121–130 of 295 posts
I can understand the support of Snowden for blowing the whistle on domestic spying, but how is this defensible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious one: war with another nation. Along with threat deterrent. I can't think of any good argument for why the US military should have no offensive capabilities in the digital realm. It'd be the equivalent of staying out of the skies when flight became possible. In any war, the US is going to come under digital attack, and it should be fully capable of responding both defensively and offensively. Besides that,…
But by stockpiling vulnerabilities they are making civilians less safe. Offensive digital capabilities should never come at the expense of fixing software.
Looking at the comments in support of the NSA here makes me suspect an astroturfing campaign is happening. Edit: I should add that my suspicion came from noticing that the vast majority of the comments when this was first posted seemed aligned in favor of the NSA's mission. It wasn't the presence of pro-NSA comments that was interesting but rather that these opinions were the overwhelming majority. This is, of course…
There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this. People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. They may not have the best guidance from the government, b…
I don't buy the Col. Jessup rationalization at all, and I think it's simpleminded. The threats these people are defending against are ones created by their own actions, and the actions of the governments they act on behalf. Regular citizens of whatever country are affected by these activities but they don't get a voice in how or whether the "nasty job" (and it's precursors) are in their interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this. People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. They may not have the best guidance from the government, b…
I agree that it's best to assume earnestness in opinions, I disagree with your opening. There absolutely is a reason for the NSA to give a fuck what you or I think. They are an intelligence and security agency, operating covertly with plausible deniability is what they do. More importantly, there are laws trying to be passed that can strengthen or weaken their funding and power. Making people at home feel that the ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious answer is that it becomes much harder for the NSA (and related entities) to do their job when their tactics and capabilities are known to the world. Harder as in how? That handwavy excuse gets thrown around a lot, I have yet to hear someone back it up with anything tangible. Domestic spying is something that needs to be reigned in and tightly controlled Well, we tried with blind faith for a while. Turns o…
"Well, we tried with blind faith for a while. Turns out that didn't work all too well. So, how do you propose we control something that we are not allowed to know anything about?" Agreed, with the first sentence at least. Let's be real though; no incarnation of oversight is going to have you and I involved directly, nor should it. You cannot expect the populous to be sufficiently educated on the intricacies of foreig…
but then, if you and I (the "populous") aren't allowed to know what they are trying to achieve, or how they are doing it, how on earth are we supposed to have any faith in the oversight that "lawmakers" provide?
I cannot overstate how strongly I abhor the "you cannot expect the populous..." type arguments when used to continue keeping them in the dark about matters for which THEY HAVE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBIILITY.
if "the populous" is expected to select lawmakers based on the quality of the job they do, then "the populous" sure as HELL needs to have the information on the intricacies of foreign policy and global threats made available to them, and the response that their lawmakers support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably right. No need to consider the arguments made by people who don't agree entirely with a particular point of view, or even discuss it at all. They're obviously just shills. Edit: Much of the 'pro NSA' comments I see here seem merely to suggest that not everything the NSA does is evil, and not every disclosure is necessarily useful. As often happens in threads like these, any such comments are dismissed…
Try looking at the comments from a different angle. Instead of grouping them into "pro-NSA" and "anti-NSA" categories, try checking for technical ignorance. Look for ideas about cyberwarfare based on bad analogies with real warfare. Look for a mindset that puts winning an arms race first and never considers ethical implications. Look for vague statements about protecting or harming America that don't explain whether…
While a post where this type of rhetoric is only part of a larger argument is harder to categorize, there have been a lot of posts here and elsewhere that seem to bring up stale talking points (and little else), that distract threads from more important topics.
This is a tactic that Scientology was famous for, and it seem other groups have started using it as well. None of this is proof, of course; I merely suggest being extra vigilant about off-topic distractions and attempts to create division and unnecessary argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I happen to be German, and obviously I don't have a say in what commands you guys give to your own secret services. But since this appeared in a German magazine, allow me to say this: given the track record of how you treat your alleged "allies", I don't feel comfortable seeing these developments. And I wouldn't ever trust anybody with these powers, least the nsa or even the US government. These people are still t…
It's a good thing for allies to spy on each other to understand intentions, as this article in Foreign Affairs argues. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140247/jennifer-sims/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others have said as much. Here is a quote from William Binney, another NSA whistleblower, on advice that he has for Snowden: > I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting…
The US public has a legitimate interest in knowing about NSA's hacking abilities, because vulnerabilities used by the NSA abroad can just as easily be used domestically by foreign or criminal attackers.
To be fair here, the NSA should very well be doing these things, for the purpose of attacking other states. The reason is very clear as the Russian attacks on Estonia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia ) demonstrate a clear need for defensive capability in this area, and where you have defence you end up needing offence. This persistent confusion between legitimate NSA operations such as pre…
So I happen to be German, and obviously I don't have a say in what commands you guys give to your own secret services. But since this appeared in a German magazine, allow me to say this: given the track record of how you treat your alleged "allies", I don't feel comfortable seeing these developments. And I wouldn't ever trust anybody with these powers, least the nsa or even the US government. These people are still t…
The USA has no allies, only clients. Some clients get more respect than others but they're all clients.
Remember, the State Department had a mole in the FDP, reporting on the German coalition negotiations. In all likelihood the CIA have a minister or more. The US does not respect anyone's sovereignty who can't and won't make them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably right. No need to consider the arguments made by people who don't agree entirely with a particular point of view, or even discuss it at all. They're obviously just shills. Edit: Much of the 'pro NSA' comments I see here seem merely to suggest that not everything the NSA does is evil, and not every disclosure is necessarily useful. As often happens in threads like these, any such comments are dismissed…
Try looking at the comments from a different angle. Instead of grouping them into "pro-NSA" and "anti-NSA" categories, try checking for technical ignorance. Look for ideas about cyberwarfare based on bad analogies with real warfare. Look for a mindset that puts winning an arms race first and never considers ethical implications. Look for vague statements about protecting or harming America that don't explain whether…
And there are a lot of people on the job market who can do those things very well. It's something American schools have been teaching for decades. In my high school there was this thing called a forensics club. "What's forensics? Isn't that like crime stuff?" I asked. It was explained to me that they learn how to debate issues, like free speech on school grounds. "Well obviously we want free speech." "Actually", my friend says, "I'm going to be arguing against it." "You don't support free speech?" I ask. "I do. But I was assigned to the against side." I thought it sounded stupid. Now I get it. It was cognitive dissonance as a vocational lesson.
So it's the people who sound unusually well-informed that I most suspect of astroturfing. Except I assume they also practice how to make what they write not sound rehearsed.