Dear NSA,
Hi, it’s me again. Although I left the Agency a few years ago, I still think about you a lot and, in recent months – thanks to that awful Ed guy – I’ve been writing and talking publicly a good deal about you too. Plus, because I agreed to that whole lifetime secrecy oath thing on my very first day on the job, we’re separated but we’re never gonna really get divorced, are we?
Nevertheless there are some things I’d like to get off my chest. My comments in the media in defense of intelligence, generally if not always specifically, have led to me getting a lot of flak from haters about being a “shill” for NSA and whatnot. Of course that’s not true. There are things that need change with the Agency and the unprecedented catastrophe surrounding the Snowden case offers an overdue shot at making smart…
Skatīt ziņu 974 more words
vara bungas 
Galvenais mesidžs: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
Nu un tad? Kam tas skauž vai traucē dzīvot, lai attīsta savu kriptēšanu un savu pretizlūkošanu.
Progress nestāv uz vietas un nepakļaujās nekādām normām, nenoklausīsies tu – noklausīsies tevi.
Bet īpaši sajūsmina vidusmēra mietpilsoņu svētais sašutums par to, ka viņu digitālizētos “pirdienus visumā” kāds noklausās.
Atslābstiet. Mūsdienās jūsu “bazarus” 100 procentīgi apstradā un pēc atslēgas vārdiem filtrē datori, kuriem ir dziļi līdz kūlerim, kas guļ ar jūsu kaimiņieni, kamēr viņas vīrs ir darbā. Izņemot protams, ja visu šo trijotni nesauc “Angela”, “Usama” un “Obama”.
labi teikts…
Foreign politicians may know that their own security (notably in counter-terrorism) often benefits from American help. But they do not like the terms on which it comes. They want tighter controls on the NSA’s work and more insight into the results. America should soothe, not scoff. It should look again at intelligence-sharing and data-protection rules. Nobody expects America to give up spying. But it should examine the means and the results with a sharper eye for the broader national interest.