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

NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#11

Post by pero »

danso wrote: post #9

> Binney: Part of his job as the system administrator, he was to maintain the system. Keep the databases running. Keep the communications working. Keep the programs that were interrogating them operating. So that meant he was like a super-user. He could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure — because he would be responsible to get it back up and…

Does the fact that they're contractors and not employees absolve the contractee of some/any liability/culpability? Perhaps, further, even recursively as the contractors themselves wouldn't be able to discuss the contractee's business to the extent a direct employee could?

It does seem absurd if there isn't politico-judicial rationale.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#12

Post by saraid216 »

rdl wrote: post #6
cgshaw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving up British intelligence for the G20 surveillance is also probably crossing the line. If developed countries can't trust each other not to spy on their diplomats where does that leave us? I guess they should all assume they are being spied on at all times while on foreign soil, but airing that in public is likely to worsen his chance of avoiding jail time—or worse.

I have ~no problem with gov on gov spying. I actually have more problem with China's spying on US companies for commercial reasons than China's spying on the USG. USG spying on private individuals might be worse than China spying on USG from an abstract moral perspective. I'd argue that US v USSR spying during the Cold War, particularly PHOTOINT and SIGINT and other forms of technical intelligence, largely averted a…

It's worth noting that, with "gov on gov spying", identifying enemy agents isn't all that easy and effectively requires well... a surveillance state spying on its own citizens.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#14

Post by dllthomas »

danso wrote: post #9

> Binney: Part of his job as the system administrator, he was to maintain the system. Keep the databases running. Keep the communications working. Keep the programs that were interrogating them operating. So that meant he was like a super-user. He could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure — because he would be responsible to get it back up and…

Which is funny, because I thought mandatory access controls was the key feature that the NSA added in SELinux.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#15

Post by pyre »

cgshaw wrote: post #7
der3k wrote: post #5

"We were gathering bulk data from telecoms even before the Patriot Act" Thought this was important to note.

Perhaps even more important to note "before 9/11." So if mass surveillance didn't prevent 9/11, is the rationale to expand it to TOTAL surveillance, if necessary?

  | Perhaps even more important to note
  | "before 9/11."
To me, at least, that's basically how I read "before the PATRIOT Act." I looked it up and the PATRIOT Act was signed into law on 2001-10-26; for some reason I thought that it was quickly pushed through a day or two after 9/11.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#16

Post by pyre »

saraid216 wrote: post #12
rdl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ~no problem with gov on gov spying. I actually have more problem with China's spying on US companies for commercial reasons than China's spying on the USG. USG spying on private individuals might be worse than China spying on USG from an abstract moral perspective. I'd argue that US v USSR spying during the Cold War, particularly PHOTOINT and SIGINT and other forms of technical intelligence, largely averted a…

It's worth noting that, with "gov on gov spying", identifying enemy agents isn't all that easy and effectively requires well... a surveillance state spying on its own citizens.

  | requires
It doesn't require anything. The government didn't need Big Brother powers to play the spy game during the Cold War.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#17

Post by dllthomas »

cgshaw wrote: post #7
der3k wrote: post #5

"We were gathering bulk data from telecoms even before the Patriot Act" Thought this was important to note.

Perhaps even more important to note "before 9/11." So if mass surveillance didn't prevent 9/11, is the rationale to expand it to TOTAL surveillance, if necessary?

FWell, there was Total Information Awareness, which was "shut down" after public objection, where "shut down" meant moving the functions to various other places.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#18

Post by rdl »

dllthomas wrote: post #14
danso wrote: post #9

> Binney: Part of his job as the system administrator, he was to maintain the system. Keep the databases running. Keep the communications working. Keep the programs that were interrogating them operating. So that meant he was like a super-user. He could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure — because he would be responsible to get it back up and…

Which is funny, because I thought mandatory access controls was the key feature that the NSA added in SELinux.

Yeah, everything I've been seeing seems to be that they seriously threw out everything about being competent in the 1990s, and then blew up into something huge (and incompetent) in the post-9/11. Hayden does not seem to have been a good director at all, at either NSA or CIA, and was responsible for the big push toward contractors as well.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#19

Post by cgshaw »

pyre wrote: post #15
cgshaw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps even more important to note "before 9/11." So if mass surveillance didn't prevent 9/11, is the rationale to expand it to TOTAL surveillance, if necessary?

| Perhaps even more important to note | "before 9/11." To me, at least, that's basically how I read "before the PATRIOT Act." I looked it up and the PATRIOT Act was signed into law on 2001-10-26; for some reason I thought that it was quickly pushed through a day or two after 9/11.

I read it similarly, but not everyone may recall the ins and outs of the Patriot Act's passage—it was nearly a dozen years ago now. Many of the folks on HN were in grade school.

I was trying to draw attention to the line that government keeps giving us about how "they are trying to prevent another 9/11" with the secret laws and secrets courts that enable warrantless wiretaps and constant surveillance.

Re: NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower [video]

#20

Post by dfc »

saraid216 wrote: post #12
rdl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ~no problem with gov on gov spying. I actually have more problem with China's spying on US companies for commercial reasons than China's spying on the USG. USG spying on private individuals might be worse than China spying on USG from an abstract moral perspective. I'd argue that US v USSR spying during the Cold War, particularly PHOTOINT and SIGINT and other forms of technical intelligence, largely averted a…

It's worth noting that, with "gov on gov spying", identifying enemy agents isn't all that easy and effectively requires well... a surveillance state spying on its own citizens.

Intelligence and counterintelligence are two different things.
Post reply on HN