Browse By

Amid Pats on the Back Over Civility, Old Media Misses NSA Cybersecurity Story

Look deep into this picture and glaze your eyes to find out how many “traditional media” newspapers have, in between pats on the back over their refusal to utter words like “poo,” bothered to provide any coverage of the agenda revealed in Senate hearings today to put the National Security Agency in charge of cybersecurity.

stereogram hiding the number of traditional news media outlets covering the NSA-cybersecurity agenda in reports today

Now look deeply into this second picture below to find the number of online publications that have discussed this push today for the military-run, DOD-branch NSA to run a cybersecurity program that looks to involve significant domestic surveillance:

Stereogram: Number of Online Publications Reporting on the NSA-cybersecurity link

If you can’t manage these political stereograms, look to the comments for links to those publications that have bothered themselves to cover the NSA-cybersecurity link today.

5 thoughts on “Amid Pats on the Back Over Civility, Old Media Misses NSA Cybersecurity Story”

  1. Jim says:

    Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the panel, “We object to the secrecy that has shrouded the Einstein programs.”

    Excessive secrecy, he said, “undermines public trust and communications carrier participation, both of which are essential to the success of this and other cyber security initiatives.”

    He called for independent audits “to ensure that Einstein does not inadvertently access private-to-private communications. ”

    One panelist, Larry Wortzel a retired army intelligence officer, made the case for the NSA to take the lead on the government’s cyber security initiatives, despite the agency’s public stance that it has no interest in assuming the position.

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – Rhode Island) left the panelists with several questions to ponder about the NSA, asking them to provide responses in writing at a later date

    “If, in fact, the NSA has technical capabilities beyond those of the providers, why should you be relying on the providers in areas where the NSA actually has greater capability?” he asked.

    In terms of technical know-how, the National Security Agency (NSA) ought to lead U.S. government efforts to protect critical computer networks from cyber attacks, said Larry Wortzel, a cyber expert and former intelligence officer, to a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.

    The NSA has decades of experience at electronic and cyber operations, Wortzel said. The agency’s personnel “are skilled and superbly trained,” the NSA has extensive contacts with friendly governments and the private sector, and it employs linguists conversant in the languages most often associated with foreign-launched cyber attacks, he said.

    But Gregory Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology offered another view: No way.

    “Expertise in spying” is not the same thing as expertise in cybersecurity, he told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security.

    Putting the secretive NSA in charge of cybersecurity “would almost certainly mean less transparency, less trust and less corporate and public participation, increasing the likelihood of failure,” Nojeim said. “The lead for cybersecurity operations should stay with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).”

    Some experts have argued that NSA should continue its leading role in the cybersecurity arena, claiming that the agency, which is administered by the Department of Defense, has the deepest pool of technical talent.

    Others criticize the spy agency for its culture of secrecy, which they say undermines efforts to partner with industry. They generally point to the Department of Homeland Security, which is the leading department that coordinates with the private sector, as the best candidate to run point on cybersecurity.

    “We can’t do this through Cold War-era structures,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance. “And that’s what we have now.”

    Irregular Times:

    Republican Senator Jon Kyl asked witnesses to evaluate the idea of the NSA — a military intelligence unit tasked in its charter with the task of engaging in foreign intelligence — taking charge of the U.S. Government’s domestic effort to ferret out computer security threats:

    “I’m still fixated a little bit on this question of who should lead the effort. Let me start, because you raised the question right and the end, Mr. Wortzel, you indicated you thought NSA would be the best to lead the overall effort. And if you could just give me about one more minute on that. And then, Mr. Clinton, given that the interface with a lot of business is through the Department of Homeland Security, as you mentioned, how would that fit into an NSA with an overall lead? And maybe [Senator Kyl snickers] Mr. Nojeim, are there any concerns you have with that kind of a structure?”

    Larry Wortzel, an ex-military officer affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, indicated that the National Security Agency (as part of the Department of Defense) would provide perfect leadership for the job: “Senator, I think you’re absolutely right.” Larry Clinton, president of a corporate alliance of cybersecurity businesses, declared that it should be the job of businesses to protect themselves, not the NSA. And then Gregory T. Nojeim, at whose civil liberties concerns Senator Kyl had just snickered, brought up the NSA’s history:

    “I should add, I would be remiss if I didn’t, that NSA has certain baggage that it would bring to lead an effort to secure civilian systems, that other agencies don’t have, including the warrantless wiretapping program.”

    But we must remember that the newspapers don’t use the word “poo.”

  2. Tom says:

    When did the country become a giant prison?

  3. Kevin says:

    I can’t get them to work… what am I supposed to do again?

    1. Jacob says:

      I cant do these either… I have never been good at these things

  4. Jim says:

    Look at the picture as if it were actually about four inches farther away from you than it really is. By doing this, you’ll make your eyes diverge, and when that happens your brain will try to make sense of it all by lining up items that look like they should match. Your brain will fool itself into thinking that most of the image IS actually about four inches farther away from you than it really is… except for a part that doesn’t match up with the rest, which your brain will assume is an object hanging in front of the picture. You’ll “see” the answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!