The NSA's malware platform has an estimated 116 pluggable modules that can be deployed to victims' computers. Kaspersky researchers have only identified 30 of these so far.
Yeah. Ask any charity that lets donors direct money. There are things people don't want their money to go to, that simply need doing. One of many reasons pure Democracy doesn't work. Infrastructure is actually a great example. It's underfunded as it is. Infrastructure isn't 'cool.' Given 'power line maintenance' or 'repair the bridge that's about to fall' versus 'my social security check' or even 'lower taxes,' people won't check those first boxes very much.
This seems like as good a time as any to have this discussion. Which of the following most describes you, the reader's, position regarding the NSA? A) I am unconcerned about new revelations about the NSA's capabilities because they are an arm of my government which operates for my benefit. B) I am concerned about new revelations about the NSA's capabilities because they're doing some seriously shady shit. C) I am concerned about new revelations about the NSA's capabilities because they're doing some seriously shady shit and have shown no compunction to respect the relationship outlined in "A." D) I am cynically entertained by the fresh kerfuffle about the NSA because it's been shady since its inception and if there's anybody on the planet capable of all this shady shit, it should be the NSA. I'm squarely in the "D" camp. I mean, fuck. (note to the link-followers: in 1982 the existence of the NSA was still classified, thus clandestine actions were rarely attributed to them)
Solid B. Let's be clear about something: I am in no way opposed to wiretapping. I am opposed to warrantless wiretapping, and by extension mass surveillance. Wiretapping with Judicial oversight is not a problem (ok, there are judges who hand out warrants like candy; it's less of a problem). The problem is circumventing Judicial oversight. The problem is power without legitimacy, responsibility, or transparency. The NSA operates with no transparency, labelling the most trival things "secret," and what little reporting which does happen is to a black kangaroo court. Power without legitimacy is what started this whole mess.
That sounds more like a "C" to me than a "B." If you acknowledge that wiretapping has its place, and that intelligence warfare has a place in modern geopolitics, but you're concerned about the lack of judicial process then it isn't so much the capabilities of the NSA as what they're doing with them. Put it this way: I was you in '97. By '99 a student of the clandestine services could have seen the whole of the Bush administration coming and the Obama response after that. And that's why I'm a (D).
Wouldn't that make your position a C? You're concerned about their shady activities and about their not being beholden to democratic forces. I think that's the intention behind C (although the phrasing's odd because it depends on A, and A seems to assert that the US Government works for the benefit of the people, which some of us would dispute).