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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#131

Post by efdee »

greatsuccess wrote: post #126
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/…

Personally the fact that your spam links to the legislators wikipedia pages is top on HN shows that 1) you have nothing to say on the subject, 2) you are a spammer, and 3) that you are probably a complete idiot who could give a shit about the topic and 4) that HN is a complete fucking waste of time with people like you posting in the comments.

Unlike your comment which was a true beacon of light in the darkness that is HN.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#132

Post by nyrina »

fit2rule wrote: post #103
jdmichal wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know that. All we know is that you're keeping secrets.

Right now, I'm openly sharing something.

But you give us no proof of what you are saying.

We need a trusted entity to check what you are saying is true.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#133

Post by phaus »

rhizome wrote: post #118
phaus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, tha…

I didn't let the NSA off the hook, I was just commenting on the absurdity of congress acting like this wasn't the obvious outcome of decades of bad leadership and bad legislation.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#135

Post by blahbl4hblahtoo »

I was just listening to Slate's political gabfest podcast...they talked about the NSA. It occurred to me that the media is still only talking about phone call metadata while the rest of us have been in the weeds of the rest of their activities, which are far more intrusive than metadata...

How do you get that message to people?

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#136

Post by cjfont »

greatsuccess wrote: post #126
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/…

Personally the fact that your spam links to the legislators wikipedia pages is top on HN shows that 1) you have nothing to say on the subject, 2) you are a spammer, and 3) that you are probably a complete idiot who could give a shit about the topic and 4) that HN is a complete fucking waste of time with people like you posting in the comments.

And we have yet to hear what you, oh great one, have to say on the subject yourself.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#137

Post by cjfont »

phaus wrote: post #55
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…

There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.

I can confirm this is true, as I've been escorted into SCIFs before I obtained a clearance.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#138

Post by prof_hobart »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #10

Imagine that the NSA was only doing legitimate, useful, necessary, highly secret things (humor me here). Can they brief Congress on what they're doing? All 535 publicity-seeking chatterboxes? No way. That's the same as issuing a press release. So not telling Congress everything is (in principle) necessary. But who are these representatives Schneier briefed? Are they on the Intelligence Committee? If so, and they stil…

I'll play along with the hypotheticals and assume that the NSA don't lie when questioned by Congress. In that scenario, the NSA can give reasonably straight answers that don't compromise national security.

"Are you spying on suspected terrorists?" - "Of course we are. That's our job."

"Who are you spying on, and how?" - "We can't reveal that. It's National Security."

"Are you spying on people that you have no reasonable suspicion of being terrorists?" - "No."

"Fine".

The problem comes when you have lie about that last one when asked by Congress.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#139

Post by skiffydiffy56 »

phaus wrote: post #55
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…

There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.

Or that the NSA wanted to listen in, and this was just an excuse given so that a secure room would not be used. In fact, the whole thing could have just been an elaborate way to glean what's in the Snowden documents.

Re: Today I Briefed Congress on the NSA

#140

Post by djKianoosh »

eli wrote: post #96
ef47d35620c1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole security clearance thing is rather over-rated. Many people are immediately disqualified during the background investigation because they missed a payment on something once, or changed jobs too often, or were arrested, yet never convicted of a crime. So the fact that someone does not qualify for a security clearance says very little about them as a person.

Fun fact: you can actually read the transcript of rulings on clearance decisions for DoD contractors: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2013.html It's true that many people are denied because of their finances, but it's not as cut and dry as you might think. You also have to wonder what some of these people were thinking. That the DoD wouldn't notice you're on probation and a drug user?

Thanks for this link. It's really fantastic to read some of the reasons for approval and denial.. Here's a good one that was really interesting to me for personal reasons since some of the facts are similar to mine:

"Applicant was born in Iran. He left Iran in 1985, was educated in the United States, married a native-born U.S. citizen, and became a U.S. citizen. He adopted an American name when he became a U.S. citizen, and he gave American names to his children. He has never returned to Iran. He held a public trust position for three years. His sister is a citizen and resident of Iran, but he has never visited her in Iran. His parents and two brothers are citizens and residents of the United States. His older brother held a security clearance for six years. Although his parents live in the United States, they spend about six months of each year visiting their daughter in Iran. Security concerns are mitigated by Applicant’s deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 12-11015.h1 "

Post reply on HN