10 ms·

Keith Alexander's Statement to the NSA Workforce

167 points by mikemoka 13y ago

mikemoka 13y ago
Maybe I missed it before but this looks like the first official NSA statement I heard of about the programs: "To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"
- rocky1138 13y ago
  That's exactly what I thought. Just last week they put out a warning to US service members stating that confirming the leaks is against the law. Now we have the guy at the top saying the stuff in the news is accurate.
  - 46Bit 13y ago
    > Just last week they put out a warning to US service members stating that confirming the leaks is against the law. Now we have the guy at the top saying the stuff in the news is accurate. The decision to declassify would come from the top.
    - rocky1138 13y ago
      So if it's declassified, can we see the whole slideshow now? :P
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Confirming the accuracy of classified information is what would be against the law. the Director of National Intelligence declassified parts of what were leaked but unless Sgt. Snuffy happened to be able to remember exactly which parts those were when discussing in public then he would have a difficult time being able to (legally) talk about which is which. The statement from the 'guy at the top', on the other hand, would have been routed through his boss and the NSA General Counsel to ensure that it's only referring to declassified programs.
- mcguire 13y ago
  "Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news." Sounds suspiciously like an official admission that the information available in public is both correct and reasonably complete, at least as far as those two programs go. Also, that there are other "capabilities".
ferdo 13y ago
> "We need you to focus on our primary mission of spying on our nation and our allies."
indlebe 13y ago
>we will remain committed to the defense of the Nation and all that it stands for - security and liberty. >security and liberty. Since when did the USA stand for security? Job security? Nope. Home security? Nope. It' supposed to be a free nation, not a secure nation.
- SeanDav 13y ago
  I believe that the USA always thought of itself as very secure. The richest, most powerful democracy ever. 911 was a very nasty wakeup call and to me the government reaction following that just shows how badly shaken the USA was to that. Who would have thought before 911 that the USA would use torture, or surveillance of US citizens, or assassinate USA citizens - all government approved? Unless the USA can step away from this precipice I don't think it would be a big stretch to say that the terrorists won and USA lost.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  The word order speaks volumes as well.
dkulchenko 13y ago
> "Through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law." I'm getting really tired of hearing this defense from U.S. officials. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's constitutional and/or morally right. I don't think anyone's still arguing the legality of these programs - we're saying that they shouldn't be there because they violate the spirit (and arguably, the letter) of the 4th Amendment.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  This is one place where I feel your constitution holds you USA types back. Those rights had to exist before the constitution for it to be written, and even the constitution itself doesn't try to be a closed set. But it has largely been judicially interpreted as one. And it is entirely possible the NSA would pass constitutional muster, with this Supreme Court. But it is possible for a thing to be legal - and constitutional - and in breach of rights which don't need to be named on any paper to still be rights. Like the right to privacy.
  - noblethrasher 13y ago
    Indeed these rights were acknowledged before the constitution and Madison, along with some of the other framers, worried that a Bill Of Rights might create the negative pregnant[1][2] that we see being born out today. The largely ignored 9th amendment was a compromise between not having a bill of rights or somehow exhaustively enumerating all of them. It's ignorance of history that holds us back. [1] http://www.library.okstate.edu/constitution/previous.html#adkison http://www.library.okstate.edu/constitution/previous.html#ad... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant
    - ISL 13y ago
      The ninth and tenth amendments have yet to see their full application. With 'strict constructionists' in the supreme court, it may occur sooner than later. The enumeration of rights was practical. Without a concise list of important ones to point at, I think we would have been worse off.
UVB-76 13y ago
The official response to these leaks has been almost as embarrassing as the leaks themselves, and this statement is a continuation of that trend.
- peteretep 13y ago
  Could you describe what you find to be specifically "embarrassing" about the response?
  - UVB-76 13y ago
    The context is embarrassing. A contractor who worked with the NSA became so disenchanted with the work they were conducting that he gave up everything he had to bring it to the attention of the public. Now a US Army General has been forced to justify the actions of the agency to the staff that remain, to suck up to them, and implore them not to revolt as Snowden did. The content is embarrassing. The constant references to 9/11 and to terrorism more generally. People have for years poked fun at this particular proclivity of officials, and the statement reads like a parody. The references to "foreign intelligence" are embarrassing. To those of us who are foreign to the United States, having widespread violations of our right to privacy justified by the fact we are "foreigners" is despicable. It might placate some US citizens, but this episode is a diplomatic catastrophe for the US, and rightly so. The very fact gross human rights violations are being justified in the name of "security" is embarrassing. The fact officials are not in damage control mode, acknowledging the gross misconduct they have presided over and seeking to rectify matters, but are instead seeking to continue business as usual. Everything about this statement is embarrassing.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      > and implore them not to revolt as Snowden did. I don't have any evidence to support this, but I bet most NSA employees would rather see Snowden brought up on charges vs. using him as a lightning rod for revolt. The majority agree with what they are doing on a day to day basis, not the opposite.
D9u 13y ago
The words of a liar... He lied about NSA capabilities, instead of simply saying "No comment." Now we're supposed to just overlook the past lies? They knew that what they've been doing is wrong and this is in no way believable when one considers the amount of lies coming out of the US government these days. Secret judges. Secret courts. Secret police. Extrajudicial assassinations. Torture. Sounds like a Nazi regime.
pfortuny 13y ago
I am always saying the same thing but... This is the same tone the CPSU/NKVD/KGB would use to defend their tactics, their manipulation, their ultimate power. The "heroes" are the ordinary citizens. It is their ordinary lives the NSA is commited to defend: especially their ORDINARINESS, more and above their lives. You do not want to live: you want to be free. This is what motivated the independence war, you know? People preferred dying to living under the Crown. Nowadays nobody in the whole world is free from the NSA. This has to end. As soon as possible. Sorry to say but Goebbels, Beria and so on come to mind. And of course, Mayakovski...
- vidarh 13y ago
  I once received a pamphlet from a "friendship committee" with North Korea. It contained a series of translated speeches by Kim Il Sung. Unsurprisingly Kim Il Sung in his speeches likewise insisted everything was for the best of the people, and their happiness and security. Likewise, you'll find Mao said a lot of stuff about freedom and democracy and defending the people. The only people who uncritically buy statements like these are people that want to buy them because they are already invested in believing... Such as having a job that depends on them being able to justify what they are doing to themselves.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  I'd add, Words like "Homeland" are also familiar. And not from the lexicon of traditional Democratic-Republicanism.
- embolism 13y ago
  This has to end. As soon as possible. And be replaced by what?
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Few things can replace suspicionless mass surveillance of everybody on the face of the planet, and personally I'd rather we live in a world where that doesn't get replaced with anything -- it's put to an end in the same spirit that slavery is. Yes I'm aware everybody doesn't use the internet, and yes I'm aware slavery is still quite prevalent, however my point stands -- slavery is an affront to self-determination and so is suspicionless surveillance.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  Well, the beauty of a democratic society is that if a majority agree with you, then you can change the system. Personally, I disagree with you, but it's a free country. Your comment about the military is so rude, though, that it was difficult to write a temperate response. You ought to feel ashamed of yourself.
  - csallen 13y ago
    There's certainly nothing rude about pointing out a relevant and possibly non-obvious truth: military life is so distinct from civilian life that it may result in drastically different perspectives about what it means to be free. If merely being exposed to a hypothesis you disagree with offends you, then I don't understand how you can ever hope to have a meaningful debate.
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      Moreover, this isn't a new idea, it led to the opposition many founding fathers had to "Standing Armies". Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive. But, the opposition to standing armies is long forgotten. We also forgot the reason why only congress was given the authority to declare war, which has become dead letter, and these ideas considered quaint and outdated. But 1776 wasn't that long ago in the history of human governments, and the history of human governments is the history of abusing power. "Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever." - Cicero
      - throwaway9848 13y ago
        "Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves" Except that in the US, military service is voluntary.
        13y ago
whiddershins 13y ago
Yeah, he is employing logical deception. He is equating "willful effort to circumvent or violate the law" with "willful failures in the protection of civil liberties" which aren't the same, before we even get to the point of discussion how people could be incidentally or inadvertently violating rights. It's almost like he WANTS us to read between the lines and realize the laws are too permissive.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Like "we burnt the Constitution, 100.000.000 copies of it, but nobody was injured. We also used flags to enhance the bonfire. And what a fire it was! We did no harm to anybody." EDIT: The parent has vanished... It was in the same vein as my comment: "no harm done, what a (dirty) joke."
m52go 13y ago
"...we will remain committed to the defense of the Nation and all that it stands for - security and liberty." That's the ENTIRE issue here: security is being placed before liberty. This document just confirms that.
pvnick 13y ago
This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction. While I thoroughly disagree with what Keith is saying (I'll get to that in a minute), his acknowledgement and down-to-earth tone show that Snowden's purpose of igniting a national debate on privacy is working. Now on to what he actually said. >we provided over 50 cases to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that show the specific contribution of these programs >The challenge of these leaks is exacerbated by ... little awareness of the outcomes that our authorities yield We see on full display the "ends justify the means" attitude that the NSA argues. It is not an invalid argument, but it is one that I'm sure the vast majority of the HN audience would disagree with. Hopefully this attitude is debated in the national spotlight alongside the validity of the programs themselves. >Through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law Again, there's that "willful" keyword we've heard so much. That's a loophole you could drive a train through! If Keith is so confident in his mens rea defense [1], I'm sure he welcomes the spotlight being shined on his organization's workings. >Leadership ... is now engaged in a public dialogue to make sure the American public gets the rest of the story Like I said, it is fantastic that this - the goal Snowden described - is being acknowledged. I look forward to Greenwald's continued leaks (such as the imminent release describing the NSA's collecting of the contents of 1 Billion cell phone calls every day [2]). > We need you to focus on our primary mission of defending our nation and our allies Keith seems to be worried that these leaks are taking a toll on his organization's morale. I sincerely hope that this does not impact national security - I doubt it will - but, reading between the lines, I think he's petrified that Snowden's heroic leadership in this area will inspire more leaks. One can only hope. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea [2] http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-day-2013-6 http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-d...
- abraininavat 13y ago
  I agree with most of what you said. I want to nitpick one thing though. I don't agree that "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. It's not an argument at all, it's a premise in the argument at hand. And, as you alluded to, the majority of us here seem to disagree with the premise, making the overall argument invalid. Probably not the case for the rest of the country th ough. I'd like to think that we represent the "thoughtful minority", but doesn't everyone.
scotty79 13y ago
Too many secrets. Why they don't operate in the open? This might be additional deterrent to terrorist plots if would be terrorists were aware of how much surveillance they are exposed to.
- primitur 13y ago
  The true fact of the matter is that any secret kept by the US military, which must not be revealed to the public in order to maintain public order, and which nevertheless does induce Terror in the receiver of the secret .. well folks: this is Terrorism being used on your Government by infiltrating agents whose true purpose is the destruction of the US, itself, and the establishment of a new world order. Of people, governments, corporations, armed with psychological processes designed with specific purposes, weaponized. The Terror Meme is A Weapon, Gone Loose. Anyone alive today, who is making a daily business of the commitment to ideas such as that populations must serve Terror, must be immediately taken off their positions of power. The only possible hope is that the American people realize just how much responsibility they have to take in order to de-Throne their new masters. If you are not willing to burn the curtain, not just look behind it, then you must take responsibility until you are willing, citizen. The right of the true enemy to keep secrets must be revoked. The absolutely certain result will be more peace, because Peace happens when people reveal secrets to each other with the intention of making Peace. To Make Peace, Communication: and destroy all barriers to doing so. The US has to have a serious look at its secrecy policies, and there must be a serious attempt, by the People, to demonstrate to the world that Peace itself, has still yet a chance to prevail. Make no mistake: on the other side of US Military Secrets is a reason for the US Military to be removed from post. Always.
  - fastfade 13y ago
    "The US has to have a serious look at its secrecy policies..." Imo, it's too late - the frog is done.
arbuge 13y ago
Those allies he talks about in the last paragraph are pretty miffed with him right now by the look of things...
mtgx 13y ago
This seems like a pre-emptive move to appeal to their "loyalty" to the agency (and not necessarily to the country) to stop further whistleblowers from coming out with more secrets. I'm hoping the smart ones will see through this, and if they do know of other illegalities/wrong doings, they come forward. If it's ever the time to do this, it's now, when the government is most vulnerable. It would help if they were in higher positions inside the agency.
syjer 13y ago
>NSA's staunch commitment to protecting and upholding the privacy and civil liberties of the American people yup, no problem at all violating the data from foreign people. No problem at all. This will help american based business. Welcome to the balkanisation of the web.
grandalf 13y ago
Any statement that begins with the equivalent of "We're at war" completely destroys credibility. If you have to pretend we are at war to make a convincing argument, you've already lost (war is obvious).
ambassador451 13y ago
Wow this is basically an excerpt from Mein Kampf. The head of the NSA should consult with us here on reddit and HN before doing anything since we actually understand geopolitical realities.
- peteretep 13y ago
  Could you explain the similarity you see between this message and "Mein Kampf"?
  - ambassador451 13y ago
    No you're right. At least Hitler was being honest about what he thought. This is just straight up lies to appease the sheeple. I'd say this man is literally worse than Hitler in that respect.
michaelwww 13y ago
I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace. Excerpt from All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (1967) by Richard Brautigan About the BBC TV series by the same name: "The Californian Ideology, a techno-utopian belief that computer networks could measure, control and self-stabilise societies, without hierarchical political control, and that people could become 'Randian heroes', only working for their own happiness, became widespread in Silicon Valley...but that the Californian Ideology had also been unable to stabilise it; indeed the ideology has not led to people being Randian heroes but in fact trapped them into a rigid system of control from which they are unable to escape." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of...
leot 13y ago
What is unclear is what qualifies as a "national security" issue, and what doesn't. It would be nice to see its scope clearly defined. 9/11 without question hurt America as a nation. But in the case of the Boston marathon event -- was national security threatened in that instance? If so, was national security threatened by the various mass shootings that happened in the year preceding the Boston marathon? Similarly, perhaps one could argue that Bradley Manning, because of his disclosures, threatened national security. But does Julian Assange? A foreign enemy shooting you on the battlefield: sure. But a guy recording himself making pro-Jihad speeches? Russian moles probably count. But sympathizing free thinkers?
forgotAgain 13y ago
The thing about trust is once you lose it, it's very difficult to get back. These days every time I read something from the NSA, Congress or the White House, about spying on the public (most of it pathetically self congratulatory) I think bullshit. The NSA needs to be cleaned out and the White House does as well.
- embolism 13y ago
  Yeah, let's replace them with someone we know can be trusted with technology. How about Google.
crs 13y ago
"The challenge of these leaks is exacerbated by a lack of public understanding of the safeguards in place and little awareness of the outcomes that our authorities yield." This is a self inflicted wound that they are refusing to accept responsibility for. While I am against domestic data collection without cause period, when it happens there should be informed consent, not blind trust that they won't abuse the privilege. Furthermore, the handling of any of this data, whether domestic or foreign by defense/security contractors should be banned. Add any other entity that would have an economic incentive to secretly abuse said access to that information to the list.
SapphireSun 13y ago
The tone sounds slightly panicked. I wonder what's going on over there; especially with the way he bolded the fact that people should keep working. I wonder if that's just his writing style (military folk love urgency), if it betrays a growing rift within the organization, or both.
skrebbel 13y ago
Almost entirely off topic, but I was caught off guard by the following line: > Your dedication is unsurpassed, your patriotism unquestioned, and your skills are the envy of the world. Your patriotism unquestioned! I wonder, is there any democratic country outside the US where patriotism is so much a thing? What does it mean, really? I love my country, so I'll do.. what? What would I do that I wouldn't do if I didn't love my country? Are those things actually always the right thing to do? I'm not really getting to a point here. I'm just surprised that a term as strong as "patriotism" is used to casually. Do common people in the US really identify with being a patriot? Or is this just army-speak?
- zzzz123 13y ago
  Maybe they want to make the PATRIOT Act look like a good thing?
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  Benjamin Franklin's vision of "A Republic, if you can keep it" requires questioning in a desire to preserve what can, in fact, be lost. What Keith is going for here, is , "My Country, right or wrong", blind following.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well when the job is literally "National Security" then no, it's not weird that you would refer to the patriotism (a nationalistic term) of the workers.
- jhickner 13y ago
  > Do common people in the US really identify with being a patriot? Patriotism originally meant you were willing to sacrifice something for your country. Presumably the smallest measure of that sacrifice would be spending your time developing well-founded opinions about how the country should operate. (Just take a look at the federalist papers: 85 long, dense articles arguing in favor of the minutest details of the constitution. And the expectation was that people would actually read them!) Unfortunately patriotism doesn't mean sacrifice anymore. It means something akin to a fingers-in-the-ear, uncritical fanboyism. Just plaster everything with flags and soaring eagles and call it good. It's not sacrificing everything (like Snowden did), it's something you do instead of sacrificing _anything_, even the time it would take to educate yourself on what your country is doing. And as a bonus you get to flaunt that very ignorance as an additional point of pride. And yeah, common people here in the US definitely do embrace it to a nauseating degree.
lispm 13y ago
German ally here. Note to Keith Alexander: we are prepared to defend ourselves and to decide ourselves how we want to be defended. Best Regards, Germany
mwfunk 13y ago
People need to stop trying to turn this into a cartoon. This isn't some good vs. evil, heroes vs. villains BS, and continuing to present it in that manner ends up making your opponents look way smarter than they have any right to be. This is absolutely something people should be up in arms about; I've been deeply disturbed by the weakening of the concept of civil liberties going back to Patriot Act. This isn't anything new, this stuff has been going on for a long, long time. This is the consequence of people buying into the War on Terror, among other things. All of this stuff happened for a reason, and that reason was not that the NSA chief or Obama or Bush or anyone else was an evil person drunk on power who just couldn't help themselves because they're just that bad (or stupid, or whatever). This stuff happened because the electorate and the media and politicians went apeshit after 9/11 trying to point fingers and figure out why none of the intelligence services were able to "connect the dots" and prevent 9/11 from happening. Absolutely everyone was convinced that it was such an eminently preventable catastrophe, and everyone was blaming everyone else to deflect blame from themselves or make it look like they're on the ball. The electorate demanded it, ate it up, and demanded more. This is why we have Gitmo. This is why we have torture. This is why we have the Patriot Act and why we have to take our shoes off at the airport and why we've had so much more domestic wiretapping in the past 12 years. None of this stuff is news, and if it is news to anyone they haven't been paying attention. Like, at all, on any level. If any of the Snowden stuff is revelatory to you, you have been woefully oblivious to current events for like the past 12 years and are part of the problem. The thing is, none of this stuff is the product of individuals so much as it's the product of the system and the electorate. If people were half as vocal about civil liberties as they've been about perceived security then we wouldn't be in this situation. Demonizing the people in charge is a natural response, but for the most part they're just people trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. The real problem is the system itself (meaning, pressures within the government and between the government, the media, and the electorate) and the general lack of focus on, or understanding of, the importance of civil liberties among the population. If the outcome of this is nothing more than a bunch of people get pilloried or lose their jobs, but the core legal framework that allowed this to happen remains in place, then all of this will have been a huge waste of time. It doesn't bother me that the NSA exercised powers that they were given and were instructed to use, it bothers me that all of the lawyers who went over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb concluded that this was all perfectly OK given current interpretation of constitutional law.
jetblackio 13y ago
Maybe I'm a little more trusting than I should be, but I can totally understand how a program like this would be justified in the minds of agents and agencies trying to do better at their jobs. They probably truly believe that this program is for the greater good of the nation and that it WILL save lives. I can get all of that, and I sympathize. But power granted is not easily revoked. I'm not as worried about the current administration and their motives. However, the future can be predicted by no man, and where this nation is in 10-30 years, no one knows. This power can easily be used for not just subjugation of this nation, but possibly the world. In the wrong hands, this could be a tool of unfathomable power. And that is something I'm absolutely NOT okay with. If revoking these programs, we open truly open ourselves to more attacks, so be it. That is the price to be paid for limiting of government power.
socrates1998 13y ago
This all a bunch of newspeak. "People who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."
askimto 13y ago
And if you do start doubting our mission, keep your mouth shut, because we'll ruin your life no matter who you are (that's why they're going after a retired four star general right now over leaks). That's also why Obama administration has been so hard on leakers and whistleblowers in general. To serve as a clear message to those who would talk about what's been happening at the NSA: we will punish you. The reason for clamping down so hard is because the scope, both in the amount of surveillance and in the sheer number of people who knew (in the military, government employees, contractors, and private companies NSA is collecting data from) had gotten so out of control. The questions in my mind are: How much of a systemic change has this program caused to the federal government already (e.g. clamping down on whistleblowers)? How often have the capabilities of NSA been used to track down whistleblowers of any kind already (ironically employing what's causing the problem in the first place as part of a "solution")? Have these capabilities been used to settle political scores already? I'm thinking of Petraeus. Interesting how those dots were connected. Interesting also that by then both Obama and Hillary Clinton had reason to be upset with him.
hypertexthero 13y ago
> Another cause of dullness is imitation. You are made to imitate by tradition. The weight of the past drives you to conform, toe the line, and through conformity the mind feels safe, secure; it establishes itself in a well-oiled groove so that it can run smoothly without disturbance, without a quiver of doubt. Watch the grown-up people about you and you will see that their minds do not want to be disturbed. They want peace, even though it is the peace of death; but real peace is something entirely different. > When the mind establishes itself in a groove, in a pattern, haven't you noticed that it is always prompted by the desire to be secure? That is why it follows an ideal, an example, a guru. It wants to be safe, undisturbed, therefore it imitates. When you read in your history books about great leaders, saints, warriors, don't you find yourself wanting to copy them? Not that there aren't great people in the world; but the instinct is to imitate great people, to try to become like them, and that is one of the factors of deterioration because the mind then sets itself in a mould. > Furthermore, society does not want individuals who are alert, keen, revolutionary, because such individuals will not fit into the established social pattern and they may break it up. That is why society seeks to hold your mind in its pattern, and why your so-called education encourages you to imitate, to follow, to conform. > Now, can the mind stop imitating? That is, can it cease to form habits? And can the mind, which is already caught in habit, be free of habit? — Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think on These Things (This Matter of Culture), Chapter 16, Renewing the Mind - http://books.google.it/books?id=IsldnzHkxpsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.it/books?id=IsldnzHkxpsC&printsec=frontc...
enraged_camel 13y ago
Looks like the NSA sympathizers on HN flagged this story. It's sitting on page 2 despite having 152 votes.

167 points by mikemoka 13y ago

Maybe I missed it before but this looks like the first official NSA statement I heard of about the programs: "To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"

rocky1138 13y ago
That's exactly what I thought. Just last week they put out a warning to US service members stating that confirming the leaks is against the law. Now we have the guy at the top saying the stuff in the news is accurate.
- 46Bit 13y ago
  > Just last week they put out a warning to US service members stating that confirming the leaks is against the law. Now we have the guy at the top saying the stuff in the news is accurate. The decision to declassify would come from the top.
  - rocky1138 13y ago
    So if it's declassified, can we see the whole slideshow now? :P
- mpyne 13y ago
  Confirming the accuracy of classified information is what would be against the law. the Director of National Intelligence declassified parts of what were leaked but unless Sgt. Snuffy happened to be able to remember exactly which parts those were when discussing in public then he would have a difficult time being able to (legally) talk about which is which. The statement from the 'guy at the top', on the other hand, would have been routed through his boss and the NSA General Counsel to ensure that it's only referring to declassified programs.
mcguire 13y ago
"Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news." Sounds suspiciously like an official admission that the information available in public is both correct and reasonably complete, at least as far as those two programs go. Also, that there are other "capabilities".

ferdo 13y ago

> "We need you to focus on our primary mission of spying on our nation and our allies."

indlebe 13y ago

>we will remain committed to the defense of the Nation and all that it stands for - security and liberty. >security and liberty. Since when did the USA stand for security? Job security? Nope. Home security? Nope. It' supposed to be a free nation, not a secure nation.

SeanDav 13y ago
I believe that the USA always thought of itself as very secure. The richest, most powerful democracy ever. 911 was a very nasty wakeup call and to me the government reaction following that just shows how badly shaken the USA was to that. Who would have thought before 911 that the USA would use torture, or surveillance of US citizens, or assassinate USA citizens - all government approved? Unless the USA can step away from this precipice I don't think it would be a big stretch to say that the terrorists won and USA lost.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
The word order speaks volumes as well.

dkulchenko 13y ago

> "Through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law." I'm getting really tired of hearing this defense from U.S. officials. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's constitutional and/or morally right. I don't think anyone's still arguing the legality of these programs - we're saying that they shouldn't be there because they violate the spirit (and arguably, the letter) of the 4th Amendment.

JulianMorrison 13y ago
This is one place where I feel your constitution holds you USA types back. Those rights had to exist before the constitution for it to be written, and even the constitution itself doesn't try to be a closed set. But it has largely been judicially interpreted as one. And it is entirely possible the NSA would pass constitutional muster, with this Supreme Court. But it is possible for a thing to be legal - and constitutional - and in breach of rights which don't need to be named on any paper to still be rights. Like the right to privacy.
- noblethrasher 13y ago
  Indeed these rights were acknowledged before the constitution and Madison, along with some of the other framers, worried that a Bill Of Rights might create the negative pregnant[1][2] that we see being born out today. The largely ignored 9th amendment was a compromise between not having a bill of rights or somehow exhaustively enumerating all of them. It's ignorance of history that holds us back. [1] http://www.library.okstate.edu/constitution/previous.html#adkison http://www.library.okstate.edu/constitution/previous.html#ad... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant
  - ISL 13y ago
    The ninth and tenth amendments have yet to see their full application. With 'strict constructionists' in the supreme court, it may occur sooner than later. The enumeration of rights was practical. Without a concise list of important ones to point at, I think we would have been worse off.

UVB-76 13y ago

The official response to these leaks has been almost as embarrassing as the leaks themselves, and this statement is a continuation of that trend.

peteretep 13y ago
Could you describe what you find to be specifically "embarrassing" about the response?
- UVB-76 13y ago
  The context is embarrassing. A contractor who worked with the NSA became so disenchanted with the work they were conducting that he gave up everything he had to bring it to the attention of the public. Now a US Army General has been forced to justify the actions of the agency to the staff that remain, to suck up to them, and implore them not to revolt as Snowden did. The content is embarrassing. The constant references to 9/11 and to terrorism more generally. People have for years poked fun at this particular proclivity of officials, and the statement reads like a parody. The references to "foreign intelligence" are embarrassing. To those of us who are foreign to the United States, having widespread violations of our right to privacy justified by the fact we are "foreigners" is despicable. It might placate some US citizens, but this episode is a diplomatic catastrophe for the US, and rightly so. The very fact gross human rights violations are being justified in the name of "security" is embarrassing. The fact officials are not in damage control mode, acknowledging the gross misconduct they have presided over and seeking to rectify matters, but are instead seeking to continue business as usual. Everything about this statement is embarrassing.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    > and implore them not to revolt as Snowden did. I don't have any evidence to support this, but I bet most NSA employees would rather see Snowden brought up on charges vs. using him as a lightning rod for revolt. The majority agree with what they are doing on a day to day basis, not the opposite.

D9u 13y ago

The words of a liar... He lied about NSA capabilities, instead of simply saying "No comment." Now we're supposed to just overlook the past lies? They knew that what they've been doing is wrong and this is in no way believable when one considers the amount of lies coming out of the US government these days. Secret judges. Secret courts. Secret police. Extrajudicial assassinations. Torture. Sounds like a Nazi regime.

pfortuny 13y ago

I am always saying the same thing but... This is the same tone the CPSU/NKVD/KGB would use to defend their tactics, their manipulation, their ultimate power. The "heroes" are the ordinary citizens. It is their ordinary lives the NSA is commited to defend: especially their ORDINARINESS, more and above their lives. You do not want to live: you want to be free. This is what motivated the independence war, you know? People preferred dying to living under the Crown. Nowadays nobody in the whole world is free from the NSA. This has to end. As soon as possible. Sorry to say but Goebbels, Beria and so on come to mind. And of course, Mayakovski...

vidarh 13y ago
I once received a pamphlet from a "friendship committee" with North Korea. It contained a series of translated speeches by Kim Il Sung. Unsurprisingly Kim Il Sung in his speeches likewise insisted everything was for the best of the people, and their happiness and security. Likewise, you'll find Mao said a lot of stuff about freedom and democracy and defending the people. The only people who uncritically buy statements like these are people that want to buy them because they are already invested in believing... Such as having a job that depends on them being able to justify what they are doing to themselves.
jivatmanx 13y ago
I'd add, Words like "Homeland" are also familiar. And not from the lexicon of traditional Democratic-Republicanism.
embolism 13y ago
This has to end. As soon as possible. And be replaced by what?
- ihsw 13y ago
  Few things can replace suspicionless mass surveillance of everybody on the face of the planet, and personally I'd rather we live in a world where that doesn't get replaced with anything -- it's put to an end in the same spirit that slavery is. Yes I'm aware everybody doesn't use the internet, and yes I'm aware slavery is still quite prevalent, however my point stands -- slavery is an affront to self-determination and so is suspicionless surveillance.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

throwaway9848 13y ago
Well, the beauty of a democratic society is that if a majority agree with you, then you can change the system. Personally, I disagree with you, but it's a free country. Your comment about the military is so rude, though, that it was difficult to write a temperate response. You ought to feel ashamed of yourself.
- csallen 13y ago
  There's certainly nothing rude about pointing out a relevant and possibly non-obvious truth: military life is so distinct from civilian life that it may result in drastically different perspectives about what it means to be free. If merely being exposed to a hypothesis you disagree with offends you, then I don't understand how you can ever hope to have a meaningful debate.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    Moreover, this isn't a new idea, it led to the opposition many founding fathers had to "Standing Armies". Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive. But, the opposition to standing armies is long forgotten. We also forgot the reason why only congress was given the authority to declare war, which has become dead letter, and these ideas considered quaint and outdated. But 1776 wasn't that long ago in the history of human governments, and the history of human governments is the history of abusing power. "Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever." - Cicero
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      "Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves" Except that in the US, military service is voluntary.
      - 13y ago

whiddershins 13y ago

Yeah, he is employing logical deception. He is equating "willful effort to circumvent or violate the law" with "willful failures in the protection of civil liberties" which aren't the same, before we even get to the point of discussion how people could be incidentally or inadvertently violating rights. It's almost like he WANTS us to read between the lines and realize the laws are too permissive.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pfortuny 13y ago
Like "we burnt the Constitution, 100.000.000 copies of it, but nobody was injured. We also used flags to enhance the bonfire. And what a fire it was! We did no harm to anybody." EDIT: The parent has vanished... It was in the same vein as my comment: "no harm done, what a (dirty) joke."

m52go 13y ago

"...we will remain committed to the defense of the Nation and all that it stands for - security and liberty." That's the ENTIRE issue here: security is being placed before liberty. This document just confirms that.

pvnick 13y ago

This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction. While I thoroughly disagree with what Keith is saying (I'll get to that in a minute), his acknowledgement and down-to-earth tone show that Snowden's purpose of igniting a national debate on privacy is working. Now on to what he actually said. >we provided over 50 cases to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that show the specific contribution of these programs >The challenge of these leaks is exacerbated by ... little awareness of the outcomes that our authorities yield We see on full display the "ends justify the means" attitude that the NSA argues. It is not an invalid argument, but it is one that I'm sure the vast majority of the HN audience would disagree with. Hopefully this attitude is debated in the national spotlight alongside the validity of the programs themselves. >Through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law Again, there's that "willful" keyword we've heard so much. That's a loophole you could drive a train through! If Keith is so confident in his mens rea defense [1], I'm sure he welcomes the spotlight being shined on his organization's workings. >Leadership ... is now engaged in a public dialogue to make sure the American public gets the rest of the story Like I said, it is fantastic that this - the goal Snowden described - is being acknowledged. I look forward to Greenwald's continued leaks (such as the imminent release describing the NSA's collecting of the contents of 1 Billion cell phone calls every day [2]). > We need you to focus on our primary mission of defending our nation and our allies Keith seems to be worried that these leaks are taking a toll on his organization's morale. I sincerely hope that this does not impact national security - I doubt it will - but, reading between the lines, I think he's petrified that Snowden's heroic leadership in this area will inspire more leaks. One can only hope. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea [2] http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-day-2013-6 http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-d...

abraininavat 13y ago
I agree with most of what you said. I want to nitpick one thing though. I don't agree that "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. It's not an argument at all, it's a premise in the argument at hand. And, as you alluded to, the majority of us here seem to disagree with the premise, making the overall argument invalid. Probably not the case for the rest of the country th ough. I'd like to think that we represent the "thoughtful minority", but doesn't everyone.

scotty79 13y ago

Too many secrets. Why they don't operate in the open? This might be additional deterrent to terrorist plots if would be terrorists were aware of how much surveillance they are exposed to.

primitur 13y ago
The true fact of the matter is that any secret kept by the US military, which must not be revealed to the public in order to maintain public order, and which nevertheless does induce Terror in the receiver of the secret .. well folks: this is Terrorism being used on your Government by infiltrating agents whose true purpose is the destruction of the US, itself, and the establishment of a new world order. Of people, governments, corporations, armed with psychological processes designed with specific purposes, weaponized. The Terror Meme is A Weapon, Gone Loose. Anyone alive today, who is making a daily business of the commitment to ideas such as that populations must serve Terror, must be immediately taken off their positions of power. The only possible hope is that the American people realize just how much responsibility they have to take in order to de-Throne their new masters. If you are not willing to burn the curtain, not just look behind it, then you must take responsibility until you are willing, citizen. The right of the true enemy to keep secrets must be revoked. The absolutely certain result will be more peace, because Peace happens when people reveal secrets to each other with the intention of making Peace. To Make Peace, Communication: and destroy all barriers to doing so. The US has to have a serious look at its secrecy policies, and there must be a serious attempt, by the People, to demonstrate to the world that Peace itself, has still yet a chance to prevail. Make no mistake: on the other side of US Military Secrets is a reason for the US Military to be removed from post. Always.
- fastfade 13y ago
  "The US has to have a serious look at its secrecy policies..." Imo, it's too late - the frog is done.

arbuge 13y ago

Those allies he talks about in the last paragraph are pretty miffed with him right now by the look of things...

mtgx 13y ago

This seems like a pre-emptive move to appeal to their "loyalty" to the agency (and not necessarily to the country) to stop further whistleblowers from coming out with more secrets. I'm hoping the smart ones will see through this, and if they do know of other illegalities/wrong doings, they come forward. If it's ever the time to do this, it's now, when the government is most vulnerable. It would help if they were in higher positions inside the agency.

syjer 13y ago

>NSA's staunch commitment to protecting and upholding the privacy and civil liberties of the American people yup, no problem at all violating the data from foreign people. No problem at all. This will help american based business. Welcome to the balkanisation of the web.

grandalf 13y ago

Any statement that begins with the equivalent of "We're at war" completely destroys credibility. If you have to pretend we are at war to make a convincing argument, you've already lost (war is obvious).

ambassador451 13y ago

Wow this is basically an excerpt from Mein Kampf. The head of the NSA should consult with us here on reddit and HN before doing anything since we actually understand geopolitical realities.

peteretep 13y ago
Could you explain the similarity you see between this message and "Mein Kampf"?
- ambassador451 13y ago
  No you're right. At least Hitler was being honest about what he thought. This is just straight up lies to appease the sheeple. I'd say this man is literally worse than Hitler in that respect.

michaelwww 13y ago

I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace. Excerpt from All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (1967) by Richard Brautigan About the BBC TV series by the same name: "The Californian Ideology, a techno-utopian belief that computer networks could measure, control and self-stabilise societies, without hierarchical political control, and that people could become 'Randian heroes', only working for their own happiness, became widespread in Silicon Valley...but that the Californian Ideology had also been unable to stabilise it; indeed the ideology has not led to people being Randian heroes but in fact trapped them into a rigid system of control from which they are unable to escape." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of...

leot 13y ago

What is unclear is what qualifies as a "national security" issue, and what doesn't. It would be nice to see its scope clearly defined. 9/11 without question hurt America as a nation. But in the case of the Boston marathon event -- was national security threatened in that instance? If so, was national security threatened by the various mass shootings that happened in the year preceding the Boston marathon? Similarly, perhaps one could argue that Bradley Manning, because of his disclosures, threatened national security. But does Julian Assange? A foreign enemy shooting you on the battlefield: sure. But a guy recording himself making pro-Jihad speeches? Russian moles probably count. But sympathizing free thinkers?

forgotAgain 13y ago

The thing about trust is once you lose it, it's very difficult to get back. These days every time I read something from the NSA, Congress or the White House, about spying on the public (most of it pathetically self congratulatory) I think bullshit. The NSA needs to be cleaned out and the White House does as well.

embolism 13y ago
Yeah, let's replace them with someone we know can be trusted with technology. How about Google.

crs 13y ago

"The challenge of these leaks is exacerbated by a lack of public understanding of the safeguards in place and little awareness of the outcomes that our authorities yield." This is a self inflicted wound that they are refusing to accept responsibility for. While I am against domestic data collection without cause period, when it happens there should be informed consent, not blind trust that they won't abuse the privilege. Furthermore, the handling of any of this data, whether domestic or foreign by defense/security contractors should be banned. Add any other entity that would have an economic incentive to secretly abuse said access to that information to the list.

SapphireSun 13y ago

The tone sounds slightly panicked. I wonder what's going on over there; especially with the way he bolded the fact that people should keep working. I wonder if that's just his writing style (military folk love urgency), if it betrays a growing rift within the organization, or both.

skrebbel 13y ago

Almost entirely off topic, but I was caught off guard by the following line: > Your dedication is unsurpassed, your patriotism unquestioned, and your skills are the envy of the world. Your patriotism unquestioned! I wonder, is there any democratic country outside the US where patriotism is so much a thing? What does it mean, really? I love my country, so I'll do.. what? What would I do that I wouldn't do if I didn't love my country? Are those things actually always the right thing to do? I'm not really getting to a point here. I'm just surprised that a term as strong as "patriotism" is used to casually. Do common people in the US really identify with being a patriot? Or is this just army-speak?

zzzz123 13y ago
Maybe they want to make the PATRIOT Act look like a good thing?
jivatmanx 13y ago
Benjamin Franklin's vision of "A Republic, if you can keep it" requires questioning in a desire to preserve what can, in fact, be lost. What Keith is going for here, is , "My Country, right or wrong", blind following.
mpyne 13y ago
Well when the job is literally "National Security" then no, it's not weird that you would refer to the patriotism (a nationalistic term) of the workers.
jhickner 13y ago
> Do common people in the US really identify with being a patriot? Patriotism originally meant you were willing to sacrifice something for your country. Presumably the smallest measure of that sacrifice would be spending your time developing well-founded opinions about how the country should operate. (Just take a look at the federalist papers: 85 long, dense articles arguing in favor of the minutest details of the constitution. And the expectation was that people would actually read them!) Unfortunately patriotism doesn't mean sacrifice anymore. It means something akin to a fingers-in-the-ear, uncritical fanboyism. Just plaster everything with flags and soaring eagles and call it good. It's not sacrificing everything (like Snowden did), it's something you do instead of sacrificing _anything_, even the time it would take to educate yourself on what your country is doing. And as a bonus you get to flaunt that very ignorance as an additional point of pride. And yeah, common people here in the US definitely do embrace it to a nauseating degree.

lispm 13y ago

German ally here. Note to Keith Alexander: we are prepared to defend ourselves and to decide ourselves how we want to be defended. Best Regards, Germany

mwfunk 13y ago

People need to stop trying to turn this into a cartoon. This isn't some good vs. evil, heroes vs. villains BS, and continuing to present it in that manner ends up making your opponents look way smarter than they have any right to be. This is absolutely something people should be up in arms about; I've been deeply disturbed by the weakening of the concept of civil liberties going back to Patriot Act. This isn't anything new, this stuff has been going on for a long, long time. This is the consequence of people buying into the War on Terror, among other things. All of this stuff happened for a reason, and that reason was not that the NSA chief or Obama or Bush or anyone else was an evil person drunk on power who just couldn't help themselves because they're just that bad (or stupid, or whatever). This stuff happened because the electorate and the media and politicians went apeshit after 9/11 trying to point fingers and figure out why none of the intelligence services were able to "connect the dots" and prevent 9/11 from happening. Absolutely everyone was convinced that it was such an eminently preventable catastrophe, and everyone was blaming everyone else to deflect blame from themselves or make it look like they're on the ball. The electorate demanded it, ate it up, and demanded more. This is why we have Gitmo. This is why we have torture. This is why we have the Patriot Act and why we have to take our shoes off at the airport and why we've had so much more domestic wiretapping in the past 12 years. None of this stuff is news, and if it is news to anyone they haven't been paying attention. Like, at all, on any level. If any of the Snowden stuff is revelatory to you, you have been woefully oblivious to current events for like the past 12 years and are part of the problem. The thing is, none of this stuff is the product of individuals so much as it's the product of the system and the electorate. If people were half as vocal about civil liberties as they've been about perceived security then we wouldn't be in this situation. Demonizing the people in charge is a natural response, but for the most part they're just people trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. The real problem is the system itself (meaning, pressures within the government and between the government, the media, and the electorate) and the general lack of focus on, or understanding of, the importance of civil liberties among the population. If the outcome of this is nothing more than a bunch of people get pilloried or lose their jobs, but the core legal framework that allowed this to happen remains in place, then all of this will have been a huge waste of time. It doesn't bother me that the NSA exercised powers that they were given and were instructed to use, it bothers me that all of the lawyers who went over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb concluded that this was all perfectly OK given current interpretation of constitutional law.

jetblackio 13y ago

Maybe I'm a little more trusting than I should be, but I can totally understand how a program like this would be justified in the minds of agents and agencies trying to do better at their jobs. They probably truly believe that this program is for the greater good of the nation and that it WILL save lives. I can get all of that, and I sympathize. But power granted is not easily revoked. I'm not as worried about the current administration and their motives. However, the future can be predicted by no man, and where this nation is in 10-30 years, no one knows. This power can easily be used for not just subjugation of this nation, but possibly the world. In the wrong hands, this could be a tool of unfathomable power. And that is something I'm absolutely NOT okay with. If revoking these programs, we open truly open ourselves to more attacks, so be it. That is the price to be paid for limiting of government power.

socrates1998 13y ago

This all a bunch of newspeak. "People who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."

askimto 13y ago

And if you do start doubting our mission, keep your mouth shut, because we'll ruin your life no matter who you are (that's why they're going after a retired four star general right now over leaks). That's also why Obama administration has been so hard on leakers and whistleblowers in general. To serve as a clear message to those who would talk about what's been happening at the NSA: we will punish you. The reason for clamping down so hard is because the scope, both in the amount of surveillance and in the sheer number of people who knew (in the military, government employees, contractors, and private companies NSA is collecting data from) had gotten so out of control. The questions in my mind are: How much of a systemic change has this program caused to the federal government already (e.g. clamping down on whistleblowers)? How often have the capabilities of NSA been used to track down whistleblowers of any kind already (ironically employing what's causing the problem in the first place as part of a "solution")? Have these capabilities been used to settle political scores already? I'm thinking of Petraeus. Interesting how those dots were connected. Interesting also that by then both Obama and Hillary Clinton had reason to be upset with him.

hypertexthero 13y ago

> Another cause of dullness is imitation. You are made to imitate by tradition. The weight of the past drives you to conform, toe the line, and through conformity the mind feels safe, secure; it establishes itself in a well-oiled groove so that it can run smoothly without disturbance, without a quiver of doubt. Watch the grown-up people about you and you will see that their minds do not want to be disturbed. They want peace, even though it is the peace of death; but real peace is something entirely different. > When the mind establishes itself in a groove, in a pattern, haven't you noticed that it is always prompted by the desire to be secure? That is why it follows an ideal, an example, a guru. It wants to be safe, undisturbed, therefore it imitates. When you read in your history books about great leaders, saints, warriors, don't you find yourself wanting to copy them? Not that there aren't great people in the world; but the instinct is to imitate great people, to try to become like them, and that is one of the factors of deterioration because the mind then sets itself in a mould. > Furthermore, society does not want individuals who are alert, keen, revolutionary, because such individuals will not fit into the established social pattern and they may break it up. That is why society seeks to hold your mind in its pattern, and why your so-called education encourages you to imitate, to follow, to conform. > Now, can the mind stop imitating? That is, can it cease to form habits? And can the mind, which is already caught in habit, be free of habit? — Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think on These Things (This Matter of Culture), Chapter 16, Renewing the Mind - http://books.google.it/books?id=IsldnzHkxpsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.it/books?id=IsldnzHkxpsC&printsec=frontc...

enraged_camel 13y ago

Looks like the NSA sympathizers on HN flagged this story. It's sitting on page 2 despite having 152 votes.