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

Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

antipolygraph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#111

Post by the_af »

tptacek wrote: post #96
wedog6 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about mustache twirling villains though is it. There are also a large number of people there who sit at desks and handle the logistics of moving people who are entitled either to be treated as PoWs or to a fair trial, into countries where they can be tortured while preserving a facade of it not being done by the agency itself.

Just have the courage of your convictions and extend this logic of culpability to everybody who works for the United States Government. Otherwise, it just sounds like you don't understand that a huge fraction of the work of intelligence is preventing wars . I don't think the CIA is broadly a force for good. I think that the presumption that most people working there are evil is unfounded, though. It's a huge organiza…

It's very hard to understand what you're arguing though.

You agree the CIA is not "broadly a force for good" (which I consider a big understatement). You also don't seem to disagree it's an organization whose activities involve, among others, torture, assassinations, extraordinary renditions, psyops, etc. Yes, sometimes to "prevent wars", other times to incite wars or to topple governments they don't like, or to help crush down rebellions they don't like, or to help rebellions they do like.

So why this fixation on pointing out that the majority of CIA analysts are pencil pushers and not directly involved in unsavory activities? They still enable them. And they willingly work for this organization, why make excuses for them just because some of them are nerds who wear a suit and don't personally torture anybody, and instead translate Farsi or Chinese?

As a reminder, this is the comment to which you're reacting:

> The guy trying to work for the psychological torture club got psychologically tortured a little? My heart bleeds for him

I mean, the comment is right. This guy in TFA did willingly belong to a psychological torture group, even if he's not directly involved in this particular activity. It's ok for us to react at the irony of the situation, that he feels tortured by the polygraph, given the organization he belongs to. They didn't even physically touch him, yet he felt "abused".

I'm sure you understand the slippery slope of comparing the CIA to all of the US government is just not right.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#112

Post by Herring »

tptacek wrote: post #96
wedog6 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about mustache twirling villains though is it. There are also a large number of people there who sit at desks and handle the logistics of moving people who are entitled either to be treated as PoWs or to a fair trial, into countries where they can be tortured while preserving a facade of it not being done by the agency itself.

Just have the courage of your convictions and extend this logic of culpability to everybody who works for the United States Government. Otherwise, it just sounds like you don't understand that a huge fraction of the work of intelligence is preventing wars . I don't think the CIA is broadly a force for good. I think that the presumption that most people working there are evil is unfounded, though. It's a huge organiza…

That’s true of every criminal org. Enforcers are usually a small percentage of the population, because they are fundamentally businesses. Violence is "expensive" in terms of heat from law enforcement, lost revenue, lower internal stability, etc.

You don’t need to defend it with weak arguments. If you feel like you do, that is a bigger issue, maybe talk to your local therapist or priest.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#113

Post by the_af »

wedog6 wrote: post #85
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what that means, because a polygraph by design tells the polygrapher whatever they want it to.

I believe it was the subject of the test who could make the polygraph reading show whatever they wanted, even though it was being administered by an experienced operator.

I think the point is that, since polygraph readings are pseudoscience, it's always the interrogator who picks what they "mean". If this is true, a smart test subject cannot mislead them, since there's nothing to mislead, as the polygraph is just a pressure technique and it means whatever the interrogator needs it to mean.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#114

Post by themafia »

> but I wondered why a petty thief thought she could get into the Agency.

....do you not understand what "the Agency" actually does?

It's no wonder they create this giant wall of existential dread to the applicants. It prevents them from seeing the scope of what they're about to get themselves into.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#115

Post by gigatree »

rapnie wrote: post #78
XorNot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That research was oriented towards making sure it wasn't possible though. You're saying "of course it isn't" - but how do you know that? At the time the Soviets had the same sort of projects. So until you're sure it's not possible, the potential capability is an enormous threat if it is. How they went about that research is where the waste creeps in.

I always wonder when I see one of those hypnosis shows, where someone from the audience makes themselves a docile fool in front of a large crowd, whether they are stooges or it is the real deal. But I wouldn't volunteer to get hypnotised to figure that out, in fear of being the next person who stands imitating a dog in heat on such a stage.

The few people I’ve asked who’ve been hypnotized said it was true and had no reason to lie or trick me, and it seems true. But if the lens is “we already figured out all biology and physics so we can ignore the possibility of actual hypnosis (putting someone in a trance stage) being possible” then it’s hard to see things that there’s actually immense evidence for (eg the telepathy tapes).

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#116

Post by driverdan »

XorNot wrote: post #56
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #48

I'm always surprised to hear that a government agency administers polygraph tests in something as serious as hiring but then I remember the CIA also spent millions of dollars trying to develop telekinetic assassins and train clairvoyants to spy on the Kremlin.

That research was oriented towards making sure it wasn't possible though. You're saying "of course it isn't" - but how do you know that? At the time the Soviets had the same sort of projects. So until you're sure it's not possible, the potential capability is an enormous threat if it is. How they went about that research is where the waste creeps in.

You don't waste resources researching something with no plausibility or explanation as to how it could exist.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#117

Post by ElProlactin »

masfuerte wrote: post #107
halJordan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever get the opportunity to read what people admit, unprompted, during these "conversations" then you'll know why they'll never go away. Stuff like, "yeah i stepped on a kitten's head once, but i was young... No i don't see why anyone would have a problem with that." No one wants that guy working at the cia.

Are you sure? Post 9/11 the CIA decided they needed to be in the business of kidnapping and torturing. They didn't seem to have any trouble finding employees to do it.

Yeah, they need people who will do the most inhumane things to other human beings, not animals.

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#118

Post by ElProlactin »

BlobberSnobber wrote: post #74
ifh-hn wrote: post #9

I've no idea why I read to the end of that, seems like a long ramble, I kept expecting something to happen and it never did.

It made me cringe at how boot-licking the author, and apparently a lot of people at the CIA, are (like defending the “petty thief” not getting the job). People will work for one of the most evil organizations in the world and expect pity for being interrogated, while that same organization has torture sites.

And they were the happiest years of her life!

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#119

Post by yesbabyyes »

greedo wrote: post #93
mrb wrote: post #67

"Someone who hated computers so much that she had the secretary print out her emails so she could read them was interrogated for hours about hacking into Agency networks [...] there was often a gross mismatch between a person and the accusations made against them." Well, isn't it expected? If I were a double agent, faking that I was so computer illiterate that I ask my emails to be printed out would be the perfect co…

Didn't RMS do this with his emails?

No, Stallman uses Emacs:

> I spend most of my time editing in Emacs. I read and send mail with Emacs using M-x rmail and C-x m. I have no experience with any other email client programs.

You may have confused this with his somewhat idiosyncratic way of browsing the web:

> I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it.

https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/stallman-com...

Donald Knuth, on the other hand, quit email in 1990, after using it for 15 years:

> I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address. I'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime.

Since then, he prefers snail mail but has a secretary who will print out his emails:

> My secretary also prints out all nonspam email messages addressed to taocp@cs.stanford.edu or knuth-bug@cs.stanford.edu, so that I can reply with written comments when I have a chance. If I run across such a message that was misaddressed --- I mean, if the message asks a question instead of reporting an error --- I try not to get angry.

https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html

Re: Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

#120

Post by coreyburnsdev »

Arainach wrote: post #59

I applied for an internship with the NSA. My understanding of the process (years ago, pre-Snowden) was that they did a pass on your resume (I can't recall if there was even a phone screen), then they started background checks and if there were N internships the first N people to pass the security clearance were selected. They went through the standard stuff, interviewing my neighbors, etc. Then they flew me to Fort M…

really? working with the nsa would probably be very interesting work!
Post reply on HN