Live data from Hacker News

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

salon.com

161–170 of 186 posts

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

#161
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm curious how much of the perceived benefit of republic-based democracy is based in logical fallacies and myth. Voters are irrational and on a long-term scale, growth in state power eventually leads to the circumvention of public involvement, counter to the very definition of a republic: "A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a 'public matter', not the private concern of the rulers". Cons…

Constitutions were not the solution to the problem. An educated and engaged electorate was the solution. The Constitution was a framework for that electorate to use as a tool, but several of the founders were very clear that the essential requirement of effective government was the engaged and educated electorate.

James Madison:

  * The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the 
    only guardian of true liberty.
  * Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people 
    who mean to be their own governors, must arm 
    themselves with the power knowledge gives.
  * Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with 
    every free people. They throw that light over the 
    public mind which is the best security against crafty 
    and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.
Thomas Jefferson:

  * Every government degenerates when trusted to the 
    rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, 
    therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to 
    render them safe, their minds must be improved to a 
    certain degree.
  * Above all things I hope the education of the common 
    people will be attended to ; convinced that on their 
    good sense we may rely with the most security for the 
    preservation of a due degree of liberty.
  * I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of 
    the society, but the people themselves: and if we 
    think them not enlightened enough to exercise their 
    controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, 
    not to take it from them, but to inform their 
    discretion by education. this is the true corrective 
    of abuses of constitutional power.

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

#162
post #103

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.

Yup. Though Hayden is engaged in politicking. Salon is engaged in politicking while reporting on Hayden's politicking.

When I'm feeling extra rational, I really dislike this, even when I agree with views like Salon's. It's bad if we fight dumb politicking with more dumb politicking from the other direction.

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

#163
post #132
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)

Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. You can always choose not to vote or vote for a candidate that does not have a chance of winning.

To see how incorrect that statement is, look at every other democracy in the world. Only two two-party democracies. Every other democratic country but like Jamaica is 3 parties or greater.

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

#164
Completely off topic to otherwise excellent discussion, but funny how "nihilists" were the first thing he flagged up.

I can't think of nihilists without thinking of The Big Lebowski. http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/81096/nihilists.j...

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

#165
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if Michael Hayden reads any of this? Or even if there are any officials tasked with summarising & reporting on these opinions?

> I wonder if Michael Hayden reads any of this?

Probably not, but at least we know that he has it gathered so that if he (or any of his eventual successors) wants to read it later, he (or they) can.

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

#166
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama" Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time? "the other candidate" Which other candidate? Here are some of the people who were running in the 2008 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_... You had a lot of cho…

Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time?

You mean, like, his voting record in Congress?

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

#167

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…

>This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.

I don't understand. In one breath, you're saying such a provocative statement is welcome and even "laudable," but in the next, you're saying it's dangerous.

> although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling

Also, when one is truly "being provocative," you're not allowed to use their statements as evidence to their opinions.

Can we just call a spade a spade and allow his xenophobic, terrified speculations to reflect him, a vestige of the boomer plight that's systematically eating away at the core of this nation?

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>The media is the reason for this. I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way, and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats. There are plenty of news outlets that are spending their mone…

I knew that comment would open a can of worms. One might also argue that the shabby quality of education has a bit to do with it as well.

>I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way,

The ownership of media in the US is not as diverse as you might think. The content is also not (at least IMO) as diverse as it would be absent improper influence.

>and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that

Would you believe Carl Bernstein if he told you that the CIA had operatives at all levels of major news media outlets within the US, and a history of manipulating the news? http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

If not him, have a look at the Church Committee reports on intelligence activities along the same theme.

Neither is proof that the activities were continued after being caught red-handed, but, it is enough that I would consider naive the notion that the gov't/intel community had completely ceased such activities, as opposed to just being more careful. As far as I am concerned, given the past (the part that is public record) the possibility that the gov't/intel community aren't still successfully manipulating domestic media coverage can't be dismissed without a credible investigation, or credible oversight, or something to that effect. To put it another way, public exposure of NSA activities is being treated by NSA as a threat to their continued operations; and they will use the tools in their arsenal to fight that threat.

> so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats.

If you have a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel in a market, you can feed your customers pretty much anything, and still make a living.

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

#169

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.

>They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant.

Correction: They're employing the same hackers.

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

#170

>“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?

Does he understand security at all? "Hardest target"?

This is not a smart man.

Post reply on HN