The National Security Agency isn’t going away any time soon and the White House isn’t planning on placing new restraints on the agency. According to the Washington Post, “the Obama administration has decided to preserve a controversial arrangement under which a single military official is permitted to direct both the National Security Agency and the military’s cyberwarfare command despite an external review panel’s recommendation against doing so.”
A group of top U.S. intelligence officials got together and decided that the two divisions (NSA and Cyber Command) should be placed under separate leadership. The argument for the division is that it would ensure greater accountability and prevent investing too much power in one individual. The two divisions also have different missions. The NSA mission is spying and the Cyber Command’s mission is to conduct military attacks. Both divisions work closely together since the Cyber Command depends on the NSA’s ability to hack into the computer systems of enemies for intelligence and to conduct potential operations.
According to the Washington Post, an email from Caitlin Hayden, White House spokeswoman, said, “Following a thorough interagency review, the administration has decided that keeping the positions of NSA Director and Cyber Command commander together as one, dual-hatted position is the most effective approach to accomplishing both agencies’ missions.”
There have been over 40 recommendations made by the intelligence panel. Currently, the White House appears not to want to add constraints onto the surveillance agency. The NSA is working toward making changes within the organization to combat any leaks that could be comparable to the leak committed by Edward Snowden.
The leak committed by Snowden informed the public that the NSA was conducting surveillance and collecting virtually all phone calls of Americas through a metadata collection process. NSA still claims that their collection of billions of phone records was for counterterrorism purposes and that the content of the calls is unknown, the agency purportedly only collects where the calls were made and how long they lasted.
What do you think? Is this collection of data necessary? Doesn’t it put us at an even greater risk?