Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Nominates Vice Admiral Michael Rogers New NSA Chief

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the big-boss-man dept.

United States 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."

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

rebranded? (5, Insightful)

Infestedkudzu (2557914) | about 7 months ago | (#46115849)

Is this what companies do when their product turns out to have lead paint in it or something.

Re:rebranded? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115915)

Yes. America isn't called America anymore, it's Obamanation.

Re:rebranded? (5, Insightful)

edibobb (113989) | about 7 months ago | (#46116039)

This started long before Obama. The big data collection was almost inevitable because it became possible, economical, and easy to justify in the name of "national security." As long as they could keep it secret with virtually unlimited funding, it would keep growing regardless of who controlled the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court.

Re:rebranded? (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46116217)

Yes. But what Bommy wants, Bommy GETS!

Worse than re-branding ... (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#46117039)

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? (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46117399)

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? (0)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 7 months ago | (#46116641)

Yes. America isn't called America anymore, it's Obamanation.

Obummernation.

Re:rebranded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116901)

The People's Cube [thepeoplescube.com]

Re:rebranded? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115917)

FTFY: after leaks from ex-intelligence contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of its constitution violations and illegal spying on Americans and allies. Confirmed lawbreakers ...

Re:rebranded? (1, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 7 months ago | (#46116095)

The brand, "Committee for State Security" is currently available.

Re:rebranded? (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46116227)

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:
               

On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:49 PM, John Kelsey <crypto.jmk[at]gmail.com>
                wrote:
               

                Perhaps this is the result of living in a government bubble for awhile, but
                I certainly saw and heard a lot of the bigger community who thought NSA's
                involvement in domestic crypto standards and companies was intended to improve
                security. That's why NSA people were and are openly members of a bunch of
                standards committees, why people invited NSA guys to give talks and take
                part in competitions, why people were using stuff like SE Linux. People have
                been using DSA, the NIST curves, SHA1, and SHA2 for many years, believing
                them secure--because the assumption was that NSA wasn't putting backdoored
                stuff out there.
                   

                   

                    Absolutely. And it's not just a matter of living inside the government bubble.
                   

                    NSA has had a surprisingly good reputation pretty much until Snodownia. Before
                    their involvement with DES, no one really knew anything about them - but
                    every interaction I've ever heard of with NSA people left the impression
                    that they were extremely bright and extremely competent. (A friend who, many
                    years ago interviewed with both CIA and NSA, thought the interviewers for
                    the former were a bunch of bumbling idiots, while he was very impressed with
                    the latter. He never took a government job, however.)
               

               

                No. NSA had a good reputation in the '60s. I even recommended a friend for
                a position there in the mid '70s. (AFAIK, he's still there.)
               

                By the '90s, its reputation was dirt. Because, other than what was known
                or suspected about DES, every action they took was to inhibit public use
                of cryptography.
               

NSA managed to appear not to be much involved in the old crypto wars. Sure,
                    everyone knew that they were the ones who wanted to be able to keep decrypting
                    stuff, but they managed to come across as mere implementers of policies set
                    elsewhere. Their involvement with DES looked bad for a while - why *those*
                    S boxes? Why 56 bits? - but then differential cryptanalysis was re-discovered
                    in public and it turned out that NSA had actually specified S-boxes as strong
                    against it as possible - and that the real strength really was around 56
                    bits. NSA came out as being ahead of the rest of the world, and using their
                    lead to strengthen publicly available crypto.
               

               

                NSA was *very* involved in the crypto wars!
               

                Have we forgotten that the NSA mole in the IETF, Steve Kent, removed the
                link encryption option from PPP before RFC 1134 publication in 1989?
               

                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?
               

                Because that would prevent the security agencies from intercepting passwords
                and pretending to be somebody else.... So by then we knew they were already
                wiretapping passwords of US citizens and presumably everybody else.
               

This is one reason I find all the whining about the NSA/RSA business a bit
                    of revisionist history. You can't look at what RSA did in the light of what
                    we know today. You have to look at it based on what was known or reasonably
                    strongly suspected at the time.
               

               

                Hogwash. In addition to the well-known Clipper chip, and the well-known 40-bit
                key export:
               

                (A) Have we forgotten that Steve Kent had my 1994 Cypher Block CheckSum (CBCS)
                removed from the IETF publication schedule -- because it wasn't compatible
                with his Null Encryption option?
               

                AFAIK, CBCS was the first attempt at integrating encryption with integrity.
                Had it been adopted, there would have been no Lucky13, et alia.
               

                And why the heck did we need a null encryption option anyway!
               

                (B) Have we forgotten that Photuris was adopted by acclamation at the Montreal
                IETF -- and then Cisco announced they were supporting ISAKMP/Oakley/IKE?
               

                My guess is forensic accounting would show that Cisco was paid, just as RSA
                was recently. Whether it was a cash payment or just a promise that they'd
                be favorably considered in future bids....
               

                I remember meeting with NSA twice at the supposedly neutral NRL. Phil Karn
                refused to meet with them, even though he grew up in Maryland and it would
                have been cheaper for him to meet them. But I naively thought that we could
                come to an agreement.
               

                Their biggest complaint was that Photuris concealed the parties, which inhibited
                traffic analysis. And sure enough, that's still what they still want today!
               

                All I could get agreement on was expanding the Group-Index field (renamed
                Schemes in draft -03) from 8 to 16 bits for them to define their own. That
                took 2 meetings!
               

                (C) Have we forgotten that H-MAC was adopted over IP-MAC, even though we
                had already shown that H-MAC was formally less secure than IP-MAC (and IP-MAC
                was older and already had had more analysis)?
               

                Why is it that everything NSA supported at NIST (SHA, SHA1, SHA2, ...) was
                demonstrably less secure than other proposals?
               

                On 12/23/13 9:29 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
               

As for the rest, the lesson we should take from this is, moving forward,
                    if any company in the future hears the words, "I'm from the NSA and I'm here
                    to help", they should run away, as fast their legs can carry them.
               

               

                Amen!
               

                _______________________________________________
               

                The cryptography mailing
                list

                cryptography[at]metzdowd.com

                http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography [metzdowd.com]

Re:rebranded? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46116395)

*treason* for posting the PPP CHAP internet-draft circa 1991

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:rebranded? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116937)

properly formatted direct link to the message [metzdowd.com]

/AC (in this thread)

Re:rebranded? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46117019)

...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:rebranded? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46116785)

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:rebranded? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46117217)

Don't you mean "Committee for State Freedom and the Protection of Personal Rights and Liberty"

Not Bitcoin connection? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115859)

The 12 zillionth story on NSA and Snowden and you couldn't find a bitcoin connection to go with it? Sloppy submission here.

Can you spy? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#46115867)

"Yes"

"Can you spy a lot?"

"Yes"

"You're hired."

new hiring practice at the NSA

Re:Can you spy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115879)

Not so fast! They also need to show a willingness to break the law and cover-up for their co-conspirators. Very important.

Re:Can you spy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115905)

Not so fast! They also need to show a willingness to break the law and cover-up for their co-conspirators. Very important.

No, showing that ability is what got them into this PR mess.

The new criteria is that they have to be good at not getting caught when they break the law and cover-up for their co-conspirators.

Re:Can you spy? (1)

GameMaster (148118) | about 7 months ago | (#46115981)

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:Can you spy? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#46116051)

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? (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 7 months ago | (#46116179)

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:Can you spy? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46116727)

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] .

Is this a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116159)

"Mike Rogers"? The exact same name as the representative...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rogers_(Michigan_politician)

FTWA - Rogers has reaffirmed his support for the NSA's programs, stating on October 30, 2013, "You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated."

That's like electing "Obama/Biden" because of subliminal regret over "Osama BinLaden".

Well, duh (4, Insightful)

arielCo (995647) | about 7 months ago | (#46116487)

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.

Hope and Change! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115895)

Is right around the corner, just keep licking that boot.

Heil Obama!

give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 7 months ago | (#46116011)

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 know that. They aren't stupid (most of them). 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

Re:give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#46116211)

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 (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 7 months ago | (#46116537)

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 - clueless is not okay.

Re:give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116575)

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, I'd feel disgusting if I voted for either of the two main parties.

Re:give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117051)

the sink

Re:give em a break, they didn't know, like Bush II (1)

allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) | about 7 months ago | (#46116653)

Happens to the best of us

It really doesn't.

Re:Hope and Change! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116397)

Don't worry, this is the dawning of the age of aquarius man.

Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46115959)

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.

Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#46116079)

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:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 7 months ago | (#46116737)

The history of the US Navy and codes is complex, conservative (no sharing) vs the UK and US Army and understanding pre WW2 Japan.
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 with skills but unknown backgrounds.
The US has the total global electronic high ground both in space, online and as basic global telco infrastructure/standards as well as setting/keeping global junk encryption.
China and Russia do not have the bases/location reach and are geographically isolated, contained.
The EU mil elite is subservient/dependant wrt the USA. What has changed after Snowden?
The US color of law of parallel construction and a vast illegal domestic surveillance network is now understood.
Expect a lot more crypto hardware, software to be in use - more gov and private expansion to fix any internal issues and grow the NSA. Politically outpace the CIA and secure other US mil/gov crypto/cyber/war related funding.

Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 7 months ago | (#46116103)

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:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46116669)

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? (3, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 7 months ago | (#46116815)

> 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:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117199)

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:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46118011)

The majority of military people I've met seem to believe in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies.

You are not a very good judge of character then.

Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116141)

Military folk care a lot more about that oath to defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, than the civilians who take a similar oath. Military folk also know that illegal orders are not valid orders, and it is their duty to not follow them.

Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about 7 months ago | (#46116489)

Citation needed.

NSA spied on Copenhagen climate summit .. (5, Informative)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 7 months ago | (#46115971)

"Developing countries have reacted angrily to revelations that the United States spied on other governments at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009."

"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:NSA spied on Copenhagen climate summit .. (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about 7 months ago | (#46117353)

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:NSA spied on Copenhagen climate summit .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117403)

>Providing a dossier on the positions

Fixed that for you.

Senate Filibuster Rules (2, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 7 months ago | (#46115987)

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.

Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#46116087)

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 (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#46116229)

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:Senate Filibuster Rules (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46116879)

Quite correct, and your moderation of "troll" is false.

Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 7 months ago | (#46117429)

Yeah, I don't understand the mods sometimes. In point of fact, Democrats did not filibuster so often in the past but, then, neither did Republicans under former Democractic presidents. And, yes, Democrats will come to regret the rules change but politics is a short term game (too short, indeed, for consideration of the common good). Even so, I agree with GP's sentiments. Even if I didn't, they aren't unreasonable. The mod was unfair and should be corrected.

Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116359)

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:Senate Filibuster Rules (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 7 months ago | (#46117475)

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 face by putting themselves on the record as ever more pro-civil rights and liberties (i.e. pro-4th amendment). I should like any chance for all these cynical opportunists to get caught in a loop, outdoing one another in their claims to be support the bill of rights, to be increased.

Above all, I want more news cycles to be consumed with the NSA, even if that requires some grandstanding and filibustering. Election cycles are far longer than new cycles, as the continual presence of the TSA demonstrates. And once people begin to forget about the Snowden revelations, they'll be no more angry at them than they were about the Patriot Act.

Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46116439)

Personally I think it's a very stupid abuse of Democracy. On project Gutenberg there's an interesting article by Mark Twain about a filibuster in the decaying Austrian Empire - looking at it from the outside may show you how stupid it is.

The only acceptable solution... (2)

ChainedFei (1054192) | about 7 months ago | (#46115991)

...to the problem that is the NSA is the entire dismantling of the NSA as an agency. This indicates that won't happen. I'm, of course, not surprised.

Re:The only acceptable solution... (5, Insightful)

Zynder (2773551) | about 7 months ago | (#46116155)

Dude, if they haven't dismantled the TSA, which visibly annoys people day in and day out, by now what even gave you a glimmer of hope it would happen this time? There have been so many opportunities to break up the TSA, repeal the Patriot Act, and all of the other nonsense that's been going but it seems the only person who gave a shit all of these years was Ron Paul. You see how well that went over. The only way you'll see the NSA or TSA dismantled will be when it becomes profitable for those who pay Congress' bills.

Re:The only acceptable solution... (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 7 months ago | (#46116857)

If you bother to follow the news, you know that the US military saw both its budget and headcount greatly decrease in the 1990s, increase in the 2000s, and it is currently set to significantly decrease again over the next decade.

Budget plan would slash Army by 100,000 soldiers [usatoday.com]

Since those staffing level changes are a fact, and the changes in payrolls and procurement are as well, it seems pretty clear that your original premise is flawed. The NSA and TSA continue to exist at current levels because they serve a useful purpose. If they didn't they would almost certainly be cut as well. At least in the case of the NSA that seems pretty unlikely it will be significantly cut any time soon since the importance of intelligence information is increasing, and the medium for much of the information is going to be communications and signals intelligence.

The Patriot Act keeps being reauthorized since the reason it was passed hasn't gone away. It was known at the start of this that it would likely be decades before it did. You can thank the Islamist extremists.

Re:The only acceptable solution... (1)

symbolic (11752) | about 7 months ago | (#46116919)

What exactly would stop Congress from doing this (other than a lazy electorate that doesn't care enough to make it an issue)?

Re:The only acceptable solution... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 7 months ago | (#46117307)

...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?

cyber warfare enabler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116013)

"If confirmed by lawmakers, Rogers would also take over as head of the military's cyber warfare command." Where his main job will be to weaken internet encryption standards while blaming everything on the Chinese.

Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116061)

He knows how to mine data effectively and have people thank him for the privilege of being spied on.

Re:Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116615)

They should hire tech CEO out there that gutted big companies and run them to the ground.

Re: Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116749)

When I give up my privacy to use Google products, that's the price of admission that I decide is worth it. What's the prize I get for having my privacy ripped away by the NSA?

Re: Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116843)

Being safe from terrorism isn't good enough reward for you?

Re: Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46117351)

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: Should have appointed Eric Schmidt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117453)

So we should INCREASE NSA spying so we can catch more terrorists before they attack.

Meet The New Boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116067)

Same as the old Boss.

Re: Meet The New Boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117573)

Just someone get rid of NObama please.

Is it just me... (4, Interesting)

cuncator (906265) | about 7 months ago | (#46116139)

... 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:Is it just me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116203)

Washington was a Major General.

Learn you some history.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

cuncator (906265) | about 7 months ago | (#46116307)

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:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116363)

AC lied. George Washington retired with the rank of Lieutenant General. You didn't learn enough history to correct AC's obviously false statement. You fail.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46116491)

That's just a meaningless extra title that should have been retired with George Washington. Of course the ruler of a nation also rules the military. In wartime Presidents have left it to a member of the armed forces to actually run the war. Lincoln didn't command troops - he got other people to do that for him.
Thus - "not a civilian post" is either silly or sinister depending on motivation.

Re:Is it just me... (2, Interesting)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 7 months ago | (#46117003)

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:Is it just me... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46117535)

Harry S. Truman believed in a high amount of civilian leadership of the military

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 bad at it.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117323)

Of course the ruler of a nation also rules the military.

"Of course" my ass. Maybe true if the nation is called USAkistan.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117787)

Are you insulting the USA for having effective civilian leadership over the military or commenting that not all nations do?

What a confusing comment.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 7 months ago | (#46117143)

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:Is it just me... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46117739)

... 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:Is it just me... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 7 months ago | (#46117749)

I look at it this way: It could be very, very good, or very, very bad for the U.S. that this man is ex military brass. To elaborate, he's either going to be above-average when it comes to being honorable, law-abiding, and respectful of citizens' rights, incapable of having his core values compromised, or he's going to be an overgrown Boy Scout who thinks that blindly carrying out the orders and directives of his superiors is the highest calling he can aspire to. Only time will tell which this man turns out to be. Incidentally the true colors this man shows will also tell us quite a bit about Mr. Obama.

Cryptologist? (1)

Smerta (1855348) | about 7 months ago | (#46116181)

Serious question, not a semantic game: What is the difference between a cryptologist (as Rogers is described) and a cryptographer?

A quick search didn't turn up any answers that inspired confidence, I figured there must be people here who can answer...

Re:Cryptologist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116261)

I figured there must be people here who can answer...

Nope, they left long ago. Nothing left but ignorant trolls.

Re:Cryptologist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116357)

I resemble that remark!

Re:Cryptologist? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116335)

Cryptologist tends to break codes, cryptographer makes them. Cryptologic Linguist, intercepts enemy signals, and breaks the codes.

Re:Cryptologist? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 7 months ago | (#46116591)

Some people work to create codes, some work to break codes over their life. Thats the traditional war time race as presented in books and movies.
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 questions beyond just breaking codes, creating codes, looking after embassy and Army, Navy codes.
Do you look at nations outside Japan? So you have the skill set, cash and experts to look at nations outside Japan? Do US embassies have the staff to be trusted/skills to help break other nations codes outside Japan and not get caught or fail.
How do you get the US Army and Navy working together on basic code breaking? How much do you share with the UK? What can you swap with the UK? Can the US even trust the UK? How much US traffic can the UK break? What is on sale in the now EU area wrt to codes and staff needing a new home.
Traditionally the US cryptologist had the ability to take in the big international picture, focus very limited US finding and skill sets where needed. Try and get the UK sharing or warm of the UK messing in vital US interests....
Beyond WW2 you had the influx of German skills, ex Nazi staff, German ideas and other EU nations staff that worked with German or escaped Germany - what to do with their math/crypto/tech skills?
WW2 showed the US to be cash rich (crypto funding) but the skill set was low as in codes where unsafe, Army, Navy had their own ideas, the US global reach was poor.
Korea was the wake up - the US had nothing, the UK could bring some help, only well into Korea did the US finally skill up - but missed the China aspect.
Beyond that you finally had the Echelon expansion and now what we know into US crypto thinking thanks to Snowden after the Cold war.

Re:Cryptologist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116743)

I figured there must be people here who can answer...

Oh, you must be new here. Most of the knowledgeable nerds left here years ago. Come on, pretty much every story here is NSA, Snowden, Bitcoin, and Slashvertisements, filled with comment after comment of moral certitudes and platitudes from sheltered millenials with black and white views of the world. Some of us old timers still pop in and out, mostly out of habit these days, but it is pretty sad in a way. Maybe some day another interesting tech site will pop up again where you can go and discuss and argue over science, coding, etc. again, but it ain't gonna happen around here.

Re:Cryptologist? (1)

mcswell (1102107) | about 7 months ago | (#46116983)

Let me know if you find that interesting tech site. Sigh...

Re:Cryptologist? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46117481)

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 rather than list all of the option like man does. The whole thread turned into a diatribe of how this tool was demeaning to women because it was called bro which was not inclusive enough and that would keep women out of IT as it manifested the masculine oppressive tendencies)

There is redit but its a mixed bag of shit and gems but again crappy moderation system. Obsessed with the cryptocurrencies of the week, and far to many memes. makes slashdot look good.

Not many other good tech news forums that I have found that aren't total shit, most end up being know-nothings Luddites and crazies unless you want to get really nich

Slashdot ends up being the worst tech site except for all of the others.

Re:Cryptologist? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about 7 months ago | (#46117555)

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:Cryptologist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117889)

Twin expertise in the related fields of cryptology (making codes) and cryptanalysis (breaking codes).

Another one, just like the other one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116251)

Another general (admiral) in charge of our top security agency. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house!

Sideshow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116355)

Nothing will change. It's a formality and nothing more. There might be some hard questions asked. Perhaps, even in closed door meetings away from the public. Back room deals will be offered. Concessions will be made. And he'll likely be appointed, as that's what happens in this situation. We won't see the real transparency that we the people deserve. And that right there, is the problem. No one, will hold anyone in position, accountable for this absurdity.

Nazi police state or tea party. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46116655)

I am going Tea.

I was a Obama democrat, but I see now to starve the beast we must kill its tax dollars.
 

Re:Nazi police state or tea party. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117029)

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 issues of citizen's civil rights wrt/vs the US government.

What we have here are CIVIL RIGHTS violations that affect everyone, regardless of your politics. This is a struggle between the people and the government for supremacy and control.

Fuck it, we can argue about abortion, gay marriage, etc AFTER we join together and toss these assholes out. I mean, who doesn't understand by now that 98% of the BS the political Beltway talking heads argue about is simply a distraction to avert the publics attention away from those in government increasing their power and control at the cost of our liberty, privacy, and ability to provide for ourselves and our families?

Maybe *this* is the trigger that presages a new paradigm where citizens of all ethnicities and political stripe unify at least partially in pure self-defense of their civil rights and survival of their individual liberty and privacy against the tyrannical government behemoth.

I think history will look back very favorably on Mr. Snowden, *IF* we heed his warnings in time.

If in 100 years history calls Snowden a traitor/criminal, then that same history will also note the collapse of the US into an authoritarian police state.

Re:Nazi police state or tea party. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46117425)

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:Nazi police state or tea party. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46118105)

Well spoken Sir!
This is a matter of civil rights. I am a New Zealander. We are constantly being bombarded with minor internal "issues" to distract
us from the real problems at hand. This is an election year here and the Government is talking about shelling out money "left, right and center"
where there is actually none. There is talk of a new flag for us as a nation! Good distraction?
Meanwhile our CIVIL RIGHTS are eroded at the behest of our American "partners". See Trans Pacific Partnership.

We are told "TERRORISTS" are dangerous and need to be spied on! The only Terrorist attack we have had was when the French bombed the
"Rainbow Warrior". A bunch of wankers from GREENPEACE who happened to park a ship in one of our ports.

Kim Dotcom... like or hate suffered an attack from the U.S.A on MY SOIL. OUR (MY) Government and agencies broke our laws.

AMERICA Fuck Yeah!

Clapper (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117079)

When is Clapper getting charged with lying to Congress? He even admitted to it.

Adult supervision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46117803)

Only way I'll consider this a change to be a move towards adult leadership is if the new guy dismantles the starship bridge and starts getting serious about a real "cyber" DEFENSE instead of running a "malware of the month club" employing contract PFY script kiddies. If DoD can't get that done maybe half their budget should be peeled off and donated to a private foundation that can. We need to close as many security holes as we can and deploy more robust defenses to preserve our the global communications and computing infrastructure. I'm thinking that the US DoD, which includes the NSA, has demonstrated an inability, an unwillingness, to take on that difficult task -- whether because they're too stupid or too lazy to succeed at it. In any event, they've been shown to have a fatal conflict of interest, leaving us with no choice but to completely reject anything they say now as untrustworthy.

Why even bother with the formalities? (1)

hackus (159037) | about 7 months ago | (#46117945)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>