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

61–70 of 85 posts

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

#61

Post by btilly »

dfc wrote: post #54
btilly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never served in the military. But I am old enough that my brother fought in Vietnam (sort of not drafted, it is complicated) and my father was drafted for WW II. I also have relatives serving in the armed forces. (Including, at the moment, 2 nephews.) I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to beco…

As far as the draft goes I think you nailed it with "it is complicated." As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.

The "it is complicated" is a very specific situation.

My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vietnam for 5 years - no chance it would still be going on!

The recruiting officer word was carried out perfectly. But the war was still going on and my brother earned a purple heart there.

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

#62

Post by einhverfr »

glurgh wrote: post #37
cgshaw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference in knowing how the sausage is made. I'm certainly not naive enough to think that governments aren't always spying on each other's diplomats, however the appearance that the UK and US went to pretty crazy lengths to keylog and tricks G20 diplomats into giving up intel out in the public could have some pretty negative implications for diplomatic discourse down the road.

Oh, agreed that it's quite unhelpful and Snowden revealing details about such activities is a pretty terrible idea. On the other hand, such revelations in general aren't all that new or rare - the most recent one probably being about US spying on UN diplomats just a couple of years ago. Beside light spattering of egg on some faces and a bit of ritualized indignant posturing, though, this sort of thing doesn't seem to…

First, I suspect that Snowden revealing these details is not that harmful. The fact is, I think everyone would expect that everyone keeps track of everyone's diplomats. That's just the way the world works. Additionally, hacking into network backbones in China? Is there anybody out there that was aware of the NSA's activities over the last few decades that doesn't immediately assume that they do? Or is this news to those who didn't read about the NSA tapping into undersea cables back in the 1990's?

In other words, the details Snowden has given are largely harmless affirmations of what everyone probably knows already. They don't cause significant harm to our diplomatic relations. They don't cause significant harm to our intelligence.

I suspect given his moves so far, he agrees with my assessment above, so the question is, what is he doing with them? I don't think that is a hard question to answer. He's making public what those in power have assumed is the case for a long time in order to send signals to all sides that he knows a lot more than he is saying. In essence he's upping the ante regarding any indictment and extradition request.

He's sending a threat to the US: Try to extradite me and maybe I will spill your secrets, real ones, not the ones hidden in plain view I have been talking about so far.

He's also sending a message to China: I know enough to be valuable.

Time will tell what happens. However this follows on "I chose Hong Kong because of their tradition of free speech and rule of law."

This totally follows his strategy of pitting the US against China, and Hong Kong against both.

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

#63

Post by dfc »

malkia wrote: post #51
btilly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never served in the military. But I am old enough that my brother fought in Vietnam (sort of not drafted, it is complicated) and my father was drafted for WW II. I also have relatives serving in the armed forces. (Including, at the moment, 2 nephews.) I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to beco…

There was a democrat several years ago that wanted to put back the draft in place - e.g. mandatory military service. The idea was that since lots of republicans/democrats have kids and this would made them think again for going to war.

You are probably thinking of Rangel. But he is not the first to bring it up and hopefully he will not be the last. It really has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the distinction is socio-economic. I think the idea is even better if you expand the definition of service to also include "civilian service" e.g. teacher, social worker, etc.

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

#64

Post by dfc »

btilly wrote: post #61
dfc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as the draft goes I think you nailed it with "it is complicated." As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.

The "it is complicated" is a very specific situation. My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vi…

Lets agree to disagree about "complicated." I am glad that your brother came home.

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

#65

Post by rdl »

dfc wrote: post #60
jeremyflores wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in response to davidhollander, Cheney's personal background is extremely important. If Kerry came out in support of PRISM et al., that would absolutely give me some pause--he actively served in and was a vehement dissenter of the Vietnam conflict. If Cheney were simply a chicken-hawk, then there would be no issue. If he were simply a profiteer, there would also be no issue. But his active role as both…

And if it was Bob Kerrey, a Navy SEAL, vietnam veteran, MoH recipient, Republican from nebraska? Why did you assume I used a Democrat as an example?

The particular MoH recipient I would have used for anything involving domestic spying and civil rights would have been Senator Inouye; 442/100th and the Japanese internments in WW2 seem like the US's best example of valor in the face of rampant domestic discrimination. He was on Watergate and Iran-Contra, too.

Sadly he died in 2012.

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

#66

Post by dllthomas »

Daishiman wrote: post #58
dllthomas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

SELinux is no match for a poorly set-up database.

Sure, and SELinux itself can be poorly configured. Security measures in general need to be thought through in the context of the actual deployment. I just meant that mandatory access control of the general sort needed here has obviously been historically on the NSA's radar (moreso than the rest of the world, even) and here they are failing at it, and that's a little bit sad and a little bit funny in addition to everything else that's going on.

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

#67

Post by dfc »

rdl wrote: post #65
dfc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it was Bob Kerrey, a Navy SEAL, vietnam veteran, MoH recipient, Republican from nebraska? Why did you assume I used a Democrat as an example?

The particular MoH recipient I would have used for anything involving domestic spying and civil rights would have been Senator Inouye; 442/100th and the Japanese internments in WW2 seem like the US's best example of valor in the face of rampant domestic discrimination. He was on Watergate and Iran-Contra, too. Sadly he died in 2012.

Using Sen Inouye as an example would not have provided any information about the person I was having the discussion with.

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

#69

Post by jeremyflores »

dfc wrote: post #60
jeremyflores wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in response to davidhollander, Cheney's personal background is extremely important. If Kerry came out in support of PRISM et al., that would absolutely give me some pause--he actively served in and was a vehement dissenter of the Vietnam conflict. If Cheney were simply a chicken-hawk, then there would be no issue. If he were simply a profiteer, there would also be no issue. But his active role as both…

And if it was Bob Kerrey, a Navy SEAL, vietnam veteran, MoH recipient, Republican from nebraska? Why did you assume I used a Democrat as an example?

I must have misread the name in your comment. The greater point I was making still stands: as far as I know, neither Kerry nor Kerrey blur the lines between public service and military industry as much as Cheney does. If Cheney had at least served and been consistent, his opinions on military actions and these recent leaks' effects on US defenses would at least have some backing.

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

#70

Post by gruseom »

I couldn't stop watching this video. It is the most riveting thing I've seen since the Snowden interview itself. It's a pity they broke it up; you have to scroll down the page to get all the pieces. But I highly recommend watching the entire thing if you're interested in this story. It packs a wallop and it's... pretty damn convincing. Every one of the four interviewees is deeply impressive, each in a distinct way. It is hard to believe that they don't know what they're talking about. More striking than that, though, is what good people they all seem to be.

I'm surprised that USA Today put this out and I hope they do more like it. The contrast with typical news pap could not be stronger.

Post reply on HN