> The challenge the NSA has is it possesses 2 separate missions that are often in direct conflict: secure the communications of the United States, and to collec

> The challenge the NSA has is it possesses 2 separate missions that are often in direct conflict: secure the communications of the United States, and to collect, eavesdrop, and compromise the communications of other countries. I don't know... isn't that like saying a military general has 2 conflicting missions: offense and defense? We trust military leaders with both duties, even though they could theoretically sacrifice everything to achieve victory. > I believe both missions of the NSA are important. However I believe it should be split into two agencies each Enthusiastically pursuing a single mission to the best of their abilities. If you split the NSA in two, wouldn't you just have two agencies working against each other? And it would essentially give the offensive agency full permission to hoard security flaws to the detriment of the nation it serves. I think a better solution is to clearly establish the relative priorities of each mission. IMO, the NSA should always prioritize the security of the USA's (and it's allies') technological infrastructure over attacking its enemies'.