5 ms·
The more we learn about the NSA's capabilities, the more it seems like the Manhattan Project. They are developing the "cyberwarfare" equivalents of weapons of m
by elwin 13y ago
The more we learn about the NSA's capabilities, the more it seems like the Manhattan Project. They are developing the "cyberwarfare" equivalents of weapons of mass destruction. This exploit delivery network goes so far beyond any legitimate purpose it might serve that it belongs in the same moral category as hydrogen bombs.
EDIT: The above is somewhat hyperbolic and unclear. The NSA's capabilities may have legitimate uses. Similarly, there may be legitimate military uses for nuclear weapons. But building nuclear weapons creates the risk of worldwide nuclear destruction. Similarly, building this kind of highly efficient exploit system creates the risk of destroying all Internet security. The potential destruction far outweighs whatever good the weapons might accomplish. That is why I said they belong in the same category.
- twoodfin 13y agoI think that's a pretty serious exaggeration. Designing tools to let you spy on Tor traffic has to be in a separate category from designing bombs that could kill millions. Besides, are there no ends that could justify these means? I think the means are altogether reasonable given the ends. Put aside whether you think the NSA is genuinely pursuing its national security mission: If it were, wouldn't it make perfect sense to figure out how to attack Tor?
- res0nat0r 13y agoSucks you are being downvoted for not agreeing with the hyperbole, but I think you are correct. The NSA's job is to spy on things. TOR represents a place where illegal things occur, so it is a perfectly reasonable thing that they would be tasked with trying to stop such illegal things there.
- elwin 13y agoAttacking Tor by passive analysis is one thing. Installing spyware, creating a botnet, and making the infection process quick and easy is another. There might be some justification for the former. The latter is too risky.
- tptacek 13y agoIt's not a "Manhattan Project" if it's within the capabilities of any decent-sized organized crime syndicate. People here have short memories. In the 1990s, teenaged hackers owned up the backbone.
- elwin 13y agoI called them analogous because of their potential effects and their development in secret by governments. I don't think a crime syndicate could do it so effectively; when the NSA "owns up the backbone", even if the operator discovers the intrusion, it stays owned.
- wglb 13y agoThe Manhattan project involved gobs of never-before-done of engineering, new understanding of physics. Owning up the backbones is simply a matter of scale and access. I don't think there is really an analogy here.
- blake8086 13y agoHeh, I wonder what places they work now.
- anologwintermut 13y agoActually, I'd say there is more justification for the later. Passive analysis nails everyone. It's a scary capability to have. Malware is a fundamentally targeted endeavor since known exploits get patched. The question of course, is are the targets legitimate?
- bcoates 13y agoThe Stasi and the Gestapo were genuinely pursuing a national security mission. They also did more self-inflicted harm to Germany than the A-bomb did to Japan from the outside. He's not exaggerating the amount of damage an intelligence agency can do.
- nostrademons 13y agoI feel like you've just invoked Godwin's Law, and yet in this case the comparison actually seems apt...
- twoodfin 13y agoHow is it apt? If the genuine national security aims pursued by the NSA can be aptly compared to those of the Gestapo, we're well past the point where it makes any difference exactly what techniques they're using to achieve those aims. If their aims are more reasonable, then, again, what's wrong with a spy agency trying to spy? In other words, the U.S.A.'s national security interests bear little resemblance to those of Nazi Germany (I can't believe I have to type that).
- nostrademons 13y agoI think a lot of that depends on exactly who's being targeted, and for what reasons. Those revelations haven't made it out yet. The only information we have is the NSA director answering "Not intentionally, no" when asked if the NSA ever spied on American citizens, along with Snowden's allegations that there are no checks and balances if an employee of the NSA believed that they did, and Russ Tice's claim that the NSA spied on Obama. It's often forgotten that there were many people in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or Communist China or North Korea that believe those countries are completely justified in their actions as well. The reason they are widely reviled is because they lost: people outside of their culture came in, beat them down either economically or militarily, and said "That's not okay what you do to your own citizens." If I look at the facts of what the Nazis did in the 1930s (before the gas chambers and concentration camps), it was that they turned a large portion of their state security apparatus inward and devoted it to controlling a portion of their population that the ruling class deemed undesirable. I don't know whether the same thing goes on at the NSA; I hope it doesn't. I do know that there should be checks & balances to make sure that it doesn't, because it can become an awfully slippery slope.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoHardly. The NSA's techniques, as described thus far, appear to be your basic computer security fodder. The same techniques that any modest black hat could do. The difference is in the scale and dedication.
- MichaelMoser123 13y agoMaybe the NSA cyberwar effort did not produce new earth shaking insights; the manhattan project did that of course. Now both efforts may be compared in terms of their price tag: both did cost billions of tax dollars to implement. Interesting that instead of reaching out for the stars we turn inwards - snooping as the new frontier that is pushing technology forward, now here is a great prospect ...