
N.S.A. Report Outlined Goals for More Power - r0h1n
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/us/politics/nsa-report-outlined-goals-for-more-power.html?hp&_r=2&pagewanted=all&
======
ihsw
It really saddens me that so much resources are devoted to _destroying_ the
world's security. It stands to reason that all of their research efforts will
inevitably be leaked out to the general populace, and at that point we will be
in a World of Shit.

It will be like antibiotics suddenly becoming useless, but instead encryption
suddenly becoming useless.

It's not about spying anymore, it's about manipulating the world to meet your
needs. And it's getting easier for them to do their job and harder for us to
keep our freedom -- the surveillance-industrial complex is gaining momentum
because it's the new "air superiority."

The cost is so fantastically low that it's foolish for military institutions
-- be it sovereign or otherwise -- it's foolish for them to _not_ invest in
their own surveillance infrastructure.

If there's anything the world's governments can agree on with regards to
ubiquitous gigabit fibre, it's one thing: surveillance will definitely be
easier _and_ cheaper.

~~~
cinquemb
If things stay as they are, things will be easier and cheaper. But things
never stay the same, and even for their needs, crypto won't suddenly become
useless (maybe the kind that relies on central parties, but people who take
this stuff seriously probably don't rely on the "we promise we wont look at
your key generation" in their threat models, and look, even AFRICOM uses
Chinese satellites[0] which I'm sure numerous of SIGINT folks had to give
their ok for, right?).

And there are things on the horizon like meshnets[1] that should prove to
bring more challenges for governments (and private contractors/companies) that
seek to tap backbones, DIY cellphones[2] that bypass coercive governments who
sweet talk org/corps, and cheap drones that can be controlled by gestures of
potential targets at the disposal of the masses[3] that enable crowd-sourced
data collection and attack vectors previously not available to the common man.

Also, impromptu DoD initiatives[4], don't make me think things are as
asymmetric as most people may think.

[0] [http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/07/american-military-
commun...](http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/07/american-military-
communications-should-not-be-running-over-chinese-satellites/)

[1] [http://forum.chimeshnet.com/](http://forum.chimeshnet.com/)

[2] [http://hlt.media.mit.edu/?p=2182](http://hlt.media.mit.edu/?p=2182)

[3] [http://startupdestiny.com/2013/11/19/why-i-hacked-an-ar-
dron...](http://startupdestiny.com/2013/11/19/why-i-hacked-an-ar-drone-with-
leap-motion-and-node-js-part-1-of-2/)

[4]
[http://www.zyn.com/sbir/sbres/sbir/dod/darpa/darpasb133-002....](http://www.zyn.com/sbir/sbres/sbir/dod/darpa/darpasb133-002.htm)

------
javajosh
This part jumped out at me:

 _> In other countries, the document said, the N.S.A. must also "counter
indigenous cryptographic programs by targeting their industrial bases with all
available Sigint and Humint"_

The phrase _indigenous cryptographic programs_ brings up the interesting
possibility that other countries use different encryption algorithms, and
standards that are (apparently) rather difficult for the NSA to crack. Anyone
know what they may be alluding to here?

P.S. It goes without saying, but the current (and previous) administration was
absolutely wrong to sanction these wanton violations of our rights. It would
be wrong even if it were effective at combating threats, but it isn't. The
fact that the NSA wants _even more_ of this kind of information is proof that
the value of self-restraint is missing. Good people - particularly
intelligent, well-intentioned political dissidents - are going to be stifled
by these intrusions, and the health of our democracy _depends_ on allowing the
free expression of that dissent without fear of reprisal.

------
themodelplumber
Media reports relying on materials that Snowden leaked should credit him by
name within the first two paragraphs, and he should get credits against
potential U.S. jail time for every article of this kind published to mass
media. I don't like that millions are reading headlines and going, "holy cow
whoa geez" and lining up their political thinking accordingly, without ever
knowing that Snowden, completely locked out of the U.S. or any western country
at this point is the one who provided the information in question.

~~~
SwellJoe
I agree with you, but Snowden doesn't. He's frequently asked the journalists
who have communicated with him to downplay his name in the story, because he
believes the story is so much more important than his involvement.

I don't know how to combine that desire for the story to take the lead and for
him to get credit with the American people he deserves (and get the public
sentiment so firmly on his side that the powers that be _have_ to pardon him,
or face a vengeful public).

I also don't know how to inform Americans about how many of our politicians
endorse all of these illegal actions (and the legal ones that aren't ethical).
Every one in America should be furious at Obama, Pelosi (so much rage at
Pelosi is warranted), Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, etc. But, they aren't. Even
people who think the Snowden and Manning leaks were a good and necessary thing
aren't connecting the dots that Obama is where the buck stops.

And, those very few senators and members of the house who've had the guts to
support Snowden and Manning should be getting a whole lot of praise. Bernie
Sanders and Rand Paul (who I'm loathe to say nice things about) deserve
respect for standing up on this one.

~~~
nostrademons
The way to credit Snowden is to get things to change, ideally so that he can
come home.

The way to get things to change is to clearly, calmly, quietly, and
confidently educate all the people you know on what the government has done
and why this runs so contrary to the American spirit. You don't need to
bluster or make emotional pleas. You do need to come down firmly on the side
you believe is right, and educate the folks around you.

I had a discussion about Snowden recently with a number of friends and
acquaintances of mine. I had offhandedly mentioned his name as a leader in a
discussion on the nature of leadership, and someone vociferously objected to
my terming him as such, even playing the "traitor" card. I didn't have to
respond to him, however, because about 5-6 of my friends chimed in, explaining
the facts about what the government had done and why this meant that it was
the NSA in the wrong here and not Snowden. And then several bystanders who
previously knew nothing about Snowden said that even without knowing all the
facts of the case, they were much more swayed by the Snowden supporters
because we presented reasoned, sourced debate rather than impassioned name-
calling. These were not techies - they were well-educated, generally
professional 20- and 30-somethings.

------
jlgaddis
FTFA:

 _> The agency also said it would try to decrypt or bypass codes that keep
communications secret by influencing “the global commercial encryption market
through commercial relationships,” ..._

 _> The agency plans to fight back against the rise of encryption through
relationships with companies that develop encryption tools and through
espionage operations._

Does that sound like "backdoor Symantec PGP WDE, Microsoft Bitlocker, etc." to
anyone else?

~~~
navyrain
Certainly any encryption system which cannot at least be publicly audited
should not be trusted.

~~~
jlgaddis
Absolutely.

I don't use TrueCrypt but I was happy to contribute to the recent fundraiser
to audit it. I'd also like to see audits of other (crypto-related) projects
such as dm-crypt/LUKS, GnuPG, OpenSSL, GnuTLS, etc (and would happily
contribute to those as well!).

------
r0h1n
Laura Poitras, the story's co-author, together with Edward Snowden and Glenn
Greenwald, is part of the 'troika' that broke open this can of worms. In case
you still haven't read NYT Mag's fascinating profile of hers, please do:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-
sno...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html)

------
suprgeek
It is very clearly laying out what they think - and in black and white text -
the LAWS are what is broken - not the screwed-up snooping at any cost motto of
the NSA - so the LAW (U.S Constitution and state and federal statutes) should
be modified.

"We have the power to snoop on anybody at anytime and by god we will go to any
lengths to protect and increase this illegal power." The fact that Terrorism
is not even tangentially invoked is the true tragedy of this situation. All
the current laws vastly increasing the intrusive surveillance were passed post
9/11 to specifically stop terrorism.

------
001sky
_" American laws were not adequate to meet the needs of the N.S.A."_

= Interesting choice of words?

~~~
Amadou
It is a paraphrasing by the article's authors. It is their take on the
document.

Fortunately the article includes a link to a copy of the document. Published
on documentcloud with a crappy user-interface it is a PITA to read it and I
can't find a link to download as a PDF either. But at least you still have the
option to read the original source yourself.

~~~
frostmatthew
Viewing it on DocumentCloud provides a link to the PDF
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8383...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/838324/2012-2016-sigint-
strategy-23-feb-12.pdf)

~~~
Amadou
How did you get from the NYT inline widget to the PDF file? I didn't see any
links from the NYT page to documentcloud itself -- the only reason I even knew
it was documentcloud was because I had to whitelist it in RequestPolicy.

~~~
frostmatthew
No idea what "RequestPolicy" is but the widget has DocumentCloud's name/logo
(which links to their homepage), searching DocumentCloud for the title of the
document _SIGINT strategy_ [1] yields this as the first result and when you
view it on DocumentCloud[2] (as opposed to the widget) it includes a link to
the PDF.

[1]
[https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/SIGINT%20strateg...](https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/SIGINT%20strategy)

[2]
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/838324-2012-2016-sig...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/838324-2012-2016-sigint-
strategy-23-feb-12.html)

------
salient
I think anyone who still believes the mass surveillance isn't used over 95
percent of the time for _different_ reasons than "defending against
terrorism", is being naive at this point.

This is mainly about industrial espionage, and maintaining the power over the
world (by any means necessary), primarily for the NSA, then for the US
government, and then for their partners in the military industrial complex.

They know that mass surveillance is a treasure trove for _all kinds of
scenarios_ , present, and future, against anyone who might ever question US's
wishes - ever. They just can't imagine giving that up.

For me to trust the US government or to _truly_ trust any US company again,
these things would need to happen first, for US to re-establish its
credibility in the world as a beacon of democracy and freedoms, that they've
been pretending to uphold for a long time:

\- pass Rush Holt's Surveillance State Repeal Act passes, to dump the Patriot
Act and the FISA Amendments Act altogether (as a first step)

H.R 2818: [http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-
bill/2818](http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/2818)

\- cut NSA's budgets (both secret and public) to 10-20 percent of what they
are now, because if they aren't, then simply repealing the laws won't change
much

\- throw out the secret FISA Court, or make it dramatically more transparent,
and like a real Court

\- overhaul the Senate Intelligence Committee (get rid of people like
Feinstein and Rogers)

\- fire (or even imprison) Clapper, Alexander and Holder, and possibly even
impeach Obama (to really send a message to future presidents that mass
surveillance is completely unacceptable)

\- make it explicitly clear that any private communication of any citizen in
US or _on US territory_ needs a _regular warrant_ (one that actually respects
the 4th Amendment). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the US Constitution
applied to people on _US soil_ and not just "US citizens". Couldn't that be
interpreted to defend the data on US soil, too? If I buy a home in US, isn't
it defended by US laws? Why can't my data be, too?

For non-US citizens, there also needs to be an international treaty that says
that if a country wants another country's citizen's data, then it needs to
contact his/her local government, before it can obtain.

I think it's only reasonable. Just because my data happens to travel through
US backbones, doesn't mean the US government has power to willy-nilly get my
data as they want, and also force US companies to give it to them, breaching
the privacy that US company _promised me_ when I signed-up with them.

Something like this is only possible right now, because like with all rights,
people _haven 't fought against it_ yet. There's no reason why such a treaty
couldn't exist. For the Internet to become a nice, non-hostile environment
again (talking about governments abusing their power here), we need to make it
_encrypted and secure by default_ , but we also need the legal framework to
support that, and severely limit and punish government abuses.

------
znowi
I have a question. What can people do to stop this?

I've seen numerous protests, a lot of uproar in the press, grassroot
initiatives. But did any of this change anything?

I mean, hell, even the great 2008 election for _change_ didn't change much.
What are the options left?

~~~
betterunix
"I mean, hell, even the great 2008 election for change didn't change much.
What are the options left?"

How about _not voting for the people who do these things_? Like this guy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama)

Or this lady:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein)

Or any of these people:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss)

Don't be a coward and vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two
evils is still evil. Vote third party until the major parties get their act
together; that sends them a message, loud and clear, that you are not too lazy
to vote and that they are failing to do the things that would be needed to get
your support.

~~~
frostmatthew
> How about not voting for the people who do these things? Like this guy:
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama)

Pretty sure nobody will be voting for him since he won't be running in any
more elections...

Seriously though in regards to some of the other names you mentioned is there
really any difference by voting for whoever is running against them? Many
people (myself included) though Obama was different - that obviously turned
out to be completely wrong...so how are we supposed to know who won't _do
these things_?

~~~
koepked
> Seriously though in regards to some of the other names you mentioned is
> there really any difference by voting for whoever is running against them?
> Many people (myself included) though Obama was different - that obviously
> turned out to be completely wrong...so how are we supposed to know who won't
> do these things?

To me, this idea should encourage more people to vote outside the major
parties. If you voted democrat to avoid the consequences of a republican
victory, only to find that the results were largely the same anyway, it's no
longer a "wasted" vote to vote third party.

