Here's what one of NSA's former chiefs, Michael Hayden, had to say just a week ago (probably unaware this was going to happen): > By the time I became NSA dire

Here's what one of NSA's former chiefs, Michael Hayden, had to say just a week ago (probably unaware this was going to happen): > By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere. This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood. That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-boxed-in-by-its-own-computers/2015/04/02/30742192-cc04-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-b...