Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[NeverSure]

NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies’ bottom line

By Andrea Peterson

Cloud providers..

Link

Edited August 10, 2013 by NeverSure

[simple1]

NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies’ bottom line

By Andrea Peterson

Cloud providers..

Link

It's been an issue for a long time for overseas governments & corporates commencing with the enactment of the Patriot Act.

[simple1]

Rats within the system will never be completely eliminated, but efforts must be made to keep the number of Snowdens to an absolute minimum.

The NSA Intends To Fire 90% Of Their System Administrators To Eliminate Future Leaks

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-firing-sysdadmins-2013-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare

The National Security Agency, hit by disclosures of classified data by former contractor Edward Snowden, said Thursday it intends to eliminate about 90 percent of its system administrators to reduce the number of people with access to secret information, according to Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, which is the U.S. spy agency charged with monitoring foreign electronic communications, and who told a cybersecurity conference in New York City that automating much of the work would improve security.

"What we're in the process of doing - not fast enough - is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent," he said in remarks that came as the agency is facing scrutiny after Snowden, who had been one of about 1,000 system administrators who help run the agency's networks, leaked classified details about surveillance programs to the press.

"What we've done is we've put people in the loop of transferring data, securing networks and doing things that machines are probably better at doing," Alexander said.

Automated and sophisticated Sys Admin enterprise tools have been around for quite a while. The above article really highlights poor IT management policy and governance by the NSA. Have the responsible IT management been fired?

Edited August 11, 2013 by simple1

[Publicus]

Rats within the system will never be completely eliminated, but efforts must be made to keep the number of Snowdens to an absolute minimum.

The NSA Intends To Fire 90% Of Their System Administrators To Eliminate Future Leaks

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-firing-sysdadmins-2013-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare

The National Security Agency, hit by disclosures of classified data by former contractor Edward Snowden, said Thursday it intends to eliminate about 90 percent of its system administrators to reduce the number of people with access to secret information, according to Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, which is the U.S. spy agency charged with monitoring foreign electronic communications, and who told a cybersecurity conference in New York City that automating much of the work would improve security.

"What we're in the process of doing - not fast enough - is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent," he said in remarks that came as the agency is facing scrutiny after Snowden, who had been one of about 1,000 system administrators who help run the agency's networks, leaked classified details about surveillance programs to the press.

"What we've done is we've put people in the loop of transferring data, securing networks and doing things that machines are probably better at doing," Alexander said.

Automated and sophisticated Sys Admin enterprise tools have been around for quite a while. The above article really highlights poor IT management policy and governance by the NSA. Have the responsible IT management been fired?

That certainly is a good and material question.

The headline says "intends" and the article doesn't say it has been done, or that the process has begun or is underway.

Neither does the article discuss any contractual complications to "firing" a large number of employees who are probably a mix of federal employees or contract agents such as Snowden had been. The employees probably have protections and/or "due process" clauses built into their contracts. But I don't know either.

A lot of follow up to this would be necessary and desirable.

[Scott]

A post violating fair use policy has been removed.

[SinglePot]

Where's the safest cloud?

East, West, somewhere in the middle?

[mania]

Where's the safest cloud?

East, West, somewhere in the middle?

[Credo]

Firing 90% of the system administrators might not mean getting rid of them. It probably means only getting rid of them as a system administrator and allowing them a different type of access and clearance.

[Publicus]

Where's the safest cloud?

East, West, somewhere in the middle?

safest cloud.jpeg

Izzat you?

I don't assume it is you, I only ask the question rhetorically given the nature of things. (Nor did I read your link, as it seems eccentric.)

[mania]

Izzat you?

I don't assume it is you, I only ask the question rhetorically given the nature of things. (Nor did I read your link, as it seems eccentric.)

Sorry there is no link & also sorry there is no icon for the humor impaired.

Nothing for you there move along now & get back to your blogging

[mania]

Where's the safest cloud?

East, West, somewhere in the middle?

Kidding aside such storage is not safe ever. For instance Big pharmaceutical companies go to great lengths to protect their data

& research because in developing a new drug etc. there are millions of dollars of research at stake & billions of dollars in future profits at stake.

I knew a scientist who worked for one large firm & he told me they have no external links. That they have a very small window

of time on certain prearranged days where they may open a line to pass data but as soon as they were done the doors were closed with no openings left for security reasons.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Scott
formatting

[Publicus]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

Sorry, but the USA are not strategically threatened by the terrorists. They could kill 5000 americans a year and it still wouldn't be a major threat to the USA.

Sure, it frightens and angers citizens, as well as kills some.

But destabilize the country? no. Unless the bee stings frighten politicians enough for them to break the constitution and ignore civil rights. *THEN* the country gets destabilized.

I see the word "strategic" is a word and concept, not to mention the reality, you have some serious challenges to recognize and to deal with.

Have you entered this thread on this page or have you been reading it from the point of the OP? Your post raises the question.

One 9/11 was enough to create a fury of strategic reaction that continues to impact the world, to include domestically in the United States.

Another 9/11 or anything resembling it might finally show you what the word strategic means.

[manarak]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

Sorry, but the USA are not strategically threatened by the terrorists. They could kill 5000 americans a year and it still wouldn't be a major threat to the USA.

Sure, it frightens and angers citizens, as well as kills some.

But destabilize the country? no. Unless the bee stings frighten politicians enough for them to break the constitution and ignore civil rights. *THEN* the country gets destabilized.

I see the word "strategic" is a word and concept, not to mention the reality, you have some serious challenges to recognize and to deal with.

Have you entered this thread on this page or have you been reading it from the point of the OP? Your post raises the question.

One 9/11 was enough to create a fury of strategic reaction that continues to impact the world, to include domestically in the United States.

Another 9/11 or anything resembling it might finally show you what the word strategic means.

OP is ThaiVisa's "News_Editor" who was just repeating a news story.

What you are saying is that 9/11 promted the USA to adopt a strategy based on anger.

That just proves part of my point.

[manarak]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

Sorry, but the USA are not strategically threatened by the terrorists. They could kill 5000 americans a year and it still wouldn't be a major threat to the USA.

Sure, it frightens and angers citizens, as well as kills some.

But destabilize the country? no. Unless the bee stings frighten politicians enough for them to break the constitution and ignore civil rights. *THEN* the country gets destabilized.

I see the word "strategic" is a word and concept, not to mention the reality, you have some serious challenges to recognize and to deal with.

Have you entered this thread on this page or have you been reading it from the point of the OP? Your post raises the question.

One 9/11 was enough to create a fury of strategic reaction that continues to impact the world, to include domestically in the United States.

Another 9/11 or anything resembling it might finally show you what the word strategic means.

And here is something for your conscience to chew on:

Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/money-nsa-vote

[Publicus]

I'm a citizen of the United States and subject to its code of laws whether I'm at home or abroad.

If I harbor a fugitive from US justice at my expat home in a foreign country I've violated a US law. As a citizen, I'm culpable, a perp.

The asylum is not recognized by US law.

If Snowden today tried to fly to, say, Venezuela, the U.S. Government would go after him. Any asylum papers would get tossed into the garbage can.

Then the US Government would come after me, or wait for me. I'd probably lose the passport by revocation during the commotion.

U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions. The UN Amnesty Treaty/Convention has its provisos and caveats.

US legal agencies have no jurisdiction outside the USA. They might operate in a country with the agreement of that country's government but US sovereignty does not trump any other foreign government's laws or actions.

Your statement fails to relate to anything you quote of my posts.

In other words, tell me something I don't already know.

Then what does the last line of your post mean? viz: "U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions."

The last line of my post contains two sentences, sentences that are directly related. The reference is to national sovereignty in the context of the United Nations and its conventions. Re-read the line please, this time to make the connection, for context and for comprehension.

A sovereign government is a sovereign government whether it be Russia, the United States or any other government. Sovereignty refers to absolute and final authority within its jurisdiction. Of course the Russian government has sovereignty over Russia, all of it. (I'd bet you'd now want to talk about embassies and consulates .)

You've made more than one post about this. What were you thinking?

Nevermind.

[Publicus]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

Sorry, but the USA are not strategically threatened by the terrorists. They could kill 5000 americans a year and it still wouldn't be a major threat to the USA.

Sure, it frightens and angers citizens, as well as kills some.

But destabilize the country? no. Unless the bee stings frighten politicians enough for them to break the constitution and ignore civil rights. *THEN* the country gets destabilized.

I see the word "strategic" is a word and concept, not to mention the reality, you have some serious challenges to recognize and to deal with.

Have you entered this thread on this page or have you been reading it from the point of the OP? Your post raises the question.

One 9/11 was enough to create a fury of strategic reaction that continues to impact the world, to include domestically in the United States.

Another 9/11 or anything resembling it might finally show you what the word strategic means.

And here is something for your conscience to chew on:

Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/money-nsa-vote

Unfortunately, this is standard for the Congress. It's the same same news as the Congress never changes. The Congress and the Supreme Court are serial violators of privacy in the United States, have been for several decades.

That Congress is on the take - Congress long ago, in 1974, made it legal to be on the take - from defense contractors and high tech companies that do business with the U.S. Government is objectionable to me but it's also old news to me. Very old news to myself and a lotta Americans - most Americans for sure.

We don't like it, so we vote the bums out. Then the new guys become even worse bums.

The more things change, the more they stay the same I'm afraid.

[midas]

Obama On NSA Spying

Quote

it's impossible for Americans to conduct that analysis beyond the assurances his administration has given.

"Understandably, people would be concerned," the president said. "I would be, too, if I weren't inside the government."

“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson

Edited August 11, 2013 by midas

[Scott]

Let's stay on the topic of the thread.

[sustento]

Where's the safest cloud?

East, West, somewhere in the middle?

If your data sits anywhere than on the hard disks in your house then it's not safe...

[lomatopo]

To me it's pretty obvious that President Obama's efforts last week: appearance on Jay Leno, press conference were meant to get ahead of upcoming bombshells rather than a real concern about changing the behavior of the security services. He'd much rather be on the Vineyard taking a vacation until after Labor Day. I'll believe he's sincere when he gives Mr. Snowden a Presidential Pardon, sometime before January 1, 2015.

NSA Deletes Fact Sheet On NSA Spying After Senate Points Out It's Actually NSA Lying: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130626/09531023625/nsa-deletes-fact-sheet-nsa-spying-after-senate-points-out-its-actually-nsa-lying.shtml

NSA Tries To Justify Its Surveillance Programs With Ridiculous Assertions: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130809/15171824130/nsa-tries-to-justify-its-surveillance-programs-with-ridiculous-assertions.shtml

Full disclosure: I voted for Barack Obama, twice.

Edited August 12, 2013 by lomatopo

[manarak]

Unfortunately, this is standard for the Congress. It's the same same news as the Congress never changes. The Congress and the Supreme Court are serial violators of privacy in the United States, have been for several decades.

That Congress is on the take - Congress long ago, in 1974, made it legal to be on the take - from defense contractors and high tech companies that do business with the U.S. Government is objectionable to me but it's also old news to me. Very old news to myself and a lotta Americans - most Americans for sure.

We don't like it, so we vote the bums out. Then the new guys become even worse bums.

The more things change, the more they stay the same I'm afraid.

Publicus, you repeatedly made the point that Snowden should have used the official channels to blow his whistle.

Please read what happened to Thomas Drake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

I think that's more than a good reason not to follow official channels.

[SinglePot]

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Drake did not leave the US and then reveal information to the media.

Snowden did.

Drake did not create uncertainty in the US by potentially revealing information to enemies of the US.

Snowden did.

Drake was acquitted on all charges and is a free man.

Snowden. Currently in Russia and doing very little good it would seem for US-Russia relationships.

Drake had an admirable history of loyal service to the US.

Snowden?.

Edited August 12, 2013 by SinglePot

[manarak]

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Drake did not leave the US and then reveal information to the media.

Snowden did.

Drake did not create uncertainty in the US by potentially revealing information to enemies of the US.

Snowden did.

Drake was acquitted on all charges and is a free man.

Snowden. Currently in Russia and doing very little good it would seem for US-Russia relationships.

Drake had an admirable history of loyal service to the US.

Snowden?.

congratulations, you listed many reasons why Snowden's case would have been much more difficult than Drake's to defend, and Drake just barely got away!

And Drake didn't reveal secrets - I don't know how Snowden could have brought up the topic of breach of the fourth amendment by NSA without revealing secrets.

Drake did not leave the US => yes. he followed official channels at first, and then was indicted inspite of doing nothing illegal.

Drake did not reveal information to enemies => yes, and he was indicted regardless, and his life destroyed

Drake was aquitted of all charges => technically yes, but he lost his job and his pension, was treated like a criminal, and it's only because of luck that he wasn't imprisoned - the reason being his co-whistleblowers refusing to cut a deal with prosecution to charge Drake. If they had been less honorable persons, they would have lied to save their skin and sent Drake to prison for a long time.

Drake had an admirable history of service => yes, and imagine what would have happened to Snowden! A jury and in general people who are good at smalltalk/networking (bosses and opinion leaders) really love introverted computer freaks. NOT.

I'd bet that Snowden would just have been crushed by the NSA/FBI machine of bad faith supported by negative propaganda about him.

Drake's case showed a total disrespect for the Law and Constitution by both executive civil servants and by members of Congress. The following snippet from Wikipedia illustrates this:

Drake worked his way through the legal processes that are prescribed for government employees who believe that questionable activities are taking place in their departments.^[22] In accordance with whistleblower protection laws such as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, Drake complained internally to the designated authorities: to his bosses, the NSA Inspector General, the Defense Department Inspector General, and both the House and Senate Congressional intelligence committees.^[25]

He also kept in contact with Diane S. Roark, a staffer for the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee of the U.S. Congress (the House committee responsible for oversight of the executive branch's intelligence activities).^[22] Roark was the "staff expert" on the NSA's budget,^[9] and the two of them had met in 2000.^[15]

In September 2002, Roark and three former NSA officials, William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe,^[26] and Ed Loomis,^[27] filed a DoD Inspector General report regarding problems at NSA, including Trailblazer.^[15] Drake was a major source for the report, and gave information to DoD during its investigation of the matter.^[15] Roark tried to notify her superior, then-Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss.^[7] She also attempted to contact William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court at the time.^[15] In addition, Roark made an effort to inform Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David Addington, who had been a Republican staff colleague of hers on the committee in the 1980s.^[21] Addington was later revealed by a Washington Post report to be the author of the controlling legal and technical documents for the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, typing the documents on a Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk in room 268 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and storing them in a vault in his office.^[28][29][30] Roark got no response from all three men.

Instead of being contacted by the "Authorities", he got FBI SWAT teams with drawn guns in his and his friends' homes and charged with crimes worth 35 years in prison.

This as a reward for doing his duty as a citizen.

In short, the official channels cannot be trusted to handle such a matter adequately and without putting the whistleblower at risk.

Edited August 12, 2013 by manarak

[SinglePot]

He still may be.

[manarak]

as a P.S. to my previous post about Drake, don't say that the system worked in the end, since nobody was charged or sentenced except Drake for a symbolic misdemeanor for which had to plead guilty.

I'm fairly convinced that the only reason Drake has not disappeared in a cell for a long time is that the press had been informed.

There is an evil machinery at work behind the scenes, working with power, fear and money. mostly taxpayer's money.

Edited August 12, 2013 by manarak

[mania]

There is an evil machinery at work behind the scenes, working with power, fear and money. mostly taxpayer's money.

One has to imagine the billions to be made by those that supply the tools of these trades.

It is very beneficial for them to continue the fear mongering & justify their existence.

Not to mention the sheer power of information illegally gained & exploited at opportune times.

No matter what they say Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Edited August 12, 2013 by mania

[SinglePot]

Shame the US trampled all over the natives then.

Cherokee chief would probably deal very well with matters of this nature.

[manarak]

Shame the US trampled all over the natives then.

Cherokee chief would probably deal very well with matters of this nature.

NSA and Snowden. What do the Cherokees or any other native americans have to do with them?

[SinglePot]

Just pointing out that given people's concern about the US government and the Constitution, alternative methods of elected leadership have worked well in the past.

[midas]

It looks like Edward Snowden was just the beginning …………….

Are we going to see more leaks?
Yes. A lot [of Anonymous members] are mid- to high-rank NCOs. They are well-respected, have connections, and overly large security clearances. A lot of people who are part of the [Anonymous] culture are just dying at this point for something to come across their table that isn’t already out there. It is so easy to leak information that if you want to, you can do it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/anonymous-secret-presence-in-the-us-army