I think a reasonable mission statement would be "To exploit foreign signals intelligence for the benefit of the USA".

(Push to shove on my opinion about NSA, which is pretty fuzzy: I think the NSA does important work, but that the organization is probably corrupt, and that it should be reorganized and much of its career leadership removed).

> "To exploit foreign signals intelligence for the benefit of the USA"

Does it benefit the average U.S. citizen? If not, then how can you say NSA does this for the benefit of the USA. And if it does, then how exactly does a U.S. citizen benefit from this? Making a bunch of rich people even richer doesn't seem all that beneficial to me.

Long term? No. Long term we're better off if NSA spends all it's money hardening US tech infrastructure.

There are a lot of benefits, both direct and indirect, to your country when in your populace you contain a large concentration of rich people. Why does every government agency need to benefit the average US citizen directly?

Yet their stated mission, and the justification (at least to the public) of their funding, is:

>>> We will protect national security interests by adhering to the highest standards of behavior.

So by your own argument they're going beyond their own mission statement to fulfill a secret one in direct contradiction to the American public's wishes. i.e. Not doing what they are supposed to do

I don't think the NSA has any business using the words "highest standards of behavior" in any communications, ever.

>I think a reasonable mission statement would be "To exploit foreign signals intelligence for the benefit of the USA".

So we can all stop whining about Russia asserting influence over Ukraine and China hacking US government right?

I don't follow, but I can tell you've mistaken what I just said.

The commenter upthread asked what NSA's goals were. When I offered up a mission statement for them, it wasn't what I want their mission to be. It's what I think it actually is.