NSA Complains That It Has To Spend Time Closing Leaks Rather Than Spying On Everyone
from the missing-the-point dept
NPR has a slightly bizarre article claiming that the effects of the Snowden leaks "aren't what he intended." Except the article doesn't really suggest that at all. It does focus on how the NSA is now spending a ton of time trying to figure out how to prevent future leaks, but that's to be expected. It also talks about how the NSA needs to focus on that rather than on spying on everyone with a hint of "and you might all die because we can't do our jobs" added in for flavor.Another effect of Snowden's disclosures on NSA operations has been that agency leaders have chosen to expedite planned security reforms, as part of an effort to prevent future leaks. The agency has begun consolidating databases, moving them from separate repositories into large data centers where cloud analysis can be employed. The data are to be "tagged" with restrictions so that analysts not qualified or authorized to review the information will not be able to access it.Of course, that's silly. If part of what Snowden revealed was the terrible data management and security of the NSA, then that seems worth fixing anyway. In fact, it could be argued that the failure to properly control the NSA's data was likely a much bigger threat than anything Snowden leaked.
"We've had to do things that we had planned to do over the next three or four years and move them dramatically to the left," says the NSA's chief information officer, Lonny Anderson. "We haven't asked for additional resources. We've just said, 'We've got to do this.' So something gives, because we're not getting additional resources. And what gives, for us, is mission."
The NSA mission is intelligence gathering.
"We have to make sure we don't cross a line where we're so busy locking down the networks that we're not defending the nation," Anderson says. "That's the fine line we walk."
NSA folks in the article also complain that the bad guys might use other forms of communication, but they've been saying that all along, and that's a silly complaint. As noted, most actual terrorists were already pretty aware of what technologies to avoid.
What the article really means by its title is that the NSA itself hasn't had a mass-epiphany that it should change its ways. But I don't think anyone ever believed that would happen, let alone Snowden. The effect that Snowden appears to have wanted was to have the public more aware of what the NSA was doing, hopefully leading to policy makers in Congress to fix the problems that have allowed the NSA to have gone so far overboard with its surveillance efforts. And that debate is happening, and considering how many bills have been introduced to reform the surveillance state, it appears that the debate is having an impact. How big an impact remains to be seen, but to argue that it's not having the effect he wanted is just wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, fud, nsa, nsa surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Considering the "mission" appears to be spying on US citizens, I'm pretty ok with this result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything to get the focus off them going to jail.
So why not use the awesome power of Techdirt to advocate indictment, trial, and jail for the NSA criminals, Mike? Simple, Populist, do-able, and necessary if We The People are ever going to wrest control back from those who run the corporatist surveillance grid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how these guys would do running the Titanic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes you errant lil' bastard. And quit being so damned nosey while you're at it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe, the things they are moving "to the left" should have been done before introducing the systems. The best way to shore up their priorities is probably to starve the beast anyway. In that way they can't increase the haystacks further to hide the needles under more layers of useless hay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, the NSA is so bad a security that they have to outsource it to a private contractor.
Wasn't it a private contractor that got the NSA into this mess in the first place?
/face desk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple solution to stopping leaks:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mission Smission
It is far more likely that the 'mission' that is interrupted is the analysis (aka snooping through your records).
This sounds like systems analyst and architecture territory (though they do say "restrictions so that analysts not qualified", I wonder if they confuse the different types of analysts or that programmers are gonna need real data to test their programs?) and those folks don't work fast and they are just one end of a development pipeline.
Come to think of it, I wonder if they already have the right architecture in the box and just weren't allowed to implement it previously because it would create 'restrictions' or something. That might cut a chunk of program development.
All this goes to saying: Just what in hell are they going to lose? They haven't found anything yet, so the net loss is +-0?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are still hoping to do damage control while the Titanic sinks. Bring the Amish amendment back. Cut the funding. Remove the black budget out of the Pentagon that funds them. Once it is no longer in existence, maybe it can be found out just what they are afraid of being revealed. It sure isn't what so far has come out. No one really seems concerned so much about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Centralized weak point
The example that popped into my mind when I read that was the decision in Pearl Harbor to move all the planes close together so they could protect them from sabotage. I'm thinking there are a lot of similar historical examples.
Get scared by the threat of a minor problem, react to create a single failure point for a much greater disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]