Ironically, the new document is now more honest, if not more open.
NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
71–80 of 160 posts
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#72> 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 i…
Wait, they are saying that "website administrators" get to write their "core values" statement?
OK, I guess we know how much that "core values" statement matters.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#73Ironically taking a step towards 'honesty'.
Man I was thinking the exact same thing. By nature these folks at the NSA CAN'T be open nor honest.
"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?
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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?
Your comment shows why some more open-ness would be great for everyone. Working in secret means nobody will know of the genuine successes, only the allegedly problematic aspects which leak out.
It might not be simple, but I am sure that it would be possible to remove classified details from certain “wins” (whether counterterror, counterproliferation, or other) and let the public know what their tax dollars are going toward.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#75> 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 i…
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 res…
I think the preferred phrase is actually "I can neither confirm nor deny that."
My very first startup hired an ex-NSA sysadmin, and no joke, he was very good at deflecting jokey questions from a snarky 20 year-old me. He pointed out that "No comment" sounds slightly more like a denial to people, but "I can neither confirm nor deny that" seems more neutral and non-committal.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#76...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.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sure, that's sort of what I meant in terms of openness. I don't expect them to leak their secrets in some public memorandum, but I expect them to be fully transparent with the representatives that we elect. However, the question is--are the representatives doing the best job representing us given this sensitive information they're privy to? Who's to say the NSA isn't asking, "just write that we're doing well in this…
This may be the most extreme version of the principle-agent problem.
Without leaking or sharing at least some information, it's impossible for the public to hold them accountable. This seems like a fundamental impossibility; not just a matter of the 'wrong' people being privy to the same secrets. For one reason, there's no way we can know if our representatives are even privy to all the information to which they're entitled.
Hell, even with a lot of information being leaked it still seems basically impossible to hold them accountable!
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#78Sounds sane, at least they are adjusting their pages to reflect their situation, unlike so many despotic nations that lie through their teeth on daily basis.
Also, am I only one in the tech community that doesn't have a problem with the NSA? I mean if they can hack me then let them, that'd be fun to analyze post-mortem.
I'd be extremely happy if I had organization as powerful as NSA dedicated to protecting my safety while trying to mess with my privacy. You Americans need to get some perspective, no offense.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sure, that's sort of what I meant in terms of openness. I don't expect them to leak their secrets in some public memorandum, but I expect them to be fully transparent with the representatives that we elect. However, the question is--are the representatives doing the best job representing us given this sensitive information they're privy to? Who's to say the NSA isn't asking, "just write that we're doing well in this…
The HPSCI and SSCI do seem like reasonable checks. Ron Wyden especially has a good track record of calling out things he sees as problematic.
Re: NSA Deletes “Honesty” and “Openness” from Core Values
#80I, 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.
That argument works better for openness than honesty. How often do they need to outright lie to citizens to protect national security?