Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

defenseone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#21

Post by austincheney »

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do...

I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states.

In summary:

* NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency

* The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance

* perform as executive agency of operational security over inter-agency communications

* liaison with foreign governments to conduct sharing of classified materials for signals intelligence

There isn’t anything in the charter that specifically separates the NSA responsibilities or areas of operation from such of the FBI. The largest difference is that FBI is a law enforcement agency, as derived from the Department of Justice while the NSA is not. That means the NSA does not have fourth amendment interests which limits information sharing to the FBI. The Wikipedia page on the NSA documents a few scandals in this regard.

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#23

Post by matkoniecz »

colordrops wrote: post #8
thaumasiotes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has to be exclusive because the two goals directly conflict with one another. Thus, one of the most common good-government proposals that gets floated in this area is to divide the NSA in two, one group devoted solely to offense, and one devoted solely to defense. At that point, at least you can know whether one group did something wrong. The job of the offense group is to find vulnerabilities, hoard them, and use…

Why is cyber warfare any different from other military efforts? I've never heard of this split of defense and offense in other military realms.

It is typical to have separate group that is supposed to build bridges (Ministry of Interior/Ministry of Development etc) and one that is supposed to destroy bridges belonging to someone else (Ministry of War/Ministry of Defence/etc).

Having group doing both would be ridiculous. And this is happening with say NSA.

And situation is much worse than with bridges! Typically you can bomb bridge far away without affecting your own, it is often not possible with 0days and similar - we have one internet.

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#24

Post by jonnybgood »

BarbaryCoast wrote: post #6

The FBI has the responsibility to handle counter-intelligence domestically. At a minimum, the FBI should be the lead agency, and make the decisions, when trying to track espionage operations inside the country. The "Five Guys" committee that President Obama authorized, reported back with findings and recommendations. One of them, which that committee felt was the most important one, was to split NSA and US Cyber Comm…

That’s not how combatant commands work. Commanders don’t get their own piece of the Army to do whatever they want with. Also, a potential split has nothing to do with power being centered on one person.

The NSA is a US Code Title 50 organization. USCYBERCOM is a Title 10 organization. This means NSA is confined to intelligence and only USCYBERCOM is authorized for performing offensive capabilities. Having them together can create potential legal complications.

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#26

Post by parsimo2010 »

austincheney wrote: post #21

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executiv…

This is because the things people are worried about is found in Executive Order 12333. From section 2.3 of the EO, “ Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order ... Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI”

The tl;dr is that agencies in the intelligence communities must take full consideration of Americans’ rights when collecting information, and historically have not found suitable procedures to operate internally that satisfy the lawyers.

That is how we ended up with FISA because we determined that the only way to protect Americans from the IC trampling on their rights (but still enable internal collection when necessary) was to have a judge examine every request to collect intelligence on US soil. The counter argument to this article is that the NSA doesn’t need specific permission from Congress to collect within the borders of the US- they just have to come up with a way to do it that their general counsel and the Attorney General agree protects the rights of Americans. I know FISA has shortfalls, but we shouldn’t get rid of it and enable mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA just because election security is a hot topic. The erosion of rights is nearly irreversible. There are other options that don’t worry me, such as asking the NSA to assist in securing our election process and critical infrastructure, to decrease the size of the blind spot they have and enable the FBI to do the internal monitoring as intended.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#27

Post by jl2718 »

austincheney wrote: post #21

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executiv…

Charter is irrelevant. The Posse Comitatus Act is the binding doctrine. We used to take this extremely seriously. The gulf between what technical measures are legal in domestic vs foreign interventions is enormous.

The reason is simple. No American is ever supposed to be ‘the enemy’.

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#29

Post by throwaway210222 »

jl2718 wrote: post #27
austincheney wrote: post #21

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executiv…

Charter is irrelevant. The Posse Comitatus Act is the binding doctrine. We used to take this extremely seriously. The gulf between what technical measures are legal in domestic vs foreign interventions is enormous. The reason is simple. No American is ever supposed to be ‘the enemy’.

> The Posse Comitatus Act … is binding … we used to take this extremely seriously.

Huh? The Ohio National Guard was putting bullets into 13 unarmed students as long ago as 1970.

That ship has sailed.

Re: Senators Offer to Let NSA Hunt Cyber Actors Inside the US

#30

Post by austincheney »

throwaway210222 wrote: post #29
jl2718 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charter is irrelevant. The Posse Comitatus Act is the binding doctrine. We used to take this extremely seriously. The gulf between what technical measures are legal in domestic vs foreign interventions is enormous. The reason is simple. No American is ever supposed to be ‘the enemy’.

> The Posse Comitatus Act … is binding … we used to take this extremely seriously. Huh? The Ohio National Guard was putting bullets into 13 unarmed students as long ago as 1970. That ship has sailed.

Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard.
Post reply on HN