BACKGROUND
Michael Vincent Hayden is a retired Air Force four-star general with a successful career, especially in the intelligence community. He was commissioned a second lieutenant on June 2, 1967, after which he stayed in school to obtain an M.A. in American History; his active service began in 1969. He became a first lieutenant on June 7, 1970 and a captain on December 7, 1971. He advanced to major on June 1, 1980.
Hayden had several important posts in the Air Force intelligence community, such that he was appointed director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 to 2005 (giving him the longest tenure as NSA director of anyone to date). During his time as NSA director, he participated in the controversy over NAS surveillance of communications between persons in the United States who were communicating with alleged foreign terrorist groups. This dispute precipitated the NSA warrantless search controversy.
He then became Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (highest military position in the intelligence community) and then CIA Director from May of 2006 to February of 2009.
After 9/11/2001, NSA greatly increased its activities. Details remain hidden, yet it was a major player in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the global war on terror. A notable example is the NSA relationship with the unmanned aerial vehicle ‘drone’ program.
-- see James Bamford, The Shadow Factor, 2008, Doubleday
In May of 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA created a domestic telephone call database under Hayden’s leadership. Hayden defended his actions, telling the Senate that he relied on legal advice from the White House supported by Article Two of the United States Constitution for which the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which override legislation forbidding warrantless surveillance of domestic calls (which include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)). Prior to this controversy, the warrantless searches of telephone calls would have required a warrant from the FISA court. The stated purpose of the database was to eavesdrop on international communications between persons in the U.S. and overseas contacts in order to locate terrorists.
-- see Transcript of National Press Club interview of General Hayden regarding wiretaps
Hayden fought for the "Trailblazer Project" involving a large Information Technology component. Several NSA staffers criticized the project for not including privacy protections for U.S. citizens and for being a waste of money. Critics included NSA workers Thomas Andrews Drake, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, and others. Diane S. Roark of the House Intelligence Committee also complained. Hayden rebuked these critics; several quit in protest. After investigations by the NSA inspector general, DoD inspector general and Congress, "Trailblazer" was shut down.
-- The Secret Sharer, Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, May 23, 2011
Hayden supported aggressive interrogation of suspects.
-- Birthers, Truthers and Interrogation Deniers, Michael Hayden, June 2011
As CIA director in 2007, Hayden lobbied to allow the CIA to conduct drone strikes purely on the behavior of ground vehicles, with no further evidence of connection to terrorism.
-- Porter, Gareth, "CIA’s Push for Drone War Driven by Internal Needs," IPS, September 5, 2011
-- end of background on General Hayden (redacted from Wikipedia)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NEWS STORY
Kim Zetter of Wired reported that on October 4, 2011, Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director, encouraged Congress to allow his former agency to monitor public networks to defend against malicious activity coming from other nations and from others.
"We’ve got capability on the sidelines wanting policy guidance. And when we can enrich that guidance and get them in the field, the better — the safer — we are," he said to the House Intelligence Committee of the NSA capabilities in this area.
In 2009, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Denis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that NSA had the skills for this function, rather than Homeland Security, which currently oversees cybersecurity issues.
Zetter writes in his article, "The NSA’s role in the Bush Administration’s secret and warrantless domestic spying program, however, has raised concerns among civil libertarians that the agency couldn’t be trusted to monitor networks without violating the privacy of citizens."
Hayden admitted to the House committee that there was an "allergy" to letting NSA monitor private networks. Yet he proffered the notion that the agency could do so in a way that did not actually read the communications and therefore did not impinge upon civil liberties.
Hayden mentioned the sophistication of recent cyber attacks on the U.S.A., and he said that China had developed daunting capabilities in cyber attack and warfare.
Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA Security, also appeared before the committee and explained how his firm was targeted earlier this year in a serious attack that caused the firm to re-issue to customers after intruders compromised the system that generates the codes. Coviello stated that the sophistication of the attack showed that it must have been coming from a nation state. "We ought to be able to figure out a way for the NSA, which has so much expertise, to work their way in an ethical way to protect us," he said. "To me it’s a tragedy that we can’t get them more heavily involved working with Homeland Security to a point where they can be more effective protecting American organizations."
Kevin Mandia, CEO of Mandiant, also spoke. He said that in the last 50 incidents his firm dealt with, 48 of the companies victimized by a cyber attack learned of the breach from the FBI, DoD or some third party. Mandia and other witnesses recommended that there be a better system of sharing information between government and private companies. Zetter writes, "To encourage companies to share information about breaches they’ve experienced, the witnesses urged the government to look at providing limited immunity from liability so that companies don’t have to be afraid that customers and others will use the shared information to punish them."
Currently, companies only supply limited information on breaches, to avoid ridicule or additional liability. Mandia stated that this keeps companies from learning from other mistakes and from protecting their own networks. Mandia used the "Sony Breach" [see http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/04/playstation-network-hacked/ ] as an example.
-- Kim Zetter is a senior reporter at Wired covering cybercrime, privacy, security and civil liberties.
Full article at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/hayden-wants-nsa-on-networks/
ANALYSIS
Why is there no discussion whatsoever about disallowing those nation states that use cyber attacks from participating in the world wide net?
Why is spying on domestic electronic traffic the only intelligent approach? Why not allow domestic computer owners the ability to encode their own traffic to the point that interception or attack is unlikely or impossible? PROBABLE ANSWER: because the U.S. government doesn’t trust its own people to use computers privately. Remember the anti-trust lawsuit in the 1990s against Microsoft and its operating system? It fizzled. Very reliable sources have told me that this happened because a deal was made – the Justice Department agreed to let Microsoft off the hook if the operating system continued to spy on the owners and allow investigators to seize the equipment and go back over the computer’s files, even if those files had apparently been "erased" by instructions of the owners. So the central urgency of the government’s concern is to break down any legal protections that computer owners deserve to maintain. "The War on Terror" and hacking by nation states are brought up to prevent secure domestic private computer communications. Important: the computer was invented precisely to break encrypted messages and to encode undecipherable messages.
Where is the significant effort to invade the hackers’ systems and software? Counter-attack by the U.S. government against hacking by a nation state is permitted by our laws. Why must our government spy on us rather than go after the international hacker?
CONCLUSION
The intelligence agencies would rather grab power and trample on the Bill of Rights than learn how to counter-attack in the cyber war. That lazy strategy is not likely to result in long term security for high technology and secure databases in the U.S.A.
Post script:
"The Pentagon has banned the smaller flash drives from most Defense Department computers because of the escalating cyber threats. Military leaders say that department networks are probed and attacked millions of times a day."
-- so – DoD, NSA and CIA had better hire some ingenious hackers themselves, huh? Long before snooping into civilian-to-civilian internet traffic.http://news.yahoo.com/military-computer-virus-wasnt-directed-drones-233425448.html
Michael Vincent Hayden is a retired Air Force four-star general with a successful career, especially in the intelligence community. He was commissioned a second lieutenant on June 2, 1967, after which he stayed in school to obtain an M.A. in American History; his active service began in 1969. He became a first lieutenant on June 7, 1970 and a captain on December 7, 1971. He advanced to major on June 1, 1980.
Hayden had several important posts in the Air Force intelligence community, such that he was appointed director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 to 2005 (giving him the longest tenure as NSA director of anyone to date). During his time as NSA director, he participated in the controversy over NAS surveillance of communications between persons in the United States who were communicating with alleged foreign terrorist groups. This dispute precipitated the NSA warrantless search controversy.
He then became Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (highest military position in the intelligence community) and then CIA Director from May of 2006 to February of 2009.
After 9/11/2001, NSA greatly increased its activities. Details remain hidden, yet it was a major player in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the global war on terror. A notable example is the NSA relationship with the unmanned aerial vehicle ‘drone’ program.
-- see James Bamford, The Shadow Factor, 2008, Doubleday
In May of 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA created a domestic telephone call database under Hayden’s leadership. Hayden defended his actions, telling the Senate that he relied on legal advice from the White House supported by Article Two of the United States Constitution for which the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which override legislation forbidding warrantless surveillance of domestic calls (which include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)). Prior to this controversy, the warrantless searches of telephone calls would have required a warrant from the FISA court. The stated purpose of the database was to eavesdrop on international communications between persons in the U.S. and overseas contacts in order to locate terrorists.
-- see Transcript of National Press Club interview of General Hayden regarding wiretaps
Hayden fought for the "Trailblazer Project" involving a large Information Technology component. Several NSA staffers criticized the project for not including privacy protections for U.S. citizens and for being a waste of money. Critics included NSA workers Thomas Andrews Drake, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, and others. Diane S. Roark of the House Intelligence Committee also complained. Hayden rebuked these critics; several quit in protest. After investigations by the NSA inspector general, DoD inspector general and Congress, "Trailblazer" was shut down.
-- The Secret Sharer, Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, May 23, 2011
Hayden supported aggressive interrogation of suspects.
-- Birthers, Truthers and Interrogation Deniers, Michael Hayden, June 2011
As CIA director in 2007, Hayden lobbied to allow the CIA to conduct drone strikes purely on the behavior of ground vehicles, with no further evidence of connection to terrorism.
-- Porter, Gareth, "CIA’s Push for Drone War Driven by Internal Needs," IPS, September 5, 2011
-- end of background on General Hayden (redacted from Wikipedia)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NEWS STORY
Kim Zetter of Wired reported that on October 4, 2011, Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director, encouraged Congress to allow his former agency to monitor public networks to defend against malicious activity coming from other nations and from others.
"We’ve got capability on the sidelines wanting policy guidance. And when we can enrich that guidance and get them in the field, the better — the safer — we are," he said to the House Intelligence Committee of the NSA capabilities in this area.
In 2009, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Denis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that NSA had the skills for this function, rather than Homeland Security, which currently oversees cybersecurity issues.
Zetter writes in his article, "The NSA’s role in the Bush Administration’s secret and warrantless domestic spying program, however, has raised concerns among civil libertarians that the agency couldn’t be trusted to monitor networks without violating the privacy of citizens."
Hayden admitted to the House committee that there was an "allergy" to letting NSA monitor private networks. Yet he proffered the notion that the agency could do so in a way that did not actually read the communications and therefore did not impinge upon civil liberties.
Hayden mentioned the sophistication of recent cyber attacks on the U.S.A., and he said that China had developed daunting capabilities in cyber attack and warfare.
Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA Security, also appeared before the committee and explained how his firm was targeted earlier this year in a serious attack that caused the firm to re-issue to customers after intruders compromised the system that generates the codes. Coviello stated that the sophistication of the attack showed that it must have been coming from a nation state. "We ought to be able to figure out a way for the NSA, which has so much expertise, to work their way in an ethical way to protect us," he said. "To me it’s a tragedy that we can’t get them more heavily involved working with Homeland Security to a point where they can be more effective protecting American organizations."
Kevin Mandia, CEO of Mandiant, also spoke. He said that in the last 50 incidents his firm dealt with, 48 of the companies victimized by a cyber attack learned of the breach from the FBI, DoD or some third party. Mandia and other witnesses recommended that there be a better system of sharing information between government and private companies. Zetter writes, "To encourage companies to share information about breaches they’ve experienced, the witnesses urged the government to look at providing limited immunity from liability so that companies don’t have to be afraid that customers and others will use the shared information to punish them."
Currently, companies only supply limited information on breaches, to avoid ridicule or additional liability. Mandia stated that this keeps companies from learning from other mistakes and from protecting their own networks. Mandia used the "Sony Breach" [see http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/04/playstation-network-hacked/ ] as an example.
-- Kim Zetter is a senior reporter at Wired covering cybercrime, privacy, security and civil liberties.
Full article at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/hayden-wants-nsa-on-networks/
ANALYSIS
Why is there no discussion whatsoever about disallowing those nation states that use cyber attacks from participating in the world wide net?
Why is spying on domestic electronic traffic the only intelligent approach? Why not allow domestic computer owners the ability to encode their own traffic to the point that interception or attack is unlikely or impossible? PROBABLE ANSWER: because the U.S. government doesn’t trust its own people to use computers privately. Remember the anti-trust lawsuit in the 1990s against Microsoft and its operating system? It fizzled. Very reliable sources have told me that this happened because a deal was made – the Justice Department agreed to let Microsoft off the hook if the operating system continued to spy on the owners and allow investigators to seize the equipment and go back over the computer’s files, even if those files had apparently been "erased" by instructions of the owners. So the central urgency of the government’s concern is to break down any legal protections that computer owners deserve to maintain. "The War on Terror" and hacking by nation states are brought up to prevent secure domestic private computer communications. Important: the computer was invented precisely to break encrypted messages and to encode undecipherable messages.
Where is the significant effort to invade the hackers’ systems and software? Counter-attack by the U.S. government against hacking by a nation state is permitted by our laws. Why must our government spy on us rather than go after the international hacker?
CONCLUSION
The intelligence agencies would rather grab power and trample on the Bill of Rights than learn how to counter-attack in the cyber war. That lazy strategy is not likely to result in long term security for high technology and secure databases in the U.S.A.
Post script:
"The Pentagon has banned the smaller flash drives from most Defense Department computers because of the escalating cyber threats. Military leaders say that department networks are probed and attacked millions of times a day."
-- so – DoD, NSA and CIA had better hire some ingenious hackers themselves, huh? Long before snooping into civilian-to-civilian internet traffic.http://news.yahoo.com/military-computer-virus-wasnt-directed-drones-233425448.html
No comments:
Post a Comment