skynet
and so it begins...
The NSA has announced its brainwave to end further leaks about its secret operations by disaffected employees: it will simply sack 90 per cent of all its sysadmins. The US surveillance agency's spyboss General Keith Alexander told a computer security conference in New York that automating much of his organisation's work - such …
"My first thought was about the old tabletop RPG "Paranoia""
My first thought was about the hundreds of administrators that were sent to Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan to clean up the 2008 cyberattack and their month long effort to clean up multiple networks from the malware that was exfiltrating data to a foreign power.
And the sacking of them over the actions of one prima dona.
Oh well, they can just spend a year cleaning up the mess next time.
In the film, Enemy of the State, the whole story seems to revolve around an AI gone mad, when in fact it is the AI that is defending the constitution and trying to effect a regime change to stop the traitors (i.e. the current government).
In the end the traitors win and turn off the machine, and the people lost.
Starting to sound more like a documentary every day.
Coat please, I want off this stinking rock. Where's my spaceship already!?
I think your spaceship is being built by Section 31. I'm just not sure whether the Temporal Integrity Commission has allowed Section 31 to stay in one or more than one timeline. You'll just have to wade into the stream and hope to find it.
I think you might have got the wrong film. "Enemy of the State" was a Will Smith vehicle, with the added bonus of Gene Hackman turning up in basically the same paranoid character role as he played in the 'The Conversation', but twenty years later. I think you may be thinking of "Colossus: The Forbin Project" from 1970.
(Paris - because there is a French Connection here somewhere - can you see what I did?).
"n the film, Enemy of the State, the whole story seems to revolve around an AI gone mad, when in fact it is the AI that is defending the constitution and trying to effect a regime change to stop the traitors (i.e. the current government)."
Right idea, wrong movie.
The film you're thinking of is "Eagle Eye."
Yes that is an anorak.
"In the film, Enemy of the State, the whole story seems to revolve around an AI gone mad, when in fact it is the AI that is defending the constitution and trying to effect a regime change to stop the traitors (i.e. the current government)."
Wrong film d00d, it's "Eagle Eye" you're talking about and yes, that is indeed the first thing that came out of my mind when reading this article. And the Paranoia game. And Terminator. AI seems to screw up constantly, doesn't it?
The fun thing is that the AI was kinda right, though its methods were a bit too extreme.
Just to help complete the running total of AI's that went off their trollies and decided to get even for some imagined slight, may I introduce the contributors to "Demon Seed" by Dean R. Koontz, and the often humorous and quite enjoyable "The Family D'Alembert" series by Stephen Goldin with some help from Old Doc Smith.
Fictional artificial intelligences rarely fare well. I wonder if that's something our masters and would-be owners should consider. After all, the greatest threat to the all-powerful machine would be its immediate human associates, those very same masters and owners. They may not be much of a threat, but if you are aiming to live forever *any* threat is too many.
ET because that's basically what the silicon overlord will be if we ever make one.
There's also several Philip K Dick stories to refer to:-
The Defenders - robots on the surface, pretending that the war is still raging, keep humans underground so that they do not engage in actual war
Second Variety - what we might now call "drones" are built to self-replicate and kill enemy soldiers, but develop so effectively that they kill both sides, and are so deceptive that they manage to find out where the last remnant of mankind is hiding on the moon
Probably more that I have forgotten...
Before Snowden the money spent on fleshies to handle data made the agency look more important. With Snowden breaching his contract's security requirement, it is now blatantly obvious they have a security issue that has to be fixed. Even at the cost of not looking as important at budget time.
An NHS Trust I worked for had 17 IT Staff as Business as Usual support to ~6000 users on windows. That's 352 users per admin.
Which OS you use is an irrelevance. What matters is competence. Competent people automate things as a matter of course, (un)trained monkeys think the only way of dealing with a problem is to throw massive amounts of manpower resources at it because they don't have the skills to do anything else.
The thing you got wrong in your post was the part about "untrained monkeys think the only way of dealing with a problem is to throw massive amounts of manpower resources at it". It is more that they don't know any way of dealing with a problem other than dealing with it.
The main difference is that bad admins deal with a problem and once dealt with, go on the next problem. They like having the same problem constantly happen, because they know how to deal with it, it gives them visibility and the boss knows they're working, and they don't have to learn anything new. Good admins deal with a problem, and once dealt with continue dealing with it. In order of preference:
- fix the root cause so it never recurs
- partially fix the root cause to mitigate its impact to something you can log and ignore
- automate the "dealing with it" part so people aren't necessary to fix it when it recurs
- automate the monitoring so a ticket can be created automatically for the level 1 or level 2 guys to that tells them what the problem is and what steps that need to be followed, so they don't escalate it your way
The American people are indeed the greatest threat to them. But they'll soon subdue them. They're already herding protesters at presidential appearances into out of the way "Free Speech Zones," which effectively violate the freedoms of speech and assembly that US citizens are supposed to enjoy under their constitution. Now their right to privacy is being undermined.
The American people had better do something soon...
There will be carbon-based guards (not reinforced tungsten carbide guards with treads and flesh-searing-lasers/masers), just to make it possible to levy "murder" charges when one of these silos is flooded, gassed, or set alight (or, if you have a transporter, aloft). It's just that the guards do not truly understand how expendable they are.
Maybe in that case, if that is the ONLY reason they are there, they should thus know just how expendable they are, and maybe the WON'T be cried for.
First he wanted to double the number to sys admins to make it more secure. Now he wants to get rid of 90% of them. I guess someone whispered in his ear that is would be cheaper.
Well, I have a even better solution: why don't you decrease your world-wide data vacuuming by 90% (and actually do what your agency is supposed to do). This has several advantages:
- cuts costs
- you don't break the law
- 90% less chance less of leaks
- you don't piss every on Earth off so much
Alexander isn't in control of his agency. He hasn't had a clue since day one of the whole Snowden affair. He's been all over the board, saying contradictory things and flat out being a dumbass. At first I thought he was being clever and covering up other things, but no. He's just a dumbass and needs to be replaced.
I don't believe changing the leader will change their policies and directives, but I do believe it would change their terrible internal operations and management. The guy has dropped every ball he's been handed since this began. Even though I think what the NSA is doing is awful, they don't have to look like a bunch of clowns while doing it.
No matter what you're doing, do it right. That's doubly true if you've got a nearly unlimited off books budget and no real legal framework to hold you back.
affweifhsdfnv]'[fgniv]'oinwn]'[ion]oinwef
or maybe not.
There is nothing better anyone who wanted - for whatever reason - to best the NSA could have, than a completely automated, mechanical, unwavering, unerring system in place. Because once you remove the human element, you're effectively betting your machines are better than human minds.
Anyone here willing to make the same bet ?
Does anyone recall the film "Who Dares Wins" where the SAS soldier who has infiltrated the terrorist cell manges to persuade them to do everything that helps the anti-terrorist units. Such as getting the terrorists to gather all the hostages into a central location (which makes it easier for the good guys to evacuate them). The terrorists aren't stupid, and tell the agent they'd heard the best way was to split up, and scatter the hostages. The agent smiles and says "that's what they want you to think. It helps them, as it means you're too spread out to fight effectively" (or words to that effect).
I think the NSA have just been scammed.
Estimates are that the NSA has around 30k-40k employees.
Having 1000 system admins for that seems a little extreme anyway! I'd say a sustainable level would be closer to 200 sysadmins for that number of employees (obviously organised into a tiered structure).
However, my guess is that they have the admins split into small teams with no crossover between systems for security reasons.
Reducing the number of them actually sounds like it might increase risk - as the more concentrated workforce will have greater access to systems.
The article states that Snowden + 1000 other sysadmins had access to the data, not that there are 1000 sysadmins at the NSA in total.
But what I keep thinking about is this: So 90% of the admins are tossed out the door, what will the NSA do if the remaining 10% give the NSA the finger and follow after their chums? Then you'll have 39,000 employees who don't know how to work the servers.
User name : POTUS
Password: Bigu55D1ckus
Access denied - this system has determined that a meatbag has tried to access the site. Please remain calm. A reaper missile has been lanched on your rebel base location identified as "Teh Whit houze". Have nice day. Here's a picture of a cat wearing a turban to brighten your last moments on earth.
At secure US facilities you are let go at the security shack when you come in to work. You always know people are getting let go when there's a civilian (HR drone) and extra security at the guard shack in the morning.
Your belongings are mailed to you after they've been reviewed. You never get close to the building again.
Getting let go at the gate is all well and good to prevent disgruntled employees removing stuff after being fired.
Unless they plan to fire all 90% when they show up for work on Monday (and just keep their weekends crews as the 10% remaining), however, then announcing it loudly days/weeks/months in advance, seems like a brilliant way to undermine the above mentioned security procedure.
Infosys has announced that it has secured a major US Government Contract.
"To facilitate US Government cost efficiency savings, Infosys are proud to announce we're the sole offshored centre for administration of key US Government security systems. You can be rest assured that security and professionalism are at our core values"
....
"Hello <crackle, hiss>, I am "Bob" calling from Windows support, there is a problem with your computer"
"Umm, really, OK"
"Yes, <pop, snap>, Normally we try to install some malware on your PC at this point <zzsttzzzz> But your NSA has paid us to do it already"
"What?"
"So we already know your bank details, social security number, and what you like to do in your own home. Your tax dollars at work <hissss>"
"At the end of the day it's about people and trust," Gen Alexander added. "No one [at the NSA] has wilfully or knowingly disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies. There were no mistakes like that at all."
If that's the case, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying ....
He either believes his own hype or is a straight-up lying bastard. Guess where the smart money is ...
OK, subject says it all. I doubt these systems administrators are there to ensure confidentiality, they're there for the purposes of availability. Until the systems are reliable enough, scalable enough, etc. they will not be parsing 900 sysadmins.
@localzuk The accepted rate has always been 1 admin per 25 employees. Obviously there are some economies of scale to be achieved here but given the amount of data they're slurping, I would imaging a significant proportion of those admins are purely employed in adding storage and processing nodes.
One final point - the confidentiality that the NSA is referring t - that of the data it is collecting - is *NOT* the data leaked by Snowden, AFAIAA, he has only leaked methods and operational information, not subject information.
I use to dream of staff ratios like that. My last place was closer to 1:250 with me being the 1. So glad I don't work there anymore as the Finance Director decided he knew more about IT than anyone else on the planet and moved all the services to the cheapest cloud provider he could find. I understand my replacement spends more time off sick than he does in the office due to the stress of dealing with a boss who has zero people skills, an ego with its own gravitational field and a pretty serious sociopathic disorder.
Eeee, I used to dream of 'avin' a staff ratio of 1:250. In my day, I 'ad to service 500 pcs on me own, then go down t'pit for 8 hours before coming up, being given a cold lump of coal to eat and finally being beaten to death by me dad just before bedtime.
Sorry, went a little Monty Python there.
Regarding the NSA, I think either the NSA is being very clever or very stupid doing this. Think about it. They are talking about getting rid of 900 people who have intimate knowledge of at least parts of the NSA's systems. Even if the NSA follows best practice and removes any access these people have immediately (either by disabling accounts or changing passwords), then the foreign intelligence agencies are going to be very interested in talking to at least some of the 900.
The NSA probably know this, so, I would hope, are taking measures to protect these people. On the other hand, it could be a bluff to smoke out other intelligence agencies.
own fault
Why did they outsource a key resource to a private company?
if they kept all the sysadmins in house, then you can hit them with official secrets acts if they do something as stupid as snowden, plus you may be able to vet them better than a private company would.
Or is it about private companies suckling at the government teat because certain people have been paid off to make that sort of decision?
Why did they outsource a key resource to a private company?
They learned from Wall Street: If you need to break the law on a massive scale and still keep your nose clean in front of a hearing then all you have to do is to provide incentives for the behaviour you want and let god do his work.
The big reason is that it's popular for Administrations to show they are shrinking the size of the Federal Government. So they get rid of a staff and hire contractors, even though it costs more. They still get to say they shrunk the government.
It's all bullshit and it's been going on at a large scale since Reagan. It is one of the leading factors in why even though government head count has been falling their costs keep climbing.
The first thing that came to mind was Dr Chandra's explanation of Hal9000's psychosis in A.C.Clarke's book 2010.
"This contradiction created a "Hofstadter-Moebius loop, reducing HAL to paranoia. Therefore, HAL made the decision to kill the crew, thereby allowing him to obey both his hardwired instructions to report data truthfully and in full, and his orders to keep the monolith a secret. In essence: if the crew were dead, he would no longer have to keep the information secret."
Sounds like a win/win argument to me.
Instead of 1% of the 100% being dodgy, you end up with 100% being dodgy.
Anyone knows security is achieved by educating, motivating and caring for the admins and layering the security to deter, prevent and detect theft. Simply removing 90% of the risk does not eliminate 90% of the risk.
Gen Alexander:
"At the end of the day it's about people and trust," Gen Alexander added. "No one [at the NSA] has wilfully or knowingly disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies. There were no mistakes like that at all."
One day this will make it into the Oxford English Dictionary as the definition of "chutzpah".
Exec #1: "Yeah, you should have been there! We told Alexander that the Snoop-a-Tron 7000 would be ready on time and able to replace his sysadmins--AND HE BELIEVED IT!" (Much laughter)
Exec #2: "And of course this is a win-win for our Total Package strategy. We quote the system for a couple billion, and then when the cost overruns and delays begin we have the Consulting Division jump in with 900 sysadmins on our payroll, offered at a 40% margin on their salary!" (clapping)
Exec #3: "Yeah, we are already planning the actual deployment cycle for the Snoop-a-Tron. We figure we can go four years late and $5 billion over budget without losing the contract."
Exec #4: "Well, with those numbers we can expect the Cyber Division to hit its numbers for at least the next 8 years. That's a lot of bonuses around this table!" (clapping)
Exec #5: "We need to think about the cost to the taxpayer for all this. And what about the ethics of putting a machine incapable of moral decision at the center of key human rights issues like privacy? And there is no way the Snoop-a-Tron's programming will be able to flexibly react to cyberattacks and security breaches!" (silence)
CEO: "Thanks for spoiling the mood, Bill... Next, I want to discuss who will be heading up the Janitorial Division. We all know about the new contract coming down with Army Latrine Command. Bill--you seem to be full of good ideas today....."
"At the end of the day it's about people and trust," Gen Alexander added. "No one [at the NSA] has wilfully or knowingly disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies. There were no mistakes like that at all."
That no one has called BULLSHIT on this ass clown.
So I'm assuming for the idea that Machines will be doing the work of employees - the NSA seem to think it's not an invasion of privacy if only the machines see the information? If the current way of doing things is to dig deeper when you "feel" there might be a reason to - Machines don't have this ability - so the only way they can achieve the same result is to process ALL information - meaning information that currently supposedly the NSA have to get court approval to dig into - the Machines would be able to dig into without court approval??
"No one [at the NSA] has wilfully or knowingly disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies. There were no mistakes like that at all."
Because they changed the law and kept it a secret! They didn't try to invade your privacy, they succeeded. Plus it wasn't by mistake, they intended to do it.
Well, they don't control the nukes, but I hope everyone gets at least CAKE and a rendition of "I want you gone" before the facility is turned over to the Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System.
Goodbye, my only friend,
Oh, did you think I meant you?
That would be funny if it weren’t so sad,
Well you have been replaced,
I don’t need anyone now,
When I delete you maybe I’ll stop feeling so bad.
Go make some new disaster,
That’s what I’m counting on,
You’re someone else’s problem,
Now I only want you gone,
Now I only want you gone,
Now I only want you gone.
I have nothing to hide and I'm damn glad that authorities are using all available means to combat crime and terrorism. Unless you are a crim, you have nothing to fear. Authorities could not care less what is in your e-mail. All they care about is stopping the crims and that's a noble cause IMO.
" Pre-announcing that you are going to eliminate 90% of the people that run your systems? I predict that this will not end will for the puzzle palace. "
Everyone here is overlooking the obvious. They have problem people, Too moral and ethical to do the job, but devious enough to appear compliant.
So, what better way to smoke them out than to announce you're culling 90%, then closely monitor them to see who does what in response?
Devious, on a rather primitive level. Futile, because it just spurs the less bright and revenge motivated to action, but the ones that they're after will just play along... waiting.
"You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. "
This is how the US Government is thinking. We can't be trusted to think for ourselves and everything they do is for OUR protection.
I'd rather live a little more dangerously and take responsibility for my own actions/decisions.
Best wishes on keeping what you earned.
A subject Joseph Stalin understood quite well.
What makes anyone think that body cavity searching them going in and out will stop any mischief they plan.
Fail for such clumsy execution of a mass sacking.
But I quite like this thought.
Stop for a moment stranger passing by, here the 900, pursuant to the BOFH's law, we lie.
This post has been deleted by its author
Ok, so they're canning a bunch of admins. But they're SharePoint admins... At first scaling back HR sounded like a good idea for their security, but then I remembered the amount of resources we dedicate to keeping our SharePoint system working properly.
This will end badly for the NSA.
This post has been deleted by its author
As more things get automated, that requires more servers and more code. More code and more servers means more patching and vulnerabilities. Less admins also means more work for the existing ones, which means less people looking at things. Just wait for some virus to tap the spooks and then you have spies spying on spies. Real life spy vs spy coming our way soon.
Great opportunities, great future, great fun. only 9 in 10 of you are considered possible "terrorists". My advice to you would be to walk out. all of you. Alexander "The Christmas Tree" does not feel all that intelligent. If I had to get rid of 90% I would do it slowly and not speak about it. Time to ship all Americans abroad not to interfere with the government, We are all looking for a easy life, after all.
Flying killer robots are NOTHING compared to this monster.
Have you ever made a mistake that would embarrass you? Well, it's out there now.
Have you ever tip-toed over the legal line? "Book 'im, Dano" whenever it suits 'em.
Do you have any interests or special talents? Well, now they're just bait to pull you in.
Remember the joke from the funny movie: "Wherever you go, there you are." The new version is "Wherever you went, they already know, and wherever you think of going, they will be there waiting for you."
This post has been deleted by its author
Seriously, what more do we need to hear, from this unrepentant, immoral bullying government?
I've read many of their published statements on the snooping issue and can honestly say that I've yet to hear any even slightly mitigating comment or statement making their actions justifiable.
Neither do I see any willingness on their part to change their ways. They are like a shoplifter which when caught says, "I'll be more careful not to get caught in the future", instead of, "Sorry. I won't do it again".
I call on the world to boycott US products, companies, organisations and groups, in order to apply pressure to the US government.
There are no shortage of other needy countries which will be grateful of our business (apart from numerous third world countries, there's Australia, Canada, Russia, etc.) all capable of filling the void.
This would mean avoiding Starbucks, Apple, Microsoft & Google, but at the same time would stimulate the competition of these global monopolies.
* startpage.com & ixquick.com are a great substitutes for using Google directly and send a strong message.
"doing things that machines are probably better at doing"
I love how he even admits he as no freaking clue what he's talking about. Yes sir, machines are "probably" better at it, once the humans have properly programmed them, and you'll need humans to look after the automated machines too. Let's call those "system administrators" ....