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

Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#101

Post by mcphilip »

For a glimpse at one possible future of U.S. democracy, I highly recommend this longform nonfiction article about Turkey [1]. It goes into detail about "...the resistance of what is commonly referred to as derin devlet, the 'deep state.'" Later on: "The deep state, historians say, has functioned as a kind of shadow government, disseminating propaganda to whip up public fear or destabilizing civilian governments not to its liking."

The indifference with which our intelligence apparatus treats foreigners could easily be (or already has?) turned on U.S. citizens if a similar "deep state" narrative develops in the U.S. All it would take are a couple loosely linked plots successfully pulled off by American citizens to construct a narrative (i.e. rationale) for turning the full forces of the intelligence apparatus onto all U.S. citizens.

[1]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#102

Post by sneak »

Shish2k wrote: post #30
weland wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the…

> represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want" I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless. (Our voting system is stupid)

This is a bad policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#103

Post by tootie »

nohuck13 wrote: post #14

Original Guardian article here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-direct... Interesting quote further down where he begs the question, Betteridge's-law-of-headlines-style: Hayden: "But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic b…

Yeah, the Salon article is thinly veiled editorial. It extrapolates quite a bit from what Hayden actually said which was pretty reasonable. He is not saying hackers=terrorists, but rather some hackers may turn to terrorism-style attacks and he is probably correct.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#104

Post by onebaddude »

devb wrote: post #90
onebaddude wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people…

> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me. That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.

>That's really sunshiny happy and everything

It's reality.

We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist.

This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#105

Post by steveklabnik »

weland wrote: post #54
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant. People…

The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?". If the actions of the NSA were seen by American ci…

> The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.

Allow me to introduce you to two voters, A and B. Also two representatives, X and Y.

There are two issues in this campaign, D and E.

Support matrix:

   DE 
  Xyn 
  Yny
Now, A may care about both D and E, but feel more strongly about D. B may care about both D and E, but feel a bit more strongly about E. So A votes for X and B votes for Y.

You can't meaningfully infer that B "doesn't care about" D in this situation, they had to make a tough choice and preferred the other. But this binary makes it seem like they voted anti-D.

Expand to a zillion candidates and a zillion issues. You can't really get a meaningful inference, and this is assuming that everyone is 100% rational!

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#106

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

Amadou wrote: post #72
Shish2k wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want" I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless. (Our voting system is stupid)

No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote. Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case. Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes. The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough vot…

I suspect that most people vote similarly.

>The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.

A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#107

Post by w_t_payne »

rst wrote: post #96
w_t_payne wrote: post #80

Michael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed. So, here is my response:- There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power. It is true that the internet is creating communities and…

Dismissive sneers at the opposition aren't an attempt to provoke or engage debate. They're an attempt to sideline it, and effectively shut it down.

Then I have been doing the wrong thing too....

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#108

Post by erre »

kshatrea wrote: post #21
mischanix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This construction {{point}}; {{elaboration}} tl;dr: {{point}} is about as redundant as it gets. For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr.

> For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr. This. I've been inured to using it in that way as well. I see the criticism above as a valid one though.

I've always found that construct weird. I tend to use "tl;wr" (the "w" standing for "won't", instead of "didn't"), at the top.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#109

Post by mindcrime »

weland wrote: post #10
kshatrea wrote: post #5

People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question i…

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the…

This whole idea is largely broken, depending on your perspective. IF we had proportional representation in the US, I might agree that at least a handful of elected federal level reps can legitimately claim to "represent" me, but as of today, I will claim that not a single member of the federal government represents me... certainly there isn't a single member serving in congress or any other federal office, that I voted for, or would claim as my representative.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#110

Post by laumars »

Greywolf Borealis in the Salon comments section put it better than I ever could:

> Hackers may be the terrorists of the future, but the real terrorist of today is the NSA. They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. That is pretty scary.

Post reply on HN