourselves here in the first place?

austincheney 6y ago

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510020p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executive agency of operational security over inter-agency communications * liaison with foreign governments to conduct sharing of classified materials for signals intelligence There isn’t anything in the charter that specifically separates the NSA responsibilities or areas of operation from such of the FBI. The largest difference is that FBI is a law enforcement agency, as derived from the Department of Justice while the NSA is not. That means the NSA does not have fourth amendment interests which limits information sharing to the FBI. The Wikipedia page on the NSA documents a few scandals in this regard.

parsimo2010 6y ago
This is because the things people are worried about is found in Executive Order 12333. From section 2.3 of the EO, “ Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order ... Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI” The tl;dr is that agencies in the intelligence communities must take full consideration of Americans’ rights when collecting information, and historically have not found suitable procedures to operate internally that satisfy the lawyers. That is how we ended up with FISA because we determined that the only way to protect Americans from the IC trampling on their rights (but still enable internal collection when necessary) was to have a judge examine every request to collect intelligence on US soil. The counter argument to this article is that the NSA doesn’t need specific permission from Congress to collect within the borders of the US- they just have to come up with a way to do it that their general counsel and the Attorney General agree protects the rights of Americans. I know FISA has shortfalls, but we shouldn’t get rid of it and enable mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA just because election security is a hot topic. The erosion of rights is nearly irreversible. There are other options that don’t worry me, such as asking the NSA to assist in securing our election process and critical infrastructure, to decrease the size of the blind spot they have and enable the FBI to do the internal monitoring as intended. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.1 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

alexfromapex 6y ago

How will they prevent this from being abused?

Black101 6y ago
They will make sure that it doesn't target top politicians and CEOs... that's how.

ajkdhcb2 6y ago

There are still people that don't realise the absolute corruption of the NSA?

fitblipper 6y ago

When 1 thing happens that can be used to justify encroachment on our privacy congress gets their war cries ready and demands immediate change. When thousands and thousands of things happen which justify increased police oversight you hear "it's a complicated issue, we should debate it for a few more decades".