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

The NSA: An Inside View

lorensr.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 323 posts

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#271

Post by robk »

secthrowaway wrote: post #184

I can confirm much of this article. (A couple years ago I provided some comments here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3296691 ) There's lots of condemnation of the poster, and the NSA practices and some of the murkier parts of this article. I thought I'd tip in with some explanations as possible while staying outside of anything classified or naughty. jonknee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910978 - "It's…

> Assume it is collected but probably not read, but not for the reasons you gave above. There's just simply not enough manpower to read everybody's email, and it's a useless thing to try to accomplish.

What frightens me is how long until it is technically feasible to parse it all? With the NSA level of investment, surely having that corpus will be incredibly juicy over time as more mechanized means of analysis come available.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#272

Post by joshstrange »

mpyne wrote: post #223
shitgoose wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another NSA muppet to the rescue. First one was a geek - easy to beat up. It was pretty quickly escalated to someone from PR dept - a fact twisting arrogant smooth talker. You guys are pathetic and frightening. Better stay quiet if you don't want people to hate you even more.

Did this PR drone hack HN to plant his comment [1] from "745 days ago" too? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3296691

Yes, because the government would NEVER plant agents in various online forums to further their own agenda..... /s

While I would guess this is probably not the case here I would caution against making it seem so ludacris....

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#273

Post by fche »

ANH wrote: post #268
Peaker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine applying that idea to any other field, and keep in mind the unintended consequences The difference from other fields, is that the consequences in other fields are public. If a soldier shoots someone, that someone is dead and can prompt an investigation. If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. Or be able to know. No investigation will be triggered, and even if o…

>If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. You mean, besides his family, friends, and loved ones when he loses his job and potentially ends up in prison. You're underestimating the amount of training and internal oversight that occurs.

... because this has happened how many times?

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#274

Post by fche »

lorendsr wrote: post #27
andrewcooke wrote: post #6

The NSA is not a law enforcement agency. I am not one either. But I still have to obey the law. Maybe that's not what's implied by that statement? But if not, what on earth is meant (more exactly, what was the author's intent in saying something that seems obvious and irrelevant if taken at face value; what am I expected to infer?)?

I meant that the NSA is only looking at your information if a judge suspects that you are a foreign agent. It will not look at your information to determine whether you have done something else illegal, which is what it would do if it were part of a police state.

"NSA is only looking at your information"

That's an overly narrow construing of the word "information". As you well know, metadata and location bits are considered "information" by anyone except the pen & trap zealots.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#275

Post by dreamfactory »

lorendsr wrote: post #27
andrewcooke wrote: post #6

The NSA is not a law enforcement agency. I am not one either. But I still have to obey the law. Maybe that's not what's implied by that statement? But if not, what on earth is meant (more exactly, what was the author's intent in saying something that seems obvious and irrelevant if taken at face value; what am I expected to infer?)?

I meant that the NSA is only looking at your information if a judge suspects that you are a foreign agent. It will not look at your information to determine whether you have done something else illegal, which is what it would do if it were part of a police state.

So you never heard of TIA and data mining?

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#276

Post by networkjesus »

Someone else also said "If you do no wrong you have nothing to fear."

You sir can go directly to hell for your betrayal of the Bill of Rights, this country and what it stands for. I will settle for nothing less than the total destruction of the system you represent. You are the farthest thing from a patriot, you do not love this country nor it's people nor the ideals it was founded on.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#277

Post by vinceguidry »

secthrowaway wrote: post #200
vinceguidry wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, how did Kim Jong Il buy all his whiskey? It's outright illegal for a U.S. company to sell to the North Korean government. Okay, so they sell to an overseas distributor who then sells to the North Korean government. Turns out that's illegal as well and the government must take action to not allow the U.S. whiskey maker or the distributor to operate in the U.S. any longer. Okay, so the whiskey make check…

> He just bought it retail. There was a great interview of Kim Jong-Il's sushi chef awhile back, the way he gets ingredients is the chef makes trips abroad to foreign markets and buys whatever he needs from wherever, presumably paying cash. If you're willing to pay the price premium and take care of packing and shipping yourself, you can buy anything you want to, legally, without anyone else knowing. Right. Most nefa…

How would the NSA monitor retail purchases made with cash? I guess if they wanted to get all Bourne-happy, they could monitor flights out of NK, then send somebody out to watch Kim's flack go buy whatever in Beijing. (probably where he get's most of his crap) But you're getting pretty far outside the realm of SIGINT. I'm sure the NSA would LOVE to be able to track this stuff, but realistically speaking they can't.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#278

Post by walshemj »

ANH wrote: post #267
rdtsc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's compartmentalized enough that the individual actors can justify their actions by the assumed competence and benevolence of the others. I've talked to this before but this denial and self delusion is an important defense mechanism. Sometimes people write blogs and get into apologetic because they feel an internal dull pain of an inconsistency. "Hmm it looks we NSA did all these pretty bad things. I worked for t…

I'd rather intel analysts have some cognitive dissonance than have absolute certainty they are always justified in their actions.

Unlike a lot of HN commentators who blindly follow the herd (i expect to get a ton a dv's for that)

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#279

Post by Peaker »

ANH wrote: post #268
Peaker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine applying that idea to any other field, and keep in mind the unintended consequences The difference from other fields, is that the consequences in other fields are public. If a soldier shoots someone, that someone is dead and can prompt an investigation. If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. Or be able to know. No investigation will be triggered, and even if o…

>If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. You mean, besides his family, friends, and loved ones when he loses his job and potentially ends up in prison. You're underestimating the amount of training and internal oversight that occurs.

So, you're claiming this, despite 0 people having ever been sent to prison due to this?
Post reply on HN