Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#2you don't say
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#3The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor".
This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which they have expertise (policy).
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#4The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which t…
Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#5The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which t…
Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.
if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden.
It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment.
I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all.
It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#6If I support the NSA can I get some of that money?
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.
if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to…
By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to…
By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
It would be crazy, if criminals obeyed all the other laws and paid their taxes responsibly, as well as voted and participated in representative democracy. Which is why they don't.
Plus, to complete the analogy with our subject (which I mention explicitly) the police would have to be for-profit, which would be a terrible idea. But to answer your question, yes, it would absurd for criminals to vote in for-profit police that they choose to finance, and have shoot at them for profit.
The difference is that the public aren't criminals, and are protected by minimum sane levels of black-box surveillance for their protection, which they pay for via taxes. It's not supposed to be some profit-making activity. it's not "against" the public. the public aren't criminals.
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#9The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which t…
> This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest...
Hehe, as though these things just happen to go hand-in-hand.
Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
#10The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which t…
So what you're saying is that they just "happen to support the NSA" while getting donations from those companies for other reasons?
I think America has gone too far with its "political correctness". This is why these days media people can't even say that politicians are lying anymore. They have to say words such as "misinterpreting the truth" or "made an error", and why people like Clapper or other law enforcement agents get away with committing "errors", as opposed to calling them what they really are - crimes.