51–60 of 160 posts
I, as a taxpayer, pay the NSA to be effective in defending national interests, to act with integrity, and to submit themselves to the oversight of my representatives in Congress. I have no expectation that they will be honest or open with me. Being closed is integral to their work. However they damn well better submit to oversight and respect my constitutional rights as a citizen.
If you aren't, is it because you want to do harm, or because complete honesty would actually be harmful and unnecessary for both parties?
As this is the case for individuals, it is also the case for groups of people and institutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so we probably don't have much to worry about. While you had me nodding my head until this point, I think your conclusion is ultimately wrong. We have lots to worry about because of those very reasons you list. When you can’t recruit good talent, you get at best partial incompetence, at worst bad actors. When things are dysfunctional, you don’t have proper checks and balances. When an organization is corrupt, very…
I'm partly in agreement with you, but my point of view is that the 'good guys', so to speak, are working at Google, Apple, Facebook, etc, and are incentivized to protect their customers rather than assist the government (except, y'know, in cases where they got caught working with the gov). If most of the talented folks are working in the private sector, it seems logical to conclude that no corrupt organization can 'h…
SV has a disgusting mafia in place protecting itself and “friends”. And there’s reason to believe in widespread cooperation between major SV players and govt. All of that is most successful if people don’t find out about it.
So much power has accumulated in SV in recent years that it is trivial to turn the absolute power/corruption speech back on itself.
Did I tell you what people with high level SV connections and connections to Peter Thiel did/said to me? No? There’s other shit going on. Big groups of talent inevitably have bad actors.
I, as a taxpayer, pay the NSA to be effective in defending national interests, to act with integrity, and to submit themselves to the oversight of my representatives in Congress. I have no expectation that they will be honest or open with me. Being closed is integral to their work. However they damn well better submit to oversight and respect my constitutional rights as a citizen.
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?
It's not a great process but I don't see a better way for a democracy to have an internationally competitive intelligence apparatus. And without such an apparatus we are exposed to attacks on our democratic integrity, military effectiveness, deliberative privacy and much more.
Fortunately these government agencies are mostly corrupt, dysfunctional, and unable to recruit talent, so we probably don't have much to worry about.
Any objective source for your claims? If your basis is the attitude for such agencies here on hacker news, it’s understandable why you might believe those to be true, but they aren’t.
I, as a taxpayer, pay the NSA to be effective in defending national interests, to act with integrity, and to submit themselves to the oversight of my representatives in Congress. I have no expectation that they will be honest or open with me. Being closed is integral to their work. However they damn well better submit to oversight and respect my constitutional rights as a citizen.
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubt you will find many such reporters in America remaining
There are lots of great reporters in the USA with integrity. I am sad to see this general sentiment that quality journalism is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?
You elect representatives and executives who are given security clearances and the right to great transparency and openness. When or if those elected officials are found to have abused the public trust, you punish them, their associates and their successors at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion. It's not a great process but I don't see a better way for a democracy to have an internationally competitive…
I, as a taxpayer, pay the NSA to be effective in defending national interests, to act with integrity, and to submit themselves to the oversight of my representatives in Congress. I have no expectation that they will be honest or open with me. Being closed is integral to their work. However they damn well better submit to oversight and respect my constitutional rights as a citizen.
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?
There can easily be honesty and integrity without openness to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of a catch 22 there, right? You expect integrity, but without honesty/openness, how do you hold them to it?
You elect representatives and executives who are given security clearances and the right to great transparency and openness. When or if those elected officials are found to have abused the public trust, you punish them, their associates and their successors at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion. It's not a great process but I don't see a better way for a democracy to have an internationally competitive…