It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

Post by timClicks » Fri, Nov 01, 2013, 2:19 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #155

a3n wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could be that with their security clearances, they know things about threats that make their decision to work for the NSA a moral imperative. This I very much doubt.The builders would have security clearances, because what they're building is classified. But builders would not need and would not have access to intelligence; they aren't analysts or policy makers. They probably have barely more information on inte…

And Snowden came from the builder side of the house, so all we are seeing in his document release so far is classified capabilities , not the intelligence that they collected, or any plots that they thwarted. The folks who do know that stuff are still following their own rules, so they can't tell us about them. So we are all operating from an assymmetry of information. I'm really, really against the capabilities I've…

Post by mindcrime » Fri, Nov 01, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #169

mindcrime wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there potentially reasons why "terrorism" might in fact be a greater threat to our ideals and way of life then government power? Sure! Anything's possible. But such threats would need to be justified publicly, they can not be justified behind closed doors with classified documents. This is, to me, the core point. Government exists to serve US, the People, not the other way around. And to maintain that order of th…

If by some horrible miracle --- a "horribilicle" --- we had upon us a series of public referenda on a Constitutional amendment enabling foreign intelligence services to ignore the 4th Amendment in the service of any reasonable pursuit of Islamic terrorists, how do you think "WE" would vote on it? I know how I'd vote ("fuck no"), but I don't think I could predict whether the amendment would pass. It's worth keeping in…

Post by aeturnum » Fri, Nov 01, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

ateeqs wrote: post #182

jcampbell1 wrote: post #136

Google needs to fight back. The first thing Google should do is encourage HTTPS everywhere. Google should change the algorithm to prefer sites that support HTTPS everywhere. Matt Cutts should make some video like: "Google uses over 200 different signals to determine page relevancy. Our users value privacy, so one of the signals we use is whether the site uses HTTPS. We tend to prefer to send search users to secure si…

Wait guys, let me get this straight: You guys are not okay with the US government accessing your data that Google has, but you are somehow okay with sharing your data with Google? I just see big "evil" vs small "evil." I'm not seeing much of a difference. Also, would you be okay if another government had access to your data in Google's cloud? You guys are probably not seeing the futility of it all.

Post by ateeqs » Fri, Nov 01, 2013, 2:38 AM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #30

sharkweek wrote: post #19

I have an honest and serious question -- who are the developers and designers who put these systems into place for the NSA? Are they aware of what they're doing or is it all classified and contracted out? Are they proud of their work? Is it just a paycheck? Surely someone with such a high aptitude could easily get a job elsewhere -- I guess I'm just unable to make the connection on who willingly builds this kind of s…

Everyone on HN acts like there's no possible reason for people to support these types of activities, but there could be very legitimate reasons these engineers choose to do what they do. It could just be a challenge for them. Where else can you not only get away with, but be rewarded with a good salary and a pension for hacking into the most secure systems on earth? It must be thrilling to be 'Competing' against the…

Post by ateeqs » Fri, Nov 01, 2013, 2:42 AM UTC

duairc wrote: post #173

tedunangst wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?

The short answer is: you. Obviously there is no objective universal criteria for legitimacy or morality or anything like that. It will come down to what your personal politics are, a fact which will itself be hugely influenced by your material position in the web of power relations that structures your social reality.