<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1926220</id>
	<title>NSA Ill-Suited For Domestic Cybersecurity Role</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244794380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Stephen Lee has an interesting article in the Examiner asserting that the National Security Agency is '<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-13426-CIA-Examiner~y2009m6d10-NSA-illsuited-for-domestic-cybersecurity-role#fragment-2">a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation</a>,' with a history of disregard for privacy and civil liberties. Lee says that for most of its sixty-year history, the NSA has been geared to cracking telecom and crypto gear produced by Soviet and Chinese design bureaus, but at the end of the cold war became 'stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.'  When the NSA finally recognized that it needed to get better at innovation, it launched several mega-projects, tagged like '<a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/121">Trailblazer</a>' and '<a href="http://gcn.com/articles/2001/08/10/at-nsa-mums-the-word-on-groundbreakers-details.aspx">Groundbreaker</a>,' that have been spectacular failures, costing US taxpayers billions. More recently, the NY Times reported that <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/17/2254255&amp;tid=215">the NSA has been breaking rules set by the Obama administration</a> to peer even more aggressively into American citizens' phone traffic and email inboxes. Whistleblower reports portray NSA domestic eavesdropping programs as unprofessional and poorly supervised, with intercept technicians ridiculing and <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/we-snooped-on-i/">mishandling recordings of citizens' private 'pillow talk' conversations</a>. Lee concludes that 'if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust &mdash; perhaps even a new entity. Meanwhile, NSA should focus on listening in on America's enemies, instead of being an enemy of Americans and their enterprises.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Stephen Lee has an interesting article in the Examiner asserting that the National Security Agency is 'a secretive , hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation, ' with a history of disregard for privacy and civil liberties .
Lee says that for most of its sixty-year history , the NSA has been geared to cracking telecom and crypto gear produced by Soviet and Chinese design bureaus , but at the end of the cold war became 'stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries .
' When the NSA finally recognized that it needed to get better at innovation , it launched several mega-projects , tagged like 'Trailblazer ' and 'Groundbreaker, ' that have been spectacular failures , costing US taxpayers billions .
More recently , the NY Times reported that the NSA has been breaking rules set by the Obama administration to peer even more aggressively into American citizens ' phone traffic and email inboxes .
Whistleblower reports portray NSA domestic eavesdropping programs as unprofessional and poorly supervised , with intercept technicians ridiculing and mishandling recordings of citizens ' private 'pillow talk ' conversations .
Lee concludes that 'if the Federal government must play a role , then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust    perhaps even a new entity .
Meanwhile , NSA should focus on listening in on America 's enemies , instead of being an enemy of Americans and their enterprises .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Stephen Lee has an interesting article in the Examiner asserting that the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,' with a history of disregard for privacy and civil liberties.
Lee says that for most of its sixty-year history, the NSA has been geared to cracking telecom and crypto gear produced by Soviet and Chinese design bureaus, but at the end of the cold war became 'stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.
'  When the NSA finally recognized that it needed to get better at innovation, it launched several mega-projects, tagged like 'Trailblazer' and 'Groundbreaker,' that have been spectacular failures, costing US taxpayers billions.
More recently, the NY Times reported that the NSA has been breaking rules set by the Obama administration to peer even more aggressively into American citizens' phone traffic and email inboxes.
Whistleblower reports portray NSA domestic eavesdropping programs as unprofessional and poorly supervised, with intercept technicians ridiculing and mishandling recordings of citizens' private 'pillow talk' conversations.
Lee concludes that 'if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust — perhaps even a new entity.
Meanwhile, NSA should focus on listening in on America's enemies, instead of being an enemy of Americans and their enterprises.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314593</id>
	<title>Who's Watching the Watchers</title>
	<author>FathomIT</author>
	<datestamp>1244803380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a Watchmen post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a Watchmen post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a Watchmen post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314689</id>
	<title>SELinux anyone?</title>
	<author>Suzuran</author>
	<datestamp>1244803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see the CIA contributing any code to us.<br>
<br>
If the CIA wants the NSA to stay out of domestic security, I say they can prove it by putting their programmers where their mouth is. All I'm seeing from my point of view is the NSA doing a lot of contributing and the CIA doing a lot of bitching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the CIA contributing any code to us .
If the CIA wants the NSA to stay out of domestic security , I say they can prove it by putting their programmers where their mouth is .
All I 'm seeing from my point of view is the NSA doing a lot of contributing and the CIA doing a lot of bitching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the CIA contributing any code to us.
If the CIA wants the NSA to stay out of domestic security, I say they can prove it by putting their programmers where their mouth is.
All I'm seeing from my point of view is the NSA doing a lot of contributing and the CIA doing a lot of bitching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314629</id>
	<title>NSA more innovative than the DoD</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244803560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,</p></div><p>Yeah, right.  That's why the NSA-proprietary software actually works and the rest of the DoD is "innovating" by wasting billions of dollars on contractor-developed software that doesn't work.  Maybe he thinks innovation means cutting off USB ports like the Army has done?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the National Security Agency is 'a secretive , hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,Yeah , right .
That 's why the NSA-proprietary software actually works and the rest of the DoD is " innovating " by wasting billions of dollars on contractor-developed software that does n't work .
Maybe he thinks innovation means cutting off USB ports like the Army has done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,Yeah, right.
That's why the NSA-proprietary software actually works and the rest of the DoD is "innovating" by wasting billions of dollars on contractor-developed software that doesn't work.
Maybe he thinks innovation means cutting off USB ports like the Army has done?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313493</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244798400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, let's go ahead and create ANOTHER agency.  People like Lee need to realize money doesn't grow on trees.  Who else can we get to do this?  The whole point is to find the next group that will try to pull something here in the US.  DHS, BATFE, and FBI, all have the capability, although DHS would probably the best pick of the bunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , let 's go ahead and create ANOTHER agency .
People like Lee need to realize money does n't grow on trees .
Who else can we get to do this ?
The whole point is to find the next group that will try to pull something here in the US .
DHS , BATFE , and FBI , all have the capability , although DHS would probably the best pick of the bunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, let's go ahead and create ANOTHER agency.
People like Lee need to realize money doesn't grow on trees.
Who else can we get to do this?
The whole point is to find the next group that will try to pull something here in the US.
DHS, BATFE, and FBI, all have the capability, although DHS would probably the best pick of the bunch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316807</id>
	<title>the NSA had one rule.</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244820600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't spy on American citizens in America.</p><p>That was their one rule.  Their only rule.</p><p>Now, they capture the majority of Internet traffic and store it for analysis.</p><p>That's Bush for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't spy on American citizens in America.That was their one rule .
Their only rule.Now , they capture the majority of Internet traffic and store it for analysis.That 's Bush for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't spy on American citizens in America.That was their one rule.
Their only rule.Now, they capture the majority of Internet traffic and store it for analysis.That's Bush for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314247</id>
	<title>Some plain facts</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1244801820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first is that unbreakable encryption was invented in 1917,  and if it is applied with discipline can be kept unbreakable.  It is called the "one-time pad."  It was used in World War II for high level telephone conversations (e.g., Roosevelt to Churchill) that could not be broken today if you could have a recording of the encrypted transmissions.  It has its limitations, but isn't difficult to implement, especially with modern technology.</p><p>The second is that NSA produced Security-Enhanced Linux.  SE-Linux demonstrates NSA's capability for innovation.</p><p>NSA may well be a hidebound bureaucracy.  It is, after all, a government agency, with all the issues of a government agency.</p><p>However, the main problem is that technology is now far beyond the capability of the legal system to easily deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first is that unbreakable encryption was invented in 1917 , and if it is applied with discipline can be kept unbreakable .
It is called the " one-time pad .
" It was used in World War II for high level telephone conversations ( e.g. , Roosevelt to Churchill ) that could not be broken today if you could have a recording of the encrypted transmissions .
It has its limitations , but is n't difficult to implement , especially with modern technology.The second is that NSA produced Security-Enhanced Linux .
SE-Linux demonstrates NSA 's capability for innovation.NSA may well be a hidebound bureaucracy .
It is , after all , a government agency , with all the issues of a government agency.However , the main problem is that technology is now far beyond the capability of the legal system to easily deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first is that unbreakable encryption was invented in 1917,  and if it is applied with discipline can be kept unbreakable.
It is called the "one-time pad.
"  It was used in World War II for high level telephone conversations (e.g., Roosevelt to Churchill) that could not be broken today if you could have a recording of the encrypted transmissions.
It has its limitations, but isn't difficult to implement, especially with modern technology.The second is that NSA produced Security-Enhanced Linux.
SE-Linux demonstrates NSA's capability for innovation.NSA may well be a hidebound bureaucracy.
It is, after all, a government agency, with all the issues of a government agency.However, the main problem is that technology is now far beyond the capability of the legal system to easily deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28317427</id>
	<title>RE: NSA DHS (TSA) and NSC are Living Dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The premise of "security" for the Executive Office of the President, by using all agencies of the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and the newly appoined State Police of the Departmetn of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Agency is falicy.</p><p>The only good United States of America Citizen is a Dead United States of America Citizen because all citizens of the United States of America pose the greatest security risk to the Executive Office of the President, according to the Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Agency), National Security Council and the National Security Agency (DoD).</p><p>Therefore, the government of the United States of America at the direction of the Executive Office of President of the United States of Americam must at all cost, all measures, perpatrate "culling events" upon the people, citizens, of the United States of America in the same function as the events of "9/11" -- the day that the Executive Office of President layed waste on the citizens of the United States of America using homeless citizens of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as their pawns in a scheme to "cull" their greatest enemy, the citizens of the United States of America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise of " security " for the Executive Office of the President , by using all agencies of the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and the newly appoined State Police of the Departmetn of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Agency is falicy.The only good United States of America Citizen is a Dead United States of America Citizen because all citizens of the United States of America pose the greatest security risk to the Executive Office of the President , according to the Department of Homeland Security ( Transportation Security Agency ) , National Security Council and the National Security Agency ( DoD ) .Therefore , the government of the United States of America at the direction of the Executive Office of President of the United States of Americam must at all cost , all measures , perpatrate " culling events " upon the people , citizens , of the United States of America in the same function as the events of " 9/11 " -- the day that the Executive Office of President layed waste on the citizens of the United States of America using homeless citizens of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as their pawns in a scheme to " cull " their greatest enemy , the citizens of the United States of America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise of "security" for the Executive Office of the President, by using all agencies of the Department of Defense and the National Security Council and the newly appoined State Police of the Departmetn of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Agency is falicy.The only good United States of America Citizen is a Dead United States of America Citizen because all citizens of the United States of America pose the greatest security risk to the Executive Office of the President, according to the Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Agency), National Security Council and the National Security Agency (DoD).Therefore, the government of the United States of America at the direction of the Executive Office of President of the United States of Americam must at all cost, all measures, perpatrate "culling events" upon the people, citizens, of the United States of America in the same function as the events of "9/11" -- the day that the Executive Office of President layed waste on the citizens of the United States of America using homeless citizens of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as their pawns in a scheme to "cull" their greatest enemy, the citizens of the United States of America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313937</id>
	<title>Re:Like who?</title>
	<author>daten</author>
	<datestamp>1244800140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA also has an already existing and mature <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/ia/" title="nsa.gov" rel="nofollow">Information Assurance</a> [nsa.gov] mission with experts publishing freely available <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/" title="nsa.gov" rel="nofollow">cyber security guidance</a> [nsa.gov], <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security\_configuration\_guides/index.shtml" title="nsa.gov" rel="nofollow">configuration guides</a> [nsa.gov] and <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/" title="nsa.gov" rel="nofollow">software</a> [nsa.gov].</p><p>In my opinion the NSA already has the expertise and experience required.  Not everyone working there is assigned to domestic espionage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA also has an already existing and mature Information Assurance [ nsa.gov ] mission with experts publishing freely available cyber security guidance [ nsa.gov ] , configuration guides [ nsa.gov ] and software [ nsa.gov ] .In my opinion the NSA already has the expertise and experience required .
Not everyone working there is assigned to domestic espionage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA also has an already existing and mature Information Assurance [nsa.gov] mission with experts publishing freely available cyber security guidance [nsa.gov], configuration guides [nsa.gov] and software [nsa.gov].In my opinion the NSA already has the expertise and experience required.
Not everyone working there is assigned to domestic espionage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</id>
	<title>Like who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust</p></div><p>Like, the FBI?  Or perhaps the NRO?  The CIA is just down the road. Maybe NASA could do it.  Really - the facts are these - NSA already has the equipment, connections and brain power.  You'll have a very difficult time replicating, much less staffing any enterprise like the NSA.</p><p>Legally, they really are disqualified from performing the role of domestic spying.  After all, they're administered by DOD, they've skirted American law by utilizing foreign bases for gathering, and are well known for bending the arms of domestic telecom companies.</p><p>But they are a working tool - and they get the job done.  It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the Federal government must play a role , then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrustLike , the FBI ?
Or perhaps the NRO ?
The CIA is just down the road .
Maybe NASA could do it .
Really - the facts are these - NSA already has the equipment , connections and brain power .
You 'll have a very difficult time replicating , much less staffing any enterprise like the NSA.Legally , they really are disqualified from performing the role of domestic spying .
After all , they 're administered by DOD , they 've skirted American law by utilizing foreign bases for gathering , and are well known for bending the arms of domestic telecom companies.But they are a working tool - and they get the job done .
It 's difficult to argue against something that , so far , seems to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the Federal government must play a role, then Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrustLike, the FBI?
Or perhaps the NRO?
The CIA is just down the road.
Maybe NASA could do it.
Really - the facts are these - NSA already has the equipment, connections and brain power.
You'll have a very difficult time replicating, much less staffing any enterprise like the NSA.Legally, they really are disqualified from performing the role of domestic spying.
After all, they're administered by DOD, they've skirted American law by utilizing foreign bases for gathering, and are well known for bending the arms of domestic telecom companies.But they are a working tool - and they get the job done.
It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314115</id>
	<title>Re:Like who?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1244801100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.</p></div></blockquote><p>Is that a challenge?<br> <br>The NSA has overstepped its bounds far too often (with or without the complicity of the AG's office or the Executive's office) that there is no justification for them to be assigned more capabilities.  "Cyberdefense" or whatever you want to call it is two small letters away from "cyberoffense".  And given the track record, it'd be only a matter of time before those capabilities were used against American citizens without proper oversight.<br> <br>Just because a tool works doesn't mean it should be used.  For example, my chainsaw has proven very capable of cutting down trees.  I'm sure it would be just as capable of preventing people from trespassing, if I just used those very effective parts to cut people's legs off.<br> <br>See, it's relatively easy to argue against, especially with ridiculous metaphors.  But it's important to note that the NSA operates under so much secrecy that lack of proper oversight is a recurring problem.  I do not think that the existing agency should be handed such a mandate without extensive reorganization to reduce secrecy and increase judicial and legislative oversight.  And if that is the case, why not assign a different agency to the matter?  If there are resources in the NSA (individuals or even departments) that are truly so effective, transfer them to the other agency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's difficult to argue against something that , so far , seems to work.Is that a challenge ?
The NSA has overstepped its bounds far too often ( with or without the complicity of the AG 's office or the Executive 's office ) that there is no justification for them to be assigned more capabilities .
" Cyberdefense " or whatever you want to call it is two small letters away from " cyberoffense " .
And given the track record , it 'd be only a matter of time before those capabilities were used against American citizens without proper oversight .
Just because a tool works does n't mean it should be used .
For example , my chainsaw has proven very capable of cutting down trees .
I 'm sure it would be just as capable of preventing people from trespassing , if I just used those very effective parts to cut people 's legs off .
See , it 's relatively easy to argue against , especially with ridiculous metaphors .
But it 's important to note that the NSA operates under so much secrecy that lack of proper oversight is a recurring problem .
I do not think that the existing agency should be handed such a mandate without extensive reorganization to reduce secrecy and increase judicial and legislative oversight .
And if that is the case , why not assign a different agency to the matter ?
If there are resources in the NSA ( individuals or even departments ) that are truly so effective , transfer them to the other agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.Is that a challenge?
The NSA has overstepped its bounds far too often (with or without the complicity of the AG's office or the Executive's office) that there is no justification for them to be assigned more capabilities.
"Cyberdefense" or whatever you want to call it is two small letters away from "cyberoffense".
And given the track record, it'd be only a matter of time before those capabilities were used against American citizens without proper oversight.
Just because a tool works doesn't mean it should be used.
For example, my chainsaw has proven very capable of cutting down trees.
I'm sure it would be just as capable of preventing people from trespassing, if I just used those very effective parts to cut people's legs off.
See, it's relatively easy to argue against, especially with ridiculous metaphors.
But it's important to note that the NSA operates under so much secrecy that lack of proper oversight is a recurring problem.
I do not think that the existing agency should be handed such a mandate without extensive reorganization to reduce secrecy and increase judicial and legislative oversight.
And if that is the case, why not assign a different agency to the matter?
If there are resources in the NSA (individuals or even departments) that are truly so effective, transfer them to the other agency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313965</id>
	<title>Whoah NSA-III???</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1244800260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here I haven't even heard of NSA-II yet and already we're on the third one?? I've seriously got to keep up on the news!  But apparently they're "Suited for Domestic Cybersecurity Role" so maybe I should relax a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I have n't even heard of NSA-II yet and already we 're on the third one ? ?
I 've seriously got to keep up on the news !
But apparently they 're " Suited for Domestic Cybersecurity Role " so maybe I should relax a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I haven't even heard of NSA-II yet and already we're on the third one??
I've seriously got to keep up on the news!
But apparently they're "Suited for Domestic Cybersecurity Role" so maybe I should relax a little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319857</id>
	<title>CIA vs NSA, part 90 million....</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244908440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One has to wonder how much this ex-CIA guy is just doing a hatchet job on a former interservice rival.  Traditionally, CIA has been about black ops and human intelligence, and the NSA was about signals, but one wonders, just how much mission overlap is there. This, after all, a  government that gives us an Army with ships and a Navy with tanks, and so on.  I would be willing to bet that waving around civil liberties has just become another cynical tool that entrenched bureaucrats use to attack their rivals, and that, at the end of the day, no one in government actually cares about civil liberties with respect to their mission.  The EPA, IRS, DOE, DEA, ATF will all spy on you and violate any right to privacy that you may perceive that you have because they would argue, and who knows, maybe even correctly, that they have to do it in order to do their job.  What's really the difference, after all, between the CIA listening to your phone calls, the IRS plumbing your finances, the EPA sniffing your property and so on.  They all spy on you.</p><p>It's just that, everyone has a different value system as to what sort of spying is allowed, and really, its just that, no one wants the gov't breathing down their backs on issues they are sensitive about.  Conservatives don't like the EPA because they are trying to run their farms and their mines, the Liberals don't like wiretapping because the essence of their industry, be it media, arts or research, is communications, and no American likes the IRS because most people probably cheat on their taxes.  Political parties exploit this to no end because they like to keep us divided so they can lock in their profits and screw us.</p><p>The only way we will really have a country that doesn't suck is in ourselves, and not in any political party.  We need to have conservatives to not get bent out of shape about liberal antics in the media and liberals not get bent out of shape about conservative industries.  Sometimes, we need to take the big plunge and actually start to trust each other.  These culture wars serve no practical purpose other than to give tools in both political parties a paycheck.</p><p>I'm sure that liberals right now are hyped up about Obama thinking he might be their savior.  You know what, we on the right were just as hyped up about Reagan and Bush Jr, and you know, we got pretty burned on the balanced budget we were promised.  I'd be willing to bet that Obama won't live up to your expectations either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One has to wonder how much this ex-CIA guy is just doing a hatchet job on a former interservice rival .
Traditionally , CIA has been about black ops and human intelligence , and the NSA was about signals , but one wonders , just how much mission overlap is there .
This , after all , a government that gives us an Army with ships and a Navy with tanks , and so on .
I would be willing to bet that waving around civil liberties has just become another cynical tool that entrenched bureaucrats use to attack their rivals , and that , at the end of the day , no one in government actually cares about civil liberties with respect to their mission .
The EPA , IRS , DOE , DEA , ATF will all spy on you and violate any right to privacy that you may perceive that you have because they would argue , and who knows , maybe even correctly , that they have to do it in order to do their job .
What 's really the difference , after all , between the CIA listening to your phone calls , the IRS plumbing your finances , the EPA sniffing your property and so on .
They all spy on you.It 's just that , everyone has a different value system as to what sort of spying is allowed , and really , its just that , no one wants the gov't breathing down their backs on issues they are sensitive about .
Conservatives do n't like the EPA because they are trying to run their farms and their mines , the Liberals do n't like wiretapping because the essence of their industry , be it media , arts or research , is communications , and no American likes the IRS because most people probably cheat on their taxes .
Political parties exploit this to no end because they like to keep us divided so they can lock in their profits and screw us.The only way we will really have a country that does n't suck is in ourselves , and not in any political party .
We need to have conservatives to not get bent out of shape about liberal antics in the media and liberals not get bent out of shape about conservative industries .
Sometimes , we need to take the big plunge and actually start to trust each other .
These culture wars serve no practical purpose other than to give tools in both political parties a paycheck.I 'm sure that liberals right now are hyped up about Obama thinking he might be their savior .
You know what , we on the right were just as hyped up about Reagan and Bush Jr , and you know , we got pretty burned on the balanced budget we were promised .
I 'd be willing to bet that Obama wo n't live up to your expectations either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One has to wonder how much this ex-CIA guy is just doing a hatchet job on a former interservice rival.
Traditionally, CIA has been about black ops and human intelligence, and the NSA was about signals, but one wonders, just how much mission overlap is there.
This, after all, a  government that gives us an Army with ships and a Navy with tanks, and so on.
I would be willing to bet that waving around civil liberties has just become another cynical tool that entrenched bureaucrats use to attack their rivals, and that, at the end of the day, no one in government actually cares about civil liberties with respect to their mission.
The EPA, IRS, DOE, DEA, ATF will all spy on you and violate any right to privacy that you may perceive that you have because they would argue, and who knows, maybe even correctly, that they have to do it in order to do their job.
What's really the difference, after all, between the CIA listening to your phone calls, the IRS plumbing your finances, the EPA sniffing your property and so on.
They all spy on you.It's just that, everyone has a different value system as to what sort of spying is allowed, and really, its just that, no one wants the gov't breathing down their backs on issues they are sensitive about.
Conservatives don't like the EPA because they are trying to run their farms and their mines, the Liberals don't like wiretapping because the essence of their industry, be it media, arts or research, is communications, and no American likes the IRS because most people probably cheat on their taxes.
Political parties exploit this to no end because they like to keep us divided so they can lock in their profits and screw us.The only way we will really have a country that doesn't suck is in ourselves, and not in any political party.
We need to have conservatives to not get bent out of shape about liberal antics in the media and liberals not get bent out of shape about conservative industries.
Sometimes, we need to take the big plunge and actually start to trust each other.
These culture wars serve no practical purpose other than to give tools in both political parties a paycheck.I'm sure that liberals right now are hyped up about Obama thinking he might be their savior.
You know what, we on the right were just as hyped up about Reagan and Bush Jr, and you know, we got pretty burned on the balanced budget we were promised.
I'd be willing to bet that Obama won't live up to your expectations either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314441</id>
	<title>Perhaps ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1244802660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,'</p></div><p>... that's what they want us to believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : the National Security Agency is 'a secretive , hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,'... that 's what they want us to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:the National Security Agency is 'a secretive, hidebound culture incapable of keeping up with innovation,'... that's what they want us to believe.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313839</id>
	<title>Message right and wrong.</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1244799720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps he is a little misguided in saying that we need to put the job in another agency's hands, but his reason for thinking so is not. I mean what we really need to do is take some power out of  the NSA's hands. This is more of the mess left by the Bush Administration. They gave them so much power because of after 9/11 and the war on terrorism. It was a big problem immediately following 9/11 because we all wanted security so much we didn't realize how much we were losing. Obama is partially to blame for this when we voted to let the telcom companies off the hook last year. Perhaps it is time to give the Patriot Act the ax or rename it the Unconstitutional Act.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps he is a little misguided in saying that we need to put the job in another agency 's hands , but his reason for thinking so is not .
I mean what we really need to do is take some power out of the NSA 's hands .
This is more of the mess left by the Bush Administration .
They gave them so much power because of after 9/11 and the war on terrorism .
It was a big problem immediately following 9/11 because we all wanted security so much we did n't realize how much we were losing .
Obama is partially to blame for this when we voted to let the telcom companies off the hook last year .
Perhaps it is time to give the Patriot Act the ax or rename it the Unconstitutional Act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps he is a little misguided in saying that we need to put the job in another agency's hands, but his reason for thinking so is not.
I mean what we really need to do is take some power out of  the NSA's hands.
This is more of the mess left by the Bush Administration.
They gave them so much power because of after 9/11 and the war on terrorism.
It was a big problem immediately following 9/11 because we all wanted security so much we didn't realize how much we were losing.
Obama is partially to blame for this when we voted to let the telcom companies off the hook last year.
Perhaps it is time to give the Patriot Act the ax or rename it the Unconstitutional Act.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313453</id>
	<title>Good Luck with That</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1244798280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust</p><p>I'm afraid we have No Such Agency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrustI 'm afraid we have No Such Agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrustI'm afraid we have No Such Agency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314113</id>
	<title>Re:Like who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244801100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But they are a working tool - and they get the job done. It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work</p></div><p>Give me access to everything they have and I could probably get you the same results as well. It's about staying within the law, not needing to go beyond it to get the work done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are a working tool - and they get the job done .
It 's difficult to argue against something that , so far , seems to workGive me access to everything they have and I could probably get you the same results as well .
It 's about staying within the law , not needing to go beyond it to get the work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are a working tool - and they get the job done.
It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to workGive me access to everything they have and I could probably get you the same results as well.
It's about staying within the law, not needing to go beyond it to get the work done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313977</id>
	<title>What's this?</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244800380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government ill-suited for big brother surveillance of populous? Sounds good to me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government ill-suited for big brother surveillance of populous ?
Sounds good to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government ill-suited for big brother surveillance of populous?
Sounds good to me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313907</id>
	<title>We want a competent domestic spying agency?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this beating up on the NSA is fun and stuff, but are we really complaining that we don't have a competent domestic spying agency?  We've already proven as a society to be incapable of electing a majority of leaders that respect privacy and are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty.  So would it actually make us happy to have a bunch of g-men who are intelligent when it comes to new technology and could really fully exploit all the powers of databases and networks and algorithms to spy on us in an incredibly thorough manner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this beating up on the NSA is fun and stuff , but are we really complaining that we do n't have a competent domestic spying agency ?
We 've already proven as a society to be incapable of electing a majority of leaders that respect privacy and are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty .
So would it actually make us happy to have a bunch of g-men who are intelligent when it comes to new technology and could really fully exploit all the powers of databases and networks and algorithms to spy on us in an incredibly thorough manner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this beating up on the NSA is fun and stuff, but are we really complaining that we don't have a competent domestic spying agency?
We've already proven as a society to be incapable of electing a majority of leaders that respect privacy and are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty.
So would it actually make us happy to have a bunch of g-men who are intelligent when it comes to new technology and could really fully exploit all the powers of databases and networks and algorithms to spy on us in an incredibly thorough manner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565</id>
	<title>why NSA shouldn't be used for defense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely <strong>NO</strong> action in order to protect their spying capabilities.<br> <br>

At present, nobody knows exactly what the reach is of the NSA. Nobody knows what they can and can't hear. If you task them with defending assets, each probe or attack reveals new information about what the NSA has at their disposal, depending on what the response is. I really don't think the NSA is willing to compromise the secrecy of its capabilities in order to thwart hackers.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure .
If you insert them as a defensive player , more often than not , they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities .
At present , nobody knows exactly what the reach is of the NSA .
Nobody knows what they can and ca n't hear .
If you task them with defending assets , each probe or attack reveals new information about what the NSA has at their disposal , depending on what the response is .
I really do n't think the NSA is willing to compromise the secrecy of its capabilities in order to thwart hackers .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure.
If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.
At present, nobody knows exactly what the reach is of the NSA.
Nobody knows what they can and can't hear.
If you task them with defending assets, each probe or attack reveals new information about what the NSA has at their disposal, depending on what the response is.
I really don't think the NSA is willing to compromise the secrecy of its capabilities in order to thwart hackers.
Seth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313419</id>
	<title>NSA 3 , Now it's personal</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244798160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>i l l  Ill capitalization makes roman numerals!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i l l Ill capitalization makes roman numerals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i l l  Ill capitalization makes roman numerals!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316023</id>
	<title>Re:NSA 3 , Now it's personal</title>
	<author>atomic-penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1244813460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not the NSA 3.  It is NSA 3-suited, geesh read the title carefully, already.</p><p>Seriously though, do those with mod points not have anything better to do than mod this offtopic?  Ill-suited clearly looks like III-suited in the title, and I think it probably has something to do with fonts in stylesheets, and not my default browser font.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the NSA 3 .
It is NSA 3-suited , geesh read the title carefully , already.Seriously though , do those with mod points not have anything better to do than mod this offtopic ?
Ill-suited clearly looks like III-suited in the title , and I think it probably has something to do with fonts in stylesheets , and not my default browser font .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the NSA 3.
It is NSA 3-suited, geesh read the title carefully, already.Seriously though, do those with mod points not have anything better to do than mod this offtopic?
Ill-suited clearly looks like III-suited in the title, and I think it probably has something to do with fonts in stylesheets, and not my default browser font.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313929</id>
	<title>Re:Like who?</title>
	<author>flattop100</author>
	<datestamp>1244800140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"But they are a working tool - and they get the job done. It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work."

What is it, exactly, that they get done? And how do you know it works?

You're turning a blind eye to a government agency with a huge amount of power that is performing illegal surveillance. I'm not nearly as trusting as you are...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But they are a working tool - and they get the job done .
It 's difficult to argue against something that , so far , seems to work .
" What is it , exactly , that they get done ?
And how do you know it works ?
You 're turning a blind eye to a government agency with a huge amount of power that is performing illegal surveillance .
I 'm not nearly as trusting as you are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But they are a working tool - and they get the job done.
It's difficult to argue against something that, so far, seems to work.
"

What is it, exactly, that they get done?
And how do you know it works?
You're turning a blind eye to a government agency with a huge amount of power that is performing illegal surveillance.
I'm not nearly as trusting as you are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319475</id>
	<title>Re:What's this guy smoking?</title>
	<author>revoldub</author>
	<datestamp>1244904420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homeland Security is a department, above an agency IIRC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homeland Security is a department , above an agency IIRC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homeland Security is a department, above an agency IIRC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315849</id>
	<title>Cryptography is still the same science</title>
	<author>nofactor</author>
	<datestamp>1244811900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cryptography is still the same science as it was some years ago, when nobody doubted about NSA's supremacy. Surely there's been a huge breakthrough in telephone networks and mobile technologies, but not in cryptographic techniques that protect them. So, do we have to believe that they couldn't keep up with "commercial innovation"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cryptography is still the same science as it was some years ago , when nobody doubted about NSA 's supremacy .
Surely there 's been a huge breakthrough in telephone networks and mobile technologies , but not in cryptographic techniques that protect them .
So , do we have to believe that they could n't keep up with " commercial innovation " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cryptography is still the same science as it was some years ago, when nobody doubted about NSA's supremacy.
Surely there's been a huge breakthrough in telephone networks and mobile technologies, but not in cryptographic techniques that protect them.
So, do we have to believe that they couldn't keep up with "commercial innovation"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315227</id>
	<title>Re:We want a competent domestic spying agency?</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1244807340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the complaint at all.  If we had an agency actually geared for domestic cyber security, in theory, they would be able to crack down on NSA agents that have far over-reached their duties.  I think it would be nice to have an agency more modeled after the FDA etc, auditing corporate networks the way FDA audits new food/drug products that are coming on to the market.  If a company fails an audit, they receive a large fine, and just like the FDA does with research labs, companies need to be ready to be audited at any time.  Any company with a business license and an Internet presence should be required to adhere at least to a minimum set of best practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the complaint at all .
If we had an agency actually geared for domestic cyber security , in theory , they would be able to crack down on NSA agents that have far over-reached their duties .
I think it would be nice to have an agency more modeled after the FDA etc , auditing corporate networks the way FDA audits new food/drug products that are coming on to the market .
If a company fails an audit , they receive a large fine , and just like the FDA does with research labs , companies need to be ready to be audited at any time .
Any company with a business license and an Internet presence should be required to adhere at least to a minimum set of best practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the complaint at all.
If we had an agency actually geared for domestic cyber security, in theory, they would be able to crack down on NSA agents that have far over-reached their duties.
I think it would be nice to have an agency more modeled after the FDA etc, auditing corporate networks the way FDA audits new food/drug products that are coming on to the market.
If a company fails an audit, they receive a large fine, and just like the FDA does with research labs, companies need to be ready to be audited at any time.
Any company with a business license and an Internet presence should be required to adhere at least to a minimum set of best practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28334945</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA shouldn't be used for defense</title>
	<author>danielobvt</author>
	<datestamp>1245079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This really deserves even more mod points than the rest.  A \_VERY\_ good analysis.  The eternal fight of CND people, getting actionable intelligence  (we want to fix it yesterday, they want to see what the BG are doing and also don't want to give away how they knew to listen in the first place).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This really deserves even more mod points than the rest .
A \ _VERY \ _ good analysis .
The eternal fight of CND people , getting actionable intelligence ( we want to fix it yesterday , they want to see what the BG are doing and also do n't want to give away how they knew to listen in the first place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really deserves even more mod points than the rest.
A \_VERY\_ good analysis.
The eternal fight of CND people, getting actionable intelligence  (we want to fix it yesterday, they want to see what the BG are doing and also don't want to give away how they knew to listen in the first place).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319895</id>
	<title>Re:Shrink 'em</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or, more likely, the author is full of shit. The NSA is the only government agency I've found that takes american liberties very seriously. Everyone I've talked to in the agency has taken their charter very seriously.</p><p>So, fuck you, asshat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or , more likely , the author is full of shit .
The NSA is the only government agency I 've found that takes american liberties very seriously .
Everyone I 've talked to in the agency has taken their charter very seriously.So , fuck you , asshat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or, more likely, the author is full of shit.
The NSA is the only government agency I've found that takes american liberties very seriously.
Everyone I've talked to in the agency has taken their charter very seriously.So, fuck you, asshat</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313947</id>
	<title>Impossible</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1244800200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you create an agency whose express purpose is monitor for suspect conversations, its only natural that they are going to try to ensure they monitor as much traffic as possible. In the case of the NSA, I am sure they can just tell a phone provider like AT&amp;T we are going to filter your traffic, don't tell anyone or you go to jail. They have absolute undefined power as long as they are not monitored.</p><p>Qui Custodes Ipsos Custodes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you create an agency whose express purpose is monitor for suspect conversations , its only natural that they are going to try to ensure they monitor as much traffic as possible .
In the case of the NSA , I am sure they can just tell a phone provider like AT&amp;T we are going to filter your traffic , do n't tell anyone or you go to jail .
They have absolute undefined power as long as they are not monitored.Qui Custodes Ipsos Custodes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you create an agency whose express purpose is monitor for suspect conversations, its only natural that they are going to try to ensure they monitor as much traffic as possible.
In the case of the NSA, I am sure they can just tell a phone provider like AT&amp;T we are going to filter your traffic, don't tell anyone or you go to jail.
They have absolute undefined power as long as they are not monitored.Qui Custodes Ipsos Custodes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314031</id>
	<title>Re:Like who?</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1244800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe NASA could do it.</i></p><p>It even has all of the right letters already. Should be a cinch to make that transition!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe NASA could do it.It even has all of the right letters already .
Should be a cinch to make that transition !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe NASA could do it.It even has all of the right letters already.
Should be a cinch to make that transition!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316331</id>
	<title>Who needs innovation</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244816100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>when you can just capture plans and software from your access to all US telecommunications?</htmltext>
<tokenext>when you can just capture plans and software from your access to all US telecommunications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you can just capture plans and software from your access to all US telecommunications?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313531</id>
	<title>But Dan Brown said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they were at the forefront of technology!</p><p>It must be true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they were at the forefront of technology ! It must be true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they were at the forefront of technology!It must be true!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315497</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA shouldn't be used for defense</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1244809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely <strong>NO</strong> action in order to protect their spying capabilities.</p></div><p>I'm not so sure that they would take no action.  They certainly have taken actions in the past.  And even if you assume that the help they offered didn't affect their best procedures, it still has an effect on the landscape in which they operate.

Having said that - you missed an even more fundamental issue.  They are a part of the intelligence structure and as such will treat any problem as an intelligence issue.  Some of that probably isn't a bad thing; security procedures, vulnerability assessments and mitigation, etc.  But a big part of that is also simply surveillance and spying.  Those are aspects that are less necessary to handle the issues involved.  But they will want to do these things because that's the culture they're in.  They have their hammer and everything presented to them will be a nail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure .
If you insert them as a defensive player , more often than not , they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.I 'm not so sure that they would take no action .
They certainly have taken actions in the past .
And even if you assume that the help they offered did n't affect their best procedures , it still has an effect on the landscape in which they operate .
Having said that - you missed an even more fundamental issue .
They are a part of the intelligence structure and as such will treat any problem as an intelligence issue .
Some of that probably is n't a bad thing ; security procedures , vulnerability assessments and mitigation , etc .
But a big part of that is also simply surveillance and spying .
Those are aspects that are less necessary to handle the issues involved .
But they will want to do these things because that 's the culture they 're in .
They have their hammer and everything presented to them will be a nail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure.
If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.I'm not so sure that they would take no action.
They certainly have taken actions in the past.
And even if you assume that the help they offered didn't affect their best procedures, it still has an effect on the landscape in which they operate.
Having said that - you missed an even more fundamental issue.
They are a part of the intelligence structure and as such will treat any problem as an intelligence issue.
Some of that probably isn't a bad thing; security procedures, vulnerability assessments and mitigation, etc.
But a big part of that is also simply surveillance and spying.
Those are aspects that are less necessary to handle the issues involved.
But they will want to do these things because that's the culture they're in.
They have their hammer and everything presented to them will be a nail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314329</id>
	<title>This guy's an idiot...</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1244802180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long story short, this guy is an idiot. I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this. (If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)</p><p>First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works. "CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona. The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician). Anyway...</p><p>Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.</p></div><p>Total nonsense. The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS. To claim otherwise is nutty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long story short , this guy is an idiot .
I could go on at great length , but I 'll just leave at this .
( If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I 'm sure they wo n't...I 'd be happy to reply ) First , a former CIA analyst from 10 + years ago does n't know anything about the way NSA works .
" CIA analysts " are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they 're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona .
The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor ( which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician ) .
Anyway...Additionally , what he thinks he knows is ludicrous , and I 've just picked ( IMHO ) the most egregious example : Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts , it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.Total nonsense .
The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS .
To claim otherwise is nutty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long story short, this guy is an idiot.
I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this.
(If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works.
"CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona.
The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician).
Anyway...Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example: Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.Total nonsense.
The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS.
To claim otherwise is nutty.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313751</id>
	<title>Shrink 'em</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea: if the NSA has gotten to the point that even the White House or Congress can't control them, cut off their funding altogether and wish their employees good luck finding jobs. Create a new, much smaller NSA that has the authority to do one thing and only one thing: handle security for other government agencies, such as setting minimum standards for TOP SECRET transmission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea : if the NSA has gotten to the point that even the White House or Congress ca n't control them , cut off their funding altogether and wish their employees good luck finding jobs .
Create a new , much smaller NSA that has the authority to do one thing and only one thing : handle security for other government agencies , such as setting minimum standards for TOP SECRET transmission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea: if the NSA has gotten to the point that even the White House or Congress can't control them, cut off their funding altogether and wish their employees good luck finding jobs.
Create a new, much smaller NSA that has the authority to do one thing and only one thing: handle security for other government agencies, such as setting minimum standards for TOP SECRET transmission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313635</id>
	<title>What's this guy smoking?</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1244798940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt the authors claims regarding the state of the NSA.  It's fun to take a poke at big agencies like the NSA because they fit into that 'big bad government' mythology that is so prevalent today.  He's presuming the NSA is somehow more effective than any other large organization.  (public OR private)</p><p>What I doubt is the possibility that a new agency would, in fact, respect the personal freedoms as spelled out in the constitution and probably codified with laws and court precedence.  The steady corrosion of discipline and 8 years of Executive Office supremacy has worn away the last of the ideals spelled out in the Constitution.</p><p>The last new agency I can recall is the Homeland Security Agency.  They were gifted all kinds of previously independent agencies.  The benefits are equally unclear on all sides of that monolith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt the authors claims regarding the state of the NSA .
It 's fun to take a poke at big agencies like the NSA because they fit into that 'big bad government ' mythology that is so prevalent today .
He 's presuming the NSA is somehow more effective than any other large organization .
( public OR private ) What I doubt is the possibility that a new agency would , in fact , respect the personal freedoms as spelled out in the constitution and probably codified with laws and court precedence .
The steady corrosion of discipline and 8 years of Executive Office supremacy has worn away the last of the ideals spelled out in the Constitution.The last new agency I can recall is the Homeland Security Agency .
They were gifted all kinds of previously independent agencies .
The benefits are equally unclear on all sides of that monolith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt the authors claims regarding the state of the NSA.
It's fun to take a poke at big agencies like the NSA because they fit into that 'big bad government' mythology that is so prevalent today.
He's presuming the NSA is somehow more effective than any other large organization.
(public OR private)What I doubt is the possibility that a new agency would, in fact, respect the personal freedoms as spelled out in the constitution and probably codified with laws and court precedence.
The steady corrosion of discipline and 8 years of Executive Office supremacy has worn away the last of the ideals spelled out in the Constitution.The last new agency I can recall is the Homeland Security Agency.
They were gifted all kinds of previously independent agencies.
The benefits are equally unclear on all sides of that monolith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28334945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1926220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28316023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28319475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28314329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1926220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28313565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28334945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1926220.28315497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
