The Secret History of the National Security Agency

Reader Comments
Back to article

One of the burdens of your work is that mistakes often get exposed, but successes have to stay uner wraps. I hope that this book brings a bit of public appreciation of the secretive work that you folks (along with the helpers in the Navy, Army and Air Force)have done.
The relationship between sigint (signal intelligence) and humint (human intelligence) is complementary, not competitive, so carry on and keep us safe.

Jim Osburn of IL 11:15PM June 28, 2009

The interview appears to reveal nothing not previously reported by Bamford. The comment " . . . they [NSA] don't want to leave any evidence that they've been snooping at all. All the NSA wants to do is listen. There's a never-ending battle between the listeners and the disrupters in the wake of 9/11. . . ." is interesting, but perhaps it should not be.
In effect, what's new, Mr. Kingsford?

Eisenbahn Wilhelm of MT 11:51PM June 24, 2009

When ever a strong statement is made, and with all knowing certainty, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Quote: "Until 1978, not a single high-level Russian code was broken". Really? Frankly, the code that was intercepted in Maryland by NSAA Green Beret cryptologist (1967) would certainly fall into the "high-level" code arena. The code in question, pertained to the displeasure Breshnev felt towards the dispatching of Che to Bolivia, by Castro. (CIA has claimed credit for this code break, but I would beg to differ). The breaking of this code directly led to the transfer of two specially trained Green Beret A teams to Bolivia from Panama, to work directly with the Bolivian Army in the capture of Che Guevra. Secondly,July 2, 1967 a newly minted SR-71 veered into Mexican air space. Mexico promptly contacted Moscow,thinking it was a russian aircraft. Russia responded in code and the NSAA listened in and decoded. Again, this event would certainly fit into the high-level arena.
(NSAA, National Security Agency-Army)

Matthew of CA 2:28AM June 23, 2009

So what...That was back in the 60s and no more odd than now

William Turk of IN 10:01PM June 21, 2009

Although the agency suffers bad press because of it's obscurity and/or supposed inveiglement; it is necessary to create passive observation as a defense to the detractors of our form of government and our commitment to democracy. An offensive approach to passive observation is merely a tactical maneuver of defending the homeland. A thundering herd is best detected by listening to the ground.

Frank Kordsmeier of FL 10:35AM June 20, 2009