Re: [Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
On 9/18/13 10:44 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: The enterprise bridge control center certainly does not seem to be Hayden's style either. Hayden is not the type to build a showboat like that. Moving abit OT: On the PBS Newshour coverage of this story, the showed the website of DBI Architects who designed the facility and it listed the other design firms. One of them was "KTA Group" my brother John was the signing engineer at KTA at that time. He says the design and construction was done at least ten years ago. It was not a secret facility, but access was restricted. Even though he signed and stamped all the design drawings for the HVAC, plumbing and electrical work, he was never allowed on site. So if you could find the design drawings for that facility (which is about 5 stories and all underground at Ft Belvoir (just across the river from Washington DC0)) you would see John Farrell's signature and stamp. The usual point of a "showboat" facility like that is to impress the Congressmen who visit so the budget can get bigger. ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:01 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > Techdirt takes apart his statement here: > > > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130917/02391824549/nsa-needs-to-give-its-rank-and-file-new-talking-points-defending-surveillance-old-ones-are-stale.shtml > > NSA Needs To Give Its Rank-and-File New Talking Points Defending > Surveillance; The Old Ones Are Stale > from the that's-not-really-going-to-cut-it dept > by Mike Masnick, Tue, Sep 17th 2013 > > It would appear that the NSA's latest PR trick is to get out beyond > the top brass -- James Clapper, Keith Alexander, Michael Hayden and > Robert Litt haven't exactly been doing the NSA any favors on the PR > front lately -- and get some commentary from "the rank and file." > ZDNet apparently agreed to publish a piece from NSA mathemetician/ > cryptanalyst Roger Barkan in which he defends the NSA using a bunch > of already debunked talking points. What's funny is that many of > these were the talking points that the NSA first tried out back in > June and were quickly shown to be untrue. However, let's take a > look. It's not that Barkan is directly lying... it's just that he's > setting up strawmen to knock down at a record pace. As someone who has met Hayden, I do not think his words are necessarily untrue, they may be out of date. It appears that there was a major change at the NSA after his departure. In particular the number of external contractors seems to have increased markedly (based on the number and type of job adverts from SAIC, Booz-Allen, Van Dyke, etc.) The enterprise bridge control center certainly does not seem to be Hayden's style either. Hayden is not the type to build a showboat like that. After 9/11 we discovered that our view of the cryptowars was completely false in one respect. Louis Freeh wasn't building a panopticon, he simply had no comprehension of the power of the information he was demanding the ability to collect. The FBI computer systems were antiquated, lacking the ability to do keyword search on two terms. I rather suspect that Alexander is similarly blind to the value of the information the system is collecting. They might well be telling the truth when they told the court that the system was so compartmentalized and segregated nobody knew what it was doing. For example, did the NSA people who thought it a good wheeze to trade raw SIGINT on US citizens to the Israelis understand what they were passing on? They certainly don't seem to know the past history of US-Israeli 'cooperation' only last year an Israeli firm was trying to sell intercept equipment to Iran through an intermediary and the story of how the Chinese got an example of the Stinger missile to copy is well known. My country has had an arms embargo on Israel for quite a while due to breach of Israeli undertakings not to use military weapons against civilians. That does not make the situation any less dangerous, it makes it more so. What Barkan does not mention is that we know that the NSA internal controls have collapsed completely, Snowdens disclosure proves that. Snowden should never have had access to the information he has disclosed. As with gwbush53.com, the intelligence gathered through PRISM-class intercepts will undoubtedly be spread far and wide. Anything Snowden knows, China and Russia will know. The fact that nothing has been said on that publicly by the NSA spokespeople is something of a concern. They have a big big problem and heads should be rolling. I can't see how Clapper and Alexander can remain given the biggest security breach in NSA history on their watch. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
"Everybody has to write a statement. The statement that most convinces the public that we're okay gets published and a big-o-bonus. You guys have 3 days." ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
On 18/09/13 00:56 AM, John Gilmore wrote: Forwarded-By: David Farber Forwarded-By: "Annie I. Anton Ph.D." http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-cryptanalyst-we-too-are-americans-720689/ NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans Speaking as a non-American, you guys have big problems concerning the nexus of cryptography and politics. ... The rest of this article contains Roger's words only, edited simply for formatting. I really, really doubt that. I don't really wish to attack the author, but the style and phraseology is pure PR. Ordinary people do not write PR. Nor do they lay out political strategies and refer to their commander-in-chief as the supreme leader. Nor indeed are employees of military and intelligence *permitted to talk to the press* unless sanctioned at high level. ... Do I, as an American, have any concerns about whether the NSA is illegally or surreptitiously targeting or tracking the communications of other Americans? The answer is emphatically, "No." Of course, Americans talking to Americans might be one debate. But then there are Americans talking to the world, and people talking to people. It should be remembered that espionage is illegal, and the activities of the NSA are more or less illegal *outside their borders*. I give them no permission to monitor me or mine, and nor does any of the laws of my land(s). The fact that we cannot stop them doesn't make it any less legal. The fact that there is a gentleman's agreement between countries to look the other way doesn't make it any less palatable to us non-gentlepersons excluded from the corridors of powers. And all that doesn't make NSA mathematicians any less a partner to the activity. Any intelligence agent is typically controlled and often banned from overseas travel, because of the ramifications of this activity. ... A myth that truly bewilders me is the notion that the NSA could or would spend time looking into the communications of ordinary Americans There's no doubt about it: We all live in a new world of Big Data. In two paras above, and the next two paras below, this 'mathematician' lays the political trap for Americans. The collection by the federal government of data is almost certainly unconstitutional. Yet, everyone acts as if that's ok because ... we live in the new world of Big Data? Much of the focus of the public debate thus far has been on the amount of data that NSA has access to, which I feel misses the critical point. Unless one subscribes to the plain wording of your (American) constitution... In today's digital society, the Big Data genie is out of the bottle. Every day, more personal data become available to individuals, corporations, and the government. What matters are the rules that govern how NSA uses this data, and the multiple oversight and compliance efforts that keep us consistent with those rules. I have not only seen but also experienced firsthand, on a daily basis, that these rules and the oversight and compliance practices are stringent. And they work to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. ditto, repeat. Although, to be honest, we-the-world don't care about it; the USG's temptation to rewrite the constitution in the minds of its subjects is strictly a domestic political affair. For most other countries, the Big Data genie is truly out of the bottle, and there's precious little we can do about it. ... As this national dialogue continues, I look to the American people to reach a consensus on the desired scope of U.S. intelligence activities Good luck! The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service. I seriously doubt that. iang ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
Techdirt takes apart his statement here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130917/02391824549/nsa-needs-to-give-its-rank-and-file-new-talking-points-defending-surveillance-old-ones-are-stale.shtml NSA Needs To Give Its Rank-and-File New Talking Points Defending Surveillance; The Old Ones Are Stale from the that's-not-really-going-to-cut-it dept by Mike Masnick, Tue, Sep 17th 2013 It would appear that the NSA's latest PR trick is to get out beyond the top brass -- James Clapper, Keith Alexander, Michael Hayden and Robert Litt haven't exactly been doing the NSA any favors on the PR front lately -- and get some commentary from "the rank and file." ZDNet apparently agreed to publish a piece from NSA mathemetician/ cryptanalyst Roger Barkan in which he defends the NSA using a bunch of already debunked talking points. What's funny is that many of these were the talking points that the NSA first tried out back in June and were quickly shown to be untrue. However, let's take a look. It's not that Barkan is directly lying... it's just that he's setting up strawmen to knock down at a record pace. John ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
[Cryptography] An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities
Forwarded-By: David Farber Forwarded-By: "Annie I. Anton Ph.D." http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-cryptanalyst-we-too-are-americans-720689/ NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans Summary: ZDNet Exclusive: An NSA mathematician shares his from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities. By David Gewirtz for ZDNet Government | September 16, 2013 -- 12:07 GMT (05:07 PDT) An NSA mathematician, seeking to help shape the ongoing debate about the agency's foreign surveillance activities, has contributed this column to ZDNet Government. The author, Roger Barkan, also appeared in last year's National Geographic Channel special about the National Security Agency. The rest of this article contains Roger's words only, edited simply for formatting. Many voices -- from those in the White House to others at my local coffee shop -- have weighed in on NSA's surveillance programs, which have recently been disclosed by the media. As someone deep in the trenches of NSA, where I work on a daily basis with data acquired from these programs, I, too, feel compelled to raise my voice. Do I, as an American, have any concerns about whether the NSA is illegally or surreptitiously targeting or tracking the communications of other Americans? The answer is emphatically, "No." NSA produces foreign intelligence for the benefit and defense of our nation. Analysts are not free to wander through all of NSA's collected data willy-nilly, snooping into any communication they please. Rather, analysts' activity is carefully monitored, recorded, and reviewed to ensure that every use of data serves a legitimate foreign intelligence purpose. We're not watching you. We're the ones being watched. Further, NSA's systems are built with several layers of checks and redundancy to ensure that data are not accessed by analysts outside of approved and monitored channels. When even the tiniest analyst error is detected, it is immediately and forthrightly addressed and reported internally and then to NSA's external overseers. Given the mountains of paperwork that the incident reporting process entails, you can be assured that those of us who design and operate these systems are extremely motivated to make sure that mistakes happen as rarely as possible! A myth that truly bewilders me is the notion that the NSA could or would spend time looking into the communications of ordinary Americans. Even if such looking were not illegal or very dangerous to execute within our systems, given the monitoring of our activities, it would not in any way advance our mission. We have more than enough to keep track of -- people who are actively planning to do harm to American citizens and interests -- than to even consider spending time reading recipes that your mother emails you. There's no doubt about it: We all live in a new world of Big Data. Much of the focus of the public debate thus far has been on the amount of data that NSA has access to, which I feel misses the critical point. In today's digital society, the Big Data genie is out of the bottle. Every day, more personal data become available to individuals, corporations, and the government. What matters are the rules that govern how NSA uses this data, and the multiple oversight and compliance efforts that keep us consistent with those rules. I have not only seen but also experienced firsthand, on a daily basis, that these rules and the oversight and compliance practices are stringent. And they work to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. Like President Obama, my Commander-in-Chief, I welcome increased public scrutiny of NSA's intelligence-gathering activities. The President has said that we can and will go further to publicize more information about NSA's operating principles and oversight methodologies. I have every confidence that when this is done, the American people will see what I have seen: that the NSA conducts its work with an uncompromising respect for the rules -- the laws, executive orders, and judicial orders under which we operate. As this national dialogue continues, I look to the American people to reach a consensus on the desired scope of U.S. intelligence activities. If it is determined that the rules should be changed or updated, we at NSA would faithfully and effectively adapt. My NSA colleagues and I stand ready to continue to defend this nation using only the tools that we are authorized to use and in the specific ways that we are authorized to use them. We wouldn't want it any other way. We never forget that we, too, are Americans. Roger Barkan, a Harvard-trained mathematician, has worked as an NSA cryptanalyst since 2002. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service. ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/ma
