NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software • Hacker News Board

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#91

Post by malandrew » Sun, Nov 24, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #74

tracker1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to excuse the actions, which I find deplorable. Isn't Brazil one of our major agricultural trading partners? Making the internal security interests of Brazil our security interests? If our food supply was cut by 1/3 during half the year, that could be a big issue.

> If our food supply was cut by 1/3 during half the year, that could be a big issue. That would also be a massive issue for Brazil to lose their largest agricultural trading partner. It's a competitive marketplace. Their industry, law enforcement agencies, and courts are sufficiently incentivized to protect it, or risk losing it to other countries. I'm amazed that people view the need for some World Police to control…

Furthermore, once you toss out the schizophrenic/paranoia explanation of why the NSA is doing this, the only other explanation is economic espionage, which they've claimed they haven't been doing. However know one knows the truth, and given what has been demonstrated so far, most countries should assume the worst with respect to the use of the NSA for economic espionage, and treat the US as a suspect trading partner.

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#92

Post by dhimes » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 7:23 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #50

dhimes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've seen him defend their actions, just explain them. I, for one, appreciate it. He is in a sphere that I am not in, and were I to guess whether or not this was well-known behavior, I would have guessed not. And, apparently, I would have been wrong. So I thank tptacek for sharing what he knows that I don't know. That is, after all, why I come here.

Don't you think that he's being a little inflammatory with statements this? But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people are just now discovering that NSA was breaking into computers around the world. By your own admission, you are just now discovering that the NSA was breaking into computers around the world.

(sorry for the late reply)

Perhaps somewhat, but not really. I read the word 'people' in the sense of 'some group' instead of 'any single person.' In other words, 'people now know that eggs aren't bad for you' doesn't mean that every single person has learned this, just that the knowledge is in the generally accepted body of knowledge and those with business or interest in nutrition know it. At least that's how I read it.

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#93

Post by dhimes » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 7:27 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #56

dhimes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've seen him defend their actions, just explain them. I, for one, appreciate it. He is in a sphere that I am not in, and were I to guess whether or not this was well-known behavior, I would have guessed not. And, apparently, I would have been wrong. So I thank tptacek for sharing what he knows that I don't know. That is, after all, why I come here.

> I don't think I've seen him defend their actions, just explain them. Explain them as "business as usual" to take away the outrage. Might as well have been explaining the actions of the KKK.

(sorry for the late reply)

I didn't take it that way. In fact, you could argue for more outrage: "There are certain groups who knew about this behavior all along and for them to pretend that this is news to them is bullshit" is how I read it.

So if you are going to be outraged, you should be outraged at the groups "in the know" as well.

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#94

Post by dhimes » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 7:35 PM UTC

MisterWebz wrote: post #38

dhimes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've seen him defend their actions, just explain them. I, for one, appreciate it. He is in a sphere that I am not in, and were I to guess whether or not this was well-known behavior, I would have guessed not. And, apparently, I would have been wrong. So I thank tptacek for sharing what he knows that I don't know. That is, after all, why I come here.

That's a really good mindset to have. However, saying that what the NSA is doing is expected really doesn't explain anything.

(Sorry for the late reply)

It was unexpected for me, but I think it is important for us to understand that it wasn't unexpected for everybody. It's kind of like if we found out that Gitmo really wasn't exceptional. That would be important.

It would imply that this something is a standard practice, many groups are aware of it and for some reason, over time and through many events, they've decided it's the best policy that they can hope for (or else they would have blown the whistle earlier).

It means you should consider changing policy carefully, because the policy was put in place (and stayed there) not on a whim but rather after some consideration and re-consideration. Unless you think that all of these groups are filled with horrible people whose only aim is power and control you might have to allow that some of them have different insights into the problem from their experiences.

Please understand that I'm not defending anything- just showing how it could be important to learn this type of information.

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#95

Post by pyre » Tue, Nov 26, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #92

pyre wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that he's being a little inflammatory with statements this? But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people are just now discovering that NSA was breaking into computers around the world. By your own admission, you are just now discovering that the NSA was breaking into computers around the world.

(sorry for the late reply) Perhaps somewhat, but not really. I read the word 'people' in the sense of 'some group' instead of 'any single person.' In other words, 'people now know that eggs aren't bad for you' doesn't mean that every single person has learned this, just that the knowledge is in the generally accepted body of knowledge and those with business or interest in nutrition know it. At least that's how I rea…

But if a person does not know that the NSA is doing this (and possibly would tell you that they aren't doing it, were you to ask), then is that person being intellectually dishonest in acting like this knowledge is new to everyone?

I think that leveling a claim of intellectual dishonesty at someone who thinks that everyone else was as ignorant as they were is a bit harsh, and sort of inflammatory.

I think that most people would reasonably believe that if there were such strong signals that the NSA was doing this it would be closer to public knowledge than it was.

Re: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software

#96

Post by dhimes » Tue, Nov 26, 2013, 2:34 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #95

dhimes wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(sorry for the late reply) Perhaps somewhat, but not really. I read the word 'people' in the sense of 'some group' instead of 'any single person.' In other words, 'people now know that eggs aren't bad for you' doesn't mean that every single person has learned this, just that the knowledge is in the generally accepted body of knowledge and those with business or interest in nutrition know it. At least that's how I rea…

But if a person does not know that the NSA is doing this (and possibly would tell you that they aren't doing it, were you to ask), then is that person being intellectually dishonest in acting like this knowledge is new to everyone? I think that leveling a claim of intellectual dishonesty at someone who thinks that everyone else was as ignorant as they were is a bit harsh, and sort of inflammatory. I think that most p…

I don't mean to drag this on forever, but I read the comment differently- as I said in the reply linked below. In short, that person isn't being intellectually dishonest. But the organizations who did know better and are pretending otherwise are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6796335