Obama Nominates Vice Admiral Michael Rogers New NSA Chief 138
wiredmikey writes "President Barack Obama has nominated a US Navy officer, Vice Admiral Michael Rogers, to take over as head of the embattled National Security Agency, the Pentagon said Thursday. Rogers, 53, would take the helm at a fraught moment for the spy agency, which is under unprecedented pressure after leaks from ex-intelligence contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of its electronic spying. If confirmed by lawmakers, Rogers would also take over as head of the military's cyber warfare command. Rogers, who trained as an intelligence cryptologist, would succeed General Keith Alexander, who has served in the top job since 2005. He currently heads the US Fleet Cyber Command, overseeing the navy's cyber warfare specialists, and over a 30-year career has worked in cryptology and eavesdropping, or 'signals intelligence.' His confirmation hearings in the Senate are likely to be dominated by the ongoing debate about the NSA's espionage, and whether its sifting through Internet traffic and phone records violates privacy rights and democratic values."
rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rebranded? (Score:5, Interesting)
NSA Reputation Is Dirt
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:30:39 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson
<william.allen.simpson[at]gmail.com>
To: Jerry Leichter <leichter[at]lrw.com>, John Kelsey
<crypto.jmk[at]gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] RSA is dead.
I'm surprised at the sudden interest in my month old December 23 post.
On 1/20/14 2:39 PM, Jerry Leichter wrote:
Re: (Score:3)
You don't even get that for selling US made weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they've killed more than 100 US Marines, so it's definitely a bit much for posting a draft standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
properly formatted direct link to the message [metzdowd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...Have we forgotten that the NSA mole in the IETF, Steve Kent ...
Have we forgotten that Steve Kent had the NSA (via the FBI) investigate me for *treason* for posting the PPP CHAP internet-draft circa 1991?
Of course there must be some proof of these allegations? It seems pretty unlikely that a charge of treason would come about based on what is described.
On the other hand this is posted on the internet, so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The brand, "Committee for State Security" is currently available.
Actually KGB is still in active use by one of the original KGB organizations [wikipedia.org] in Belarus. The founder of the Soviet Union's original secret police, the dreaded Cheka [wikipedia.org], was Felix "Iron Felix" Dzerzhinsky [wikipedia.org] who was born in Belarus. From what I hear they keep the "old traditions" going there.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you mean "Committee for State Freedom and the Protection of Personal Rights and Liberty"
Re:rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, another untrustworthy liar to replace the untrustworthy liar. But, this one knows how to swim and swab a deck.
What an upgrade!
Worse than re-branding ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't really matter when the thing started because agencies that ignore the existence of the Constitutions are malicious cancers that can one day kill the nation.
It is up to the President of the United States to SHUT DOWN the offending agency (and / or agencies) in order to stem the malicious progression of these dangerous agencies.
The fact that Obama refuses to shut it down says a lot about the lack of integrity of the individual. As the POTUS he has to answer not only to his own office, but also to the hundreds of millions of the Citizens of the United States of America - and in this role, Obama has failed his job as the POTUS, the oval office - the satus of which the POTUS represents, and, the ***NATION*** !
Re:rebranded? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, the only thing I think you can criticize Obama vs previous presidents over the NSA scandal is: his did actually run against this sort of snooping in his first presidential campaign. Not that it's shocking that a politician breaks his promises or anything, but you'd think when all this became public he might have been more publically critical.
Re:rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this post highlights exactly why: when a trend that's been going on for decades across administrations from both major parties continues (or, worse, accelerates slightly), what happens? Half of Americans loudly blame the current incumbent, causing the other half to reflexively defend whatever this trend is.
Hint: Government is not like sports. Don't mindlessly support the Red Team or the Blue Team, they're supposed to stand for something.
Not Bitcoin connection? (Score:1)
Can you spy? (Score:5, Funny)
"Yes"
"Can you spy a lot?"
"Yes"
"You're hired."
new hiring practice at the NSA
Re: (Score:2)
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Re: (Score:3)
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Can you spy on the American People and play dumb, convincingly before Congress? (They authorized all this but now clamber over each other claiming shock and dismay while attempting to reach for the highest indignation.)
Re:Can you spy? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Can you spy on the American People and play dumb, convincingly before Congress? (They authorized all this but now clamber over each other claiming shock and dismay while attempting to reach for the highest indignation.)
No they didn't. Americans never voted on this crap. Hell, Congress had no time to read the Patriot act until after the vote either. After the fact we all heard about how the terrorist would kill all of our children if we repealed this law instead of having any rational debate.
Now you could claim that American's have been complacent and let things happen, that much I would agree with. This would also explain some of their shock and dismay as they see what the complacency has turned into.
Even that is questionable. One of Obama's Hope and Change speeches claimed that the Patriot act had to go, and that Government needed to be more transparent.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been plenty of time since the Patriot Act was passed to read and revisit it. Other than relatively minor tuning it is still on the books. Although it is possible that candidate Obama was misleading the country on his intent, it could be that his views evolved with new information [faqs.org].
Bring us their heads (Score:2)
This act wasn't etched in stone by God on a mountaintop; someone wrote it. While the bumblefuck congresscritters that voted on it without reading are accomplices, the real traitors are the authors that should be tried and convicted by the very judicial system they betrayed.
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA's job is to spy, so it makes sense to hire SIGINT people. The recent problem is who they've been spying on.
Re: (Score:3)
The business of Admirals is to kill people and destroy their property. An Admiral won't mind smaller violence like breaking constitutional law, lying to the public, and spending taxpayer dollars on projects to make money for a few.
The business of Admirals is to defend the people of the United States with wise use of the Navy. Failing that, to cover their butts until they can retire.
Re: (Score:2)
During WW2 the US Navy had to/was ordered to share and you had the 1942 and 1944 Holden Agreement's with the UK.
During the Cold War you saw US Navy elint aircraft in the 1950's later NSA/US Navy efforts like Ivy Bells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
The now US seems fixated with contractors, mercenaries, the private sector has vetting issues and a massive expansion of staff w
Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The business of Admirals is to kill people and destroy their property. An Admiral won't mind smaller violence like breaking constitutional law, lying to the public, and spending taxpayer dollars on projects to make money for a few.
Which is exactly why they need to stop putting military people in these positions.
Yes civilians can do that stuff too, but at least there's a chance, however small, that things might change. Putting another Admiral or General in charge guarantees that nothing will change.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you add some details to that? Why do you think a military officer would be less inclined to follow the law than a civilian? Besides that, do you realize that there is a strong ethic of being apolitical in the US military? Is you position simply antimilitary?
Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why do you think a military officer would be less inclined to follow the law than a civilian?
Why do you think a civilian would be more willing to follow illegal orders? The willingness of military to follow the chain of command is indoctrinated into them at every stage of their training and service. It is an _exceptional_ military leader who can see the larger political or moral picture. When those personnel's illegal orders or political abuses are walled behind national security claims, their indoctrinated willingness to follow orders without moral question encourages their actions, and political use of their willingness, to include abuse.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you think a civilian would be more willing to follow illegal orders?
The majority of military people I've met seem to believe in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies.
The majority of civilians I've met are fucking morons, who wouldn't hesitate to twerk atop the Constitution until it was torn to shreds, if only because think of the children/zomg terrorists/zomg gay people kissing/zomg religious people teaching creationism/etc.
Re: (Score:3)
"Uphold the constitution" is an ideal. What it means, every day, boils down to "obey the chain of command".
Moreover, the Constitution is not enough. The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have been ruled, by the previous commander in chief, not have the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions or the US Military Code of Justice apply to them. And so they are trapped, concealed, tortured, some of them tortured to death.
I'm not saying that civilians cannot commit abuses. I'm saying that the disciplined behavior of mil
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
So, that stopped military folks at Guantanamo Bay from doing the same things we hung people at the Nuremberg trials for? Or, has prevented rape epidemics, primarily responded to by cover-ups? How about convincing people not to invade countries on politically motivated known faulty intelligence? So far as I can tell, the people in recent decades who've been protecting constitutional rights and opposing illegal wars, torture, domestic spying, etc., have not been wearing military uniforms.
NSA spied on Copenhagen climate summit .. (Score:5, Informative)
"Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show how the US National Security Agency (NSA) monitored communication between key countries before and during the conference to give their negotiators advance information about other positions at the high-profile meeting where world leaders including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel failed to agree to a strong deal on climate change." link [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Good. That's the sort of thing the NSA should be doing. Providing a dossier on the expected positions of other countries in a major summit.
Re: (Score:3)
Even more so when you consider that:
1) This was the summit where Russia conveniently made a fuss about the hacked CRU e-mails that were taken only a few weeks before the summit
2) Climate change has a genuine impact on national security interests, as it can change the quality of habitability of areas leading to destabilisation
Really, when Russia tried to pull the rug out from under the summit because it's entire survival post-USSR collapse has been built off burning fossil fuels by being the likely culprit b
Senate Filibuster Rules (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This suddenly makes me rather sad that the filibuster rules were changed for appointment confirmations. The Republicans had been abusing the filibuster against appointments far too frequently (traditionally one only goes after appointments if there is a serious problem), but this is precisely the kind of appointment where it might be useful. Even if I think most of them are cynical opportunists, I should very much like the opposition use this chance to put more pressure on the security state.
Yep, they thought they'd score some biggie whopper points with crying wolf and this is what we get for it.
Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
The opposition had been using the filibuster against appointments far too frequently
Fixed it for you. Hint: Democrats did the same thing.
Worry not, they'll reap what they've sowed sooner or later, when the GOP controls the Senate and White House. Politics is cyclical.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite correct, and your moderation of "troll" is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (Score:5, Informative)
That's a nice false equivalence you've got there. Too bad you miss the point. Almost half [politifact.com] of all of the nominee filibusters in the entire history of this country have been by this Republican party during this president's time in office.
The Democrats have never even done close to the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
This suddenly makes me rather sad that the filibuster rules were changed for appointment confirmations. The Republicans had been using the filibuster against appointments far too frequently (traditionally one only goes after appointments if there is a serious problem), but this is precisely the kind of appointment where it might be useful. Even if I think most of them are cynical opportunists, I should very much like the opposition use this chance to put more pressure on the security state.
You do know that it possible for congress to block this appointment without a filibuster? All it would take is a few Democrats to vote with the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do know that. But I'm not asking that the appointment be blocked. Not only do I think that in most cases a president should have a staff of his choosing (again, excepting serious circumstances), but in this case I don't expect that anyone better or worse would be nominated in his place. Indeed, I know little about the nominee himself. What I want is for the opposition to complain loudly in front of the whole Senate, putting themselves on the record doing so. Then I should like the Democrats to save f
Re: (Score:2)
The only acceptable solution... (Score:2)
Re:The only acceptable solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely serious. No joke. No hyperbole.
If you want to challenge it you might start of by trying to show that the defense budget and headcount hasn't changed since 1986. It should take you no more than a few minutes to see that is false, and that both have varied considerably.
I could provide other avenues you may want to explore as well.
The fact that Ron Paul may have championed a particular concern doesn't necessarily mean that his stand on the question was either right or sound policy. The Founding
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man! I got trolled hardcore and fell for it. Bravo. *golfclap*
Re: (Score:2)
One of the limitations of written communications is that it doesn't convey many of the typical cues that people rely upon to communicate sarcasm, irony, confusion, or various other shades of meaning. I'm not sure what you intend to convey there, but if you mean it as written you've got things wrong.
I'm not a fan of "The Paul," as you put it. Never have been. I think he gets many things wrong, and his views tend towards fringe thinking. I think Libertarians in general are worth listening to, but I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly would stop Congress from doing this (other than a lazy electorate that doesn't care enough to make it an issue)?
Re: (Score:2)
...to the problem that is the NSA is the entire dismantling of the NSA as an agency.
(a fool's hope) Failing that, sinking it to deep sea would do. Maybe that's why an admiral was appointed?
Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Being safe from terrorism isn't good enough reward for you?
Was Boston kept safe by the NSA?
Doesn't look like we are getting "rewarded" now does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, there are four basic ways to get Obama out of office, and you know what they all are:
* He could resign. Certainly all of us could think of reasons for him to do so, but that depends on HIM deciding that he's got a good enough reason to do so (and enough pressure from outside sources).
* The senate could impeach, convict, and remove him from office via their normal Constitutional power to do so, provided they have an actual legal reason to DO so. Care to cite an actual law he's broken? I can't think
Is it just me... (Score:4, Interesting)
... or is anyone else disturbed by the number of military personnel being appointed to civilian posts in the US government recently?
At what point do we just give up and announce that we're ruled by a junta already?
Re: (Score:1)
Washington was a Major General.
Learn you some history.
Re: (Score:1)
And Washington was elected, not appointed. The President is also commander-in-chief of the armed forces so not strictly a civilian post.
Your move, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus - "not a civilian post" is either silly or sinister depending on motivation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Abraham Lincoln was deeply involved in overall strategy and in day-to-day operations during the American Civil War, 1861–1865; historians have given Lincoln high praise for his strategic sense and his ability to select and encourage commanders such as Ulysses S. Grant.[39] ... Harry S. Truman believed in a high amount of civilian leadership of the military, making many tactical and policy decisions based on the recommendations of his advisors— including the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan, to commit American forces in the Korean War, and to terminate Douglas MacArthur from his command.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Which has led to a great deal of criticism of Truman from the otherwise disinterested (ie. people who don't care what political party he was in). I think it's on topic and not a Godwin to bring up Hitler's obsession with various targets instead of the military suggestion of containing them and going around. It's just as well for us today that Hitler believed in a high amount of civilian leadership of the military and was so ba
Re: (Score:2)
See, ignorance is half our problem. This has long been a practice of the US government, and people these days...it's like they're Rip van Winkle and have no idea what the political situation has been like.
Moreover there is substantial support for what you might call the "USA = worse than Nazi Germany" attitude. It's not true but a certain subset really enjoys saying it and never grows tired of repeating it.
Re: (Score:2)
... or is anyone else disturbed by the number of military personnel being appointed to civilian posts in the US government recently?
Perhaps you missed all the mergers and acquistions going on with the TLA's, CyberCommand, etc., but bear in mind that Alexander controls[->ed?] actual military assets and (IIRC) two batallions.
You can't call the NSA a civilian agency any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It never was a civilian agency! It has, since day one, been a military op!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the history of the NSA (and its predecessor, the Armed Forces Security Agency), there has never been a Director who wasn't a military officer.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA subordinate to the DoD... as such it is a military operation. I'll remind you that it is headquartered on a military base, namely Ft. Mead.
That being said. It is not unusual for a military operation (SIGINT) to be managed by a military officer.
Cryptologist? (Score:2)
A quick search didn't turn up any answers that inspired confidence, I figured there must be people here who can answer...
Re: (Score:1)
Cryptologist tends to break codes, cryptographer makes them. Cryptologic Linguist, intercepts enemy signals, and breaks the codes.
Re: (Score:2)
A cryptologist fully understands the tasks but brings many other skills.
How to interact with other working groups (in the US in the distant past Army, Navy efforts, private sector, education, other nations staff), other friendly nations and the political/funding/tech dynamics at any point in time.
In the way distant past in the US (1930's) you would face quest
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question, not a semantic game: What is the difference between a cryptologist (as Rogers is described) and a cryptographer?
A cryptolologist speaks cryptically (from the greak "logos" - speech). A talent very much in need to (un)explain to other people (and potentially the congress) what NSA is doing.
A cryptographer writes or draws cryptical things (graphein - to write/draw). Given that even /.-ers don't have time to RTFA (even if they actually have time to otherwise waste engaging in comments... take this as an example)... ummm... not a very useful skill for the head of an govt agency.
(ducks)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is hacker new, it has good stories and some good insightful comments but their moderation systems isn't that good and the site owner likes to bring down the ban hammer on a whim from what I hear. Also the community tends toward being overly concerned with being seen as more politically correct than his fellow poster. (Example; yesterday there was a posting about a tool similar to "man pages" only it was called "bro pages" it was meant to show example of how to use various command line tools rathe
Clapper (Score:2, Informative)
When is Clapper getting charged with lying to Congress? He even admitted to it.
Why even bother with the formalities? (Score:2)
Just start loading large numbers of people...oh excuse me, "undesirables" into box cars and kill them and be done with it.
This can't lead to anything else.
give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (Score:3)
No need for all of that. Bush II was a popular governor who reached across the aisle, so many people thought he'd be a decent president. It turned out that he wasn't Obama talked a good game, he sounded inspirational. People thought he might be good. It turns out he isn't very good. That happens.
I'm sure almost all of the liberals here would love to trade Obama for JFK, just like conservatives would have resurrected Reagan to replace Bush if the could, but the good presidents are dead. The liberals kn
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, a lot of the electorate is uninformed, but even most of the uniformed realize that Obama was an error. No need to rub it in. YOU probably voted for Bush Jr. Oops. Happens to the best of us
I voted for GWB and BHO. Want me to tell you why? Four words: Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and pick the least disgusting stall in the public restroom. Stall A has urine on the seat, Stall B has fecal matter, which are you going to use?
you're wise. Bad candidates after the primaries (Score:2)
True indeed. In the last few elections, neither party had very attractive candidates make it past the primaries. Early on, McCain's long record of working across party lines made him very appealing. Then he went stupid and picked Palin apparently without spending any time with her, just based on demographics and "maverick" status for going against the party. Sure, demographically she's a good balance for him. He's old, she's young. He's male, she's female. He's experienced, she's clueless. Wtf - cluele
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could stop being stupid and vote for candidates you actually like, rather than pretending that you have to vote for Republicans or Democrats. Holding your nose and picking the lesser of two evils only serves to maintain the status quo in perpetuity.
Even if third parties don't have much of a chance of winning outright (thanks to both our system and people with mentalities like yours), people voting for them in large numbers sends messages to the main parties that they need to make some changes.
Besides
Re: (Score:2)
Happens to the best of us
It really doesn't.
Re: (Score:1)
I am going Tea.
I was a Obama democrat, but I see now to starve the beast we must kill its tax dollars.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was alone, and that all my fellow Democrats had completely abandoned the concept of individual liberty and freedom from illegal and un-Constitutional government mass surveillance on citizens.
I used to bash, taunt, and denigrate the TEA people. I don't anymore. I put aside my bias and anger and actually looked at the things they are for with an open mind. I'm not in agreement with much of what they say they're for, but there is a LOT of common ground surrounding the issu
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it cool when we had a pro-liberty, anti-censorship party on the one hand, and a small government party on the other? Those were the days ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh, you're one of those. Well, glad you had your Two Minutes Hate against Trotsky, err, Goldstein, err, right wing extremists, and can go back to obeying those causing the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck it, we can argue about abortion, gay marriage, etc AFTER we join together and toss these assholes out.
No, you can't --- because if the people you're helping into power are doing so on an ideologically driven platform of denying freedom and equality, you're not going to improve the situation. Putting oppressive religious extremists who happen to want to cut their personal tax bills into the seats of power is not going to help anyone. A free country can work with leaders who say "I personally oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, but I will fight to the death to preserve your freedoms to act on your own cons
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, none whatsoever of the sources you assume I'm getting info about the Tea party from (OFA website, Salon, the MSM, or HuffPo) are on my regular reading list. You seem to be basing your assumptions about my knowledge and motivations on a carefully-crafted straw-man version of generic "Liberal" thought. You already seem to know which "people I support in D.C." --- strange, I didn't mention that. And you're generally wrong, thanks to the preconceptions stilled in your mind by your propaganda overlords (spe