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

71–80 of 89 posts

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

#71

Post by happyscrappy »

rmxt wrote: post #69
happyscrappy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.

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

#72

Post by mineshaftgap »

bob-2 wrote: post #68
happyscrappy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You are essentially arguing that other Western nations have no agency and are forced to do the US's bidding.

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

#73

Post by PopsiclePete »

sillygoose wrote: post #50
PopsiclePete wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing special about lobbying that needs to tie it to corruption. Plenty of countries without legalized lobbying are even more corrupt. Politics is power, money is power, the two will invariably be linked. It's human nature. Very, very few people are "uncorruptable". Usually, it's just a matter of "how much". The way to fight this isn't by trying to enforce more unenforceable laws or to make new rules/regula…

If all candidates will be happy to take bribes once in office - which is pretty much guaranteed - how do you think voting could possibly prevent bribery at all?

Voting is the only way to end a politician's career. "Fool me once", yes, but you're not holding office again. Not only that, but people will know why you didn't get elected, which drastically reduces your chances of finding good, honest employment again.

If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption - politicians want to stay politicians, after all.

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

#74

Post by fweespeech »

arprocter wrote: post #70
fweespeech wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Fair enough, I figured the context of the 6 figure comment I made was enough context about my meaning with that quote.

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

#75

Post by rmxt »

happyscrappy wrote: post #71
rmxt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.

Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is the appeal to the majority that I am pointing out. It's ironic that you bring it up in the context of lobbying for the reason I've stated above.

Note: I don't think that all lobbying is unethical or contrary to public opinion. I do think that a good majority of it is untested and inorganic. It's monied interests preserving monied interests.

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

#76

Post by fineman »

shit_parade2 wrote: post #27
lostcolony wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not the issue of the speech in lobbying, it's that lobbying in politics means gifts of money.

I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a $20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)

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

#77

Post by rl3 »

jobu wrote: post #39
heapcity wrote: post #12

Pres. Eisenhower gives dire warning: 'We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether saught or unsaught by the Military Industrial Complex' (Jan. 17, 1961) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Most people view the term "Military Industrial Complex" from the view of the primary definition of complex - "consisting of many different and connected parts". It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex - "a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental state…

>It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex ...

No, he did not. [1]

While that's certainly an interesting thought as well as a unique angle, nothing I can find suggests that it was his intent.

Moreover, the usage of the term in context of the speech itself is evidence enough:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." [2]

Eisenhower clearly used the term as if it were a concrete entity, not as an abstract reference to a psychiatric state.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com...

[2] http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents...

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

#78

Post by MadManE »

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #46
MadManE wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.

Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.

Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals?

Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.

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

#79

Post by mineshaftgap »

rmxt wrote: post #75
happyscrappy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.

Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is t…

You are attempting to handwave away the fact that virtually all policies have majority support. You can argue they were tricked, you can argue they are wrong, but you cannot argue that long standing policies are not supported by the majority. That may not jive with your world view but too bad, it is on the minority to convince the majority.

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

#80

Post by crazy1van »

cies wrote: post #16

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

The definition of lobbyist seems to have become people persuading congress in favor of an opinion I don't share. Not to be confused with "activists", who are people persuading congress for an opinion I agree with.
Post reply on HN