dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
706

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

1 edit

antdude

Premium Member

The New York Times' 1983 article on NSA.

»www.nytimes.com/1983/03/ ··· nsa.html from »boingboing.net/2013/08/2 ··· tic.html

Even back then, NSA was a concern. I was too young to care. I just wanted to watch TV/television, play with nature like bugs (not computer types like I do these days), and Atari 2600 games.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

2 edits

1 recommendation

StuartMW

Premium Member

said by antdude:

I was too young to care.

More importantly the "home computers" back then couldn't connect to much, there was no internet to speak of or widespread cellphone use.

In 1983 the NSA had to actually work at signals intelligence. These days it just rolls in. The only real technical issue they have is sheer volume and when their Utah datacenter comes online even that won't bother them much.

PS: In 1983 I was running OS/9 (level 1) on a Radioshack Color Computer (Coco) and using it to write (6809) assembler code and do word processing (really!). It had a 5.25" floppy drive and 64KB of RAM. Woo hoo!

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

2 recommendations

Blackbird to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
To those who would argue that there's no security or privacy issue at stake for the average citizen with respect to the NSA's activities, it's wise to remember these fragments from the 1983 NYT article:
quote:
... The agency first became involved in this more questionable kind of surveillance in the early 1960's when either Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy or the F.B.I. asked it to monitor all telephone calls between the United States and Cuba. This list of international calls was significantly enlarged during the Johnson Administrtion as Federal authorities became concerned that foreign governments might try to influence American civil-rights leaders. The N.S.A. gradually developed a ''watch list'' of Americans that included those speaking out against the Vietnam War.

According to the subsequent investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a total of 1,200 Americans were targeted by the N.S.A. between 1967 and 1973 because of their political activities. The subjects - chosen by the F.B.I., the Secret Service, the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency -included members of radical groups, celebrities and ordinary citizens.
...
The records obtained by the committee indicate that from the project's earliest stages, both Government officials and corporate executives understood that the surveillance flatly violated a Federal law against intercepting or divulging telegrams. Certainly, they were aware that such interception violated the Fourth Amendment...
...
the agency also developed files on civil-rights and antiwar activists, Congressmen and other citizens who lawfully questioned Government policies.
...
Every day, in almost every area of culture and commerce, systems and procedures are being adopted by private companies and organizations as well as by the nation's security leaders that make it easier for the N.S.A. to dominate American society should it ever decide such action is necessary.
(my emphasis - BB)
The question that few seem to be asking, 30 years later after enormous continued growth, is who REALLY controls the NSA today?

Sportsfan
join:2012-03-26

Sportsfan to antdude

Member

to antdude
I was a high-school kid in '83. My only computer use then had been a TRS-80 with a cassette drive in a computer class. I remember around that time hearing a guest (possibly James Bamford) on the Larry King Show (radio) talking about the NSA and Operation Shamrock.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:

The question that few seem to be asking, 30 years later after enormous continued growth, is who REALLY controls the NSA today?

IMO the NSA has become an end in itself. Reports are that their current director, Keith Alexander, has been actively pushing for more money/power.

»NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief ....

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

Blackbird to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
With NSA's legacy of being a creature of past Presidential directives, not enacted by legislation, it exists outside the norm for Federal agencies or departments. Hence it is largely outside external oversight, other than the occassional feeble Congressional committee inquiry and the annual Congressional passing shot at NSA's budget elements (themselves buried within other budgets like some ornate Kabuki doll).

Some $10 billion a year is currently estimated to go into the NSA budget (14% of the annual intel total): What the NSA costs taxpayers. Others estimate the total runs to $20 billion.

And the ability of an agency that has a multi-decades-long track record of collecting data on nearly everyone (including Federal officials) has the powers of influence and intervention far out of proportion to even its large actual size. Hence who actually runs it, who they are accountable to in detail and for what, where their official constraints lie, and what are the reins of control of the agency by outside authority are of vital importance to the nation as we know it. If that outside control and review lies only with the President, it constitutes a serious danger to the freedom of action of the Congressional and Judicial branches of government and the Constitutional system of checks and balances. If such control does not lie with the President, then it appears to lie nowhere - in which case the agency exists as a power unto itself and presents a clear and present danger to the Constitution and to the citizens.

Where is the vaunted American media and our Congressional leaders on this? The silence is deafening...

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

1 recommendation

StuartMW

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

Where is the vaunted American media and our Congressional leaders on this?

OK. Here's a reply I've been thinking about posting for a while now.

I've noticed that the NSA (and other similar) "scandals" get the following kinds of reactions.

• "I don't care". While the motives for this view appear varied the primary reaction is one of apathy.

• "I have nothing to hide". In this view the person states they have no reason for concern because "I'm not a terrorist".

• "They're protecting us". Proponents of this view take the tack that the gummint should protect us at all costs. A common phrase heard from them is "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact". In short they advocate security over liberty/privacy.

• "This is a violation of the 4th Amendment". Proponents of this view say that the gummint is exceeding their authority no matter what Congress, The President, or the Supreme Court say. Also they claim that "the terrorists win" by making us change our values and behavior.

Now IMO the "I don't care" and "I have nothing to hide" people remove themselves from the debate. They're fine with the status quo. In short they have no effect on the debate.

The "They're protecting us" proponents range from apathetic to passionate defenders (e.g. Peter King (R), NY) of the NSA/spying. Their trouble, IMO, is that as more information is leaked about the NSA their credibility diminishes. [Interestingly Peter King is just as passionate as ever]

IMO the "Constitutionalists" have most of the passion on their side although by the polls I've seen they're in the minority. As more revelations are published they become more and more outraged.

Now I also find it fascinating that this is a bi-partisan debate. You find both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of it. It's pretty rare to see Dennis Kucinich and Rand Paul agree about anything but they do on this (both are "Constitutionalists").

To get back to your original question my observation is that most average people fall into the "I don't care" and "I have nothing to hide" categories. The media, for the most part, falls under "They're protecting us" although some are rather ambivalent about it.

The "Constitutionalists" seem to get written off as "right wing nuts", "rabid tea-partiers", "anti-government" or similar although they're more vocal.

At this time I'm not sure how this'll turn out. Perhaps apathy will win out. Perhaps a major terrorist attack will bolster the "They're protecting us" argument. Or maybe, just maybe, the "Constitutionalists" viewpoint will gain steam. Only time will tell.

CruiserMD
Premium Member
join:2003-04-26
Beltsville, MD

CruiserMD to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
Sturart:
I think your apathy view is probably correct. Today, people don't care about anything until it effects them personally. They do not teach civics anymore so why would you expect these uneducated dolts to really care if they dont even know what the question is or isn't.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW

Premium Member

I forgot, in my post above, to include one viewpoint (it slipped my mind at the time).

• "It's all legal". The view in this case is that Congress, The Courts and The President have all said the NSA's activities are legal (according to those institutions) so we should "all just get used to it".

Lagz
Premium Member
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

1 recommendation

Lagz to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
As more and more start paying bills online and getting statements in e-mail I think we will see a shift in the way people think. Having an organization that has access to everything you get in an email(bills, bank statements, personal drama) with no oversight is really a bad thing to have.

For those that say they have nothing to hide I respond; Do you mind posting your bank statement and social security number online for the whole world to see? Maybe you do have something to hide after all.

carpetshark3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

carpetshark3 to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
Some agency in the Gvt. has been doing this longer than that. Except it was Communists and socialists at the time.

Kids studying different forms of government would get hassled for picking up a copy of the Socialist Daily Worker, and asking for info on communism.

With the ease of getting info, how can they resist? The gvt loves groupthink and doesn't approve if you don't do it. F**k'em.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

1 recommendation

OZO to Lagz

Premium Member

to Lagz
said by Lagz:

As more and more start paying bills online and getting statements in e-mail I think we will see a shift in the way people think. Having an organization that has access to everything you get in an email(bills, bank statements, personal drama) with no oversight is really a bad thing to have.

That's very good point and it's important to keep in mind all the times one wants to subscribe to a "free" mail service.

If you want to get bills, statements, shipment confirmations about all of your online purchases, etc. and keep it private (as you always should if you capable of thinking about yourself and your future) you should demand privacy protection from that mail provider. Second, ask mail senders (banks, services that send you statements, etc) to send it in encrypted form. Just ask them and make sure they get the message. It's important to let them know that customers care about it. Third advice would be - spread eggs between multiple baskets (use multiple accounts form different providers). But the best protection would be - set up your own mail server and get all important correspondence directly form source to you. No middle-man should be involved here.

Personally I use the latter approach. I'm getting all important financial (and not only) correspondence directly form senders. There is no Google, Yahoo, or other similar services in the middle perusing all my mails. And that's exactly how it should be.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW to carpetshark3

Premium Member

to carpetshark3
Yup.

An acquaintance of mine was relating his experiences (nothing secret just general stuff) of working at Los Alamos decades ago last night. He said for 5 years after leaving the "G Men" would randomly show up wherever he happened to be to "interview' him as he'd had a Top Secret clearance. He also had to take lie detectors tests every 6 months or so.

These guys take their business very seriously.

rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium Member
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA

rcdailey

Premium Member

Well, it's not just a TS clearance that triggers that kind of surveillance afterward. It's access to sensitive TS material and Los Alamos has a lot of that Anyway, lots of people have been given TS clearances but not all of them are going to be watched so carefully. Nobody bothered to watch me.

dbarber
join:2000-07-25
West Chester, PA

dbarber

Member

I had a TS clearance 30 odd years ago, mainly so that I could have access to certain locations on an NSA project. More of a "need to be there" than a "need to know". I was never bothered with "follow up" or anything else after the project was done.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
The follow-up interviews have more to do with the nature of the material to which one's TS (plus endorsements) gave access, rather than the clearance level per se. E.g. certain nuclear technology never goes out of style, and concerns about its unlawful dissemination linger far longer than does a person's employment or active clearances... as is also true for certain other categories and exposures.