4 ms·

Isn't this essentially what the NSA is? We already have a very large cyber apparatus between many agencies + Booz allen and Friends. I have a feeling this woul

Isn't this essentially what the NSA is? We already have a very large cyber apparatus between many agencies + Booz allen and Friends. I have a feeling this would just be another agency with more spending.

euroderf 4y ago
Purraps the NSA has its work cut out surveilling people they "shouldn't". Keeping a low profile. But nonetheless diligently tracking those ubiquitous terrorists. Well, except for the ones with AK-47s from Walmart. I'd like to hear James Bamford's take on whether the task is in-scope for the NSA.
- weakfortress 4y ago
  [dead]
- halJordan 4y ago
  The inspector general's online complaint form is online and anonymous, feel free to submit what you got.
robcohen 4y ago
The NSA cannot conduct acts of war, because they are not military personnel. You need uniformed personnel for certain actions.
- thewildginger 4y ago
  It gets hazy. Here's a little article about the armed personnel side of the agency. https://www.nsa.gov/About/Central-Security-Service/ https://www.nsa.gov/About/Central-Security-Service/
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The NSA cannot conduct acts of war, because they are not military personnel. The first part does not follow from the second; also the NSA director is a uniformed military officer. Though the US military has a separate cyber warfare combatant command, too.
  - robcohen 4y ago
    He's a uniformed military officer BECAUSE he also leads US CYBERCOM.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  The NSA is a joint military-civilian agency by design. Its a pretty unique org structure, with military personnel reporting to civilians and civilians reporting to military at various levels.
halJordan 4y ago
This is not what the nsa is. The nsa doesn't defend networks other then it's own. It does set a lot of standards and provide expert opinion. This proposal would be to combine the six (?) uniformed cyber services into one. So it would be a reduction. The large distributed cyber apparatus is what this proposal is trying to solve. The more i write this the more i think you didn't read the article.
- thewildginger 4y ago
  Defense is the critical problem. There is very little in the way of serious cyber security defensive minded assessment before projects are on-boarded. Technical vulnerability assessment, reverse engineering, security-by-design, all of that doesn't really exist and isn't thought of as a NECESSITY. Contractors pitch toys to different commanders, they say hell yeah, then security is this after thought and not part of development from an engineering perspective, just like almost every business working in technology. All the money goes to attacking bad guys, not to protecting what's there. Most people think it's no big deal until you realize it means the enemy can destroy expensive tools and possibly injure personnel without any physical involvement. Legislation on security-centered development is a possible solution, but the political will from congressional sub-comittees just is not there. It could be if it was pitched as a way of enriching the states those reps are from with high paying white-collar jobs that would make states like Mississippi, Ohio and other struggling but MIC centered states at the center of a growing and important field, but alas, the contractors doing the hiring probably won't want to balance the budget on their current money printing machines for that. This is something worth talking to your member of Congress about. Budgets might be bigger, but it helps some destitute states, improves national defense (defense defense, not war in the name of defense), and makes politicians re-electable.

euroderf 4y ago

Purraps the NSA has its work cut out surveilling people they "shouldn't". Keeping a low profile. But nonetheless diligently tracking those ubiquitous terrorists. Well, except for the ones with AK-47s from Walmart. I'd like to hear James Bamford's take on whether the task is in-scope for the NSA.

weakfortress 4y ago
[dead]
halJordan 4y ago
The inspector general's online complaint form is online and anonymous, feel free to submit what you got.

robcohen 4y ago

The NSA cannot conduct acts of war, because they are not military personnel. You need uniformed personnel for certain actions.

thewildginger 4y ago
It gets hazy. Here's a little article about the armed personnel side of the agency. https://www.nsa.gov/About/Central-Security-Service/ https://www.nsa.gov/About/Central-Security-Service/
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The NSA cannot conduct acts of war, because they are not military personnel. The first part does not follow from the second; also the NSA director is a uniformed military officer. Though the US military has a separate cyber warfare combatant command, too.
- robcohen 4y ago
  He's a uniformed military officer BECAUSE he also leads US CYBERCOM.
JamesSwift 4y ago
The NSA is a joint military-civilian agency by design. Its a pretty unique org structure, with military personnel reporting to civilians and civilians reporting to military at various levels.

halJordan 4y ago

This is not what the nsa is. The nsa doesn't defend networks other then it's own. It does set a lot of standards and provide expert opinion. This proposal would be to combine the six (?) uniformed cyber services into one. So it would be a reduction. The large distributed cyber apparatus is what this proposal is trying to solve. The more i write this the more i think you didn't read the article.

thewildginger 4y ago
Defense is the critical problem. There is very little in the way of serious cyber security defensive minded assessment before projects are on-boarded. Technical vulnerability assessment, reverse engineering, security-by-design, all of that doesn't really exist and isn't thought of as a NECESSITY. Contractors pitch toys to different commanders, they say hell yeah, then security is this after thought and not part of development from an engineering perspective, just like almost every business working in technology. All the money goes to attacking bad guys, not to protecting what's there. Most people think it's no big deal until you realize it means the enemy can destroy expensive tools and possibly injure personnel without any physical involvement. Legislation on security-centered development is a possible solution, but the political will from congressional sub-comittees just is not there. It could be if it was pitched as a way of enriching the states those reps are from with high paying white-collar jobs that would make states like Mississippi, Ohio and other struggling but MIC centered states at the center of a growing and important field, but alas, the contractors doing the hiring probably won't want to balance the budget on their current money printing machines for that. This is something worth talking to your member of Congress about. Budgets might be bigger, but it helps some destitute states, improves national defense (defense defense, not war in the name of defense), and makes politicians re-electable.