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

61–70 of 89 posts

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

#61

Post by pointernil »

As an European I often wonder, how do people in the US cope with this level of corporate driven politics... I have the impression in Europe this kind of connections do exists but are seen as a serious problem and actively worked against in the legislation and even with this those connection are increasing and "growing" in weight on politics.

I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal modus operandi in US politics.

Are Europe and the US approaching some kind of middle point in the level of inter-connectivity of corporations and politics: Europe reaching it from the lower levels and the US by reaching it from higher levels?

It is really absurd how since the 60s resp. 70s after the nations coped more or less with the devastation of the 2 World Wars, politics has been reduced essentially to economic interests and agendas AND in the process gave it self up to the economic agents: large corporations which are defining politics. Are economics, money, corporations over-represented in politics?

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

#62

Post by rmxt »

happyscrappy wrote: post #59
rmxt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if lobbying/corruption doesn't happen from the top (federal) to the bottom (local/city) in the United States... We don't need to compare the federal government's issues with "security" spending to European countries to see how there are questionable spending practices at the state level, e.g. public works contracts.

Well that is going to be a hard argument to sell because so many laws are local and you can't really successfully condemn every small jurisdictions decisions without condemning the people that voted for them.

Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make. It's also a lesson repeated throughout history: see Rome (and the transition from Republic to Empire), Britain (and their 19th century colonial exploits), and others.

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

#63

Post by pointernil »

cies wrote: post #16

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

I would like to suggest to anyone actually providing non-corrupt lobbying services to rename their line of work.

Even if legal and ethical definitions of "lobbying" exists, they exist only in the minds of knowledgeable minorities and not in the broad public.

This btw. would as well help to highlight the benefits of serious, legal and non-corrupt services formerly known as "lobbying" ;)

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

#64

Post by happyscrappy »

rmxt wrote: post #62
happyscrappy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is going to be a hard argument to sell because so many laws are local and you can't really successfully condemn every small jurisdictions decisions without condemning the people that voted for them.

Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make…

You can criticize the personal traits of the elected but when their policies are overwhelmingly supported it is hard to condemn that without involving the people who voted for it. It sucks to have the majority against your beliefs but pretending doesn't address the real problem.

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

#65

Post by istvan__ »

happyscrappy wrote: post #55
istvan__ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not. This is why US is not ranked high on any corruption list, while maintaining the highest level if private financial influence not only in the lawmaking but also in national security. These are very dangerous, and as the Princeton study points out it threatens democracy in the long run very much. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

Some country the size of Massachussetts can rank better but let's ignore Italy and Greece.

I am just pointing out the status quo.

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

#66

Post by fweespeech »

arprocter wrote: post #60
fweespeech wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious] Lobbying in, say, the UK isn't legalized corruption. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/world/europe/with-campaign... > LONDON — There is no political advertising on television or radio in Britain. Fund-raising and spending are strictly limited. Tight elections can turn on a relative handful of votes in a small number of competitive parliamenta…

In the UK there are 'Party political broadcasts' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast

Yes, but they are not being charged for the time. It is the fact that US politics allows essentially unlimited spending on broadcast advertising to consumers that creates the corrupting influence of lobbyists on the scale we are seeing.

1 on 1 conversations with industry, media, union reps, etc. is part of doing business in a democracy. Mass broadcasts to sway public opinion isn't required.

> In the United Kingdom the Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising on television or radio; parties are instead allocated broadcast slots (usually around five minutes long) free of charge on broadcast channels using a formula set by Parliament

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

#67

Post by andrewmutz »

pointernil wrote: post #61

As an European I often wonder, how do people in the US cope with this level of corporate driven politics... I have the impression in Europe this kind of connections do exists but are seen as a serious problem and actively worked against in the legislation and even with this those connection are increasing and "growing" in weight on politics. I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal mo…

If I understand the article correctly, the people they are talking about don't hold public office. They are private citizens who are pro-NSA and who have corporate ties to the NSA, and are speaking publicly.

So I don't think this article is an example of politicians having corporate motivations, but rather talking heads on TV having corporate motivation.

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

#68

Post by bob-2 »

happyscrappy wrote: post #58
mmrasheed wrote: post #53

I find recent NSA related craps utterly outdated, dull and juvenile. At this point, distinction between news on NSA's secret projects and government's public release of secret documents seems blurry and overlapping. NSA has been working on quantum computing for decades. Recent success of both Israel and NSA in harnessing quantum computing for practical purposes is well known for at least couple of years. When quantum…

>Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years? Because then you have to acknowledge that threats exist that are not the US government, and that is not kosher because the goal is to reduce US power.

> the goal is to reduce US power.

Better put: the goal is to reduce US abuse of power. Accountability is the focus, not disarmament.

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

#69

Post by rmxt »

happyscrappy wrote: post #64
rmxt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make…

You can criticize the personal traits of the elected but when their policies are overwhelmingly supported it is hard to condemn that without involving the people who voted for it. It sucks to have the majority against your beliefs but pretending doesn't address the real problem.

Doubling down on the good old "appeal to the majority," I see... guess we won't be getting anywhere in this thread. The real problem is the one that I am addressing: it starts with the offices themselves and continues as the revolving door continues to revolve. The masses have less and less of a chance to get their desires implemented if lobbying occurs.

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

#70

Post by arprocter »

fweespeech wrote: post #66
arprocter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there are 'Party political broadcasts' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast

Yes, but they are not being charged for the time. It is the fact that US politics allows essentially unlimited spending on broadcast advertising to consumers that creates the corrupting influence of lobbyists on the scale we are seeing. 1 on 1 conversations with industry, media, union reps, etc. is part of doing business in a democracy. Mass broadcasts to sway public opinion isn't required. > In the United Kingdom th…

IMO the article should've said 'There is no /paid-for/ political advertising on television or radio in Britain'.
Post reply on HN