Further ties of NSA to Equation Group hackers

> My solution? Take them to court, and establish clear oversights. This is what keeps getting said.

I agree, but there's no proof that the Equations Group/TAO were conducting operations without oversight, so I fail to see why this is a big deal. The fact that the oversight that DOES exist consists of rubber-stamping is the fault of either ineffective overseers or unscrupulous intelligence officers. It has no bearing on the people writing the exploits.

Those are absolutely real issues, but they don't apply to this case in any apparent way. I'm all for Intelligence reform but railing against the evils of the NSA when discussing a highly effective portion of its legitimate purpose just muddies the waters of the debate.

"I don't believe NSA blackmail can or will happen in general, for reasons I have mentioned before here on HN. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail."

First of all, having being part of the action arm of the government (Marine Corps) I can say from experience that I don't trust any of the fuckers in DC, and I think your attitude is naive. Secondly, you are setting up a strawman fallacy by saying that the comments you most frequently see assume that if leaders are being watched they are all afraid. I haven't seen that claim made anywhere, even on conspiracy websites.

No, control is about a toolbag, and some tools work on some people and some tools work on others. Just like if you were trying to recruit a spy to spy on his country for you. Maybe blackmail works on person A, but maybe person B just wants his kids to go to a good US college. Maybe person C just needs some money. Not all the politicians needs to fear surveillance blackmail because there are other methods for those who don't succumb to that particular tactic.

"The simple fact is that there is value system diversity in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity variance among United States politicians,..."

More strawmen. What does "probity variance" even mean? Probity means completely honest, so how can there be variance on being completely honest? Not to mention even saying the word probity in a sentence targeted at US politicians falls flat on the face of history.

"and there isn't any universal way to unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to discover personal secrets"

Nobody is saying there is a universal way to compromise or unduly influence politicians, as per my previous statements. The fact that you are ignoring all the other ways to unduly influence them seems striking, especially given your own claimed position as a judicial clerk for your states supreme court. Either you know about them and are omitting them on purpose, which is dishonest conversation (I'll refrain from lawyer comments), or you don't, in which case you are out of your depth in your commenting. All I see in your statements is a string of logical fallacies with no substantive comment of any note. (your first paragraph excepted)

Also, regarding the idea that there are a handful of straight arrow politicans. I don't disagree entirely, though I may question how straight, but I think you might misunderstand their power position in the beltway. They may be upright, but if they sit back and don't do anything about the egregiously unconstitutional acts occurring around them they are guilty by association.

To add to your point: computer espionage is the first and often second to last step before computer sabotage. You could build a program protected by cryptography that without the key would be indistinguishable from spyware, but with the key would be very destructive. You can't know the intention of a computer network operation until the attacker pulls the trigger and releases the key and by then it is too late.

In conventional espionage sabotage does not have the same footprint as intelligence collection. They are easier to tell apart. For this reason merely copying the rules and norms of HUMINT and SIGINT into computer network operations is very dangerous.

When is the last time you saw an argument on an internet message board change anyone's mind?

I am sure there are plenty of government and military bureaucrats who aren't bothered by futility of their efforts, but the leaks we've seen so far suggest that the NSA, at least, are competent at achieving their goals.

Strange, for some reason I couldn't reply to your comment for a while.

I have seen minds changed quite frequently on the internet, and I think the cynical attitude towards internet discussions isn't helpful. It largely depends on the forum and it's quality though. For example, HN is a great place for people to find factual correction from peers, and I see it daily here. On reddit, subs like /r/askhistorians or /r/engineering are also places where I see factual correction taken as it should be, that is to say as constructive criticism.

Now, regarding the "effectiveness" you refer to, I think you need to broaden your idea of the definition. If you are thinking that sock puppets are there to change minds, you are severely mistaken. I would venture to say that most sock puppet tactics are based on some variance of distraction or pushing of topic or conversational tone. It's a complex topic with a myriad of techniques that can be applied by corporate PR just as easily as a government. If you want to know more, try the following:

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5