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

Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#81

Post by dsuth »

Helianthus wrote: post #7

It's good to know that we do have some legislators on (essentially) our side, even if their hands are, presently, tied.

It would be wrong to suggest that they're 'on our side', whatever that means, just because they met with Schneier. This could be a publicity stunt, a fact-hunting exercise (What exactly do you know, Mr. Schneier?), or just a genuine personal interest in checking other sources of information against the NSA line.

Regardless of their motivation, these people are still part of the same machine that put the NSA in motion, and thus far have been ineffective in curbing even it's more obvious breaches. Action speak louder than words...

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#82

Post by syntern »

bosma wrote: post #77
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. No, its not. At least, not in any principle grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.

Do you disagree that secrets during war are necessary?

Robert Gates put it eloquently: the US is in its own wars of choice, and not in any war that is forced upon it. So, what do you think about the secrets that would conceal the real reasons of the war that requests to be secret?

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#83

Post by ENGNR »

fit2rule wrote: post #35
ForHackernews wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A truly free people don't keep secrets. > What the NSA 'should be' is a National Communications Agency, wherein all harmful human activity they observe are communicated - to all and sundry! Openly! Publicly! Without any barrier to delivering full awareness - for all! This is ridiculous hyperbole. There are all kinds of legitimate secrets: trade secrets, private sexual kinks, personal financial or medical records, e…

The thing you must understand is that I do not actually consider a society with any investment in state secrecy to be actually functioning. Actually, a society ruled by secrets is little more than a mafia, playing charades. But I see you are limiting your viewpoint to 'what is real' and not to 'what could be done differently about the situation'. That's okay with me, to 'keep it real'. But I have no desire to live in…

What about government commercial negotiation information, surely the government can (should!) keep that secret at least until the negotiations are over, otherwise every single purchase made will have them ripped off due to information asymmetry.

Troop locations are another one. If you know exactly where everything is it gives you a huge advantage, and to a lesser extent where they've been.

Surely there are some secrets we can acknowledge the government can keep, for a time. The problem only arises when the executive branch abuse the classification system and label embarassing, non-sensitive (to the country, maybe not to their reelection) information as sensitive information.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#84

Post by afarrell »

phaus wrote: post #73
sp332 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress required the NSA to clear some things with a court. The NSA lied to the court; that's not Congress's fault.

I didn't say that it was their fault that the NSA lied. Its their fault that secret courts, the Patriot Act, and a number of other things exist. Its also their fault that the constitution has been systematically undermined for the last four decades. It was hilarious watching a bunch of congressmen feign disbelief when they know that its their fucking fault. Its depressing watching the public believe them. If they rea…

"The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellige...

Even if you're talking as about changes to it in the PATRIOT Act, that was passed on October 26, 2001. Each congressional district has had 6 elections since then, so some of these congresscritters never voted for or against the creation of the court. Of the ones that did, how many were on the committee that produced this? How many read it? http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-n...

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#85

Post by simoncion »

syntern wrote: post #82
bosma wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that secrets during war are necessary?

Robert Gates put it eloquently: the US is in its own wars of choice, and not in any war that is forced upon it. So, what do you think about the secrets that would conceal the real reasons of the war that requests to be secret?

bosma was asking: "Are there any things that should be kept secret during the course of war?". The obvious answer that he's fishing for is "Yes. Stuff that's critical to OPSEC.". [0]

This is a silly question to ask. AFAICT, Congress hasn't ever been briefed on the day-to-day of wartime activities. They are often lied to about our motivations for declaring war. That's obviously a very bad thing to do.

[0] The funny thing about stuff that's classified for OPSEC reasons is that it has a really short shelf life. That is to say, stuff that's sensitive OPSEC stuff can often be declassified in a matter of hours or weeks... because the actions described by the classified information have taken place and everyone knows that they took place. (e.g. information about troop movements in preparation for tomorrow's assault would be sensitive until the assault happens.)

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#86

Post by Crito »

fit2rule wrote: post #37
taybin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't have to. He suggested the use of the room for their sake, not his own.

Of course they have to.. Schneier is monitored everywhere he goes!

By who, by the people that he is talking to?

I sure hope the people he is talking to are 'monitoring' him while he talks to them. It would be a waste of time if they didn't pay attention.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#87

Post by thyrsus »

hirammcdaniels wrote: post #80
gizmo686 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the political implications for prosecuting a congressperson for leaking on the NSA, you have a lot of legal precedent to overcome. Article 1, Section 6 (the speech and debate clause) of the US constitution states: "...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senator or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." In the case of Gravel v. United States, Senator Mike Gravel read the…

They can, however, be questioned in that Place. The House is certainly welcome to impeach a house member who reads launch codes on the floor.

I wonder if 00000000 was ever read into the congressional record? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#88

Post by Crito »

davidw wrote: post #52
cwp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more historical fiction than science-fiction.

Yeah, but it still feels like science fiction for some reason.

Well, there is Enoch Root, who I have never been entirely clear on. I haven't read the other books set in that universe however.

I believe the name "Enoch" is a hint though. Enoch in the Book of Genesis is the father of Methuselah and importantly did not die (but was instead "taken up", which admittedly is not much more clear than Cryptonomicon...)

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#89

Post by AceJohnny2 »

bargl wrote: post #15

On his blog Schneier comments that this meeting was kept small on purpose. I wanted to see who was present at this meeting so I looked up some of their information. Not hard to find, but here you go. I plan on emailing each of them and thanking them for consulting someone the tech industry considers a Security SME. Rep. Logfren (Democratic) http://lofgren.house.gov/biography/ Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

I had to look it up. SME: Subject Matter Expert

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#90

Post by syntern »

vaadu wrote: post #38

There is no oversight except on paper. You can't have oversight unless you have expertise in the area you oversee. You can't have oversight unless the overseers can impose immediate consequences upon the overseen. Without these you are nothing but a spectator.

Might be related to the topic:

One aspect of the Dilbert-universe the pointy-haired boss who has no expertise, yet he imposes immediate consequences upon the overseen. In contrast, if we are calling for management that does (understand) code, we are calling for management that have expertise.

This begs the question: who would be able to oversee the agencies with expertise, ever?

Post reply on HN