Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#81

Post by pfisch »

beagle3 wrote: post #58
cassowary wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

conspiracy secret + unconstitutional i think to reach the level of a conspiracy theory, you need a lot of people doing something outrageous. for instance, if you have the army, the navy and fbi and the russian kgb (or whatever they're called nowadays) in cahoots without a single leak for twenty-five years, that's improbable. i tend not to buy conspiracy theories because they usually need a leak which doesn't exist. f…

I have no horse in this race, but you are not more logical than your brother. First of all, "conspiracy theory" is often taken to mean one of the tinfoil variety ("government and gay aliens experiment with mind control beams" style, or "immortality treatment hidden by pharma for the last 100 years in attempt to increase profits and for eugenic purposes"). But a "conspiracy" simply means an act of collusion done secre…

A conspiracy theory typically involves a pretty large group of people doing something big to deceive a massive group of people.

Like a faked moon landing, a large false flag operation like 9/11, or a hillary clinton/democratic party death squad murdering leakers.

Has anything like this ever happened in all of history? The whole snowden thing is the best example I can think of but I don't remember actually being surprised when that came out. Maybe if hitler burned down the reichstag? I don't think that was ever proved though and I'm not sure how many people would really need to be involved in something like that.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#82

Post by Capt-RogerOver »

sgift wrote: post #69
erikb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I can elaborate. Standards are a set of procedures to cooperate and provide a certain level of minimum quality. For many single person hackers not having standards may result in much better quality, but for teams of people who do this because they need to pay rent the quality is always pointed towards the possible minimum, not maximum. Therefore standards usually improve the work of paid teams. But standards are…

The same argumentation is usually used to argue that people have to be in the office or they won't do work - it's wrong in that case, it is wrong in this case. People often do good work without being forced to.

Based on my life experience it is absolutely true that average people work much less if not in an office or other organized workplace. Many times even by their own accounts. This does not mean that there is a minority that can work wherever, or that work even better at home. It all depends on their interest, on the job etc. But yes, offices provide a lot of productivity boosts.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#83

Post by TeMPOraL »

grrowl wrote: post #78
Animats wrote: post #38

The output of the intelligence community is surprisingly low. One director of the NSA said, pre-9/11, that the whole organization generated about one important result every two days, one that was acted upon. The output of the US's domestic anti-terrorism effort is low for the resources invested. Most of the FBI's terrorism arrests are wannabes. They get a report of somebody mouthing off in a bar or mosque, crank up a…

I find it amusing to consider the NSA/FBI thinks various terrorist groups have masterminded a plan and are closing in, while terrorist groups think similarly about the NSA/FBI's SIGINT infrastructure and capability; when in fact they're both hilariously unorganised and just trying really, really hard, like a real-life parallel to Spy Vs Spy

And so it seems that the currently effective terrorists attacks are the simplest ones, where you don't have to communicate or coordinate too much, or acquire some very unusual hardware (like explosives).

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#84

Post by appleflaxen »

mistermann wrote: post #46
jcranmer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What success did the CIA have, ever? * Operation Ivy Bells (joint with USN and NSA, according to Wikipedia) * Stuxnet, possibly (unclear who was responsible for it, although it's generally thought to be joint US-Israeli effort)

The ones we've never heard about, which would be the highest form of success?

that's certainly what they'd have you believe.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#86

Post by rubber_duck »

beagle3 wrote: post #56
erikb wrote: post #51

Yes, of their actual job they probably do very little. This is already part of being secret and fighting secrets. Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. And fighting secrets is hard. You can even see that when working in a team of considerable size (e.g. 10+ people). It's hard even to track all the open, important and even marketed inf…

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, eve…

Even if you don't believe god is watching you you're still living in a society - if you want to be a part of it you have to follow the rules. With secrecy social repercussions go away.

Everyone has some moral instincts (social animals and all that) but those can be overridden with right incentives.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#87

Post by sgift »

erikb wrote: post #79
sgift wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argumentation is usually used to argue that people have to be in the office or they won't do work - it's wrong in that case, it is wrong in this case. People often do good work without being forced to.

Well, I can only say I'm happy you made this experience. In no company I worked until now I could see this. The quality was always horrible, and only carrot&stick could at least improve it to bearable.

It seems you've worked in some horrible companies - good luck in finding better ones in the future. (no sarcasm intended, I really think it's horrible if the only option to get colleagues to work is carrot&stick)

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#89

Post by coldtea »

Animats wrote: post #38

The output of the intelligence community is surprisingly low. One director of the NSA said, pre-9/11, that the whole organization generated about one important result every two days, one that was acted upon. The output of the US's domestic anti-terrorism effort is low for the resources invested. Most of the FBI's terrorism arrests are wannabes. They get a report of somebody mouthing off in a bar or mosque, crank up a…

So, after several wars, a couple of occupations, and tons of drone killings, and several trillions spent, all the stronger country in the world has managed was to "reduce the life expectancy" of major leaders in an third world backwater organisation? And help foster another similar enemy (ISIS) in the process?

Hurray for effectiveness...

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#90

Post by coldtea »

beagle3 wrote: post #56
erikb wrote: post #51

Yes, of their actual job they probably do very little. This is already part of being secret and fighting secrets. Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. And fighting secrets is hard. You can even see that when working in a team of considerable size (e.g. 10+ people). It's hard even to track all the open, important and even marketed inf…

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, eve…

>I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics".

Which is not far from true.

Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that they don't is mostly thanks to their idiosyncrasy.

>There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own;

Ha, haven't read your second paragraph while replying to the first, but basically, yes, this.

Post reply on HN