Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio] • Hacker News Board

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#181

Post by turbojerry » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 7:29 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #38

I have a trick I feel would make a confrontation like this better. Always speak under the assumption that the other person is 'good'. That means not calling them a liar. Instead, ask the questions that you feel would expose the inconsistency. That way they show everyone the point you're trying to make. Also it prevents personal animosity from obscuring the real content you might discover. Furthermore, it allows a 3rd…

I have a trick too, ask about a worst case scenario, in the case of the NSA spying it might go as follows-

Given that throughout history every intelligence organization has been penetrated by those hostile to it, having a system like PRISM means that the hostile agencies would be able to do more damage to the USA that they would otherwise. A hypothetical case would be a hostile agency gaining information to blackmail a guard at a nuclear weapons storage facility, allowing the USA to be decimated from the inside with its own nuclear weapons stockpile.

Then allow them to contemplate it, be completely silent. There are really only two responses to this, either it starts to dawn on them that what they are doing could harm many innocent people or they will BS, not want to talk about "hypotheticals" and generally evade the possibility just laid out. The former means they are human, the second, probably a sociopath.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#182

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 8:42 PM UTC

krichman wrote: post #160

DannyBee wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The system is best served by not being allowed to randomly put whomever in jail for whatever [1]." They aren't randomly putting whomeever. They are putting a guy who admitted to a crime, and is in fact, guilty, in jail. And not even in jail. My only objection was to the trial, not a sentencing hearing. They are welcome to argue whatever factors/mitigations/excuses they want at that hearing. You still haven't answere…

How can you claim we objectively know that someone is guilty or even that a crime was committed at all? Even the lawyer hearing the confession cannot possibly assert beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true with no other evidence. So what's the scientific way? Maybe present evidence to an unaligned third decider that the crime happened and that the most likely explanation is that the accused committed the crime?

I'm sorry, are you to claim in the second paragraph that the way our system works in front of a jury is a scientific way of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

If so, I invite you to visit the court room more.

As for the first, you can objectively know if the person is guilty in a number of ways. For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it. It happens plenty of times.

If your answer is "nothing is enough to objectively know", then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Also, note that "reasonable doubt" is a very modern standard. It's not clear why you seem to be holding it up as the "only" or "right" standard.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#183

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 9:02 PM UTC

homosaur wrote: post #172

sliverstorm wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was the student trying to make a point, or get to the point of a question ? Because trying to make a point against a recruiter for a little sound byte on soundcloud is bullshit and contributes nothing, while phrasing your question in a way that maximizes the sense of confrontation or personal assault is an excellent way to ensure you don't get your question answered.

They aren't going to answer questions because they are indoctrinated cowards who work as NSA shills and they would be fired. The best you could hope for here is to kill the bullshit they are spraying and kill any hope of them gaining any benefit from a recruitment seminar. There's benefit solely in not letting these agencies propagandize.

Ah, so what you are saying is do your best to ensure young idealistic minds do not join the NSA, to ensure the old guard stays entrenched as long as possible. Yes, I see how that addresses the problem.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#184

Post by embolism » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 9:40 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #126

embolism wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't seem very constructive - which is my point

By giving you the evidence you asked for? Or by also making points you don't like? Feel free to respond to either, but spare me transparent excuses for not doing so and how that is somehow my fault.

You didn't make a point - you just expressed an attitude.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#185

Post by embolism » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 9:48 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #105

embolism wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly enough to warrant an open political inquiry and changes of policy, as well as resignations from those politically responsible. It's not at all obvious that all the NSA staff should just walk away from their jobs. If the NSA is actually protecting people, that would be just as irresponsible.

I think it's safe to say that they are not protecting people to any major degree. When pressed, the only justification they can come up with is "terrorism", which is a completely insignificant threat.

Just to be clear - what do you think they are actually doing? I.e. what does the government pay for them to do?

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#186

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #34

robbiemitchell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.

I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again? Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old w…

It serves no direct purpose to the parties of a criminal case to defend someone you know to be guilty. But doesn't it serve an important indirect purpose in allowing the system to function despite (necessarily) complex laws that laypeople can't navigate on their own?

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#187

Post by phaus » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 10:42 PM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #152

gcb0 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens. no religion is for the soul. it's all about control.

but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens. What would happen? (serious question)

In almost all cases, your religious preference would be respected, and no one would give a shit. Unless of course you actually did mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because this would be an obvious attempt to demean another person's religious beliefs.

Yes, Christians are in the majority in the military, but they are also required by regulation and therefore law to treat everyone with respect. There are Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Mormons, Mennonites, Taoists, Bhuddists, Harri Krishnas, Jedis, and many more in the United States military. I've even had a friend who claimed to observe traditional Norse beliefs.

Every official event that I've been to has had some sort of Christian benediction, which is technically unethical, but at the same time, if it brings comfort to the overwhelming majority of my friends who may soon be risking their lives in combat, isn't it more damaging to attempt to deprive them of it?

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#188

Post by phaus » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 10:45 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #159

colanderman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I just picked the first result on Google. I learned this tidbit from a previous posting on HN; apparently the CIA (or NSA?) recruits heavily from Brigham Young University.

It was the CIA. There is the possibility that they trend towards Mormons due to some belief/statistic that they are more likely to respect authority, or unquestioningly follow orders. On the other hand, Mormons do a lot of missionary work where they learn the local language, in addition to customs, etc. This is also something extremely valuable to intelligence organizations.

There's a reserve/guard unit (can't remember which) in Utah that is comprised largely of Mormons who became linguists for the Army. Supposedly, it's the most talented and diverse group of linguists ever assembled, and they have people who speak languages that no other person in the Western world knows.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#189

Post by phaus » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 10:50 PM UTC

B0Z wrote: post #156

droopyEyelids wrote: post #38

I have a trick I feel would make a confrontation like this better. Always speak under the assumption that the other person is 'good'. That means not calling them a liar. Instead, ask the questions that you feel would expose the inconsistency. That way they show everyone the point you're trying to make. Also it prevents personal animosity from obscuring the real content you might discover. Furthermore, it allows a 3rd…

In a sanitized or controlled scenario, this makes sense. Passion and emotion, however, are impossible to strip from opinions in the context of the Snowden revelations that started all of this. Having the scab ripped off the NSA has altered the perspective of entire generations. Frankly I think the students handled themselves remarkably well.

They handled themselves pretty well for the first half of that conversation, with some intelligently phrased questions. Unfortunately, during the second half of the clip, the conversation degenerated into petty childishness.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#190

Post by krichman » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 3:37 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #182

krichman wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you claim we objectively know that someone is guilty or even that a crime was committed at all? Even the lawyer hearing the confession cannot possibly assert beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true with no other evidence. So what's the scientific way? Maybe present evidence to an unaligned third decider that the crime happened and that the most likely explanation is that the accused committed the crime?

I'm sorry, are you to claim in the second paragraph that the way our system works in front of a jury is a scientific way of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, I invite you to visit the court room more. As for the first, you can objectively know if the person is guilty in a number of ways. For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence tha…

> For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it.

Then that would be good enough to convince a jury the accused is guilty. You can't allow the defence to just claim "well, he did it", as you appear to desire, because that's ripe for abuse.