NSA cryptanalyst: "We, too, are Americans"

[Ramon F Herrera]

NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans

Summary: ZDNet Exclusive: An NSA mathematician shares his
from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities.

"An NSA mathematician, seeking to help shape the ongoing debate about
the agency's foreign surveillance activities, has contributed this
column to ZDNet Government. The author, Roger Barkan, also appeared in
last year's National Geographic Channel special about the National
Security Agency.

"The rest of this article contains Roger's words only, edited simply for
formatting.

"Many voices -- from those in the White House to others at my local
coffee shop -- have weighed in on NSA's surveillance programs, which
have recently been disclosed by the media.

"As someone deep in the trenches of NSA, where I work on a daily basis
with data acquired from these programs, I, too, feel compelled to raise
my voice. Do I, as an American, have any concerns about whether the NSA
is illegally or surreptitiously [...]"

http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-cryptanalyst-we-too-are-americans-7000020689/?s_cid=e539&ttag=e539

-Ramon

[David Eather]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 01:21:53 +1000, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net>
wrote:

Considering the head of the NSA has lied multiple times to congress about
the scope of NSA activities I wouldn't be prepared to take what is said by
an insider as having any value.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 16/09/2013 16:21, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
> NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans
>
> Summary: ZDNet Exclusive: An NSA mathematician shares his
> from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities.
>

The NSA is basically innocent of internal surveillance. It was set up
to spy on governments and that is what it does. The absence of lists of
names of people spies on demonstrates that.

What we are seeing however is people whose faulty conscience is going
"Need Cover-up", "NEED COVER-UP", *"NOW"*. The FBI needs to see why.

Andrew Swallow

[unruh]

On 2013-09-16, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans

So was Charles Manson an American. Being an American does not
automatically mean that you are good, moral, etc. See Abu Ghraib.
One can easilly conform to the attitudes of those around you
(especailly if it is a highly secret organization where you cannot
renormalise your stance with respect to other, more open, people)

It is clear, from what Snowdon had acess to, " Analysts ARE free to
wander through all of NSA's collected data willy-nilly, snooping into
any communication they please."

And he then tries to make fun of the critics by implying that they are
concerned that NSA wants to read "recipies your mother mails you". The
concern is that they ARE interested in the political thoughts and plans
of Americans. Or the economic secrets of companies, etc.

And the lies that the NSA has had to retract give one zero confidence in
the "strict oversight" the analyst claims.
Sheesh.

> -Ramon

[Andrew Swallow]

Look again. Snowden did not have access to personnel data. He is only
leaking the management documents.

[David Eather]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:43:56 +1000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 16/09/2013 16:21, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>
>> NSA cryptanalyst: We, too, are Americans
>>
>> Summary: ZDNet Exclusive: An NSA mathematician shares his
>> from-the-trenches view of the agency's surveillance activities.
>>
>
> The NSA is basically innocent of internal surveillance. It was set up
> to spy on governments and that is what it does. The absence of lists of
> names of people spies on demonstrates that.
>

and I think I saw the tooth fairy...

[David Eather]

It does deserve a better reply.

A democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The congress is the most powerful manifestation of that ideal and a
congregational inquiry is strongest and most earnest attempt of the people
to get facts. In the face of this the head of the NSA, a government agency
which like all government agencies is supposed to support the dreams and
aspirations of the people, lied *repeatedly* to a congressional inquiry
and in so doing showed utter contempt for the basis that the USA was
founded on.

Further reports by the NSA's own internal auditor found that it repeatedly
breach it judicial limits to the tune of three times a day. Clearly the
NSA will not even respect the very generous judicial guidelines it is
supposed to work within.

Despite the massive cost in life the 9/11 attacks posed no lasting threat
to the US. People rallied together as proud Americans with a shared
experience. New Yorkers spoke to and helped each other even if they were
strangers. The American identity was made stronger, not weaker.

The attack by the NSA is much different. It is pervasive, and it attacks
the free speech that underpins democracy's in all its forms. In the Soviet
Union the citizens responded to the oppressive surveillance state by
withdrawing from public life and public contribution and instead they
focused very narrowly on themselves and their own family. Truth was spoken
only between husband and wife at night, and even then with the bed sheets
pulled over their faces. The West used to laugh at the Soviet Union
because their spy agencies monitored every international call, every
foreigner in the country and its own citizens who had contact with them.
And now the NSA is even more pervasive than that and its efforts to
coerce, subvert and influence are not a benign as people seem to think.
How do you make someone do what they think is morally wrong? You bully
them and threaten their loved ones, which is something made much easier by
mass surveillance. CRYPTO-GRAM, September 15, 2013 details at least 2
draw dropping examples.

It has to stop.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 9/16/2013 5:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> So were Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Robert Hanssen. Being an
> American does not mean that someone is beyond reproach.

You are forgetting the BEST possible example!! This bastard son of a bitch:

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Edgarina.jpg

In fact, the so-called McCarthism was a misnomer, since Hoover was the
one pulling the strings.

Funny how now we have a MaCarthy reincarnate/wannabe, who (thank God!)
does not have the hand of the FBI up his ass.

http://goo.gl/Ey5pAu

Here's the scoop on Hoover:

http://goo.gl/UmtsZZ

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 9/17/2013 4:46 AM, David Eather wrote:
> A democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the
> people.

Mr. Lincoln:

It is quite a relief that the wise founders balked at the idea of our
country being a Democracy.

But I do have wonderful news for you! Since you a partial to Democracies
I hear that my spot in Venezuela is available.

Just tell the Chavistas that Ramon sent you, with my compliments.

-Ramon

ps: You are advised to carefully read "The Most Important of the
Federalist Papers".

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

pps: In case you don't know, it is No. 10

[Andrew Swallow]

On 20/09/2013 07:56, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Look again. Snowden did not have access to personnel data. He is
>> only leaking the management documents.
>

> Snowden has respect for peoples' privacy. Doesn't mean he didn't have
> access to the data, though. And the fact that it's there is plain
> obvious, considering stuff like LOVEINT.
>

LOVEINT was a sacking offence. Snowden knew because he was warned what
would happen to him if he tried doing it.

[Andrew Swallow]

> It was a sacking offence for those who got caught. Are there any
> reports on how many, and how fast they were caught?
>
> As Sysadmin, Snowden had more access and knowledge than those sacked
> for LOVEINT, so it's safe to assume that he could bypass a lot of
> safeguards (which is one of the things the NSA is keen on fixing now)
>

Snowden could bypass computer checks but not human inspections. The
moment anything got printed out he risked being caught.

[Harry]

I was somewhat amused by reports that Canada's spy agency was also up to
its neck in this stuff but of course "was not spying on Canadians". Who
do they think these governments are fooling. They pass laws or
directives to prevent spying on the locals but then just get a
neighboring country to do it for them and share the data.

Nobody is safe from this activity. Technology just makes spying like
this too easy and I don't see any way to force governments to stop doing
it. I mean really, do you trust that any security product that you
purchase does NOT have back doors for government use?

--

Harry

[Andrew Swallow]

They mostly spy on Russians and Chinese.

[Casper H.S. Dik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:

>They mostly spy on Russians and Chinese.

Yeah, right.

Casper

[unruh]

On 2013-11-06, Harry <hepg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 15:26, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On 9/16/2013 5:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> So were Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Robert Hanssen. Being an
>>> American does not mean that someone is beyond reproach.
>>
>> You are forgetting the BEST possible example!! This bastard son of a bitch:
>>
>> http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Edgarina.jpg
>>
>> In fact, the so-called McCarthism was a misnomer, since Hoover was the
>> one pulling the strings.
>>
>> Funny how now we have a MaCarthy reincarnate/wannabe, who (thank God!)
>> does not have the hand of the FBI up his ass.
>>
>> http://goo.gl/Ey5pAu
>>
>> Here's the scoop on Hoover:
>>
>> http://goo.gl/UmtsZZ
>>
>> -Ramon
>>
>>
>>
> I was somewhat amused by reports that Canada's spy agency was also up to
> its neck in this stuff but of course "was not spying on Canadians". Who
> do they think these governments are fooling. They pass laws or
> directives to prevent spying on the locals but then just get a
> neighboring country to do it for them and share the data.

It is not at all clear to me that there is any law in Canada which
prevents CSIS or the RCMP from spying on locals.

[David W. Hodgins]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:58:45 -0500, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> It is not at all clear to me that there is any law in Canada which
> prevents CSIS or the RCMP from spying on locals.

My understanding is, that there is, but I suspect the nsa probably
spies on Canadians, and then gives the info to csis, and csec
probably spies on Americans, and gives the info to the nsa. That
way, neither of them are spying on their own citizens, but they
get the info anyway.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[unruh]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.crypt.]

On 2013-11-07, David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:58:45 -0500, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> It is not at all clear to me that there is any law in Canada which
>> prevents CSIS or the RCMP from spying on locals.
>
> My understanding is, that there is, but I suspect the nsa probably
> spies on Canadians, and then gives the info to csis, and csec
> probably spies on Americans, and gives the info to the nsa. That
> way, neither of them are spying on their own citizens, but they
> get the info anyway.

In the US conspiracy to break the law is itself against the law. NSA
explicitly asking for or receiving such information whose gathering is
illegal is probably in itself illegal. (If I hire you to rob a bank, I
am also guilty of the crime of robbing the bank and well as conspiring
to rob the bank)

>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>

[Harry]

On 2013-11-06 19:58, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-11-06, Harry <hepg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>> I was somewhat amused by reports that Canada's spy agency was also up to
>> its neck in this stuff but of course "was not spying on Canadians". Who
>> do they think these governments are fooling. They pass laws or
>> directives to prevent spying on the locals but then just get a
>> neighboring country to do it for them and share the data.
>
> It is not at all clear to me that there is any law in Canada which
> prevents CSIS or the RCMP from spying on locals.
>

Apparently the guy in charge of oversight said that they were not
supposed to be spying on Canadians but that he was unable to tell from
the reports provided by the agency whether in fact they were indeed not
doing so. That should give us a lot of comfort!
--

Harry

[Andrew Swallow]

Until you understand that you do not have a clue about what is going on.

If the NSA was spying on people the Guardian would be naming names.

Andrew Swallow

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <2fCdnZ9Zo-TbeeLP...@bt.com>,

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> If the NSA was spying on people the Guardian would be naming names.

If you fish with a pole, you can name your catch. If you fish with a
net, you might be hard pressed to even count your catch.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 11/11/2013 16:31, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <2fCdnZ9Zo-TbeeLP...@bt.com>,
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> If the NSA was spying on people the Guardian would be naming names.
>
> If you fish with a pole, you can name your catch. If you fish with a
> net, you might be hard pressed to even count your catch.
>

Then nothing to see. You spy for a purpose.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <msGdnTvq5KPbgBzP...@bt.com>,

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 11/11/2013 16:31, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <2fCdnZ9Zo-TbeeLP...@bt.com>,
> > Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If the NSA was spying on people the Guardian would be naming names.
> >
> > If you fish with a pole, you can name your catch. If you fish with a
> > net, you might be hard pressed to even count your catch.
> >
>
> Then nothing to see. You spy for a purpose.

As currently implemented, the (unintended) purpose is extinction. The
net fishermen are coming to realize the inherent dangers of that. I
wonder when the net surveillers will show the same intelligence.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:58:45 GMT, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2013-11-06, Harry <hepg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-09-17 15:26, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2013 5:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> So were Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Robert Hanssen. Being an
>>>> American does not mean that someone is beyond reproach.
>>>
>>> You are forgetting the BEST possible example!! This bastard son of a bitch:
>>>
>>> http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Edgarina.jpg
>>>
>>> In fact, the so-called McCarthism was a misnomer, since Hoover was the
>>> one pulling the strings.
>>>
>>> Funny how now we have a MaCarthy reincarnate/wannabe, who (thank God!)
>>> does not have the hand of the FBI up his ass.
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/Ey5pAu
>>>
>>> Here's the scoop on Hoover:
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/UmtsZZ
>>>
>>> -Ramon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I was somewhat amused by reports that Canada's spy agency was also up to
>> its neck in this stuff but of course "was not spying on Canadians". Who
>> do they think these governments are fooling. They pass laws or
>> directives to prevent spying on the locals but then just get a
>> neighboring country to do it for them and share the data.
>
>It is not at all clear to me that there is any law in Canada which
>prevents CSIS or the RCMP from spying on locals.

Maybe not, but there ought to be !

[Tim downing]

It's become a tired refrain, but I continue to tell people, "Edward Snowden proved the tinfoil-had crowd was wrong... they weren't using nearly enough tinfoil.

On a related note, the Director of National Intelligence needs to be brought up on charges of perjuring himself before congress.