[jholman]

Argh. Important subject material, crappy article, lots of confusion, argh argh argh.

TL;DR: everything about the WAY this story was reported is an obvious deception.

First, methodology. This is blogspam that adds nothing to the original article at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF9BC1BF-34EB-41... (at least they link it). That article, in turn, cites no sources. So I'm basing the following only on those articles.

Also, let me be clear that I'm anti-immunity in general, and I think that the UsGov behaviour in Hepting vs AT&T is reprehensible, and no one should ever vote for any lawmaker who voted in favour of FISA, for that reason alone.

Okay, let's take it apart.

If you read TOA, it specifically says Alexander specifically claims he's not asking for blanket immunity. So the title is linkbait. Fuck you techdirt, for sabotaging the cause of freedom; now if/when Alexander/NSA replies to this article, he can avoid the issue by denying your false allegation. Don't muddy the waters.

Next, the context is not explicitly about spying at all. Not at all. Zero mention of spying. Oh look, the headilne is linkbait twice over. Fuck you twice over, techdirt. I can only conclude that Mike Masnick is either illiterate, or a liar.

ALSO, while Alexander is the head of the NSA, and while the NSA and the USCYBERCOM are deeply in bed, they is still some distinction, and this really sounds more like a USCYBERCOM thing than an NSA thing.

Next, listen, the only legitimate reason for cops to exist is to protect the populace. And if there's ONE thing that I trust Alexander about, it's the fact that at least some people want to fuck with US companies and US infrastructure (he's probably lying about the scale, and basically everything else). If SinoGov, or crazy terrorists, or AnonSecOfTheWeek, or whatever, attack US Companies, and private enterprise can't cope, it's reasonable for USGov to fight on behalf of Americans and American companies, and that might include giving them advice on cybersecurity, and that might involve giving them the equivalent of virus definitions, and saying "block all traffic that matches this signature and you'll be in better shape". This is legit. This is a strong argument. He goes on to say that if companies obey the NSA and turn out to harm someone with it, they should be immune. Okay, this part I disagree with. But seriously, of all the horrible asshole claims the NSA has made lately, this one is about as reasonable as it gets.

That said, I'd argue against such immunity. If the companies act in good faith with due diligence, what do they have to lose? And if they don't do due diligence, fuck them... what kind of moron trusts the fucking NSA?

As for counter-hacking, sooner or later the law is going to have to address it. And it's going to be difficult. And they should fucking get started, and proceed slowly and cautiously.

EDIT: slight touch-up on TLDR

[LoganCale]

> ALSO, while Alexander is the head of the NSA, and while the NSA and the USCYBERCOM are deeply in bed, they is still some distinction, and this really sounds more like a USCYBERCOM thing than an NSA thing.

Keith Alexander is the Director of the NSA, Chief of the Central Security Service, and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.

[jholman]

Yes, that was my point, though I may have been unclear. There's lots of describing him as the head of the NSA (both by techdirt and by politico), but I suspect that that was misleading, because I suspect that he made these statements as head of USCYBERCOM.

Maybe I misunderstand the division of responsibilities, but AIUI, the NSA limits themselves pretty absolutely to spying, and actually going out and doing things (like telling companies to block certain packets, which allegedly might cause that company to need immunity (ha!)) is not really an NSA thing.

[anigbrowl]

Fuck you techdirt

I've had that reaction so many times now that I eventually stopped clicking on any story from there. All they ever do is pander to their readers' preconceptions. With friends like these, we don't need enemies.

[danielweber]

With friends like these, we don't need enemies.

An online colleague once coined Japhy's Law. It says: "The facts you really want to be true are those you should be most skeptical of." It should be written on every blog.

[angersock]

Yep. That's my feeling about them in a nutshell--even if they might occasionally find something worth outrage, it's mixed in with so much other noise that I can't take them seriously.

[driverdan]

If you see blogspam like this flag it. It doesn't deserve the traffic.

[znowi]

I applaud your zeal in the pursuit of fairness, but it's NSA that is on the spot. There's no fair game when it comes to national security. At least not for the public.

Alexander would not be heading the agency if he bluntly asked for blanket immunity or talked about spying on citizens. (How much was said about PRISM?) The article deduced what is possible within the proposal. And knowing some history, I say it's likely to happen.

So yes, it is biased and baity, but hardly prompts a "fuckety fuck" rant :)

[jholman]

Minor quibble #1: Alexander has roles other than the NSA, and techdirt invented the NSA connection without evidence. See my cousin comment about USCYBERCOM.

Minor quibble #2: "blanket immunity" and "spying on citizens" are deliberate fabrications of what was proposed. Separate paragraphs "deduc[ing] what is possible" would be well-and-good, but actually saying he said things that he definitely didn't say is not okay.

KEY POINT: When it comes out that Alexander/NSA/whatever didn't commit/advocate the particular abuses/crimes that some liar (e.g. Masnick) said they were committing, no one will believe you and me when we tell them the truth. And the truth is BAD ENOUGH!

Dishonest shysters posing as journalists always rates a "fuckety fuck" rant.