5 ms·

Perhaps the bigger issue we need to discuss is are entities like the NSA providing value, honestly how many intelligence agencies do we need?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- BryanB55 13y ago
  CIA was definitely never 'officially' for domestic intelligence.
- DuskStar 13y ago
  Neither the NSA or CIA have jurisdiction inside the US, that's what the FBI is for. I think outside the US, the CIA does human intelligence, while the NSA did signals interception and other electronic intelligence.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    That's about right, but the NSA also is tasked with protecting the U.S. against other nations intelligence apparatuses. For instance NSA is tasked with producing (and now reviewing for approval) cryptographic schemes to protect government and national secrets, and in general devising new ways to conduct electronic intelligence so that they can devise countermeasures for the U.S. to use. If you've ever heard of TEMPEST fonts, that's just one example.
- joe_fishfish 13y ago
  I think you have the CIA and NSA's jurisdictions mixed up there.
  - DamnYuppie 13y ago
    I agree that the above poster has them backwards. Yet I have never been clear on why we need a domestic spy agency given we have the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, DHS, and DOJ who are all actively engaged in monitoring internally. At what point to people start to realize that all of these groups will exist to serve themselves at our own expense?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      NSA is not a domestic spy agency. The only mix-up was that FBI does domestic surveillance, not the NSA, which the more detailed articles about PRISM did reference, if you knew what to pay attention to ;).
      - tome 13y ago
        I'm sure this is a common thought. But if there was just one agency someone would be complaining "Why do we have MegaAgency? It's too powerful. It should be broken into smaller agencies with less power to abuse.".
- will_brown 13y ago
  Lets not forget military intelligence; however, since for the first time the US is at war with non-state actors, both foreign and domestic, it should be assumed US military now has global jurisdiction over intelligence. Of course one would think their jurisdiction should be limited to targeting 1 of the 45-50 named enemy combatant terrorist organizations, but I will go out on a limb and say they are not. In fact I would probably fall out of my chair in shock if a single politician, fbi/cia/nsa/doj agent, or military official could name the terrorist organizations we are at war with.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    This is not the first time America has been at war with non-state actors.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      Mind expanding on other US wars against non-state actors? I assume you are not talking about "The War on Drugs" or referencing the Civil War. Traditionally the Freedom of Assembly is a Right guaranteed to US citizens by the Bill of Rights, on par with Freedom of Speech. I recognize in modern history (post WWII) people were tried for their association to Communism, but even then people were "tried" by courts of law not subject to extra judicial killings as enemy combatants.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Probably the most well-known example was the usage of the U.S. Army against the roving bandits led by Pancho Villa before WWI. This experience was actually formative in the experience of Gen. Pershing who later led U.S. troops in WWI, but that's a different story. Later in the century Congress has authorized the use of military force against Lebanese internal unrest that threatened to topple the government in 1958 (Operation Blue Bat). Later use of force would be authorized in Lebanon again, with UN backing. Though to maintain the peace and not aggressive warfare per se, it did result in U.S. fatalities and other casualties, and the U.S. did fire live rounds. "Shay's Rebellion" (the Whiskey Rebellion) would also technically count I suppose, as President Washington did raise an army and march it to Pennsylvania, though the rebels dispersed without much bloodshed. Also easily overlooked, but the U.S. often fought against pirates on the high seas, who are non-state actors by definition. Sometimes Congress made specific authorizations for them, sometimes not, but the U.S. did fight. An interesting example is the "Utah War" where the Federal government and Mormon settlers feuded over land (of all things). Though no actual battles took place bases were attacked on both sides before the government won. The conflict itself extended over a year though, so it was not just some flash-in-the-pan.
- arkem 13y ago
  Sneakers the movie has my favorite NSA/FBI/CIA jurisdictions quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6y4vjADwY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6y4vjADwY (0:46)
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    I had a feeling that would show up in this discussion! What a classic scene. "No, that's the CIA." Talking about movies, I think I'm going to propose a "movie night" sometime soon at Splatspace (the hackerspace in Durham, NC) to watch Sneakers and Nineteen Eighty Four.
- lambda 13y ago
  The NSA and CIA are both supposed to be for foreign intelligence only. Only the FBI is supposed to directly conduct domestic operations, though frequently they do it with the assistance of the NSA. And the NSA has interpreted "foreign" as anything involving at least one foreign party. The difference between the CIA and NSA is that the CIA primarily does HUMINT (human intelligence), while the NSA does SIGINT (signal intelligence). HUMINT includes spies directly living in the target countries, mingling with the people they are spying on. SIGINT involves intercepting communications and decrypting them. There is some crossover; in particular, HUMINT can frequently be used to place bugs, keyloggers, rootkits, and the like which can be used for SIGINT, and SIGINT can fill in information that HUMINT is not privy to.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

BryanB55 13y ago
CIA was definitely never 'officially' for domestic intelligence.
DuskStar 13y ago
Neither the NSA or CIA have jurisdiction inside the US, that's what the FBI is for. I think outside the US, the CIA does human intelligence, while the NSA did signals interception and other electronic intelligence.
- mpyne 13y ago
  That's about right, but the NSA also is tasked with protecting the U.S. against other nations intelligence apparatuses. For instance NSA is tasked with producing (and now reviewing for approval) cryptographic schemes to protect government and national secrets, and in general devising new ways to conduct electronic intelligence so that they can devise countermeasures for the U.S. to use. If you've ever heard of TEMPEST fonts, that's just one example.
joe_fishfish 13y ago
I think you have the CIA and NSA's jurisdictions mixed up there.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  I agree that the above poster has them backwards. Yet I have never been clear on why we need a domestic spy agency given we have the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, DHS, and DOJ who are all actively engaged in monitoring internally. At what point to people start to realize that all of these groups will exist to serve themselves at our own expense?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    NSA is not a domestic spy agency. The only mix-up was that FBI does domestic surveillance, not the NSA, which the more detailed articles about PRISM did reference, if you knew what to pay attention to ;).
    - tome 13y ago
      I'm sure this is a common thought. But if there was just one agency someone would be complaining "Why do we have MegaAgency? It's too powerful. It should be broken into smaller agencies with less power to abuse.".
will_brown 13y ago
Lets not forget military intelligence; however, since for the first time the US is at war with non-state actors, both foreign and domestic, it should be assumed US military now has global jurisdiction over intelligence. Of course one would think their jurisdiction should be limited to targeting 1 of the 45-50 named enemy combatant terrorist organizations, but I will go out on a limb and say they are not. In fact I would probably fall out of my chair in shock if a single politician, fbi/cia/nsa/doj agent, or military official could name the terrorist organizations we are at war with.
- mpyne 13y ago
  This is not the first time America has been at war with non-state actors.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    Mind expanding on other US wars against non-state actors? I assume you are not talking about "The War on Drugs" or referencing the Civil War. Traditionally the Freedom of Assembly is a Right guaranteed to US citizens by the Bill of Rights, on par with Freedom of Speech. I recognize in modern history (post WWII) people were tried for their association to Communism, but even then people were "tried" by courts of law not subject to extra judicial killings as enemy combatants.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Probably the most well-known example was the usage of the U.S. Army against the roving bandits led by Pancho Villa before WWI. This experience was actually formative in the experience of Gen. Pershing who later led U.S. troops in WWI, but that's a different story. Later in the century Congress has authorized the use of military force against Lebanese internal unrest that threatened to topple the government in 1958 (Operation Blue Bat). Later use of force would be authorized in Lebanon again, with UN backing. Though to maintain the peace and not aggressive warfare per se, it did result in U.S. fatalities and other casualties, and the U.S. did fire live rounds. "Shay's Rebellion" (the Whiskey Rebellion) would also technically count I suppose, as President Washington did raise an army and march it to Pennsylvania, though the rebels dispersed without much bloodshed. Also easily overlooked, but the U.S. often fought against pirates on the high seas, who are non-state actors by definition. Sometimes Congress made specific authorizations for them, sometimes not, but the U.S. did fight. An interesting example is the "Utah War" where the Federal government and Mormon settlers feuded over land (of all things). Though no actual battles took place bases were attacked on both sides before the government won. The conflict itself extended over a year though, so it was not just some flash-in-the-pan.
arkem 13y ago
Sneakers the movie has my favorite NSA/FBI/CIA jurisdictions quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6y4vjADwY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6y4vjADwY (0:46)
- mindcrime 13y ago
  I had a feeling that would show up in this discussion! What a classic scene. "No, that's the CIA." Talking about movies, I think I'm going to propose a "movie night" sometime soon at Splatspace (the hackerspace in Durham, NC) to watch Sneakers and Nineteen Eighty Four.
lambda 13y ago
The NSA and CIA are both supposed to be for foreign intelligence only. Only the FBI is supposed to directly conduct domestic operations, though frequently they do it with the assistance of the NSA. And the NSA has interpreted "foreign" as anything involving at least one foreign party. The difference between the CIA and NSA is that the CIA primarily does HUMINT (human intelligence), while the NSA does SIGINT (signal intelligence). HUMINT includes spies directly living in the target countries, mingling with the people they are spying on. SIGINT involves intercepting communications and decrypting them. There is some crossover; in particular, HUMINT can frequently be used to place bugs, keyloggers, rootkits, and the like which can be used for SIGINT, and SIGINT can fill in information that HUMINT is not privy to.