US officials speaking to Reuters today said that Army General Keith Alexander has officially made plans to leave his position as head of the National Security Agency by next March or April. The sources also said that Alexander’s civilian deputy, John "Chris" Inglis, will retire at the end of the year.
That void of power would permit President Obama a chance to appoint new leaders to the NSA, which has suffered serious scrutiny in the aftermath of the leaks made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The leaks have detailed a dragnet approach to surveillance in which metadata of American communications are collected by the NSA en masse. Still, the NSA’s policies have been staunchly defended by Alexander since being made public.
General Alexander has led the NSA since 2005. There are apparently no plans to name a successor yet, although Reuters points to Vice Admiral Michael Rogers, currently commander of the US Navy's 10th Fleet and US Fleet Cyber Command, as a favorite. The news outlet notes that such a move could potentially lead to a combination of the NSA and Cyber Command, which is authorized to engage in both defensive and offensive operations. But internally at the NSA, that move might not be popular. “Many NSA veterans argue that having the same person lead the spy agency and Cyber Command diminishes the emphasis on the NSA's work and its unique capabilities,” writes Reuters.
Inglis, for his part, is a computer security scientist who was named the second-ranking official at the NSA in 2006. Both men are said to be leaving their positions voluntarily.
80 Reader Comments
1) the .mil/.gov leadership was ok with the status quo and failed to fire him, if for nothing else than for lying about this stuff publicly.
2) leadership was unwilling or unable to fire him, and had to ask him to leave nicely.
I know it's radical, but NSA should be back to helping us all protect our own privacy, by honestly helping NIST select good encryption standards, and thereby foiling foreign surveillance. All the tricks that they use, can be used against the USA and our interests! If nothing else, I hope that congress exerts some financial restraint on them. Hard to read the worlds phone bill without gigawatts of compute power.
Last edited by Sphynx on Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:31 am
I, for one, have my faith in America renewed by the very idea that we might exchange one balding, paranoid, megalomaniac, acting (mostly accurately) as though he is above the law with another one!
(So, anybody for a betting pool on which creepy defense contractor he goes to work for first?)
This will not solve anything.
Our congress has a 15% approval rating which is so unbelievably low it sounds impossible. For reference a long long running Pew poll shows 20% of USA and Western Europe citizens believe the sun revolves around the earth. So more people believe that then approve of congress.
If our gov and congress want to gain credibility they can start by prosecuting insiders just like a regular citizen. Regular citizen lies to congress and goes to jail. Clapper and Alexander lie to congress and go to jail.
Very simple solution. The American people would greatly approve. The American people might be in shock for a moment and then would dance in the streets. The American people would be elated. All because of a simple act of justice. How about it congress.....are you up for decades more of horrific ratings or are you up for some simple justice?
1) the .mil/.gov leadership was ok with the status quo and failed to fire him, if for nothing else than for lying about this stuff publicly.
2) leadership was unwilling or unable to fire him, and had to ask him to leave nicely.
I know it's radical, but NSA should be back to helping us all protect our own privacy, by honestly helping NIST select good encryption standards, and thereby foiling foreign surveillance. All the tricks that they use, can be used against the USA and our interests! If nothing else, I hope that congress exerts some financial restraint on them. Hard to read the worlds phone bill without gigawatts of compute power.
It sounds like a classic case of "We are just fine with everything you did; but rule #1 is Don't Make The Company Look Stupid. So, nothing personal, and we're all real sorry; but you know you'd do the same in our position..." If somebody were actually upset with him, he'd have executive boot up his ass in short order. If people were as upset with him as he deserves, he'd be swinging from a lamppost.
"Both men are said to be leaving their positions voluntarily."
So the replacements will have exactly the same policies as now exist.
This is already the case guys. The commander of USCYBERCOM is dual hatted as the director of the NSA. They're the same guy already. This isn't a change.
Last edited by Andorien on Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:35 am
My first instinct was to agree, particularly with regards to ongoing development. But then I all but immediately decided that we need his voice, and works, to remain public, influenced only by his own thinking and the works of his peers. He'd be a huge loss in terms of critical analysis and advocacy - not to mention any works he might produce from the private sector.
They can't seriously think they're fooling anyone with this, can they? More to the point, it saddens me that they don't even seem to bother with trying to fool anyone any more. The present attitude of the security apparatus as a whole in the United States seems to be "Yeah, so? What are you gonna do about it?"
Time for a new crook with better smoke and mirrors. :|
Or start their own "consulting company" and do the things the government is not permitted to do (if there are any left).
My first instinct was to agree, particularly with regards to ongoing development. But then I all but immediately decided that we need his voice, and works, to remain public, influenced only by his own thinking and the works of his peers. He'd be a huge loss in terms of critical analysis and advocacy - not to mention any works he might produce from the private sector.
That would be a side benefit - he's so outspoken, and pretty blunt about it, that I don't think they'd be able to effectively muzzle him. Of course, he may wind up having to make a Snowden style exit because he has principles, but it'd be an interesting ride.
I agree with their objection.
What needs to be diminished is the NSA's work and its unique capabilities, not the emphasis.
Last edited by jdw on Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:11 am
Abdication is when a monarch, such as a king (or queen) or emperor (or empress) gives up or relinquishes his or her office and power.
Ms Megan Geuss, maybe you should review the headline . Including that word in the headline makes it look just silly and unprofessional
Okay, maybe I had a little too much Cynic Mate in my coffee today.
Edit: missing word(s)
Last edited by ColinABQ on Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:23 am
Our congress has a 15% approval rating which is so unbelievably low it sounds impossible. For reference a long long running Pew poll shows 20% of USA and Western Europe citizens believe the sun revolves around the earth. So more people believe that then approve of congress.
If our gov and congress want to gain credibility they can start by prosecuting insiders just like a regular citizen. Regular citizen lies to congress and goes to jail. Clapper and Alexander lie to congress and go to jail.
Very simple solution. The American people would greatly approve. The American people might be in shock for a moment and then would dance in the streets. The American people would be elated. All because of a simple act of justice. How about it congress.....are you up for decades more of horrific ratings or are you up for some simple justice?
As far as the government is concerned the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does, and in Smith v Maryland they decided that we have no constitutional right to privacy in metadata that we have voluntarily given to third parties.
I'm sure an organization as large as the NSA did make some mistakes, but I doubt there is really anything to prosecute him over. It's the law that needs to change, and if the law changes, the NSA will change. They may use any methods that the law permits, even if the public finds them unpalatable the NSA does generally do a good job of following the law. It's the law itself that needs to change.
Abdication is when a monarch, such as a king (or queen) or emperor (or empress) gives up or relinquishes his or her office and power.
Abdication is, indeed, the entirely wrong word, unless you're going to make a pun about it being a game of thrones or something.
Last edited by yesnomaybe on Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:41 am
I believe the author was using the word in a bit of a sarcastic manner. Likewise when the new NSA director takes office, it might be referred to as a 'coronation'. In this example, they aren't actually being crowned as a monarch, but instead it is a reference to the seemingly unbalanced power the position wields.
Using words in uncommon ways can add subtext to writing (even or maybe especially when they aren't used according to their Webster's definition). Subtle jabs can sometimes be more effective than throwing it in your face.
And what kind of payoffs they're getting. I'm guessing it can be pretty lucrative to be a national embarrassment sometimes.
Abdication is when a monarch, such as a king (or queen) or emperor (or empress) gives up or relinquishes his or her office and power.
Ms Megan Geuss, maybe you should review the headline . Including that word in the headline makes it look just silly and unprofessional
I think Alexander thinks himself to be in a similar situation. He even had a Star Trek bridge command center.
Okay, maybe I had a little too much Cynic Mate in my coffee today.
Edit: missing word(s)
I agree. I'm really hoping that the Guardian can pull something from the cache to make sure to nail him before he makes his escape.
Now let's go for the Triple Crown and make Clapper take a short walk. How many times has that man bald-faced lied to the Senate and Congress? I think I counted at least three times that I know of in the last year. The man lied even when he was given the questions in ADVANCE. When it comes to lying the man has no skills. (If you have an "enemy" that's incompetent, perhaps it's better to leave him in place so you can take advantage of him the next time.)
The problem is that the enemies of the US now know he's incompetent. A spy manager ought to be able to lie better than he can.
And to be sure NSA's incompetence in hiring and security clearances got us Edwin Snowden. Lucky us. A cracker with scruples. Exposure of the NSA and the CIA et al was accomplished with "tainted fruit". It's to be seen whether or not in the long run that anything will change and the US citizens' rights will be restored. The NSA has to change their process. The courts need to be more open and balanced. Was the exposure worth it to have all that technology exposed? Presumably our real enemies now know how to avoid the NSA listening in. The problem is: How many unknown mercenary contractor types might still be working at NSA and/or CIA and interested only in cash? As Manning and Snowden have shown us, it only takes one.
And by extension the populace from whom the government receives its authority.
And by extension the populace from whom the government receives its authority.
When the public is kept intentionally ignorant of the government's activities, it's hard to blame the public for what is done. Sure, there were some hints, but anyone who actually said publicly they believed the government was doing this level of spying was called a lunatic.
And by extension the populace from whom the government receives its authority.
A secret agency doing work that they aren't telling their overseers about and having their "warrants" and other "legal" writs issued by a secret court with no avenue for appeal, where does the information get to the typical voter?
To have the blame be cast on the voters, they need to have actually aware of the extent of the NSA's transgressions. With Congress and the Senate, the Executive branch and Judicial branch all doing everything they could to cover it up, how does Joe SixPack make an informed complaint?
I believe the author was using the word in a bit of a sarcastic manner. Likewise when the new NSA director takes office, it might be referred to as a 'coronation'. In this example, they aren't actually being crowned as a monarch, but instead it is a reference to the seemingly unbalanced power the position wields.
Using words in uncommon ways can add subtext to writing (even or maybe especially when they aren't used according to their Webster's definition). Subtle jabs can sometimes be more effective than throwing it in your face.
I do not think that author was being sarcastic, or at least not with that kind of sarcasm please! . I think that the author simply does not know very well the definition of the word abdication, that is why i pasted it .
You must login or create an account to comment.