11–20 of 105 posts
http://www.cracked.com/article_19070_the-5-craziest-exploits...
Let's give NSA a slow clap for spying on crooks for once in their allied SIGINT. That guy makes our politicians look like boy scouts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spying on other governments is the NSA's job. Nevertheless, specific instances of spying on allied governments is often irritating to the ally involved, and their citizenry. US citizens are probably less upset about foreign surveillance by the NSA (even if it is directed at allies), OTOH, US citizens aren't the entire audience for news.
I guess I could be a little more sympathetic if I thought our allies weren't spying on us as well. After all the noise the Germans made about US intelligence services bugging Merkel's phone, it came out that the Germans were doing the same thing to Hillary Clinton when she visited as Secretary of State.
They were spying on an allied president that did stuff like this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19070_the-5-craziest-exploits... Let's give NSA a slow clap for spying on crooks for once in their allied SIGINT. That guy makes our politicians look like boy scouts.
He was just starting to curry the favor of the general public. He was the subject of a prominent biopic, he received a positive resolution from the UN. He has a lot of supporters, but they're not all fully sold on his philosophy.
Many of his supporters might consider this leak not in the same spirit as the others. The NSA is doing its job, just like the SIGINT agency of any world power. Game theory, tit-for-tat, and mutually assured destruction all make intelligence gathering necessary. As long as one country has SIGINT capabilities, its competitors must match them, even if only for the purpose of defending their sovereignty.
As others have said, the NSA spying on foreign public officials is hardly newsworthy or unexpected. If you believe all SIGINT should cease to exist, then this should also not be news to you, because you already believe these SIGINT capabilities exist, by definition of you opposing their existence. So in no case should this news shock you.
Therefore one has to wonder what Assange's motivation is behind this leak. Based on its timing, it seems far more likely that his motives are personal more than philosophical. It furthers no agenda but his own.
(Or perhaps the NSA is behind the whole thing. This is a pretty nice puff piece for them, and they've gotta be on the offensive finding job applicants these days.)
FWIW, I've just started laying out one aspect of this debate and how intelligence operation blowback can affect the perception of neutrality of NGOs working on the ground. This increasingly seems to lead to a rise in deaths of aid workers and many of the people they work to help. E.g Polio in Pakistan.
https://medium.com/@roryireland/latest-wikileaks-documents-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I sort of thought that's its legitimate purpose (as opposed to domestic surveillance).
Yes, this is what it's chartered to do. Now, there exists a group of people, of which Assange is one (as far as I can tell), who believe that spying is wrong , and governmental secrecy is wrong . Thus this particular Wikileaks release, and, afaict, a lot of the Wikileaks effort has gone into promulgating that ideological goal. I would note that governmental transparency is pursued by multiple political groups across…
If there's nothing outrageous about the who/why of your spying, you don't have to worry as much about your staff's desire to whistleblow, or the kind of consequences if they do, so you don't have to adopt dysfunctional internal policies trying to prevent leaks. Assange's job is to make leaking in general as safe and easy as possible, so the "secrecy tax" will disproportionately damage the unjust use of secrecy:
> "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption."
More loosely though he believes in privacy for individuals (a protection for the weak), with transparency for organizations. Spying on states doesn't violate the former, and I imagine in some cases you could argue it aids the latter.
Julian Assange has some "big balls." Either he really likes pushing his luck, or his end game is way bigger than anyone realizes. He was just starting to curry the favor of the general public. He was the subject of a prominent biopic, he received a positive resolution from the UN. He has a lot of supporters, but they're not all fully sold on his philosophy. Many of his supporters might consider this leak not in the s…
Or his motives are following the philosophy of the freedom of information, as it had in the past. The or is not exclusive: it's possible that his motivations are both personal and philosophical. But to say that this leak furthers "no agenda but his own" is oddly dismissive of the mission / philosophy behind wikileaks.
It's not there to circlejerk people who are already exposed to this kind of information. The philosophy is that more people should have the option to know. If it weren't for projects like wikileaks, it would not be a choice for you to make.
Julian Assange has some "big balls." Either he really likes pushing his luck, or his end game is way bigger than anyone realizes. He was just starting to curry the favor of the general public. He was the subject of a prominent biopic, he received a positive resolution from the UN. He has a lot of supporters, but they're not all fully sold on his philosophy. Many of his supporters might consider this leak not in the s…
Julian Assange has some "big balls." Either he really likes pushing his luck, or his end game is way bigger than anyone realizes. He was just starting to curry the favor of the general public. He was the subject of a prominent biopic, he received a positive resolution from the UN. He has a lot of supporters, but they're not all fully sold on his philosophy. Many of his supporters might consider this leak not in the s…
They've done everything possible to turn him into an actual enemy, rather than the editor of a site facilitating responsible disclosure by whistleblowers. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if that affects the manner in which future leaks are released as well.