The NSA chief <i>shouldn&#x27;t</i> be pro-encryption if they&#x27;re doing their legal job: collect anything needed to advance America&#x27;s interests or advise on threats to national security; protect communication security of defense-related systems. Like Hayden said, you draw a box around him and he&#x27;ll push straight to the edges of it to accomplish his mission. The problem is the NSA&#x27;s mission is too broad, unrealistic, and essentially evil. It basically requires them to do what they&#x27;re doing as there&#x27;s no other option and the I.C. will get blamed by Americans and Congress if anything happens. Surveillance and security theater follow.<p>I wrote it up in detail here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;J2kc9miz" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;J2kc9miz</a><p>This is coming from someone whose alternatively imitated them (IAD Type 1 specifically) or attempted to counter them (high assurance security) for around a decade. What goes in determines what comes out. The problem is <i>not</i> the NSA: it&#x27;s what they&#x27;re required to do and lack of strong accountability in how they do it. That they were non-threatening to Americans before 9&#x2F;11 &amp; mission expansion supports my claim.