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

NSA Owns Everything (2015)

blog.thinkst.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 265 posts

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#181

Post by jacquesm »

JoelMcCracken wrote: post #172
jacquesm wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. So, the one was a theory, the world being ruled by Lizard people is a conspiracy theory. This list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories Does not include anything even remotely like 'The NSA is listening in on all of us'. At present it is not even a theory, it is established fact but at no point in the past would I have put that on the same level of the items on that list. The paranoid i…

Do you think, for example, that the death of Jeremy Epstein was not really a suicide is as unlikely as any others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Je... Or, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#MK... which we actually know as having been real (though not necessarily all of the related theories are true, as I don't know what they are. But I am pretty sure tha…

I've yet to see proof of Epstein's suicide. It may be true, it may not be true, likely we will never know. A proper conspiracy about it does not just state that there is a possibility that Epstein committed suicide, it will also include who did it and why.

As for the MKUltra stuff: the whole crux of a good conspiracy theory is that it is rooted in some real world event and then puts a crazy spin on it. People probably don't even realize when they step off the cliff of reason into the world of the nut cases.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#182

Post by jacquesm »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #145
jacquesm wrote: post #104

The difference between a theory, a conspiracy theory and the truth are best described by varying levels of evidence. A theory is not currently accepted as the truth, but it might be the truth. A conspiracy theory is something that has been proven to be untrue, but people still believe it and pass it on. The truth is the internally consistent and fact supported state of the world as it was and as it is. There were man…

> they had means, motive and opportunity They didn't have the legal right. > All it took was one person willing to burn their career to provide the proof. Snowden proved that the NSA does not vacuum everything up in the US and only vacuums everything in a few countries. You seem to be reading different documents from the ones that Snowden released.

Not having the legal right to do something does not count as evidence that it didn't happen.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#183

Post by kubanczyk »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #156
amiga_500 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All it took was one person willing to burn their career to provide the proof. So many of the below posts are about all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories (most of them vastly overreach the competence of the USA), but this part hits the nail. USA's problem is the culture. The idea that if each person pursues their own self-interest it will amount, in aggregate, to the best possible outcome - this is totally flawed.…

> Your individualism leads not to "freedom" but to accountants who help companies dodge (not avoid) tax, to politicians who don't speak up because it will damage their career, to bankers who extend credit when they know it's unsustainable in pursuit of their bonus, to news anchors who hold their tongue to avoid upsetting sponsors, on and on. Every one of your complaints is a criticism of institutional incentives and…

You seem to be in a violent agreement with parent.

What parent calls "[flawed] culture", you call "layers of indirection between the principals and the agents". The number of these layers is a vital characteristic of the business culture, and you cannot just wish them away and claim victory.

Have an idea for a system that will work with as many people but less layers - please do tell about it (and about its relation to individualism, if there is any). But my guess it'd be radically different from the current one.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#184

Post by BickNowstrom »

TheMblabla wrote: post #180
BickNowstrom wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden was even willing to burn his future career, as he took a job with Booz Allen Hamilton with the sole purpose of leaking as much information as he could get his hands on. As an admin at BAH he was using his colleagues' passwords for discovery. He was willing to burn their careers to hack access to more leaks. So much leaks that he could not vet these all. This was no Ellsberg tasked with copying some confidenti…

>Then instead of facing justice (and there are whistleblower protections for doing the right thing) I think it was pretty well understood at the time that the Obama administration could not be dependant on upholding whistle blower protections.

Snowden could have exposed this too.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#185

Post by LMYahooTFY »

amiga_500 wrote: post #114
LMYahooTFY wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All it took was one person willing to burn their career to provide the proof. This is wrong. It took a LOT more than that. It took one man forgoing his life and liberty , and a group of people endangering theirs to assist him. Snowdon is not going to get his life nor his liberty back, ever. It took multiple institutions dedicated to publishing the truth to actually bring the news to a wide audience, and it didn't en…

I think he understated it, and your "wrong" is too strong. The main point is people had to actually step up, and when Snowden did this, we had some truth for a bit.

I disagree. The statement 'all it took was...' addresses one part of his life which many people change with some regularity. A career.

Snowden is currently in political exile and probably closely monitored, likely for the rest of his life. US congressmen have openly called for his assassination. If he were to return to this country it's highly likely he would spend the rest of his life in a federal prison, at best.

Please explain how 'all it took was for someone to burn their career' isn't utterly misconstruing the cost being addressed?

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#186

Post by pmachinery »

staticassertion wrote: post #98
pmachinery wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that phrase is so often used to describe how people predicted something That's really the only thing it means. It certainly doesn't mean "why did we never see it happening" (those words mean that) or "why didn't we identify the perpetrator". Edit: for example I saw the downvote coming, because some people here love downvoting simple factual statements, but I don't know who did it, because why would they want to…

Hi, I downvoted you. Normally I don't bother explaining why a low content post was downvoted, but whatever, I'm here. 1. Even if you were right it doesn't matter. Coming to the comments to split semantics while obviously missing the point of the entire article is adding incredible noise. There was more than one sentence in the article and more than enough context to forgive an ambiguous or even incorrect sentence. 2.…

> Even if you were right it doesn't matter. Coming to the comments to split semantics while obviously missing the point of the entire article is adding incredible noise.

I didn't 'come to the comments to split semantics', nor did I say anything at all about the rest of the article. I simply replied to an already existing discussion about the meaning of a phrase.

Describing that one short post as "incredible noise" is frankly beyond absurd, particularly when you have no problem making noisy, unnecessary complaints in two separate posts here.

> I don't agree that you're right. You state there's only one interpretation. I could just as easily interpret it as "Why didn't we see the NSA coming for our network?" or "Given all of these NSA attacks, how did no one detect them entering the network?".

I didn't say there's only one interpretation, I said there's only one meaning, with the point being that if a phrase is used that has one specific meaning then obviously some people are going to assume that is what is meant by it and comment accordingly.

Being right/accurate does matter, precisely to avoid incredible noise like this.

Thank you for replying and explaining.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#187

Post by raincom »

specialist wrote: post #96
roenxi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We were called Conspiracy Theorists ... It was a theory that there was a conspiracy. The issue is that people dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand - even when the theory is backed by means, motive and incentives. "This power is being used to influence the political process in the US" is still a conspiracy theory and will likely turn out to be true as well one day - because again the people involved have means, m…

I've long wondered how to side step the "conspiracy theorist" pejorative. Personal interest. A local newspaper called me a "sweaty paranoid kook". All true. But also a distraction from the lede. There must be a Luntzian phrase for believing in proven conspiracies.

As other poster jitteriest noted already, "conspiracy theorist" labeling is used to stop having any discussion with those who are labelled as "conspiracy theorists".

The whole dialogue is skewed in the favor of those who call others "conspiracy theorists". Once labeled, no more dialogue. This is one of the dialogical moves, and conflicts with the cooperation principle to resolve disputes.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#188

Post by DethNinja »

yc3po wrote: post #73

The Snowden revelations were a God send to our industry. Imagine if we all were still using insecure protocols like plain HTTP today.

It doesn’t matter whether you use encryption or not. State got backdoors at cpu level. So long as you are connected to Internet you have to assume that data is not secure against state surveillance.

Encryption is against lower level non-state actors.

State-level surveillance can be eliminated through physical data diodes but it is would be very capital intensive.

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#189

Post by [deleted] »

BickNowstrom wrote: post #170
jacquesm wrote: post #104

The difference between a theory, a conspiracy theory and the truth are best described by varying levels of evidence. A theory is not currently accepted as the truth, but it might be the truth. A conspiracy theory is something that has been proven to be untrue, but people still believe it and pass it on. The truth is the internally consistent and fact supported state of the world as it was and as it is. There were man…

Snowden was even willing to burn his future career, as he took a job with Booz Allen Hamilton with the sole purpose of leaking as much information as he could get his hands on. As an admin at BAH he was using his colleagues' passwords for discovery. He was willing to burn their careers to hack access to more leaks. So much leaks that he could not vet these all. This was no Ellsberg tasked with copying some confidenti…

[deleted]

Re: NSA Owns Everything (2015)

#190

Post by jnwatson »

staticassertion wrote: post #83

Not really many relevant comments in this thread. Everyone seems to have read the first sentence (if even), interpreted it as 'why did no one think the NSA was hacking?', and responded. It's a shame, this is a great piece, I think. The question is, with all of these companies performing IR, why didn't they see mass exfiltration and C2? I think the article lays out largely correct claims. I personally would imagine (2…

> The question is, with all of these companies performing IR, why didn't they see mass exfiltration and C2?

1. Good tradecraft means that, except for skilled IR folk, they wouldn't see mass exfil/C2.

2. American IR companies know what side of their bread is buttered on. From both employees' personal allegiances to their former employers and the company's active government contracts, there's not a lot of incentive to report on their own government's actions.

Post reply on HN