Live on C-SPAN now: NSA Chief Testifies at Cybersecurity Hearing

Post by staccatomeasure » Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #37

staccatomeasure wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's something I've been thinking about, let me know your thoughts: I'm thinking of the nuclear bomb analog. Other people have nukes, so we need nukes, and we have to trust the government not to turn nukes against us. Is it possible this is a similar example...and what we really should be doing is having oversight on the analogous launch codes...etc? Note: this is not saying what they did was legal.

Problem with that comparison is that while a government could make and store nukes without people knowing, it's hard to start exploding them without attracting attention. Accessing a database, on the other hand..

Post by defen » Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

staccatomeasure wrote: post #33

whiddershins wrote: post #19

Oh, this is awesome: Keith Alexander explaining how what we really should do is let the NSA have a database that stores absolutely everything, and then they promise only to search through it when it is "reasonable."

Here's something I've been thinking about, let me know your thoughts: I'm thinking of the nuclear bomb analog. Other people have nukes, so we need nukes, and we have to trust the government not to turn nukes against us. Is it possible this is a similar example...and what we really should be doing is having oversight on the analogous launch codes...etc? Note: this is not saying what they did was legal.

Post by jlgreco » Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 10:58 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #36

cwilson wrote: post #35

This is like watching a super awkward scene in a movie or TV show that just won't end. The word "cyber" has been applied to every noun, and I've apparently been out of the loop on terms like "techno-boondoggle". This is just a little terrifying.

What about cybernouns? Do we have those yet?

Post by corin_ » Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

staccatomeasure wrote: post #41

corin_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with that comparison is that while a government could make and store nukes without people knowing, it's hard to start exploding them without attracting attention. Accessing a database, on the other hand..

Right so what I'm imagining is basically (for lack of a better term) a QA framework that tests that the instrumentation for tracking access...etc is legit. You could say that blowing up even one nuke without proper oversight is unacceptable and thus we have mechanisms in place to make sure the right bells and whistles are trigged. EOD launching a nuke and using PRISM data are keystrokes on a computer.

Post by laumars » Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 11:10 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #38

laumars wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're talking about their battle against cyber-crime as war - which is a reasonable statement to make. It's just the same as when governments and new agencies talk about the "war on drugs" etc.

That kinda makes me want to see everyone that uses that rhetoric from the president downwards sent to base camp and then few tours of duty to Afghanistan to see exactly what war is. Then they probably would use something softer.