Print 60 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Dec 13 at 12:40 PM

Obama is trying to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has been attacked all year for its spy programs, which were revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden -- and the agency could use some love from President Barack Obama. 

According to The Washington Post, the NSA's morale has taken a beating ever since the Snowden revelations, and many former officials say that current NSA employees are disappointed that Obama hasn't stopped by to provide some encouragement. 

“The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it’s been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,” said Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006. “They feel they’ve been hung out to dry, and they’re right.”

Other former NSA officials, who have asked to remain anonymous, said morale is "bad overall" and that many employees are asking to have their résumés wiped of any surveillance programs in order to gain employment elsewhere. 

“The news — the Snowden disclosures — it questions the integrity of the NSA workforce,” said a former NSA official who chose to remain anonymous. “It’s become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, ‘Why are you spying on Grandma?’ And we aren’t. People are feeling bad, beaten down.”

Some former officials have even mentioned that former President George W. Bush visited the NSA in January 2006 after the New York Times reported that the agency engaged in a counterterrorism program of warrantless surveillance in the U.S. 

Obama has sent top White House officials to the NSA to speak for him in an effort to offer encouragement. But many believe he hasn't made the trip himself because he needs to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil. In addition, internal and external reviews of surveillance activities have not yet been completed. 

Obama has said that the NSA’s surveillance is lawful in June of this year, and showed interest in preserving the intelligence programs. However, he's also mentioned making some changes so that there's greater transparency.

Snowden blew the cover on the NSA's surveillance programs earlier this year, which consisted of bulk data collection from sources like phone records, where the government took on a "collect now, filter later" approach. The agency has said that the bulk data collection was meant to identify terrorist threats, but it's been discovered that the data of Americans has been collected without any clear evidence of terrorist links. 
In August, reports said that the NSA admitted to touching 1.6 percent of total globe Web traffic. Its technique was to filter data after harvesting it, which led to over-collection on a major scale. It was later revealed that Snowden conned between 20 to 25 NSA employees to give him their login credentials and passwords while working at the NSA regional operations center for a month in Hawaii last spring. Snowden reportedly told the NSA employees that he needed their passwords in order to do his job, and after downloading secret NSA documents, he leaked the information to the media.
Many top tech leaders, like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, have spoken out against the NSA's programs along with civil-liberties advocates, U.S. citizens and even other countries that had the NSA peeping in their window. 

Just yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA and its UK sister agency GCHQ sent agents into the virtual worlds of the Xbox Live network, World of Warcraft, and Second Life to find acts of terrorism. 

Source: The Washington Post

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/12/2013 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct if you look at the history in your time span.

But after WWII news organizations starting to do there job right, Murdoch fucked it up even more then its was before.

And ware there even in the time of the Spanish American war descent newspapers, and if so what good would they have done if 90% of the people cant even read!

I am talking modern history from WWII till now.

The division between the western world and the Muslim world is actually smaller than it has been throughout most of history.

Actually after WWII that division was a lot smaller, and i remember when in the 80s over problems in the middle east there also in the newspapers historical reasons ware given about problems in the middle east, now a days the news is more and more polarized.

I should have none better, most people cant seem comprehend what damage the destruction of good news outlets means for the world, because how can people make good educated opinions if even the source of there information is polymerized bias crap.

RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2013 5:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault. I also find Murdoch to be a bad influence, but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama ;p and so on. Not even close.

By michael67 on 12/12/2013 8:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault.

You right, but the sad part is, the mass is mostly ignorant, not because they don't wane be, but because they are followers, and they follow the people that make them feel best, so even do there are people that know better we are out numbered 50 to 1 or so.

but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama

Do you know what all those people have in common?

Bad working news outlets!

Murdoch is the new propaganda prime minister for his buddy's the rich and the scrupulous.

RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By boeush on 12/12/2013 8:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why it's Murdoch's fault that his faux "news" networks have done so well.

His networks and tabloids would not exist, were it not for the stupid/demented consumer base that actually prefers Murdoch's toxic sludge over objective journalism. The people simply don't want to be made to think or learn: they just want to kick back with a can of beer and passively suck up Murdoch's nocturnal emissions, and for these people such a thing constitutes fun or enjoyment or whatever.

If reasonable people boycotted Murdoch's swill, and if reasonable people were the overwhelming majority, then Murdoch would be in the poor house. So don't blame him; blame your fellow humans. We collectively get what we ask for, and what we deserve -- in journalism and politics alike.

By michael67 on 12/13/2013 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on that, but Murdoch's toxic sludge, could also be just truthful sludge.

Even do i prefer dumbed down infotainment news, but even infotainment can be truthful, Murdoch's toxic sludge leaves really noting truthful left if it is not in his interest.

And he just spreads FUD and hatred in the world, just to benefit him and his rich buddy's, because dumb masses are easier to control.

That's why imho Joseph Goebbels is a amateur compared to what he dose to the world.

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki