The NSA: An Inside View • Hacker News Board

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#211

Post by simoncion » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 3:32 AM UTC

lorendsr wrote: post #35

jjoonathan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, I completely buy his assertions about China's pervasive hacking attempts/successes and that the NSA is our best tool for stopping them. On the other hand, you're right on the money about parallel construction. In my book, that's the one thing that sent the NSA "over the line." It's good to hear that many NSA employees take the police/military distinction seriously, but we know for a fact that some higher…

Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it. You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught.

> Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it.

You should have heard of it. It was brought up the last time you posted your blog post to HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6882823

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#212

Post by freyr » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 3:40 AM UTC

To summarize:

* He doesn't care if the NSA spies on everybody, because he doesn't care if they spy on him. He have nothing to hide.

* In his experience, the people accessing our data can be trusted. We can extrapolate this to the NSA as a whole. The bad apples are rare.

* Cybarwar is real and dangerous, and we should reevaluate our priorities with this in mind.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#213

Post by eli » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 3:47 AM UTC

Thanks for posting what I'm sure you knew would be an unpopular opinion around these parts. Interesting read.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#214

Post by nkurz » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 4:00 AM UTC

75BCD67 wrote: post #188

mtgentry wrote: post #19

No offense to OP, but this reads like propaganda to me. It feels like someone at the Pentagon realized they weren't winning the war of the minds of hackers, so they encouraged some of their own to blog about their experiences. I hate to sound like a tin hat wearing conspiracist. I really do. But I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of concerted effort by the NSA to encourage a dialogue with hackers on platf…

I set up an account to reply to this comment; I have an informed opinion. I expect that the blog post is sincere. If the NSA or another government agency wanted to manipulate the discourse on this or a similar site, however, they would (not could, would) do so by setting up a large number of active accounts over a long period of time. These would promote articles without triggering voting ring algorithms. For the las…

I recently discovered that many of the (active and quite long-standing) blogs and commenters in this online community are fraudulent.

Realizing the potential awkwardness of this request from a stranger considering your message, is there anything publicly published about this particular situation?

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#215

Post by burke » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 4:38 AM UTC

> I do not believe that their information-gathering powers should be curtailed. Such restriction would not only hinder the Agency’s ability to gather intelligence, but also impede its ability to wage cyberwarfare.

Yes. That is the point.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#216

Post by bane » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 4:50 AM UTC

I'm always surprised about how posts like this bring out the real nutjob part of HN that sort of sits there and lurks dormant waiting to pull out unprovable conspiracies any time something like this gets posted. I'm not talking about the folks who disagree with the OP, or what the NSA does... I'm specifically talking about the rather uncomfortable level of crazy that squirrels out in these "discussions".

There are some posts here so outright loony that I actually feel a bit uncomfortable having an account here.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#217

Post by mpyne » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 5:00 AM UTC

iaskwhy wrote: post #139

kabdib wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is anything to learn here, it is that a specific enemy is not necessary. You could get back-roomed for having said "I like Froot Loops" in a private email a decade ago. It could be /arbitrary/.

Or they could just lie.

Just like they could simply ignore the law and conspire with telecom companies to do the snooping anyways. :P

If you're going to assume that level of malice on the part of government then the game is already over.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#218

Post by mrobot » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 5:02 AM UTC

mrobot wrote: post #106

One thing that always bothers me is the assumption that we dislike the NSA because we're worried about them reading our personal emails and looking at our photos, and.. "you know.. our Instagramming". We should know it's not about anyone going through the process of reading our communications, it's about having automated systems hooked up to them, keeping them, and having the ability to use them. The human and electr…

More sources on how RAS is being used by these different agencies. Note that an initial RAS queries are what pulled the data in to the more easily queryable "corporate stores".

Morning session of civil liberties review, 21:07, 23:04, 37:00

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Civil-Liberties-Board-Reviews-S...

26:20 is an insane defense of writs of assistance by Brad Wiegmann. Actually explaining why the effectiveness of stop and frisk is an excellent example of why the NSA should follow similar policies.

http://endthelie.com/2013/11/21/the-nsas-reasonable-articula...

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#219

Post by film42 » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 5:11 AM UTC

Did anyone else notice the countless screens running windows xp?

There were a few linux desktops, but really most of the screens were turned off, or on and showing windows xp.

I don't like the idea of the US Govt using an extremely deprecated operating system.

Re: The NSA: An Inside View

#220

Post by glenra » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 5:12 AM UTC

I found the polygraph stuff disturbing. The fact that the NSA takes polygraphs seriously (despite presumably knowing there's little scientific evidence supporting their use and knowing that lots of spies have had no trouble passing them) makes me think the NSA must be full of gullible morons.

Does the NSA weed out polygraph non-believers during their hiring process? So far as I know, the main "valid" use of polygraphs is (a) to trick/intimidate people who believe in them into telling you a more thorough story, (b) to acquire a "scientific" seeming reason to do or believe what you already wanted to do or believe going in.

I don't feel very reassured.