4 ms·
> It is extremely unlikely to be only "keeping people safe". Why do you say this? It seems you are accusing parent of making a big leap in logic and then doing
by BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> It is extremely unlikely to be only "keeping people safe".
Why do you say this? It seems you are accusing parent of making a big leap in logic and then doing the same type of leap yourself.
Do you have any evidence that they want to do more than keeping people safe?
I've worked with and talked to many who work in the DoD space and while there were some who didn't seem to understand how technology worked I never met one who didn't seem genuine in wanting to keep people safe. Sure plenty of contractors just want the money and don't give two shits either way and sure this is only anecdotal but do you have anything better?
Seems the easiest, least complex reasoning is people who are not well enough versed in the technology but have good intensions are trying to do what they think is most correct when it may not be.
- mike_hearn 11y agoThere is certainly such evidence, you don't even need it really as it's literally in the mission statement of some of these intelligence agencies: they do anything that is "in the national interest". Yes, keeping people safe is clearly in the national interest, but many other things are too, hence the fact that GCHQ has spied on climate change talks, trade deals, attempted to influence online discussions, the NSA has hacked oil companies, etc. They are in no way limited to a mission of 'keeping people safe'. This is one reason I tend to think intelligence agencies should be disbanded and their best people merged into police forces. The police have a clear and (relatively) focused mission: fight crime. Most of those criminal investigations are about keeping people safe in one form or another. Police forces aren't tasked with economic wellbeing or "cyber defence" or any of the other crap that the intelligence community has tried to take on for itslf.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoExactly. Remembering all their extra goals and schemes they've used to achieve them helps keep things in perspective. I've had success presenting it to lay people as a bait and switch showing all the crap they do then what they say. Hardliners swallowing tons of propaganda will usually disagree and back their media's claims no matter what. Yet, many people are receptive to this technique. Bonus points if you show the risk to them personally: makes them most likely to act against it politically. :)
- nickpsecurity 11y agoExactly. Remembering all their extra goals and schemes they've used to achieve them helps keep things in perspective. I've had success presenting it to lay people as a bait and switch showing all the crap they do then what they say. Hardliners swallowing tons of propaganda will usually disagree and back their media's claims no matter what. Yet, many people are receptive to this technique. Bonus points if you show the risk to them personally: makes them most likely to act against it politically. :)
- Karunamon 11y agoA logical inference. Given: Things like mass phone surveillance, passively breaking legitimate encryption used by non criminals, introducing vulnerabilities, and other plainly illegal behavior is being deployed against citizens ..with no recourse.. ..which are answered with outright lies when challenged (c.f. Snowden, Clapper's lies before Congress).. ..and the methods are of dubious actual effectiveness when it comes to "keeping people safe" ..and they in fact reduce safety when it comes to introducing vulnerabilities which can be misused by criminals Therefore: The aims of said behavior is plainly not to "keep people safe", but some other alterior motive. Simple statistics show that garden variety cybercriminals are a more real threat to the average person than terrorists - so do no statisticians work for the feds, or is there a different plan we're not seeing?
- caskance 11y agoNever heard of Hanlon's razor?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 11y agoWhat is the simpler answer that you think I've overlooked? Corruption in government is not exactly a new phenomenon...
- caskance 11y agoI'll take that as a no, since you've clearly confused it with Occam's.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- caskance 11y agoSurely informing you that you were wrong should be sufficient to prompt you to look up what I was actually referring to. It would take all of 4 seconds. If you're not going to do even that little, rudely stop replying.