I caught only like 10 minutes of it, but one of the NSA official was talking about how they discovered a state sponsored malware that could infect your BIOS and brick your computer. I was like, wait, what? So you spy on our phone and internet communication so you can protect us from computer viruses?

But if you were to view that as a lay person, what the NSA official said about cyber attacks must have sounded really damn scary. After hearing something like that, most people would accept that the NSA's actions are justifiable.

They've had this thinking since at least 2010 when I saw them talking about it in a public debate with Bruce Schneier, but probably much earlier, since it already seemed like a planned thing. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it came soon after US Cyber Command was formed, and then merged with the NSA. That's when this corrupted idea (probably from Keith Alexander himself) started emerging, and why it's so dangerous to keep them merged (something Obama keeps defending, even after his own non-independent review panel suggested him to separate the two).

So their idea of security, isn't actually having secure systems (anymore?!), but for them to have backdoors into everything, which of course is nonsense, and they are creating more problems than solving. But for all we know that's exactly how they like it, much like the war on terror, which keeps being prolonged by creating more terrorists, and keeping the Military Industrial Complex well fed and profitable.

Or they think all the data they are collecting about the whole world is well worth risking having compromised systems, even at home, but they present the idea of themselves having to do this to "protect Americans" as a lie to cover for that, and because they know it sounds better to the public and (some) politicians.

What I don't get is why, if you're the NSA, would you go through the PR effort for people already on "your side"; you're not going to sway a large swath of the population and there surely can't be that many fence sitters on this issue.

In the wake of the original leaks, reading this particular snippet on FB posted by otherwise intelligent friends was one of my ultimate pet peeves.

It neatly encapsulates both self-affirmation ("oh I totally knew this was going on, because I'm wicked smaht") and a shocking degree of complacency.

That's an interesting way of justifying actions:

We sort of knew Hitler was killing millions anyway.

We sort of knew the CIA was testing nasty diseases on the Guatemalan population anyway.

We sort of knew North Korea was violating a ton of human rights anyway.

etc. etc.

That's the thing. Like most liberals he doesn't have a problem with this administration and spying. We'd be on the same side if this was a republican administration but because he is a democrat and canvases for the DNC he sees nothing wrong with what this administration is doing. To me it's really frustrating. It's like trying to argue with Diane Feinstein over the intelligence bill.

They made it seem like this exploit could have knocked out every computer in the nation. What was the real risk here?

Do I really want the NSA to dabble in the BIOS of my computer?

[tinfoilhatoff]

One plausible explanation is it is an effort to give cover to friendly politicians during political campaigns. They can't just leave these people without a story. They need to supply them with something to counter all the negative news. The story doesn't have to be airtight. It just needs to be good enough for the majority of the population to remain accepting of the status quo.

As an example of another bit in this campaign I would point to the recent instances of politicians claiming that Snowden must have had help from the Chinese or Russians. No proof was given but he just had to have help because how else could he have done it.

It would be good to remember that the first goal of any organization is survival. There is no reason to think that the offensive capabilities of the NSA and the rest of the defense establishment aren't being used to protect themselves.

Recent episodes of NCIS have a NSA agent on loan to the NCIS staff. She's cute, smart, and quirky and does a great job protecting us all from the scary people.

Also, Hawaii 5.0, had a hack attack on an episode lately and they were all "Thank god we have the NSA to protect us". Ok, I forget the details on that one, but I remember rolling my eyes.

Now with 60 minutes jumping on board, it's plain to see there's a coordinated effort to spin the NSA in a good light. Not just a whitewash, the message is "The NSA spying on Americans is a good thing".

So if you've got an audience that wants to be told that the authorities are always right, you could decide strictly for business reasons to just give them more of that.

A real journalist, which Miller isn't, would've been all over that. But if it hadn't been Miller, and it had a real journalist, there would've been no way NSA would've allowed CBS inside any part of the complex.

Later in the segment, it is mentioned we share all this data with our FIVE EYES partner countries, where presumably, they don't have safeguards regarding foreign nationals (eg. Americans). Another something a real journalist would've jumped all over.

Another little aside: Miller asked Ledgett (the Snwoden task force head and soon-to-be Deputy Director, NSA) how many times he's been interviewed by the media and he replied "One. Now.". He's been interviewed at least a few times before, most recently by the WSJ. A quick Google search pulled up this URL: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230460710...

CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car.

... '60 Minutes,' in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm

- Softballing Obama and Clinton on Benghazi [1], in which the journalist interviewing about a controversial topic asks mindless questions.

- Dan Rather's credulity on GWB National Guard forgeries [2] (leading to firings and eventually Rather's retirement)

[1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minut...

[2] http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit

I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.

> There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-co...

As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why haven't they done anything?

His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to everyone in the world, since the record is public.

Doesn't hiding the details of the program protect it from those who would oppose it? Wouldn't some effort be expended there?

And, presumably honorably, take the consequences for hiding an illegal program.

If there wasn't a policy change to acknowledge the program, it would be closed.

Maybe they shouldn't bother then. The NSA should not be given a propaganda platform; if they will not answer hard questions, then they should not get a chance to talk at all.

That isn't a loaded question whatsoever.

This response is justifying my statement above. The piece needed to have many 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type questions before the majority of the audience here would be happy with the reporting.

Just as its not a loaded question to ask the NSA, who is using cryptographers to try to break encryption on the internet, whether their cryptographers are trying to break encryption on the internet...

For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.

No. Convicted, yes. Charged, no. Here in the United States we have the presumption of innocence.

Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!

Or maybe just something that's not 100% positive.

In similar fashion, "metadata" was again used as a red herring.

All domestic communications within the United States are currently intercepted and stored for at least 5 years, including content. Perhaps that wasn't a desirable talking point.

The 1:30 solve for a rubix cube is a bunk time too. I think I got mine down to 45 seconds which I referred to as "faster than anyone who can't solve a rubix cube" since it sounds impressive, but most guys who are amazing at it can do it in less than 15.

Uh... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

How easy it has become for them to lie.

It allows for them to make such statements to people who don't know their definition, and later claim they did not lie.

Shouldn't the media be calling them out?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/

[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews...

[1] http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-...

Another question that always puzzles me... Are operating system THAT vulnerable? Every Agency, Criminal, whatever-organization has a remote 0day windows/linux/macosx exploit????

See for example this: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale...

You'll have to make a better case. In the exploit in your link, the user was tricked by social engineering, had his computer configured to automatically run Java applets from arbitrary sources, and in all probability was running Microsoft Windows - hardly someone practicing good security.

Phone records! Just metadata collection! Data collection? Oh, right, we do that, too.

In reality, two things are wrong: a lot of letters' insides are analyzed as well, and keeping a central database of just the outsides turns out to be a huge privacy violation, anyway.

:throws up in mouth:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364929/behind-60-minut...

Please make a distinction for me that I'm not saying all old people are senile or even that its a good idea for one of our very few media corporations to push the idea that all old people are senile, but I am stating objectively there exists an infotainment news magazine format TV show oriented specifically toward the idea of selling advertising to nursing home viewers and their editorial spin is based on the idea the viewers are senile.

They're pretty good at their job, for better or worse. What I mean, is if you don't like it, you're probably not part of the target market.

(Also I agree with you, Frontline gives the BBC a serious run for their money)

Seriously asking because from me this is the only point from understanding if we are in fact dealing with totalitarians already or not yet. I assume this is morphing slowly into a totalitarian state. But who will be sacrificed? Who will be the internal enemy. That puzzle is missing for me. Who will be used to keep us scared?

The scenario I think is possible: like with world trade centers, via/nsa/whatever will do some kind of horrible 'terrorist' attack on the US soil. Thousands will be killed. And the whole thing blamed on OWS -- or -- Patriots -- or -- both of these groups at the same time -- and prosecuted without courts in concentration camps a.k.a "Gauntanmo Bay". I know, I know, sounds like sci-fi. Anyone taking bets on that though?

Because that's the only part of the puzzle they are missing. And if you ask me, the reason why they selected 'terrorism' as the target is not an incident. That's the only tactics that can be employed successfully against strong, organized total government effectively. Both Polish and French underground soldiers were called terrorists by the Nazis.

If you take away democracy from people - at has already happened in the US where whoever we vote into the office will just do the same thing - the only option you leave them is violence. Terror. If you know and understand that - as they USG had known for a long time - your first step will be making them the public enemy #1 even before you start morphing the country into a totalitarian state.

Who can be accused of terrorism? Even 82-old nuns are. http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-f...

Why not me for writing the above? The punishment? No right to lawyer, no right to due process, torture, indefinite imprisonment in de facto concentration camp. WAKE UP!

Every other nation. But there are no clear opponents. The struggle is to keep the US economy alive and growing. Industrial espionage. Trade agreements. Deregulation of markets if it is beneficial strong regulation otherwise. Enforcement of policies that are beneficial to US based industries.

The war is an economic one.