Daily Archives: April 5, 2017

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Tuesday, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice broke her silence over this weeks stunning reports that she requested the names of Trump campaign and transition officials be demasked from National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts.

It was an awkward interview. Rice confirmed that she requested the demasking of Americans while she was National Security Adviser. While Rice would not deny that she asked that names of Trump officials be demasked, she insisted the Obama administration did not spy on Mr. Trump or his staff for political purposes. She also offered some questionable explanations for the demasking process.

As a former CIA analyst who has handled requests for demasking the names of American citizens for a U.S. policymaker, I thought Rices claims in her interview did not add up.

The names of U.S. citizens incidentally mentioned in NSA reports are masked to preserve their identities because Americas intelligence agencies are barred from spying on American citizens except in extraordinary circumstances with court approval.

Rice correctly said in her interview that policymakers sometimes request to know the identities of Americans from NSA reports to understand these reports in certain circumstances. She also tried to dismiss this controversy by claiming NSA demasking requests are routine.

They actually are not routine and taken very seriously by NSA.

Rice also said there is an Intelligence Community process to review whether to approve demasking requests. This seemed to be an attempt by Rice to make her requests look legitimate because NSA carefully reviewed them.

In fact, this review is pro forma. If a senior official gives what appears to be a national security reason, demasking requests are almost always approved.

Rices interview came amid a growing controversy that the Obama administration abused U.S. intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign and leak intelligence to the press to hurt Trump. This included the illegal leaking of General Michael Flynns name from an NSA report and press reports that the Obama administration in its final weeks lowered the threshold for access to NSA information and spread intelligence about Russian interference in the election and alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign throughout the government.

Also factor in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nuness disclosure in a March 22 press conference that the names of Trump campaign or transition officials were demasked from NSA reports that had nothing to do with Russia or alleged wrongdoing by the Trump campaign.

Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake confirmed this in a bombshell April 3 report in which he said the demasked reports contained valuable political information on the Trump transition. Lake also broke the story that Rice asked for the demaskings in this report.

An April 3 Daily Caller report that Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce detailed spreadsheets of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president makes this story more interesting. Rice denied this allegation during her MSNBC interview.

Rices denials dont add up. It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated. While it was legal for her to do this, it was highly unethical and would be a huge scandal if a Republican senior official sought the names of Democratic political opponents from U.S. intelligence reports.

My guess is that Rices demasking requests were on behalf of the Obama National Security Council and were part of a broad campaign that began in early 2016 to abuse U.S. intelligence to hurt the Trump candidacy and then his presidency.

It wouldnt surprise me if former Deputy National Security Council Ben Rhodes was deeply involved in this campaign.

Despite determined efforts by the mainstream media to stamp out this story, the smoke of this scandal continues to grow.

Susan Rices interview Tuesday added more smoke.

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of "Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests" (Praeger, May 30, 2002).

See the article here:
Former CIA Analyst: Susan Rice's NSA demasking denials don't add up - Fox News

Courtesy of NSA

Yul Williams is the technical director for the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, working with computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to develop new technologies in the cybersecurity field that will assist the agency in its intelligence operations. In a conversation with Tom Fox, Williams described an NSA idea incubation technique that has led to many innovations. Fox is a guest writer for On Leadership and the vice president for leadership and innovation at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your main area of focus at the National Security Agency?

My work is centered on cybersecurity, and its mostly of a defensive nature. We are trying to gather ideas from the workforce that we can develop and implement to enhance our overall mission. Our CYBERx incubation model provides a venue where anyone in the workforce can present concepts to an audience of senior leaders that may have the potential to affect the manner in which we conduct business.

If I am an NSA employee and I have an idea, how do I get it to you?

We developed a crowdsourcing tool that is available to the NSA workforce. The workforce can look at the idea submitted and vote for or against it. They can leave comments saying why an idea is great or that it has been tried before. Afterward, a group known as the Innovators In Residence reviews the idea and decides how we can bring it into the incubation stage.

What happens next?

We guarantee the idea champion will have an audience within four weeks with the Innovators in Residence, which will make the determination whether the idea should move to the next stage. The group makes a list of all the good and bad things about the idea. The focus is mostly on the negative comments because they surface the institutional fears as to why the idea hasnt been implemented before. Our emphasis is on proving why those fears are unfounded. If the idea champion cannot overcome those concerns, the idea dies on the spot. We refer to this concept as a fast failure, and it limits the energy expanded on ideas with low mission potential. If the idea has merit, the group helps the idea champion develop a pitch that can be used to convince the organization of the value of the idea to the bottom line.

What happens if an idea passes that phase?

The idea champion is given an audience with the RIP or the Resource Investment Panel that is made up of NSA senior leaders who run organizations and have staff. Instead of giving funding for the first round of development, we ask the RIP to loan a resource to the project. For example, a resource may be an analyst who might have skill in microelectronics or optoelectronics. Once the RIP concurs, it provides resources to the idea champion who then has up to five months to conduct experiments. During that phase, the idea champion must periodically meet with the RIP and explain the experiments status. If all of the requirements are satisfied, the idea champion meets with the same panel, now called the Strategic Investment Panel or SIP. The SIP must come to a consensus about turning the idea into a product and deploying it.

How many ideas on average go through this process?

There are around 117 ideas percolating in the crowdsourcing process.

Can your approach be adopted by other agencies?

I would strongly encourage other federal agencies to adopt an incubation model. I am shocked at the amount of interest employees have in lending their ideas to make us a better agency. You should see the passion that people bring to the table and the pride they have when their idea makes it to the end of the incubation model or is even considered. We dont attribute failure of an idea as a personal failure. We celebrate that the person was willing to step away from what they do on a daily basis and take an idea through the process.

Tell me about your management philosophy or management style.

My leadership style is to respect the professionalism of the people I work with. I learned long ago that if youre working with low-skilled people, it is more direction-oriented. In this environment, we have very professional people, so you want to leverage what they have to offer and challenge them to do things that they did not believe were possible. I find that people always exceed their own expectations.

Have you learned any important leadership lessons during your time as a manager?

One of the lessons I learned is to always seek out others who have more experience in areas where you may be lacking so you can consider a wider range of ideas. It is important to confer with a diverse set of people who you can bounce ideas off of and those that help you to grow as a professional and as a person.

Read also:

A Harvard professor on the five questions to ask when facing tough decisions

Like On Leadership? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.

Go here to see the original:
Yul Williams on fostering innovation at the NSA - Washington Post

Wikileaks recent dump of classified information related to the CIAs secret hacking operations has once again sparked a conversation about privacy in the digital age. While similar secret surveillance programs like the NSAs PRISM have been in the public eye for years, other government agencies thatmishandle millions of Americans private information in the light of day are often left unchecked.

Take the U.S. Census Bureau, for example. Since 2005, Census has selected approximately three million Americans annually to complete the American Community Survey (ACS), collecting information on the nations demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics. While theres no question that the ACS collects some valuable information, the intrusive nature of the survey and the poor security measures with which Census handles respondents personal information should be a cause for concern no less sothan any surveillance by the CIA or NSA.

The methods used by Census Bureau employees can vary in the degree to which they violate a persons privacy. Some may only receive letters in the mail, appealing to the persons sense of community, with a veiled threat if they do not comply. Others have received a personal visit from a Census employee, often resulting in pressure or downright intimidation to complete the survey.

Take Kimberly Hayes of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. After being threatened with a fine by mail for refusing to fill out the form because some of the questions made her uncomfortable, a man sent by Census visited her home unannounced in the hopes of getting her to complete the ACS. The man started walking around and was looking in windows, according to Hayes.

If this gentleman had been trying to conduct a survey on behalf of a companys marketing department, Hayes could have told him to get lost without fear of repercussions. She might even have been able to prosecute him for trespassing. So long as the ACS exists, however, the letter of the law is against people like Hayes. If our government treated its citizens with the respect that companies reserve for their customers, violations of privacy would be far less frequent.

Unfortunately, our government is more often a technological laggard than a pathbreaker. Census has been remarkably slow in following the private sectors civilizing example. Recipients who fail to fill out the online ACS are sent a paper copy that they are asked to return in the mail, chock-full of personal information that could be damaging in the wrong hands. Questions range from the embarrassing (e.g. Question 18b, Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?) to the dangerous (e.g. Question 33, What time did this person usually leave home to go to work last week?).

Furthermore, the Census database is vulnerable. It has already been hacked into as recently as 2015. While Census tried to reassure nervous Americans that survey information remains safe, secure and on an internal network, bureaucrats dont always follow internal safety protocols. In 2011, the State Department operated an internal network that broke federal standards and may have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers according to the Associated Press.

Many ACS answers are already compromised by design. On the Bureaus microdata website, anyone can download data of anonymous individualized ACS responses for areas with as few as 600 people. The only defense against those who might use ACS data for nefarious purposes is the bolded command: Use it for GOOD never for EVIL.

There are better ways to acquire sensitive information while protecting the privacy of citizens. For instance, in Europe, there are many viable census models already in place that drastically reduce privacy violations, and are more cost effective to boot.

The Netherlands, Slovenia, and Austria are among eight European countries that obtain census data without employing costly survey employees to harass their constituents. These countries use models that only process data from what other government agencies have already collected, so there is no added risk of privacy violations from mandatory and redundant surveys. The monetary and psychological costs of harassment suggest that we should look for foreign alternatives, perhaps even outside any government solution.

If the destruction of the ACS does indeed leave a void in the market for knowledge, then a private company could fill this gap, while heeding a mandate to respect our privacy. The fact of the matter is that our government has rarely prioritized the right to privacy for American citizens, regardless of which party is in power.

The benefits of the ACS have been greatly exaggerated, especially when we consider viable alternatives. The monetary costs of the ACS, while excessive at over $1.3 billion per year, are nothing compared to the psychological damage done to three million Americans annually. Our right to privacy has been offered up by our government on the altar of the common good. Americans who love their liberty should support replacing the ACS with a more conscientious alternative.

Census collection c. 1940 (Wikimedia Commons)

See more here:
CIA, NSA Aren't the Only Federal Agencies Violating Privacy - American Spectator

By Saralyn Lyons

National security is undergoing a tectonic shift in the 21st century, Gen. Michael Hayden said Tuesday during a discussion at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Haydenformer director of the NSA, the CIA, and a principal deputy director of national intelligence who served during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrationswarned that intelligence and security agencies not only face growing threats of cyberattacks and terror attacks, but also what he called "macro" issues that include a shakeup of the major players on the world stage.

Gen. Michael Hayden

Former NSA, CIA director

"We're kind of seeing the meltdown of the post-WWI [Treaty of] Versailles," he told Vali Nasr, dean of SAIS, who moderated the conversation. "The colonially created countries, which were always a bit artificial and held in place by a brand of autocracy that is no longer en vogue, will not survive."

Hayden predicted that the conflict in the Middle East will likely lead to the creation of entirely new nation-states in the region based on ideology rather than historical borders.

"That world that's falling away? It's got the stamp 'Made in America' on it," he said. "It is the product of American statecraft, and frankly was sustained by American power for 75 years."

Hayden warned against myopic forms of national defensestrategies that fail to address macro issues. The chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday is an example of an act of terror that deserves an investigation and strategic response, but he said that it pales in comparison to what he considers an "existential" threatthe prospect that "Syria doesn't exist anymore, and it's not coming back."

To help illustrate his point, he drew an imaginary graph in the air, with the X axis representing the timeline of a security threat, and the Y axis representing the severity. He said that issues such as cyberattacks and terrorism don't rate high on either axis, and gestured toward the bottom corner of the graph where the X and Y meet.

And yet, he said, those issues dominated his work at the CIA.

"Driven by the urgency and the immediacy of the threat, I was down in that corner," he said. "And now I fearto get modestly political on youI fear we have a political leadership whose attention is really down there, too, and that's going to make it hard to get us up here to the macro issues."

Those crucial issues, Hayden said, include the U.S. relationship with China, and the North Korean nuclear program.

"The Sino-American relationship's success or failure will broadly define how bright or how dark the 21st century is," he said. But that relationship is complicated by North Korea, which he called, among other things, "ambitious, brittle, and nuclear."

North Korea, Hayden said, only exists because of its nuclear program, which the U.S. works to counter in part by deploying anti-ballistic missile systems to South Korea. China, however, fears the collapse of North Korea, because it could lead to a refugee crisis, loss of control over North Korea's nuclear weapons, and the possibility of an American-friendly South Korean army mobilized in the region.

"My overly simplified metaphor is that North Korea is a bad toothache, and [the Chinese] know it's a bad toothache, and we keep saying, 'You know, you really should go in for a root canal,' and they keep saying, 'I'm just going to take some aspirin,'" Hayden said. "We have not yet convinced them of the dental discomfort to a sufficient level to begin to take more dramatic action [against North Korea]."

North Korea is among the big issues that Hayden said he gets asked about frequentlyquestions about what keeps him up at night.

"Before the end of President Trump's current term, the North Koreans will probably be able to reach Seattle with an indigenously produced nuclear weapon aboard an indigenously produced intercontinental ballistic missile," he said. "I know it's a low-probability shot, but what kind of odds are you comfortable with?"

Read this article:
Former NSA, CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden points to 'tectonic shifts' in national security - The Hub at Johns Hopkins

ISLAMABAD: National Security Adviser (NSA) Lt General Nasser Janjua while meeting a British delegation said that the United Kingdom was unfortunately, preferring individuals over state relationship.

A seven-member British Parliamentary delegation while visiting discussed regional and global issues with Janjua, which were significant for both Pakistan and United Kingdom (UK).

The visiting delegation exchanged views on matters pertaining to further enhancing bilateral cooperation, a press release said.

The NSA said Pakistan highly values its relationship with the UK which has a strategic character and stressed the need for further improving the understanding between the two countries to strengthen ties and exploring more areas of cooperation.

The members of delegation sought the opinion of NSA on many serious issues and challenges faced both by the UK and Pakistan.

The NSA briefed them at length about the rise of extreme thought, extremism, conflict in Muslim world, rise of Daish, resilience and sacrifices of Pakistani nation, seeking closure of overall conflictual situations in the region and world, control and restraints of social media to curb spread of extremism and implementation of National Action Plan.

The delegation specially broached the subject of Altaf Hussain, relationship with India, Kashmir dispute and India's threat to stop water for Pakistan.

The NSA elaborately explained how the UK was, unfortunately, preferring individuals over state relationship.

In addition to Altaf Hussain, he mentioned some Baloch leaders who find their safe abode in the UK.

Referring to India, he explained how the fragile security architecture of the region was fast becoming under stress and had started to suffer from serious imbalance.

The NSA also urged the UK to have a balanced regional approach as the imbalance in the region was becoming critical which needed to be retrieved and restored immediately.

The NSA also apprised the delegates of a greater and brighter future which Pakistan holds by providing largest geo-strategic connectivity to the world.

The leader of the delegation said the UK understood and acknowledged the role of Pakistan against terrorism.

The members of the delegation also appreciated the resilience of Pakistani nation against terrorism and wished to strengthen and diversify relations with Pakistan to face the challenges of future together.

Read the original post:
NSA Janjua says UK providing safe abode to MQM founder, Baloch leaders - Geo News, Pakistan