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

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#111

Post by rdl »

phaus wrote: post #59
rdl wrote: post #12

It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, b…

You don't need all of that to be escorted on a single occasion. It really wouldn't be difficult at all to sanitize a conference room. People aren't likely leaving piles of classified documents on the table between meetings and if they are they need to have their own clearances suspended.

I'm explicitly allowing for Schneier being a "special" person, and not escortable into a secured space, as he is a technical expert and in close and continuing contact with some people with lots of very hated stuff, specifically in loving leaking classified info. A normal person would be a lot more escortable. It is mostly up to your facility security officer and organizational policies; I don't know how the legislative branch handles any of this.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#112

Post by nitrogen »

yarou wrote: post #41
fit2rule wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, here's an experiment for you. Why don't you broadcast every single detail of your life, every minute of it, even the parts you don't want others to see? If you don't, you must be hiding something and be committing crimes against humanity. This is how your argument reads.

I read the parent comment's argument as suggesting that secrets should be inversely proportional to power.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> Do you disagree that secrets during war are necessary?

I don't think Executive Branch secrets from Congress -- that is, things that will not be disclosed honestly on request by the Congress as such (which is not the same as individual members of Congress acting on their own) -- are ever justified or necessary, in war or peace.

To the extent that secrets (e.g., from the enemy in time of war) are necessary for which not routinely disclosing information to Congress is justifiable as a security measure, the Executive acting appropriately to maintain the confidence of Congress in its use of its discretion so as to avoid Congress needing to demand information which should be kept secret is equally necessary. Any President who honestly feels that they cannot protect the security of the nation while responding to Congress's demands for information should recognize that they have failed to maintain the confidence necessary to function effectively as President and resign.

Foreign enemies are always a convenient excuse for lack of domestic accountability, but they are never a sufficient excuse.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#114

Post by mullingitover »

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.

I think it's Enoch Root that really pushes it into sci-fi territory. He's also a major character in The Baroque Cycle, implying that he's several hundred (or more) years old.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#115

Post by antsar »

syntern wrote: post #90
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?

Sn^H^Ha former employee/contractor?

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#116

Post by gaadd33 »

strathmeyer wrote: post #50
rdl wrote: post #12

It makes sense that you need TS/SSBI and the correct SAP read-in to be inside a given SCIF belonging to a SAP; otherwise one might leave a recording device or otherwise damage the integrity of the SCIF. Plus, the SCIF would need to be cleared of all sensitive materials before you entered. Clearing a SCIF, letting someone inside, then recertifying it would probably be the correct choice; It could be done, of course, b…

I'm not sure if you understand. Bruce knows the top secret information because he read it in the leaks. The government officials can lose their security clearance for admitting to discussing top secret things with him.

How many sitting congressmen have ever lost their security clearance? It seems like the decision reached in Gravel v. United States totally contradicts what you say.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#117

Post by gizmo686 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #67
tokenadult wrote: post #54

Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congress in such a facility, but could not do so because he is denied access to such facilities as someone without the appropriate security clearances. And that puzzled me, and prompted me to read the Wikipedia article after reading Schneier's blog post submitted he…

I only have a passing knowledge of how data security is handled by the government, but I suspect that the fact that they are discussing classified material which Schneier should not have access to may make using an SCIF more bureaucratically challenging.

Looking at the comment section, Schneier writes:

"My guess is that because I am untrusted, I might plant a bug in the SCIF. So it's less that I'm not allowed in, and more that if I was allowed in they would have to re-SCIF the place."

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#118

Post by rhizome »

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…

This all sounds very nihilistic and myopic. It's like saying I'm responsible for drones because I voted in an election for one of two candidates who were going to use them anyway. Credit where due, and I'm certainly not letting Congress off the hook, but your argument boils down to "well, Congress allowed them to exist," and I'm even less inclined to let the NSA off the hook. I have higher standards than, "well, that's just the way they are."

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#119

Post by bitops »

asperous wrote: post #105
logn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(If you use Facebook) I recommend following Rep. Amash as he explains every one of his votes in a status update. It's a great way to stay informed, and he actually approaches his decisions with sensible reasoning you'll enjoy (regardless of your political leanings).

Wow that's really amazing. I really like this approach because it's transparent and really feels like he's representing his Michiganites. So often when I email my reps about their decisions I get canned response that don't answer the question, but Justin really does explain it.

Nit: Michiganders.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#120

Post by tvladeck »

logn wrote: post #66
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/…

(If you use Facebook) I recommend following Rep. Amash as he explains every one of his votes in a status update. It's a great way to stay informed, and he actually approaches his decisions with sensible reasoning you'll enjoy (regardless of your political leanings).

Thanks so much for sharing that. I'm pretty liberal, but it was awesome to read his explanations. Concise and considered.
Post reply on HN