5 ms·

NSA reviewing deal between official, ex-spy agency head

76 points by r0h1n 12y ago

snsr 12y ago
So Patrick Dowd, the NSA's CTO, is actually a part-time employee, and is moonlighting? Seems that this is at best a conflict of interest.
- smackfu 12y ago
  To be honest, it seems more like he was poached away by this other company, and the NSA made a deal to keep him part-time instead of leaving entirely.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    How would that company's pitch go? "Hey, you can trust our services - our guy works for the NSA". Seems insane to me. What's next? The Stingray makers hiring FBI's director Comey as an "advisor"? You don't see see this as a huge conflict of interest?
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      The revolving doors between government and corporate welfare businesses work that way on purpose.
revelation 12y ago
So every piece of paper the NSA touches is classified, and we're told that even the most innocent dripple of bits of information are vital to national security. And here is the CTO working part-time for private companies. I wonder how discussions with clients at this security consultancy go? "Should we use TLS for our internal networks?" "Uhh.. let me think about this... uhh.. I think that's classified". Right, that is clearly how it will go down.
kyledrake 12y ago
I think it's time to review whether the NSA has done more to harm Americans than to benefit them, and if so, to begin talks on dismantling the agency. This isn't political extremism. There have been scores of agencies in the past that have been shut down due to abuse and mismanagement (including FEMA, which no longer exists), and what's left of the defunct agencies that still need to function have been rolled into other agencies (in FEMA's case, the DHS). For a (completely random and poorly thought out) example, foreign surveillance could be rolled into the CIA. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has done some great work on improving cryptography for everyone, and could be the group responsible for doing that. That said, the private sector seems to be doing a perfectly good job developing cryptography on it's own. If they can't do the job correctly, let's find someone that can.
- charonn0 12y ago
  FEMA still exists. It's no longer an independent agency, but it was never dismantled.
matart 12y ago
NSA takes seriously ethics laws and regulations at all levels of the organization I think they mean only if the public finds out
throwawaytime 12y ago
It's probably appropriate to use a throwaway when discussing this topic, not as a way of sniping via anonymity, but because the social climate surrounding this particular topic has gotten so extreme. Those not immediately in agreement with any anti-NSA sentiment seem to be ridiculed or personally attacked for their ideas. Such behavior is usually a sign that we're treading into "What You Can't Say" territory; hence, the throwaway. As for my comment: I don't understand what's wrong with the arrangement presented in the article. Would someone please give concrete examples of (realistic) scenarios where this would be extremely detrimental to the US, or at least more harmful than the current arrangement of contracting private firms to perform government work? Is your position that when the government brings in a whole company from the private sector to do work, then that's perfectly fine, but when they bring in an individual, it's not? Why? All of the same safeguards seem to be in play. Also, having a risk of conflict of interest is different from having a conflict of interest. He said he understood it had been approved by all the necessary government authorities, and that IronNet Cybersecurity, not the government, would pay for Dowd's time spent with the firm. Dowd, he said, wanted to join IronNet, and the deal was devised as a way to keep Dowd's technological expertise at least partly within the U.S. government, rather than losing him permanently to the private sector. Seems straightforward to me. The US government needs technically competent people, and they wanted to keep this technically competent person. The arrangement was approved by all necessary authorities. You can hold one of two viewpoints: The NSA is necessary, or the NSA is unnecessary. It seems pretty hard to argue that it's unnecessary. And if it's necessary, then surely it's also necessary for them to have highly competent people. (Would you rather an extremely powerful organization have extremely competent people, or incompetent people?) So if competent people are being lost to the private sector, then why not make special arrangements to retain their talent in some capacity?
- keithpeter 12y ago
  How does another company compete with IronNet? Will there be a scramble for other highly ranked NSA employees by other companies in the same line of work? So I'm viewing this from the implications of the effect on the market rather than the effect on NSA.
  - 12y ago
guelo 12y ago
So Keith Alexander doesn't know shit so he needed a real tech guy and ongoing access to classified info. Got it.
- throwaway357 12y ago
  "Rules for thee, not for me."
- taftster 12y ago
  I doubt that many CTO types are "real tech guys." Perhaps at one point, they might have coded something up once. But CTO's are management first, with a few noteworthy exceptions. I think this is more likely two "buddies" rubbing each other's backs.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Dowd, he said, wanted to join IronNet, and the deal was devised as a way to keep Dowd's technological expertise at least partly within the U.S. government, rather than losing him permanently to the private sector. xkcd, as so often happens in these circumstances, has already illustrated this problem rather well. http://xkcd.com/898/ http://xkcd.com/898/

76 points by r0h1n 12y ago

snsr 12y ago

So Patrick Dowd, the NSA's CTO, is actually a part-time employee, and is moonlighting? Seems that this is at best a conflict of interest.

smackfu 12y ago
To be honest, it seems more like he was poached away by this other company, and the NSA made a deal to keep him part-time instead of leaving entirely.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  How would that company's pitch go? "Hey, you can trust our services - our guy works for the NSA". Seems insane to me. What's next? The Stingray makers hiring FBI's director Comey as an "advisor"? You don't see see this as a huge conflict of interest?
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    The revolving doors between government and corporate welfare businesses work that way on purpose.

revelation 12y ago

So every piece of paper the NSA touches is classified, and we're told that even the most innocent dripple of bits of information are vital to national security. And here is the CTO working part-time for private companies. I wonder how discussions with clients at this security consultancy go? "Should we use TLS for our internal networks?" "Uhh.. let me think about this... uhh.. I think that's classified". Right, that is clearly how it will go down.

kyledrake 12y ago

I think it's time to review whether the NSA has done more to harm Americans than to benefit them, and if so, to begin talks on dismantling the agency. This isn't political extremism. There have been scores of agencies in the past that have been shut down due to abuse and mismanagement (including FEMA, which no longer exists), and what's left of the defunct agencies that still need to function have been rolled into other agencies (in FEMA's case, the DHS). For a (completely random and poorly thought out) example, foreign surveillance could be rolled into the CIA. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has done some great work on improving cryptography for everyone, and could be the group responsible for doing that. That said, the private sector seems to be doing a perfectly good job developing cryptography on it's own. If they can't do the job correctly, let's find someone that can.

charonn0 12y ago
FEMA still exists. It's no longer an independent agency, but it was never dismantled.

matart 12y ago

NSA takes seriously ethics laws and regulations at all levels of the organization I think they mean only if the public finds out

throwawaytime 12y ago

It's probably appropriate to use a throwaway when discussing this topic, not as a way of sniping via anonymity, but because the social climate surrounding this particular topic has gotten so extreme. Those not immediately in agreement with any anti-NSA sentiment seem to be ridiculed or personally attacked for their ideas. Such behavior is usually a sign that we're treading into "What You Can't Say" territory; hence, the throwaway. As for my comment: I don't understand what's wrong with the arrangement presented in the article. Would someone please give concrete examples of (realistic) scenarios where this would be extremely detrimental to the US, or at least more harmful than the current arrangement of contracting private firms to perform government work? Is your position that when the government brings in a whole company from the private sector to do work, then that's perfectly fine, but when they bring in an individual, it's not? Why? All of the same safeguards seem to be in play. Also, having a risk of conflict of interest is different from having a conflict of interest. He said he understood it had been approved by all the necessary government authorities, and that IronNet Cybersecurity, not the government, would pay for Dowd's time spent with the firm. Dowd, he said, wanted to join IronNet, and the deal was devised as a way to keep Dowd's technological expertise at least partly within the U.S. government, rather than losing him permanently to the private sector. Seems straightforward to me. The US government needs technically competent people, and they wanted to keep this technically competent person. The arrangement was approved by all necessary authorities. You can hold one of two viewpoints: The NSA is necessary, or the NSA is unnecessary. It seems pretty hard to argue that it's unnecessary. And if it's necessary, then surely it's also necessary for them to have highly competent people. (Would you rather an extremely powerful organization have extremely competent people, or incompetent people?) So if competent people are being lost to the private sector, then why not make special arrangements to retain their talent in some capacity?

keithpeter 12y ago
How does another company compete with IronNet? Will there be a scramble for other highly ranked NSA employees by other companies in the same line of work? So I'm viewing this from the implications of the effect on the market rather than the effect on NSA.
- 12y ago

guelo 12y ago

So Keith Alexander doesn't know shit so he needed a real tech guy and ongoing access to classified info. Got it.

throwaway357 12y ago
"Rules for thee, not for me."
taftster 12y ago
I doubt that many CTO types are "real tech guys." Perhaps at one point, they might have coded something up once. But CTO's are management first, with a few noteworthy exceptions. I think this is more likely two "buddies" rubbing each other's backs.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Dowd, he said, wanted to join IronNet, and the deal was devised as a way to keep Dowd's technological expertise at least partly within the U.S. government, rather than losing him permanently to the private sector. xkcd, as so often happens in these circumstances, has already illustrated this problem rather well. http://xkcd.com/898/ http://xkcd.com/898/