4 ms·

Is it possible to hold the position that the NSA should be conducting signals intelligence, data collection, and code-breaking (and yes, email snooping) -- yet

Is it possible to hold the position that the NSA should be conducting signals intelligence, data collection, and code-breaking (and yes, email snooping) -- yet at the same time hold the position that the blatantly malicious activities: 0day exploits, software and hardware backdooring, etc should not be allowed? Why commit ourselves to a massive overhaul of the entire NSA when we can address the actual problem here with some granularity and minimal cost yielding an impact almost all of us would enjoy?

Balgair 12y ago
True, I think the Snowden events have uncovered the unfortunate reality that there is a gigantic hole in the boat. In the end, the only way we get out of this is to redesign the system, from hardware on up, to be secure. The NSA, as per their mandate from Congress as an expression of the will of the people of the USA, is using the holes in the boat to advance the security of the nation. It is literally their job to do this. Again, the issue is that the boat is leaky. Maybe we humans decide that this leaky problem is not all that bad, and like biology, a certain percentage of 'sinking' is acceptable versus the cost to make a better boat. I dont think this is true though, because lawyers. Making a better and more secure net is the end of the game, it is only time that stands between us.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  The NSA does not have a mandate from Congress: it was created by an executive order of President Truman in 1952 (https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pd...). That order was classified for a very long time. That's to say that you're starting from false premises. It is not the NSA's job to advance the security of the nation at all. Hence the need to split it up now. It's time to move the legal basis from executive order to something else, that something else publicly debated and mandated by the people.
drjesusphd 12y ago
> Why commit ourselves to a massive overhaul of the entire NSA when we can address the actual problem here with some granularity and minimal cost yielding an impact almost all of us would enjoy? Because they've been exposed as untrustworthy. Any attempt at reasonable reform will be met with obstruction, obfuscation, and lies. > 0day exploits, software and hardware backdooring Up until it was proven, they denied doing these kind of things. What makes you think they'd tell the truth in the future?

Balgair 12y ago

True, I think the Snowden events have uncovered the unfortunate reality that there is a gigantic hole in the boat. In the end, the only way we get out of this is to redesign the system, from hardware on up, to be secure. The NSA, as per their mandate from Congress as an expression of the will of the people of the USA, is using the holes in the boat to advance the security of the nation. It is literally their job to do this. Again, the issue is that the boat is leaky. Maybe we humans decide that this leaky problem is not all that bad, and like biology, a certain percentage of 'sinking' is acceptable versus the cost to make a better boat. I dont think this is true though, because lawyers. Making a better and more secure net is the end of the game, it is only time that stands between us.

bediger4000 12y ago
The NSA does not have a mandate from Congress: it was created by an executive order of President Truman in 1952 (https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/truman/truman_memo.pd...). That order was classified for a very long time. That's to say that you're starting from false premises. It is not the NSA's job to advance the security of the nation at all. Hence the need to split it up now. It's time to move the legal basis from executive order to something else, that something else publicly debated and mandated by the people.

drjesusphd 12y ago

> Why commit ourselves to a massive overhaul of the entire NSA when we can address the actual problem here with some granularity and minimal cost yielding an impact almost all of us would enjoy? Because they've been exposed as untrustworthy. Any attempt at reasonable reform will be met with obstruction, obfuscation, and lies. > 0day exploits, software and hardware backdooring Up until it was proven, they denied doing these kind of things. What makes you think they'd tell the truth in the future?