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!

Journalist Sues NSA For Keeping Keith Alexander's Financial History Secret

timothy posted about 1 month ago | from the public-officials-should-be-on-public-record dept.

Government 200

Daniel_Stuckey writes Now the NSA has yet another dilemma on its hands: Investigative journalist Jason Leopold is suing the agency for denying him the release of financial disclosure statements attributable to its former director. According to a report by Bloomberg, prospective clients of Alexander's, namely large banks, will be billed $1 million a month for his cyber-consulting services. Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.

cancel ×

200 comments

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

If true. If. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570693)

This is an example of the perils of state and corporate power being merged. Fascism, according to Mussolini.

Re:If true. If. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570733)

Welcome to Obama's America.

20th-century dictators would be wetting their pants in jealousy of the US Government.

Re:If true. If. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570791)

Right, because this only began the day Obama was elected.

Keep telling yourself that.

Re:If true. If. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570813)

And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension. He's corrupt to the core and no amount of "But Bush!!!" will change that.

Re:If true. If. (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about 1 month ago | (#47570845)

So the REAL question is what WILL stop it. Saying that "This one is a bad person and did nothing to change it" doesn't work. Saying "The previous one did nothing to change it" doesn't work.
Voting for "The other party" doesn't work.

No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.

Re:If true. If. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570873)

The only thing that will work is executing all these traitors in the government propping up the panopticon. We didn't buy the "just following orders" excuse in the Nuremberg Trials so I don't see why these traitors should be treated differently.

Re:If true. If. (1, Flamebait)

Immerman (2627577) | about 1 month ago | (#47571151)

It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented. Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops. And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"

Why would that make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571215)

Whoever replaces them will be just as bad.

If there was a fundamental and widespread increase in both governmental involvement and critical thinking on the part of the "proles," then we would get a better government. As it stands, we have the best government that the current crop of potential voters is willing and able to produce.

Re:If true. If. (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 1 month ago | (#47571521)

Sadly, sedition would be vilified. Look at Mr Snowden. Enemy of the state, now exiled in Moscow. He's one of many, and as there are no controls, and the game of extortion is played at the highest level like a bad poker game, the chances of clarity, openness, and even "just the right thing" are nil.

Martyrdom doesn't work with 72 virgins, and it doesn't work when corporate America controls the press-- especially Murdoch. Who has the WSJ by the printing press short-hairs? None other. Most of us just duck low, shaking our heads.

Re:If true. If. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571789)

It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented.

I assume you think that you're making a joke, but it is worth pointing out that government by assassination never works.

You think good guys have more money to hire hit men than bad guys? Or, you read so many honorable-mafia-killer novels that you think hired killers won't work for bad guys, only for the good guys? Or, you think that the kind of people who like to assassinate public figures have an unerring ethical sense, and can instinctively tell good from bad?

Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops.

This, basically, is a way to guarantee that the worst possible people end up in power. 'Cause once you get onto that Roman-Emperor assassination train, the ones that are ruthless, power-hungry, and have no morals will be the ones hiring the killers. Either directly, if they're bold, or through "grass roots- it's the people who support me" intermediaries if they're not.

And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"

The message that will be sent is "if you want to survive, be paranoid, trust no one, kill quickly and ruthlessly".

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572131)

I don't think he was suggesting assassins, but a core change to the government itself. People need to wake up and hold those in power accountable. Any kind of punishment against the traitors in government would have to be lawful, as defined by the people. A revolutionary war might do it but short of that, I find it difficult to believe that the corruption can be weeded out.

Re:If true. If. (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 1 month ago | (#47572567)

Seems to me what you need is a political party that opposes this shit. Whenever Ds and Rs agree on anything, it is a pretty safe bet that the public at large do not.

Re:If true. If. (5, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 1 month ago | (#47571179)

So the REAL question is what WILL stop it. Saying that "This one is a bad person and did nothing to change it" doesn't work. Saying "The previous one did nothing to change it" doesn't work.
Voting for "The other party" doesn't work.

No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.

What must be done to change the status-quo with minimal violence or bloodshed is to unite people under common values, such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.

Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.

Start focusing on what we have in common, not what divides us. Despite what those with power would like you to believe, we have much more in common than we have differences. Those commonalities are also those of a much more fundamental and essential nature than our differences.

Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.

I'd have no problem at all standing side by side in public protests and demonstrations with almost anyone from TEA Party member to PETA and/or LGBT activist and beyond who also was willing to postpone our arguments for our common interests in a free and open society without mass domestic surveillance & data analysis and a militarized police force performing military-occupation and wealth-confiscation roles more than any sort of community-based & controlled "officer of the peace" roles.

Look, people, yes we have beefs over stuff *BUT*, unless we unite and curb government power and size, it won't matter because very soon none of us will have any choices about anything nor any meaningful rights at all.

Strat

Re:If true. If. (5, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47571757)

Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.

How many people support DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, protest permits, stop-and-frisk-type policies, unwarranted surveillance in general, or assassination of citizens without trial? They only have to be a supporter of one of them to be a supporter of a police state, and I can't tell you how many people I've personally conversed with that supported a number of those as long as it makes them feel safe. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' freedom should be considered more important than safety, but I don't think most people see it that way.

And even if most people did see it that way, look at how many people changed their tunes directly after 9/11? If people are so weak and unprincipled that a disaster can make them give a bunch of power to the government, then all it takes is another disaster for the government to take advantage of, and we'll lose all that progress.

So either way, I'm not too optimistic.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572581)

According to you, then, there are no democracies in this world.

Re:If true. If. (4, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572717)

Democracy != free country. And yes, there are no truly free countries in the world, but being free is something we should aspire to. The US is, after all, supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' So people here would look less like hypocrites if they stopped supporting rights violations and constitutional violations, whether it be to increase their safety or some other reason.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572723)

... DUI checkpoints ...

Driving is a privilege not a right. That's why the government issues a license. Just as one's employer can surveill what happens in the workplace, the government can surveill what happens on the roads. It's why governments of the world happily search cars. The problem being, it is too easy for the police to go from "are you a law-abiding driver" to "are you a practicing dissident"?

Re:If true. If. (4, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572749)

Driving is a privilege not a right.

I knew one of you morons would show up. Even if it is true that driving is a 'privilege' *that does not mean your constitutional rights are null and void the second you decide to innocuously exercise that privilege!* The fourth amendment still applies, and the government has absolutely no constitutional authority to disregard people's rights just because they want to exercise something the government deems a 'privilege.' This logic is simply insane, and it's killing our freedoms.

It's the same sort of logic that allows for the TSA. "You implicitly consented to having your fundamental and constitutional rights violated by government thugs by trying to get on an airplane, so it's not a constitutional violation!" You're in good company, AC; government thugs all over the world drool when they see people using this awful logic to justify the erosion of people's fundamental liberties.

Re:If true. If. (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572755)

How about this: By getting in a car, you implicitly consent to giving up your first amendment rights, and your right to life. An officer murdering you for saying something he doesn't like is therefore 100% constitutional.

The possibilities are fucking endless!

Re:If true. If. (1)

jafac (1449) | about 1 month ago | (#47572057)

such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.

But I think that's wrong.

You and I may not agree with this, but I think that MOST people are quite happy to trade-away their civil liberties for the illusion of security. Particularly those who are convinced that since they "do nothing wrong", they have nothing to fear from such violations.

It's a very sad commentary on our democratic peers, but unfortunately, factual, and consistent with pretty much everything else that's gone on since 9/11, (and more-or-less, since the McCarthy era - with regard to "communists").

We're not going to unite in this country. Period. It's like Morpheus said, in The Matrix: "Most people are not ready to be unplugged from the system, and will fight to protect it." Cliche, but true.

Re:If true. If. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 1 month ago | (#47572357)

Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.

A SWAT team per city / county, a few of which might have a light armored vehicle, is an "occupation" army?

You don't suppose you might be overstating things a bit, do you??

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571589)

Voting for the other party does works, so please stop spreading fud. At the very least if a 3rd party starts getting a lot of votes, the other 2 parties adjust their policies to closer align themselves with the 3rd party and thus 'steal back' some of the lost votes. And while major changes to policy this way is very slow, it does work. The real problem is too much business influence and the high cost of campaigning. Even if a 3rd party magically got elected those people can be influenced by large sums of money. The business pay all the parties so they end up winning any which way.

Re:If true. If. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572269)

Even if a 3rd party magically got elected those people can be influenced by large sums of money. The business pay all the parties so they end up winning any which way.

The thing is that a youg party has a lot of idealists in high positions and are less likely to be bribeable.

And even if they do eventually get bought you vote for a fourth party, because all the major three are essentially the same. With four parties the cost of buying them have doubled.

Re:If true. If. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 1 month ago | (#47571843)

Yes, you do have the answer. We all do, but we won't use it. Everybody prefers to stick with what they have.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572763)

So the soap box did not work?
Neither does the vote box?
How about the jury box?

Any other boxes left to try?

Re:If true. If. (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 1 month ago | (#47572155)

And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension.

On the other hand, the current expansion and disclosures are resulting in the public demanding and end to it. I, for one, am never quite sure what to attribute to a politician for intent: whether his stated intentions, his actions, or the result of his actions.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572367)

And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension. He's corrupt to the core and no amount of "But Bush!!!" will change that.

Well that's far more basic that political parties. It doesn't matter which group you talk about its always the same outcome.

If they aren't the party in power, they hate government over reach and government interference.

If they are the party in power they love anything that lets them push what they want through.

Its not a Bush vs Obama thing, its all of them. If they aren't the ones abusing the power they are in favor of rolling it back, as soon as they are in a position to use that power to get what they want, nobody wants to give it up. Its why the problem will never go away.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572553)

And what, pray, is the common goal of the "surveillance state" you live in according to you? The advancement of the interest of a "new order" or "world government"? Explain the big terms you're using. Also, calling the USA a fascist regime, because it has a secret service that does secretive and unpleasant stuff is a very simple minded view. The others do it, too. The fact, that they weren't found out yet [the only good thing one can say about Snowden is that he created more transparency, I guess] doesn't mean their not doing the very same thing [think France or Russia for instance. And according to Snowden, Russia a more free country than the US -- f*cking laughable].

Re:If true. If. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570819)

Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson. To state that the current state of affairs is Obama or Bush or any recent president's doing is very naive. People like you contribute to the problem.

Everyone knows that the government you see isn't what is calling the shots in this country.

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States,
Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."
J. Edgar Hoover,
The Elks Magazine, 1956

"Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century This group is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable."
Senator William Jenner,
1954 speech

"The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, November 1975,
from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File

Oh fuck it. God damn nothing but idiots on this site. Trusting, naive idiots spoonfed political propaganda that will always eat it up without question.

"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570851)

"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.

What has he done to change anything beyond stupid platitudes that tons of ignorant liberals lapped up? We charge people who drive by the scene of an accident as negligible so why should Obama not be held to the same standard?

Re:If true. If. (2, Informative)

Enry (630) | about 1 month ago | (#47570931)

http://whatthefuckhasobamadone... [whatthefuc...esofar.com]

Re:If true. If. (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 1 month ago | (#47571393)

Gotta love that site, too bad "doing something" is not the same as doing the right thing. Sure, hes done alot, what has he done to make the country better jack shit

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571931)

there was a British TV show called "yes Prime Minister"
during one of the episodes, a political crisis developed
the prime ministers advisor presented the solution thus
"we are told something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it"

Re:If true. If. (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47571771)

Why the hell do I have to enable javascript for that site and whitelist ajax.googleapis in order to see some fucking text? What a poorly-designed website.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572291)

Because you're a braindead Luddite piece of shit. That's why.

Re:If true. If. (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572315)

I wasn't aware that I was opposing useful technology simply because it might take away my job. You do know that's what a Luddite is, right? And you do know that not all uses of technology make sense, correct? Therefore, calling me a Luddite for criticizing a stupid use of Javascript makes absolutely zero sense.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572331)

> http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Is that a joke site?

I went to it and it was mostly blank. Yellow banner with the sitename on a blue background with a little bar across the bottom with some inconsequential links. But absolute nothing listed at all.

I can't tell if it is meant to say that he's done nothing or the web designers suck ass and turned a simple listicle into something so complex and needlessly brittle that it won't render unless your browser is configured to maximize web-tracking and spying. Either way I don't think this website reflects particularly well on Obama, even if he is 100x better than McCain/Romney.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572355)

It is a metaphor.

Obama has done nothing for people who care about their security and privacy.
If you don't care about security and privacy then he's done a lot.

Re:If true. If. (4, Interesting)

CaptnZilog (33073) | about 1 month ago | (#47570965)

"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.

What has he done to change anything beyond stupid platitudes that tons of ignorant liberals lapped up? We charge people who drive by the scene of an accident as negligible so why should Obama not be held to the same standard?

I might consider them negligent, but I'm not really sure what considering them "negligible" means in this context, nor why they would be able to be charged with anything for it.

"Negligible: so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded."

We quite honestly do need to improve our educational system, since it seems to produce lots of people who accuse others of ignorance, while at the same time showing their own ignorance of the English language.

Re:If true. If. (3, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 1 month ago | (#47571181)

I think the point he's trying to make is that there's no such thing as "Obama's America" - he's just the latest in a long stream of presidents to dance on the strings of someone(s) far more powerful who are actually in control. Or get assassinated - that seems to be a pretty common theme among presidents that actually tried to take a stand against this tide.

Re: If true. If. (5, Insightful)

IMightB (533307) | about 1 month ago | (#47571209)

I think Obama's one of the best Republican Presidents ever. He's guided the country through a healthy if slow economic recovery. Convinced the democrats to implement the Republican health care plan. And continued the Republican lovefest with the patriot act and secret surveillance

Re: If true. If. (1)

kharchenko (303729) | about 1 month ago | (#47572819)

And we could take solace in this, if not for the fact that this is now somehow considered a radical liberal agenda.

Re:If true. If. (2)

hondo77 (324058) | about 1 month ago | (#47571097)

Your Hoover quote was referring to communism [metabunk.org] , not the Illuminati. How's your spoon holding up?

Re:If true. If. (3, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 1 month ago | (#47571191)

God damn nothing but idiots on this site.

But you sir are on this site. What weight then shall we give your post?

Re:If true. If. (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 1 month ago | (#47571291)

We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state

There has clearly been success in creating a one-party state. The party just happens to have two faces, but inside, there is no significant difference.

Re:If true. If. (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 1 month ago | (#47571323)

You mean the Democratic-Republican party turning into the Democrats and Republicans, and then doing a member swap between Northern and Southern State Confederate War lines after Kennedy's civil rights "betrayal" on the Democrat (Confederate/KKK) ticket he was elected on? Old news is old news. Glad to see you're finally wising up

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571905)

What a fantasy. Democrat liberals like to stroke themselves on that as if Republicans 'switched sides' in a giant dosey doe with Democrats who were leading the party of the KKK and slavery. What, Lyndon Johnson decided to create a social behemoth that destroyed the black family so Republicans should suddenly switch allegiance and philosophy? All Democrats have done is delude themselves that they are on the side of right when it is yet another form of the plantation, with the super rich and powerful just have more power in their world over the dependent masses, far down.

Re:If true. If. (2)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 1 month ago | (#47571403)

Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.

How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571929)

What you say is true, however the previous Presidents were members of the Democratic-Republicans (who bear no resemblence to the Republicans of today). Jackson in contrast, was a Democrat and despite having no similarity to the Democrats of today, must bear the brunt of being clearly labeled as such. Personally, i'm willin to give all these guys a pass and put the blame where it belongs - Pelosi. NEVER attribute to stupidity that which can be assigned to Pelosi.

KAL 007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571881)

Larry McDonald died in the SHOOTING DOWN (by the Soviets) of KAL 007.
Coincidence? Lo dudo.

Re:If true. If. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572079)

Wow! Surprised at the mods. Makes me want to make an account again. I forgot the most important quote:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

Re:If true. If. (2)

triclipse (702209) | about 1 month ago | (#47572297)

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"

Re:If true. If. (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 1 month ago | (#47571837)

Anyone who ever believes that state and corporate power are, or were ever separate is hopelessly naive.

lolwut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570711)

What does he do? Tell them to silence anyone who points out security issues?

What is the story here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570735)

Im not American has he suffered some damage because the guy has gone into private enterprise and his request was denied?

Re:What is the story here (1, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 1 month ago | (#47570779)

He's suing to get them to release what should be public information. That in no way requires him to be "damaged" in some way.

Re:What is the story here (2)

hubie (108345) | about 1 month ago | (#47571293)

Typically financial disclosures, such as the ones covered by OGE Form 450 [oge.gov] (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report), are not public information and are exempted from FOIA requests (Exemption 3 [oge.gov] ). There are certain types of personal information that you are not entitled to; for instance, one wouldn't be able to request social security numbers, or bank account info, etc. on people. You are allowed to know things like their position, job title, salary, and stuff like that.

Form 278 [Re:What is the story here ] (4, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 1 month ago | (#47571817)

Typically financial disclosures, such as the ones covered by OGE Form 450 [oge.gov] (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report), are not public information and are exempted from FOIA requests

The form in question isn't the 450, which is confidential (hence its name). It's form 278, "Public Financial Disclosure", which is public (hence its name.
From http://www.oge.gov/Financial-D... [oge.gov]

Public Financial Disclosure

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. The statute and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics's (OGE) regulations specify which officials in the executive branch file an OGE Form 278. Unlike confidential financial statements filed by some mid-level employees, the OGE 278 is available to the public. Reviewing officials within each agency certify and maintain these reports. Agencies do, however, forward reports of Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and certain other reports to OGE for additional review and certification.

Re:Form 278 [Re:What is the story here ] (1)

hubie (108345) | about 1 month ago | (#47571965)

Aha! I clearly never knew anyone higher than mid-level!

Re:What is the story here (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 1 month ago | (#47571907)

RTFA.

Mr. Leopold seeks access to the public financial disclosure statements (Form 278) of former National Security Agency (NSA) Director Keith Alexander as part of a news report he is writing for distribution to the general public. Mr. Leopold sought access to these records pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (“EGA”), 5 USC app. 101, et seq., by submitting a completed Form OGE 201 to the NSA.

Make sure to read the bolded part a few times. Now what pray tell is Form 278? From the Office of Government Ethics [oge.gov] :

OGE Form 278: Public Financial Disclosure Report

Pretty sure a public financial disclosure report is public information. Maybe next time you might want to read about what is being discussed before putting your foot in your mouth.

Re:What is the story here (2)

hubie (108345) | about 1 month ago | (#47571955)

Thank you for your informative reply and please know that the heights to which I hold you in my esteem is in proportion to your courtesy.

I bet the NSA is quaking in their boots!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570743)

Go prospective clients of Keith Alexander!!!!!

Now that you mention it... (1)

thieh (3654731) | about 1 month ago | (#47570785)

Time to ditch the router and use a linux/BSD box? Or are we pretty much screwed because the hardware is affected similarly as well?

Re:Now that you mention it... (1)

smaddox (928261) | about 1 month ago | (#47571009)

That's actually a really good question. Are these vulnerabilities in software/firmware, or in the actual chip microcode (or both)? I guess the only way to know would be from whistleblowers. There's no realistic way to find a decently hidden back door in microcode. You would have to brute force the pass code.

Re:Now that you mention it... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 1 month ago | (#47572025)

Every encrypted use of the internet to and from the US would be of interest.
All the layers and data about the 'safe' encrypted message would be kept. Just using encryption would ensure further investigation and long term logging.
The consumer hardware is connected to a very tame 'internet', with tame telcos, tame VPN providers, tame crypto providers and issues like the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
The network as provided is fully open to the gov. Use a tame consumer OS or more interesting OS, your packets still flow and a few govs work very hard to collect all.
The advice that can be given by some top ex US mil/gov official is the low cost of hardware for ex gov staff and former gov staff now working for 'other' global banking competitors.
A lot of ex gov staff around the world know how telco and banking systems work and are for hire. What was once "five eyes" with shared bases global expensive is now banking sector affordable. Everybody now has the ability to buy some telco sector insight.
What can be done re consumer hardware? You have to walk, drive, fly to your bank and work out what product is best for you face to face.
Too many groups, people, ex staff, former staff have the same insights into networks. eg identify US unreported offshore accounts? Just watch people in the US logging into 'encrypted' super secret offshore accounts via that US telco as they look at statements, move cash around.
That unique ip/encryption stream would stand out. Over time all a bank needs to report is dual citizens and people on holiday. Everybody of interest is safe, meeting face to face with correct paper work :)

Who? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 1 month ago | (#47570817)

Oh sorry, wrong person [oktoberfest.ageg.ca] .

1 million dollars!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47570823)

So what does this consulting consist of? Telling the banks to silence all whistleblowers and try to get them arrested?

Like paying for a Lobbyist (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 1 month ago | (#47570971)

I remember when Reagan was making a million a speech as a former President, and thinking There's no fucking way he's worth it.

A million is worth admittedly less these days, I get that, but I have the same feeling now.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (2)

smaddox (928261) | about 1 month ago | (#47571033)

Depends how many people attended, and how much you charged per plate.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 1 month ago | (#47571197)

So what do you propose the real reason is? Hush money? Delayed payment for corruption activities while in office? Rich people who get a rush from making ex-presidents sing for their supper, and can pay a million bucks with their pocket change?

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 1 month ago | (#47571437)

I suspect it is no more sinister than leasing celebrity.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 1 month ago | (#47571253)

A million a month as an extortion payment to keep secret the secrets uncovered whilst commander of the starship anal probe, inserting back entrances all over the places, ain't bad at all, especially when applied to many corporations. As a bonus protection provided for all those political secrets kept off the books. Of course that protection really only works for allied powers, for the opposition of course, the target is just chock-a-block full of secrets and getting a hold of that particular pinata and beating it until it spills would be very desirable for quite a few countries and crime organisations.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 1 month ago | (#47571455)

I think you're on target with the customer's motivation to hire the man with two first names.... I reserve doubt as to whether they ever get what they believe they've bargained for.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 1 month ago | (#47571553)

And Reagan died after a horrible last ten years or so of his self-imposed hell. He misused the power game he felt so desperately he needed to play , and so badly, in the hope of being remembered as a great man. And in reality he will be remembered as a second rate actor, and for his career in films.

Re:Like paying for a Lobbyist (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 1 month ago | (#47572815)

I remember when Reagan was making a million a speech as a former President, and thinking There's no fucking way he's worth it.

A million is worth admittedly less these days, I get that, but I have the same feeling now.

A million is nothing to a corporation that needs to know what governments are capable of.

Bad summary of two separate issues (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 1 month ago | (#47571171)

Why the summary munged Alexander's laughable salary request and a lawsuit by a journalist is a bit baffling.

First issue, the lawsuit. The NSA refused to provide under Federal Law. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that this agency is ignoring (or at least attempting to ignore) Federal Law. The right answer is to disband the NSA and hand SIGINT over to the Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely. While we are disbanding things, we should also revamp the CIA, FBI, DHS, and TSA removing most of their powers and executives that also ignore the law.

Second issue is that Alexander thinks he's brilliant enough to make a million a month telling people what most IT Security professionals can do for a much better rate. I'd do better than he does at securing a company, and I'll do it for much less. In fact I can think of a few dozen people I'd recommend for much less, and for a million a month I'd have a full staff doing audits _and_ consulting. You don't need to be a former General to be intelligent about security, you need knowledge.

In other words, if Alexander can get a million a month for consulting it sure as hell is not for security. It would be for cronyism.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571575)

... Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely.

That's just because they have a bit more experience in hiding their "wrongdoings".

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 1 month ago | (#47571591)

uhm, you forget all of these agencies report to the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here." All of the corruption and mismanagement in the government, including disregarding the laws and the constitution all stop at that address. It's time for the population of this country to become engaged and actually elect leaders who will fix this mess by disbanding those agencies and restoring the rule of law in this country. Or what the fuck we'll just elect somebody from Party A or B and just do that living with the consequences; like we've done for over 200 years.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 1 month ago | (#47571971)

Nope, I did not forget. I do not state nor do I imply that other politicians are innocent of wrong doing. I simply gave a starting point for starting to deal with the corruption.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (3, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47571877)

The TSA does not need to be revamped; it needs to be destroyed. Anything less than complete elimination is unacceptable. Government thugs should not be in airports; the end. Same with the DHS, which should never have been created in the first place.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 1 month ago | (#47572423)

So, will you be the one keeping about 2,000 guns off of planes this year? Or how do you think that is going to work? Vigilantees? Or are hijackings and suicide attacks just not a consideration for you?

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572483)

How many trains and buses were hijacked last decade? Any? How many terrorists have the TSA caught in the last decade? Any?

You're pissing your pants over a boogyman that doesn't even exist.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 1 month ago | (#47572665)

The FBI has arrested and put in prison hundreds of people for terrorism related offenses in the last 10 years, so they obviously exist. Maybe you just can't acknowledge reality?

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572495)

So, will you be the one keeping about 2,000 guns off of planes this year?

No one will, because it's none of the government's business. Unless private companies want to try to secure their planes to prevent that from happening, it's none of your business. Oh, wait; you're an authoritarian, so you think everything is your business, and you will happily sacrifice the constitution and people's liberties in the name of safety, all the while denying that it's even a constitutional and rights violation, and appealing to fallible authority figures to 'prove' that you're objectively correct.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 1 month ago | (#47572659)

No one will, because it's none of the government's business.

Like robbery and murder are "none of the government's business"? Uh huh.

Oh, wait; you're an authoritarian,

Lacking fundamental defects in your understanding of the Constitution and law doesn't make you "authoritarian."

you will happily sacrifice the constitution and people's liberties in the name of safety

No.

and appealing to fallible authority figures to 'prove' that you're objectively correct.

That darned Constitution and the Constituional offices it created. Who does that "Supreme Court" think it is? Just becuase the Constitution created it ....

After all, if your whimsical and defective view of the Constitution isn't authoritative, what good is it?

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 1 month ago | (#47572707)

Like robbery and murder are "none of the government's business"?

No, violating people's liberties simply because they could be criminals is not the government's business. It's not even constitutional.

Lacking fundamental defects in your understanding of the Constitution and law doesn't make you "authoritarian."

You have a number of fundamental defects in your understanding of the constitution.

No.

Yes. You admitted it yourself, by supporting the TSA. Or is this the phase where you deny that it's even a constitutional/rights violation, and then cite some court decision where the judges altered the constitution with invisible ink and ignored the spirit of the constitution to support their big government agenda?

That darned Constitution and the Constituional offices it created. Who does that "Supreme Court" think it is? Just becuase the Constitution created it ....

So you're saying all of the Supreme Court's interpretations of the constitution are 100% objectively correct? Not even the founders agreed with that paradox ("The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal[...]"). They're no less fallible than anyone else, and not all of their decisions are 9-0. Furthermore, they've even overruled past decisions. I guess reality just changes as they see fit; they're actually gods.

If the Supreme Court interpreted the first amendment as saying that the government has the authority to murder anyone for any reason, then I guess it would be true. Thanks, cold fjord! You're like a superhero coming to save everyone from their ignorance!

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (3, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about 1 month ago | (#47573017)

Hmmm....so it would be okay with you if you bought Joe-Bob's Magic Pills and they caused your brain to bleed? I find that it is your constitutional right to try unregulated drugs from your pharmacy. Get back to us with any side-effects you don't like so we can be sure not to make the same mistake.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

linearZ (710002) | about 1 month ago | (#47572535)

So, will you be the one keeping about 2,000 guns off of planes this year? Or how do you think that is going to work? Vigilantees? Or are hijackings and suicide attacks just not a consideration for you?

Seriously? Aside from the obvious event that justified this nonsense, I don't remember a lot of planes getting hijacked in the US before the TSA showed up. And we didn't need the TSA to stop those 9/11 fuckers - we just needed some FBI agents to put down their donuts and respond to reports of shady characters learning to fly planes while not giving a damn about landing them. Better cockpit doors and armed pilots would also have stopped them...

Doubtful the TSA would have done much to stop the "terrorists that want to take our freedoms" on 9/11. But the TSA has gotten real good at the "take our freedoms" part.

Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 1 month ago | (#47572627)

I don't remember a lot of planes getting hijacked in the US before the TSA showed up.

Either you don't know the history of hijackings or your memory is defective. Hijackings were a problem that resulted in increased security decades ago.

But the TSA has gotten real good at the "take our freedoms" part.

LOL. No.

Only ONE? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 1 month ago | (#47571265)

Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.

Only ONE of them?

Only ONE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572123)

I'm guessing that the rest were all put in by contractors; totally not by a TLA.

Ummm.. (3, Informative)

blahblahwoofwoof (2287010) | about 1 month ago | (#47571557)

http://www.militaryfactory.com... [militaryfactory.com]

Military pay grades are in the public record. Many sites (the above is just one) publish them.

Re:Ummm.. (2)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 1 month ago | (#47572859)

http://www.militaryfactory.com... [militaryfactory.com]

Military pay grades are in the public record. Many sites (the above is just one) publish them.

Presumably if the NSA is refusing to provide this information the person in question may have been paid more, perhaps significantly more, than the normal pay grade scale.

Re:Ummm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47573013)

Wow, so as a low level (level 4) public servant in Australia, I'm paid as much as a US Army major... counting only the majors base rate of pay, though.
Odd and unexpected...

Like Electing Obama as "President" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571811)

Keith Alexander, what a waste of protoplasm; and it took 50 years to out this pervert.

 

It's "Q" from Star Trek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47571857)

Why do they always have to look like John De Lancie?

Holy crap ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 1 month ago | (#47571975)

Holy crap, if that isn't the next sign of the dystopian future I don't know what is.

Private corporations getting the consulting services of the king spook of the spy agency which has tapped into the entire fucking world.

That scares the bejezzus out of me.

Because all of the secrecy of the NSA combined with the douche-baggery of corporations is straight out of a cyberpunk novel.

The surveillance state meets Wall Street. Oooh, they could privatize the NSA, that would be really profitable.

Time to stock up on Guy Fawkes masks.

NSA says to journalist Jason Leopold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47572257)

"Mr. Leopold, only a terrorist or those who harbour terrorists would want to know Gen. Alexander's financial details. Would you please accompany us to this windowless room were we can have a frank and vigorous discussion of your terrorist sympathies?"

And the difference between him and Edward Snowden (2)

rashanon (910380) | about 1 month ago | (#47572383)

He going to charge you a shit load of money to tell you secrets. Edward gave them away.
Once again being a patriot is all about how much money you can charge.

Sounds Like "Insurance" Money. (1)

linearZ (710002) | about 1 month ago | (#47572575)

“It would be devastating if one of our major banks was hit, because they’re so interconnected.”

Is that NSA for "It be a shame if you had trouble with the health department in this fine establishment"?

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>