41–50 of 58 posts
I wonder, at what point would NSA start manufacturing threats. It seems like clear progression of their behavior. Because you can't constantly cry wolf, you have to fight a straw-wolf from time to time.
At this point, it may well be impossible to shut down the NSA. I imagine every opposing politician gets visited by some agent at some point, showing him records of his own wrongdoings. Imagine every politician ever be forced to choose between the end of his career and opposing the NSA. How can we get out of this mess?
I wonder, at what point would NSA start manufacturing threats. It seems like clear progression of their behavior. Because you can't constantly cry wolf, you have to fight a straw-wolf from time to time.
They have FBI doing that for them, and ATF [1], and who knows who else. I think many of these agencies are starting to ask for funding specifically for these sort of "operations", where they not only try and convince people to commit crimes, but give them all the funding and resources they need to commit them, too. We've gotten to the point where the government has to manufacture or invent crimes in order to arrest p…
This happens already.
When government institutions aren't victimizing everyday people for engaging in nonviolent behavior, such as duplicating ones and zeroes, they're not growing. Paychecks aren't increasing. Power isn't consolidating. Terrorizing modern humans is often par for the course to any indoctrinated group/cult. It's easy to be trained and then divided against an enemy. Breaking down Grandma's door over a Britney Spears album, threats and extortion of exorbitant fees over crap people wouldn't otherwise purchase, at 250000x per unit, locking people into cages for consenting behavior like the trade and intake of chemicals, and on: power a mafia and warlords can only dream about. Corporate law won thanks to an oligarchical system of government.
The only temporary hope for pawns being victimized is when SWAT/militia shoot only the family dog but not other members of the family.
At this point, it may well be impossible to shut down the NSA. I imagine every opposing politician gets visited by some agent at some point, showing him records of his own wrongdoings. Imagine every politician ever be forced to choose between the end of his career and opposing the NSA. How can we get out of this mess?
At this point, it may well be impossible to shut down the NSA. I imagine every opposing politician gets visited by some agent at some point, showing him records of his own wrongdoings. Imagine every politician ever be forced to choose between the end of his career and opposing the NSA. How can we get out of this mess?
The idea of shutting down the NSA is destructive: their charter is to listen to foreign traffic, and to secure domestic traffic. That's what they kick ass at. That their abilities got co-opted for unapproved purposes was NOT the NSA's doing. The problem came from outside the NSA, and was likely out of their control.
At this point, it may well be impossible to shut down the NSA. I imagine every opposing politician gets visited by some agent at some point, showing him records of his own wrongdoings. Imagine every politician ever be forced to choose between the end of his career and opposing the NSA. How can we get out of this mess?
The idea of shutting down the NSA is destructive: their charter is to listen to foreign traffic, and to secure domestic traffic. That's what they kick ass at. That their abilities got co-opted for unapproved purposes was NOT the NSA's doing. The problem came from outside the NSA, and was likely out of their control.
There is, perhaps, a more "innocent" explanation - or at least one that reflects better on the rank-and-file at the NSA: that it took someone like Snowden, not just idealistic and willing to sacrifice, but his intelligence and unique collection of technical skills, to make something like this happen. The NSA is a frightening adversary, the best funded, best equipped, most sophisticated intel organization on the planet. One could be forgiven for thinking twice before burning them... But is that fear enough to keep 40k people quiet for 12 years?! I'd say that we can only infer that the rank-and-file are massively in favor of the steps the NSA is taking, and probably mostly for noble reasons of wanting to "protect" us all. And what we can infer from that is that clearly the NSA selects for loyalty over principle, every time. Well, maybe they failed that once.
The thing that really bothers me is that it's such an inevitably fail-prone approach to protection, as it requires massive numbers of people to keep a secret in perpetuity. And now the big reveal: it has materially damaged us all. American technological trustworthiness is (rightly) at an all time low. My only hope is that this failure has been dramatic, so memorable, so horrible, that it will spur all computer technologists to learn more about security, the details of cryptography and random number generation, and to stop assuming that US authorities will show anything like common sense when it comes to restraining themselves and their power. They are drunk with it, self-righteously drunk with it, and we must work to take that power away in every possible way: politically, technologically, and indeed, philosophically. I mention philosophy last, but it's really the most important: are we a nation of principles, or are we a nation that takes shortcuts, sacrificing principle for pride of protection? In addition to testing for technological prowess, we need to test our intelligence staffers for high ethical intelligence: they need to be willing and able to rebel against illegal orders just as Snowden has done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, I don't think we have sacrificed anything. No one ever gave the NSA explicit authority to do the things it does. It's just that they did do them snyway.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your powers to acquire sensitive information in order to blackmail political opponents is certainly nothing new - just ask J. Edgar Hoover.
Is there something special about "newness" when determining what our response should be to a particular "bad thing" (generically: evil)? It almost seems like posts like yours–something tptacek is perhaps the master of–are saying, perhaps subtly or even inadvertently, "this evil is not new, and therefore you should not oppose it ". My take is this: just because some humans who were born before me were unable to recogn…
While I can't speak for Sharlin or tptacek, when I point out that things have happened before, my intent is to prompt people to stop being merely outraged. It is all very nice to say that wrongs should be corrected, but it is entirely useless to waste that outrage on complaining at a local watering hole.
Articles and comments like this have, at best, some vague hope that Congresspersons will notice and wish to pander to those particular constituents by authoring a bill. What kind of lackluster plan is that? Near as I can tell, most people are outraged because it makes them feel like they are similar to the other outraged persons and, action proving truth more than word, entirely disinterested in changing the status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your powers to acquire sensitive information in order to blackmail political opponents is certainly nothing new - just ask J. Edgar Hoover.
Is there something special about "newness" when determining what our response should be to a particular "bad thing" (generically: evil)? It almost seems like posts like yours–something tptacek is perhaps the master of–are saying, perhaps subtly or even inadvertently, "this evil is not new, and therefore you should not oppose it ". My take is this: just because some humans who were born before me were unable to recogn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your powers to acquire sensitive information in order to blackmail political opponents is certainly nothing new - just ask J. Edgar Hoover.
I am trying to understand what its "newness" has to do with anything. Most crimes are not new, but we still prosecute. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that criminal justice is (or should be) based on how it would look as a CSI episode. (Sorry, simple blackmail is too bland a plot we can't prosecute, the audience will just sleep through it. Make it more fresh, have a twist at the end, something 'new').