
NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values - etiam
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/24/nsa-core-values-honesty-deleted/
======
luxpsycho
Ironically taking a step towards 'honesty'.

~~~
neosavvy
Man I was thinking the exact same thing. By nature these folks at the NSA
CAN'T be open nor honest.

~~~
jancsika
"We put a splitter on the internet so that we can keep our own copy in
locations A, B, C, and coming soon, D. We use an automated selector-based
filter to find nodes of interest in realtime, as well as tools for querying
the enormous amount of data we keep in the storage facilities at said
locations."

That would count as both open and honest. What could the implications possibly
be? Congress isn't going to investigate them based on those statements, and if
you try to enter those locations you'd get denied entry just like you would
today.

So what exactly is this "nature" that prevents the NSA from publishing the
paragraph I wrote above?

~~~
PeterisP
For a few (IMHO realistic) examples:

* the "splitter" as you call it (an useful simplification for this discussion) might be on devices of public companies without their consent against their wishes - IIRC that was part of Snowden's revelations.

* the "splitter" might have been secretly placed on an undersea cable in foreign waters, and there's a clear national security interest not to reveal that fact - the key job of NSA is to listen in to other nations and ensure that they don't know if/how it's succeeding.

* the "splitter" might include cooperation from friendly governments that's not public knowledge to their populations. Again, there's a clear foreign policy interest not to disclose that.

* the "splitter" might have been made possible by a vulnerability in something that everyone believes is secure (e.g. RSA cryptosystem), and revealing what kind of data is captured will reveal that it's _possible_ to capture that kind of data, which (if it's a surprise) by itself might lead to it becoming useless as people worldwide deduce what component needs to be replaced.

There's obviously more. NSA can reveal that their job includes spying on
everyone outside USA; but any more details would generally be harmful to that
mission.

------
iambateman
I, as a taxpayer, pay the NSA to be effective in defending national interests,
to act with integrity, and to submit themselves to the oversight of my
representatives in Congress.

I have no expectation that they will be honest or open with me. Being closed
is integral to their work.

However they damn well better submit to oversight and respect my
constitutional rights as a citizen.

~~~
volkk
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without
honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?

~~~
dsjoerg
You elect representatives and executives who are given security clearances and
the right to great transparency and openness. When or if those elected
officials are found to have abused the public trust, you punish them, their
associates and their successors at the ballot box and in the court of public
opinion.

It's not a great process but I don't see a better way for a democracy to have
an internationally competitive intelligence apparatus. And without such an
apparatus we are exposed to attacks on our democratic integrity, military
effectiveness, deliberative privacy and much more.

~~~
zipwitch
We are currently paying the costs (both monetary and otherwise) for the
apparatus you describe, but looking at the last decade, the benefits appear to
be absent. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that an organization
like the NSA just isn't worth having?

~~~
bradyd
In fact organizations like the CIA and NSA are more of a threat to the
American people than the people they are supposedly protecting us from.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I suspect it's like inoculation: some people die from inoculations, but on the
whole the herd gains valuable protection.

The TLA may be terrible for particular individuals, or small groups with a
shared characteristic, but politicians should nonetheless advocate for them to
protect the "way of life of citizens".

It's a "do you keep a guard dog that you know might maul a child" type of
question.

------
pweissbrod
_> In response to questions from The Intercept on Tuesday, the NSA played down
the alterations. Thomas Groves, a spokesperson for the agency, said: “It’s
nothing more than a website update, that’s all it is.” _

^^ Updating the wordage on the website was a task placed on the queue of a
website administrator which was requested by the manager as a takeaway from an
internal meeting reviewing core values.

This explanation is nowhere near acceptable to me as a taxpayer. I'd love to
see the reporter push for a more lucid explanation than this.

~~~
Kalium
How interesting would you find an article detailing all the ways a reporter
was told "No comment."? What kind of more lucid explanation would you consider
acceptable?

The NSA is, in many ways, a bureaucracy like many others. Odds are very good
that the more lucid explanation is that some internal bureaucrat decided to
convene a committee to review the Core Values, and after a multi-year review
process the primary result was a minor website update.

Honestly, I'm bored just typing that. Do you think it would be interesting
reading?

~~~
pweissbrod
transparent government is boring but highly desirable. you could dismiss sytem
logs or open source kernels are boring but youre greatful for them when
unexpected things start happening

~~~
Kalium
Indeed! You're absolutely right. And documents on this whole boring process
could almost certainly be FOIA'd by anyone with a desire to be bored to death.

But a spokesperson isn't likely to know the details of a minor verbiage
update.

~~~
ryandrake
I think the point was we're not talking about a "minor verbiage update." This
isn't a wording correction on some TPS report fifty links deep within the
Accessibility section. This is the public-facing expression of a major
government agency's core values statement.

~~~
Kalium
You're right! This is a change to a major government agency's core values
statement.

I don't think I've ever been a place where public-facing statements about core
values are considered important or major. They're generally treated as on par
with mission statements or mottos - something nice to have but not
particularly significant. I've even done government contracting, including for
the NSA. Core values don't generally get checked on a regular basis much of
anywhere.

You're absolutely right. This is a change to the small public face of a major
intelligence agency. Yet, I believe this is a minor verbiage update of no
particular import.

------
YCode
While ironic, if you pay any attention to mission and vision statements in
general for government/military organizations it's quite commonplace for such
statements to change in opaque and confusing ways, especially so after any
change in leadership.

Most of the time it isn't some dark conspiracy but rather someone with enough
stars on their shoulder said "Why is this even in the mission statement? Every
organization should do that so it's implied, what the mission statement really
needs is..."

------
Y_Y
As if "core values" meant anything for colossal organisations.

~~~
Ntrails
> Enron intends to conduct itself in accord with four [capital-V ]Values:
> _Respect_ , _Integrity_ , _Communication_ and _Excellence_.

~~~
raverbashing
Amazingly they went against all 4 at the same time

~~~
YetAnotherNick
They are excellent in integrating respect in communication. Fortune named
Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.

------
spicymaki
The NSA is being honest about not being honest and open about not being open.
Deception is the core value.

~~~
chickenthief
:) but now someone who is really honest cannot even raise a finger.

------
tw1010
Those words are associated to non-costly virtue signalling anyway, so who
cares. The NSA can't win. If they let them stay, they're accused of lying, if
the remove it, they get this response. I'm kind of neutral on the issue, but I
do get bothered with societal dynamics where no matter what an actor does,
they lose.

~~~
acct1771
That's what happens when an actor is, by definition, in opposition of the very
fiber of an organization (the US).

Read Amendment IV, and tell me how they fit in.

~~~
altcognito
Seriously? They do a lot more than collecting information on private
individuals. If you spent just 15 minutes researching those things honestly,
you would find they have a VERY important job to do.

~~~
Someone1234
Problem is one part of their mission (protecting US infrastructure) often
conflicts with another (foreign intelligence gathering). If you patch a Cisco
edge router, both friends and enemies benefit.

Honestly the NSA should be broken up into two organisations, one geared
towards defense and another offense. Or just merge the foreign intelligence
gathering parts into the CIA.

~~~
gizmo385
> two organisations, one geared towards defense and another offense

Oftentimes, the best defense is a good offense. Or vice versa. You can't
realistically separate one from the other.

------
dmix
Notably they also added this line, to join in on the 'inclusive' and
'diversity' corporatespeak trend:

> Respect for People - We are committed to ensuring that all NSA personnel are
> respected, included and valued for their diverse backgrounds, experiences,
> skills and contributions to our mission and culture.

~~~
Consultant32452
Sure, we don't value honesty, but look at all these ni--bla-frican Americans
we have on our team!

------
frogpelt
They added 'Transparency'.

2010 Values: [https://cryptome.org/2013/08/nsa-strategy-
values.htm](https://cryptome.org/2013/08/nsa-strategy-values.htm)

2018 Values: [https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission-
values/](https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission-values/)

------
yters
A lot of complaints against three letter agencies, who have elected officials
with oversight and only hire from American citizens. Few complaints against
Microgoogfacebook to whom we give all our most private electronic
correspondence, have no oversight, and hire many foreign nationals who have
little stake in whether the companies abuse the info they've been given. This
strikes me as a bit odd.

~~~
wambotron
You choose to give your data to Microsoft/Google/Facebook/whatever other
private company you're complaining about. There is no agreement to give things
to the NSA.

~~~
yters
Just because it is voluntary does not mean the possibility of abuse is lower.
It is higher since people consider the implications less.

~~~
wambotron
I'm not saying it's lower, but you know the risks when you use the software.

~~~
yters
I'm sure most people give nary a thought to the risk of using Google.

------
MechEStudent
...how well do we use our freedom to choose the illusions we create? -Timbuk 3

Oscar Wilde says: Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give
him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

Does the soul change?

It is a vast organization with vast bureaucratic momentum and organizational
inertia. Can leadership change those? Not even a little. Intel can't change.
Emerson can't change. And they have huger and more existential force pushing
for change against a smaller mass.

Is the soul any different today than yesterday? Nope.

In ten years you can ask again, and the answer might be maybe.

So the question behind the question is "what is the real soul of the NSA?".
Look at their deeds. Words and actions over time tell truth. Look at the trend
of their deeds over time.

------
Clubber
Well, they weren't using them anyway.

~~~
ddmd
Who knows, maybe they were. But they could interpret them differently. A kind
of "alternative honesty" and "alternative openness".

------
cmurf
I see this as just another way the administration wants to demoralize public
service employees, and increase distrust by the public in those institutions.

Far more troubling than some values changes, is the administration wants to
have a spy slush fund of its own that is not at all subject to Congressional
oversight.
[https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/shutdown/card/1516648991](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/shutdown/card/1516648991)

------
meri_dian
Why should they be honest and open? Sometimes complete honesty and openness is
counterproductive to a purpose or a mission. Are you always honest? With your
friends and family? With your colleagues? With your employer?

If you aren't, is it because you want to do harm, or because complete honesty
would actually be harmful and unnecessary for both parties?

As this is the case for individuals, it is also the case for groups of people
and institutions.

------
throwfast1
>Respect for People - We are committed to ensuring that all NSA personnel are
respected, included and valued for their diverse backgrounds, experiences,
skills and contributions to our mission and culture.

All NSA personnel are respected, anyone else having a weird feeling reading
that that it does not say all persons or something that says they respect
everyone?

------
rayvd
Integrity and Transparency are listed.

Non-story, move along.

------
gamesbrainiac
Surprisingly, they are being honest and open about not being honest and open.

------
jrochkind1
Ironically, the new document is now more honest, if not more open.

------
abpavel
Well, at least they're honest and open about _that_

------
dash_shi
Aren't they just being honest by doing that?

------
lobo_tuerto
At least they are being honest about it... ;)

------
strictnein
What an amazing story. A web page was updated and The Intercept is on it!

~~~
donarb
If only the Intercept would be honest and open about the Russia investigation
we're facing in this country.

------
dundercoder
Mitigating hippcracy I see.

------
brndnmtthws
Fortunately these government agencies are mostly corrupt, dysfunctional, and
unable to recruit talent, so we probably don't have much to worry about.

~~~
throwaway76025
Any objective source for your claims? If your basis is the attitude for such
agencies here on hacker news, it’s understandable why you might believe those
to be true, but they aren’t.

~~~
brndnmtthws
I've worked directly with people in the IC, and I have friends who've worked
(or currently work) at various government agencies.

~~~
throwaway76025
Did they convey those summaries to you? If so, is it accurate to say that shtf
post-Snowden, and hasn’t recovered?

You could be right, so I take it back, but I’ve heard there is some degree of
strife and paranoia, but not general chaos as may be perceived.

~~~
brndnmtthws
It's mostly anecdotes and personal experience. I think that data on salaries,
etc, is mostly public too, so you can probably see for yourself that they
aren't competitive with SV or Wall St.

~~~
throwaway76025
Discussed here recently, there’s a path from public to private sector that
does serve the need to retain talent, to some degree.

Also, to say they are mostly corrupt or incompetent seems possibly too much of
a broad stroke that is based on anecdotes. I don’t believe Snowden, for
instance, ever suggested either of those are true — did he?

Finally, if this is your assessment, your standard may be unusually high.
Maybe your peers, many not quite as good as you, are actually quite skilled?
Just a hunch, could be wrong.

~~~
brndnmtthws
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any person or organization which
contributes, aids, or abets in spying on individuals for political reasons is
entirely corrupt in my opinion.

Aside from some research that the NSA has contributed to humanity, they have
done little good based on the evidence I've seen.

