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

Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

firstlook.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#21

Post by ihsw »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #18
cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobby…

The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying.

This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out.

We're morally bankrupt in every sense.

Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals.

Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#22

Post by lostcolony »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #18
cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobby…

The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our citizens because it makes them profitable? They could raise that issue, an existent researcher could look into it; but the continued funding of that researcher is not tied to their findings or results in any way.

As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#23

Post by CWuestefeld »

rtpg wrote: post #3

The 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…

I agree completely.

It seems that the most powerful tool most people have in their debate toolbox is "you have a financial interest in X, so your opinion on X must be invalid". But this is a logical fallacy.

It's incorrect dismiss a study on the Widget industry just because it was performed by scientists from Widgets-R-Us. Who else is going to do the study? Who has more understanding of widgets than those very scientists? And in particular, why should we believe that the study done by Widgets-R-Evil is somehow more pure and worthy of consideration?

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#24

Post by ganeumann »

I think the main point here is the one Todd Gitlin makes: "the onus for disclosure ultimately lies with reporters and news programs, who should be asking these experts to reveal potential conflicts of interest and to explain the basis of their assertions about national security."

We all have a conflict of interest here (not least because since we are all being spied on by our governments) but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't valid. But the conflicts of interest need to be disclosed with the opinions so the readers/viewers have a chance to weight the opinions presented.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#25

Post by bradleyjg »

I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years, at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog.

He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written, but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to be playing a cynical PR game.

Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely should.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#26

Post by Spooky23 »

cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying itself is just a form of advocacy. They actually add value sometimes, as they know everyone... If you have s problem, they can get you to the right people in government.

It has become a bigger corruption issue as attaining office has become more expensive, lobbyists are a money funnel.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#27

Post by shit_parade2 »

lostcolony wrote: post #22
AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobby…

The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our citizens because it makes them profitab…

Lobbying is an inheritly tricky problem because you want to allow everyone to exercise free speech, if suddenly only government funded researchers are allowed to make comments on policy you no longer can participate in democratic governance.

The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service that everyday people want to opt in for.

When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that benefit the few over the many.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#29

Post by roc »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #18
cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobby…

Lobbying is like any other organization of man: government, organized religion, corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. Once they get to a certain size, once people are supported solely by the organization and thus put their need for it to exist and grow and flourish above even its stated purpose, it can (and seemingly inevitably does) become corrupt.

Lobbying on Net Neutrality, done by a bunch of technology workers passionate about the issue is fine. Lobbying on Net Neutrality by professional lobbyists (selling their rolodex) and corporate lawyers, who donate, wine/dine, hire nephews, host fundraisers, etc is not.

It's pretty clear which version people are talking about when they complain about lobbying. (Hint: less to do with reddit, more to do with K Street) And professional lobbying is pretty much inherently corrupt.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#30

Post by bediger4000 »

logicallee wrote: post #8
LLWM wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The public aren't criminals, I agree wholeheartedly. The law (in the USA) probably says otherwise, but law enforcement isn't supposed to treat the public as criminals. That's pretty basic to the US's form of government.

The issue is that the FBI and DEA (with help from NSA) do treat the public as criminals. We've all done something wrong, or are going to very shortly, and they're gathering lots of information on all of us to ensure they can find that wrongdoing.

I think that's the issue. We, the public, are treated as criminals in all of these snooping programs. We didn't get to vote on it, the FBI and NSA went rogue, creating "secret" laws via secret courts that justify all the assumptions of criminality. We didn't get to choose.

Post reply on HN