5 ms·

Here's NSA's own statement on their SIGINT mission: "The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nat

Here's NSA's own statement on their SIGINT mission: "The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policy-makers and military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with critical information they need to defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally." http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ Now, it's not an accident that "policy-makers" comes first in that sentence. The truth is that the vast majority of productized intelligence is used solely to inform policy-makers in a capacity that will never lead to any form of military or clandestine intervention. Yes, operational uses certainly do exist, but they are not the norm. Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases, because it's a complicated and nuanced position. Instead of having that conversation (and risking both ignorant and informed criticism) they take the cynical approach of framing it as something that's hard to argue with. For many decades it was defending against the communists, and since 2001 it's been protection against terrorism. So, articles like this one are the unavoidable result of avoiding a difficult conversation. That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence. If you have the right idea, then why not share it here? It'd be a valuable comment, and I'd like to hear your point of view.
- justinschuh 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your question. Nations conduct foreign intelligence primarily to inform policy makers in ways that help them further their own national interests. The majority of the time, doing so doesn't involve military or clandestine intervention. The specific reasons are as varied as nations and national interests. It could be as a diplomacy tool, to identify strategic areas for investment, to make informed decisions about trade policy and treaties, or just to keep track of what's going on in the rest of the world.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    Wow... So I turned to my right, where "The Art of Software Security Assessment" is sitting on my desk, then I read your profile and did a double take. Thank you for writing that wonderful book! Also, thanks for your reply. I didn't really have a focused question; I'm just interested in learning more about the government and its machinations. It's quite interesting to know that gathering intel about strategic areas for investment falls within their purview.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases... IMO these overstatements of threat are far less benign than that. I believe they know that the true scope and scale of their secret surveillance activities can only be justified using extreme scare tactics, such as the threat of terrorism. I believe this is true even if the American public was in full understanding of whatever nuanced policy benefits actually resulted for the citizenry as a whole. That is, the problem may well be that the benefits do not accrue to the general populace, but to a much narrower set of vested interests. So, if Americans knew fully and exactly who benefited and to what degree, they may find that said benefits for the general populace do not justify the NSA's "attack" on the general populace. So, this is not about avoiding a nuanced conversation. It's that the the measures themselves have been turned against the U.S. citizenry such that the benefits of the resulting policy decisions do not outweigh the affront to privacy and Constitutional rights. If these affronts cannot be justified even while they are turning their powers against the very people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries, then we must naturally ask the question "then whose interests are really being served here?" That is the real conversation that they wish to avoid. Further evidence of the dissonance is revealed when you consider the NSA SIGINT mission statement you provided. It's a very generic statement that wouldn't cause concern given what we knew and expected of the NSA's actual activities (i.e. prior to the Snowden leaks). It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully inadequate to justify the attendant activities.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully inadequate to justify the attendant activities. I've not even seen evidence that NSA is actually targeting the greater American population though. The issue is that NSA has expanded the scope of what they look at, and made it easier for their analysts to get away with assuming someone is not an "USPER". That obviously carries a greater risk of lumping Americans into that net where they wouldn't have before, but no one (not even Snowden, AFAICS) has been able to demonstrate the NSA is actually trying to deliberately target Americans with any of this.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence. If you have the right idea, then why not share it here? It'd be a valuable comment, and I'd like to hear your point of view.

justinschuh 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand your question. Nations conduct foreign intelligence primarily to inform policy makers in ways that help them further their own national interests. The majority of the time, doing so doesn't involve military or clandestine intervention. The specific reasons are as varied as nations and national interests. It could be as a diplomacy tool, to identify strategic areas for investment, to make informed decisions about trade policy and treaties, or just to keep track of what's going on in the rest of the world.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Wow... So I turned to my right, where "The Art of Software Security Assessment" is sitting on my desk, then I read your profile and did a double take. Thank you for writing that wonderful book! Also, thanks for your reply. I didn't really have a focused question; I'm just interested in learning more about the government and its machinations. It's quite interesting to know that gathering intel about strategic areas for investment falls within their purview.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases... IMO these overstatements of threat are far less benign than that. I believe they know that the true scope and scale of their secret surveillance activities can only be justified using extreme scare tactics, such as the threat of terrorism. I believe this is true even if the American public was in full understanding of whatever nuanced policy benefits actually resulted for the citizenry as a whole. That is, the problem may well be that the benefits do not accrue to the general populace, but to a much narrower set of vested interests. So, if Americans knew fully and exactly who benefited and to what degree, they may find that said benefits for the general populace do not justify the NSA's "attack" on the general populace. So, this is not about avoiding a nuanced conversation. It's that the the measures themselves have been turned against the U.S. citizenry such that the benefits of the resulting policy decisions do not outweigh the affront to privacy and Constitutional rights. If these affronts cannot be justified even while they are turning their powers against the very people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries, then we must naturally ask the question "then whose interests are really being served here?" That is the real conversation that they wish to avoid. Further evidence of the dissonance is revealed when you consider the NSA SIGINT mission statement you provided. It's a very generic statement that wouldn't cause concern given what we knew and expected of the NSA's actual activities (i.e. prior to the Snowden leaks). It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully inadequate to justify the attendant activities.

mpyne 13y ago
> It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully inadequate to justify the attendant activities. I've not even seen evidence that NSA is actually targeting the greater American population though. The issue is that NSA has expanded the scope of what they look at, and made it easier for their analysts to get away with assuming someone is not an "USPER". That obviously carries a greater risk of lumping Americans into that net where they wouldn't have before, but no one (not even Snowden, AFAICS) has been able to demonstrate the NSA is actually trying to deliberately target Americans with any of this.