and if you're a hacker outside US soil you should start watching out for the drones...
How high is your confidence in the word "outside"?
50.999999%
Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
111–120 of 186 posts
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#112Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#113>“They may want to come after the US government, but frankly, you know, the dot-mil stuff is about the hardest target in the United States,” Hayden said
Is he trying to get .mil sites targeted? Does he understand psychology at all?
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#114Earlier 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 A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious.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…
I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama. By 2012, it was clear he wasn't following through, but the other candidate on offer would almost certainly have been, on balance, a whole lot worse --- and a bad choice is still a choice. When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and when do you think I had a…
Who did you vote for in the 2008 and 2012 primaries?
Your complaint here is a false dichotomy. We have many more choices than vote for candidate R or vote for candidate D, especially when you consider that each party had at least one fairly close primary in the last eight years.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's alive and well in all of humanity, and likely will be for the rest of our existence as a species.
If you believe that, you've already accepted it, and to some extent justified it. Beware that cynicism is only one form of ideology that relies on the thought it's based on facts.
If I believe that someone, somewhere, will be murdered tomorrow, does that necessarily follow that I both condone and justify it?
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The premises upon which you have concluded that the statement is not homophobia are: () It is an insult targeted at the named groups. () It is targeted at men. () Not trying to bed women is an insult to men. All three premises are dubious. Insults are directed at the person to be insulted. In so far as it is an insult, it was almost certainly targeted at members of the audience sympathetic to transparency and privacy…
It's quite obvious that he was referring to the societal stereotype that 'nerds' (of either sex) are socially inept and incapable of having anything other than an awkward conversation with the opposite sex (despite their desire for 'normal,' sexual relationships). If you don't believe that stereotype exists, go watch _any_ episode of The Big Bang Theory.
Your parent is not disputing that; they're saying that the _reason_ that being 'incapable of having anything other than an awkward conversation' is negative is due to attitudes relating to masculinity.
You're talking about the symptom, they're talking about the cause.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#117McCarthy again.
Here's the thing about McCarthy, Communists were fucking everywhere. I don't mean ideological communists, I mean Soviet secret agents. They were in every level of government. They helped funnel the most secret of information to the USSR.
And that's not all, the Soviets were erecting a police state to control hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. They had a tremendous military force with millions of soldiers. They were cranking out more tanks than had ever been in any war in history. And bombers. And they had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to US cities in short order.
But none of that justified Senator McCarthy's abuses of power and violations of the rights of American citizens.
Here we are now faced with the threat of terrorism. Or to be more broad about it, the threat of jihadist radical Islamist fundamentalists (both in al qaeda and elsewhere). We know that these forces pose a serious threat to the US, just as the Soviets did. But is this danger on the same scale as the Cold War? Not even close. Does it justify abrogation of our cherished liberty and privacy? Never.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#118>"twentysomethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in >five or six years"
Has he SEEN Snowden's former girlfriend? This trope should be retired based on that point alone.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategist…
> You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.
I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters.
It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker.
I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#120People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
As true today as ever... And unfortunately for us, at the moment, the balance is way to far in favor of "the people are scared of their government". People like Snowden and Manning risk moving the balance the other way, so of course high-ranking government official types will spazz out over this stuff. Transparency is anathema to corruption and abuse of power.