Expected Next Defense Department Boss Claims Snowden Leak A 'Huge Detriment' To US, Willing To Give Cybersecurity To FBI
from the of-course dept
It's widely expected that Ashton Carter is going to be nominated as the next Defense Secretary to replace Chuck Hagel, who recently was pushed out by President Obama. So it seemed like an opportune time to see that the latest podcast from venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz was actually a panel discussion involving Carter and Yahoo's security boss Alex Stamos. The whole podcast is actually quite interesting:If anyone thinks we did a good job protecting Defense networks, take a look at Edward Snowden. Whatever you think of that, it was a classic insider threat -- realized to the huge detriment of the country.It would seem that his "whatever you think of that" is immediately negated by his "huge detriment to the country." But I'm curious as to what that huge detriment really is. So far, all we've seen is that it revealed to the public abusive practices of the NSA and its partners, widespread mass surveillance on Americans that has raised significant questions of legality and constitutionality by all three branches of government. And yet, what hasn't been shown is any harm caused by this.
Not that I'd expect a bigshot in the Defense Department to celebrate Snowden's whistleblowing, but at the very least, you'd hope that some would avoid throwing around bogus smears that don't seem to be supported by reality.
Later in the discussion there is a pretty interesting look at the state of cybersecurity issues. The big "information sharing" question is brought up, but more interesting is that Carter seems to admit that he'd be okay with the Justice Department handling cybersecurity issues, rather than the Defense Department. This is actually quite surprising. For years, we've highlighted that much of the fight within the government concerning cybersecurity legislation was really nothing more than a turf war between the Defense Department (NSA) and Homeland Security over who would get the purse strings for the massive cybersecurity budget. While Homeland Security has its problems, we'd greatly prefer a civilian agency have control over the situation, rather than a military one using its signals intelligence agency for cybersecurity (since the two goals there are clearly at odds). Carter surprisingly admits that it's something of a turf battle, but seems to indicate his comfort with a third player handling it instead: the Justice Department. In fact, he even basically notes that, contrary to what the NSA (and others in the Defense Department) have claimed in the past, the NSA really isn't that good at cybersecurity, since that's not what its job is about:
A lot of the threat information that the government collects in the counterintelligence area, counterterrorism, protect your own networks area -- some of its germane, but a lot of it is not really germane to these commercial attacks. Said differently, the government isn't collecting a lot of information about these attacks. That's thing one.That's pretty interesting -- because for years the view from the outside has always been that the Defense Department was the one that was actively demanding this control. The NSA, under Keith Alexander in particular, was pretty blatant about wanting the cybersecurity mandate. If Carter is really willing to give that up, that's interesting. Though, of course, the NSA and FBI have a fairly close relationship -- and I don't see how handing this mandate over to the FBI is such a good idea either. You pretty quickly run into the same issues the NSA had (though sometimes with even less oversight).
Thing two, which is less acceptable, is in this... the US federal government has still not made a decision in the manner of cyberdefense of the kind it had to make in the area of counterterrorism. Which is: is this an attack, a crime or a disaster? Now, why does that matter if it's all three? Well, if it's an attack, then you expect you defense establishment to take care of it. If it's a crime, then you expect your law enforcement establishment to take care of it. And if it's a disaster, then you expect your Homeland Security apparatus to take care of it.
So there's been this sort of three-fold struggle over this. And you add this huge layer of lawyering -- government lawyering, which is even worse -- on top of this, and you have stasis and paralysis.... Even that which is collected and could be shared is inadequately shared, because of those trivial bureaucratic [logjam]....
... I think you see Jim Comey trying to [break that logjam]. My attitude, when I was representing the Defense Department, to Jim and his predecessor Bob Mueller, my attitude was 'I'm not going to try to claim this. Go for it. And I'm 100% behind you.' I could never get Homeland Security, quite honestly. Because they had the attitude that they wanted this bureaucratically. I mean all bureaucracies want things. And they wanted this. But they didn't have the capability. Comey had the authorities and some reasonable technical capabilities. We had a lot of technical capability, but I didn't feel like we were the right people to do it.
So my attitude was, "this is a national problem, let me just get in behind Jim and tell all my bureaucrats to stuff it and stop fighting with him and trying to seize it yourself" but I never got Homeland Security to that point of view.
Either way, given how much attention Carter is likely to get for his expected new role, it seems worth noting his views on these things that we discuss around these parts pretty frequently.
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: ashton carter, chuck hagel, edward snowden, nsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, let's talk for starters all the business that's being lost overseas by the NSA's actions, the growing distrust of Americans against their own government, and the realization we've politicians who think the Constitution is more of a set of "guidelines" rather than the founding purpose for the reason this country exists.
Oh, wait a second. I see what you're doing here. You're asking about the detriment on their side.
I can probably count on one hand the people who care about that side, and from that, can show you who truly hates this country's freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What detriment!?!? I'll tell you what detriment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What detriment!?!? I'll tell you what detriment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When that is said, we can probable agree that "classic insider threat" is not even close to a relevant description of Snowden. Conscience leaks or whistleblowing is a relatively new thing and very easily distinguished from incentive based non-public leaks.
Calling this type of action a "classic insider threat" is problematic from the point of security since - if for nothing else - avoiding this type of action will take a completely different approach compared to classic espionage activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, you COULD look at the bigger picture and see how the actions were MORE detrimental to everyone else as a whole, but that's awfully narrow minded to only consider the real victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ghostery blocked SoundCloud video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ghostery blocked SoundCloud video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ghostery blocked SoundCloud video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Separate the defense from the offense. However, I very much fear this is intended to give FBI the same kind of hacking powers as NSA, which is what FBI has been asking for a while, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't a detriment to the Country, only its' image of itself.
He showed us where the corruption was.
He showed us where the real terrorists were (inside the government).
He showed us who the greatest threats to our way of life were (again, inside the government).
Snowden for President, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028 (yes, I'd repeal term limits exclusively for Snowden).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is a very big threat to those that would rather have serfs than citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: again, BULLSHIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole thing is bullshit
It's all bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just hit me that him saying those things in the interview was a signal to the DOD that he's a team player. He's basically subordinating himself to his underlings before he's taking the position. Disgraceful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]