[redahs]

Could this problem be fixed by splitting the NSA into two competing agencies, one handling offensive signals intelligence, and one handling cryptography research and disclosures?

Intuitively it seems when the same agency performs both roles it creates a conflict of interest and bias against disclosure.

[H4CK3RM4N]

But then your second branch ends up looking(to the government at least) a lot like a research program instead of anything meaningful in terms of intelligence.

[madez]

Research can be counter-intelligence, and thus intelligence.

[pstuart]

How about a third agency that focuses on securing our digital infrastructure?

[labster]

Then we'd need a fourth agency to coordinate between them, and don't forget the fifth agency in charge of oversight.

[kahnpro]

And don't forget to give all the money and power to the offensive agency, while keeping the oversight agency to an intern in a broom closet somewhere.

[Mz]

I actually approve of your plans to keep the oversight agency really minimal.

That government is best which governs least.

[EGreg]

Sounds good to me

[TeMPOraL]

How about NSA just does this, per its name, and the offensive signals intelligence gets handled by the CIA?

[willstrafach]

CIA is primarily HUMINT (and intel triage, covert operations, etc) so their focus is going to be on the end points for individual targets. SIGINT is a gigantic field and a shift like this would essentially just a merger of NSA's SID into CIA while leaving NSA with just IAD.

Genuinely curious, what would be the gain in doing that?