4 ms·

Yup. I actively work in security consultancy. Everyone outside of tech thinks and treats me like some sort of tinfoil hat salesperson. I get sent all sorts o

Yup. I actively work in security consultancy. Everyone outside of tech thinks and treats me like some sort of tinfoil hat salesperson. I get sent all sorts of crazy conspiracy theory links because "that's the stuff you're really into." on a daily basis. Even when people read about Snowden, they just don't get it. This past weekend, he came up and the response was, yeah, but Snowden was saying the spying is only on terrorists, they don't collect any information on people who are not terrorists because that would be way more information than they want. Trying to explain that is the opposite of what Snowden was saying was pointless and futile because it just made me sound like the crazy one. The NSA must be rolling around laughing as they listen in to peoples naive conversations about Snowden. edit: oops, removed link added on the wrong posting. Sorry. And a typo. Sorry again.

tome 10y ago
> but Snowden was saying the spying is only on terrorists Yet another reason Snowden shouldn't have published anything unrelated to domestic spying.
- forgotmysn 10y ago
  Can you explain your thinking? That makes absolutely no sense to me
  - tome 10y ago
    Thanks for asking. I confess my comment was a vent rather than a reasoned argument. I've been annoyed with Snowden's leaks ever since they came out. I believe leaks about domestic spying on the American people are thoroughly justified (and utterly necessary), and I believe leaks about spying on foreign goverments and foreign nationals are thoroughly unjustified (and frankly, verging on traitorous). pascalmemories seems to be saying that the issue of spying on foreign nationals ("terroists") has completely overshadowed the issue of domestic spying in the popular consciousness to the extent that his associates don't even realise that domestic spying is happening. This is yet another nail in my personal coffin for Snowden.
    - nekopa 10y ago
      I have to kind of disagree. I think that the whole release was necessary to put it all in context. The capabilities to spy on terrorists is what made it all to easy to spy on our own folks. Where I completely agree with you is presentation of topics. If he had focused only on domestic spying in the beginning, the conversation could have focused on that first and foremost, and then later the other stuff could be brought in without clouding the issues. But this is only because I think that indiscriminate spying is wrong, no matter what your nationality. And I say this coming from a military spy background where I know that spying is completely necessary. But shit, choose your targets, and choose them for a reason.
      - giuscri 10y ago
        If you mind answering, why do you think that passive spying from the gov is wrong? Asking the government to choose their target for a reason sounds like requiring the gov to follow a longer path to do something wrong -- such that it'll be harder to abuse that power.
    - pooper 10y ago
      Alt view: By engaging in illegal activity, the agency undermined it's legitimate spying of targets outside the country. If there were no illegal activity, there would be no need for whistleblowing. I'd chalk up any damage to the legitimate spying as a collateral damage and put the people who authorized the illegal activity responsible for such damage.
    - forgotmysn 10y ago
      Thanks for elaborating a bit. I still have to disagree. I find the argument that Snowden's actions didnt justify the consequences to our agents or relationships with other nations just short-sighted. Although it may not feel like it to those of us immersed in tech as a culture and as an industry, we are still in the very early days of the Internet. We're still setting precedents that are going to be in place for lifetimes. That America has to patch some relationships, that a couple events may escape our gov'ts control, are small prices to pay to ensure that future generations are able to freely and safely explore and express themselves on the internet without fear of prosecution or persecution. Sucks in the short term, but these are important issues to get resolved for the long term.
  - wolf550e 10y ago
    Snowden (and the world) would have been much better off if the only thing he took with him was about the illegal domestic spying, but of course he didn't have the time to analyze the data, he just took it all and ran and let journalists publish parts of it. Because some of the data was about legitimate US intelligence work overseas, people could accuse him of harming US interests on top of whistleblowing. Some people got their information about Snowden from a "news source" that told them "this traitor / Russian spy leaked the details of the US intelligence work overseas", and did not tell them about the warrantless domestic wiretapping.
chocolatebunny 10y ago
When the Snowden leaks initially came up, my mom thought that he was spy selling secrets to the Chinese (because he was in Hong Kong at the time). When I tried to explain what it was actually about she rolled her eyes on me.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
I get the same from most, including a couple in tech who really should know better. I've heard all the variations on "if you have nothing to hide..." through "well we have to catch the terrorists". Every time a story comes up that some killing or terrorist act happened and one of the perpetrators made a post on twitter, or was already known to security services, the opinion always seems to be along the lines of "well I guess we need to monitor more". Never once have I heard a variation on "if they're known to security already why wasn't something done to arrest or prevent". Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share. I've given up trying to explain either security things or humidity, dew points and the basics of flying. I don't have the energy to fight a battle that feels like Canute vs the Ocean. I wish I knew something that would make people care.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share. Reminds me of a thing I learned here on HN recently. The US was in fact intentionally spraying germs on unsuspecting civilians in San Francisco, among other places, as a part of research related to biological warfare. Turns out there's some grain of truth even in the chemtrails crackpottery.
  - giuscri 10y ago
    Could you name some reference for the fact please?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1003703226697496080 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1003703226697496080 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2015/06/28/san-fran-serratia/#.V01Ivl6lilM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2015/06/28/san... There was a story with some discussion here on HN that I can't sadly track down via Algolia now. It told about a person that tracked down information about those tests, motivated by death of some relative who was undergoing surgery at the time, and got infected with a germ that shouldn't even be there.

tome 10y ago

> but Snowden was saying the spying is only on terrorists Yet another reason Snowden shouldn't have published anything unrelated to domestic spying.

forgotmysn 10y ago
Can you explain your thinking? That makes absolutely no sense to me
- tome 10y ago
  Thanks for asking. I confess my comment was a vent rather than a reasoned argument. I've been annoyed with Snowden's leaks ever since they came out. I believe leaks about domestic spying on the American people are thoroughly justified (and utterly necessary), and I believe leaks about spying on foreign goverments and foreign nationals are thoroughly unjustified (and frankly, verging on traitorous). pascalmemories seems to be saying that the issue of spying on foreign nationals ("terroists") has completely overshadowed the issue of domestic spying in the popular consciousness to the extent that his associates don't even realise that domestic spying is happening. This is yet another nail in my personal coffin for Snowden.
  - nekopa 10y ago
    I have to kind of disagree. I think that the whole release was necessary to put it all in context. The capabilities to spy on terrorists is what made it all to easy to spy on our own folks. Where I completely agree with you is presentation of topics. If he had focused only on domestic spying in the beginning, the conversation could have focused on that first and foremost, and then later the other stuff could be brought in without clouding the issues. But this is only because I think that indiscriminate spying is wrong, no matter what your nationality. And I say this coming from a military spy background where I know that spying is completely necessary. But shit, choose your targets, and choose them for a reason.
    - giuscri 10y ago
      If you mind answering, why do you think that passive spying from the gov is wrong? Asking the government to choose their target for a reason sounds like requiring the gov to follow a longer path to do something wrong -- such that it'll be harder to abuse that power.
  - pooper 10y ago
    Alt view: By engaging in illegal activity, the agency undermined it's legitimate spying of targets outside the country. If there were no illegal activity, there would be no need for whistleblowing. I'd chalk up any damage to the legitimate spying as a collateral damage and put the people who authorized the illegal activity responsible for such damage.
  - forgotmysn 10y ago
    Thanks for elaborating a bit. I still have to disagree. I find the argument that Snowden's actions didnt justify the consequences to our agents or relationships with other nations just short-sighted. Although it may not feel like it to those of us immersed in tech as a culture and as an industry, we are still in the very early days of the Internet. We're still setting precedents that are going to be in place for lifetimes. That America has to patch some relationships, that a couple events may escape our gov'ts control, are small prices to pay to ensure that future generations are able to freely and safely explore and express themselves on the internet without fear of prosecution or persecution. Sucks in the short term, but these are important issues to get resolved for the long term.
- wolf550e 10y ago
  Snowden (and the world) would have been much better off if the only thing he took with him was about the illegal domestic spying, but of course he didn't have the time to analyze the data, he just took it all and ran and let journalists publish parts of it. Because some of the data was about legitimate US intelligence work overseas, people could accuse him of harming US interests on top of whistleblowing. Some people got their information about Snowden from a "news source" that told them "this traitor / Russian spy leaked the details of the US intelligence work overseas", and did not tell them about the warrantless domestic wiretapping.

chocolatebunny 10y ago

When the Snowden leaks initially came up, my mom thought that he was spy selling secrets to the Chinese (because he was in Hong Kong at the time). When I tried to explain what it was actually about she rolled her eyes on me.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

I get the same from most, including a couple in tech who really should know better. I've heard all the variations on "if you have nothing to hide..." through "well we have to catch the terrorists". Every time a story comes up that some killing or terrorist act happened and one of the perpetrators made a post on twitter, or was already known to security services, the opinion always seems to be along the lines of "well I guess we need to monitor more". Never once have I heard a variation on "if they're known to security already why wasn't something done to arrest or prevent". Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share. I've given up trying to explain either security things or humidity, dew points and the basics of flying. I don't have the energy to fight a battle that feels like Canute vs the Ocean. I wish I knew something that would make people care.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share. Reminds me of a thing I learned here on HN recently. The US was in fact intentionally spraying germs on unsuspecting civilians in San Francisco, among other places, as a part of research related to biological warfare. Turns out there's some grain of truth even in the chemtrails crackpottery.
- giuscri 10y ago
  Could you name some reference for the fact please?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1003703226697496080 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1003703226697496080 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2015/06/28/san-fran-serratia/#.V01Ivl6lilM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2015/06/28/san... There was a story with some discussion here on HN that I can't sadly track down via Algolia now. It told about a person that tracked down information about those tests, motivated by death of some relative who was undergoing surgery at the time, and got infected with a germ that shouldn't even be there.